FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 244672. October 13, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.HARRY ARONG CARAMONTE, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 13, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 244672 (People of the Philippines v. Harry Arong Caramonte). — This resolves the appeal filed by accused-appellant Harry Arong Caramonte (Caramonte) seeking the reversal of the Decision 1 dated December 10, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02255, which upheld the Decision 2 dated March 29, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 24 of Maasin City, Southern Leyte, in Criminal Case Nos. 12-12-3849 and 12-12-3850. The RTC Decision found Caramonte guilty of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, for which he was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and fined in the amount of P500,000.00; and Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, for which he was sentenced to 12 years and one (1) day to 20 years of imprisonment and fined the amount of P300,000.00.
In the present appeal, Caramonte asserts that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, specifically considering that (1) there was no test-buy, surveillance, or any form of verification conducted to ascertain the veracity of the information obtained from the informant prior to the buy-bust operation; and (2) discrepancies in the markings made by the forensic chemist on the seized drugs cast doubts on the identity of the evidence, which ultimately break the chain of custody.
Caramonte must be reminded that a test-buy and prior surveillance are not requirements for the validity of a drug-related entrapment or buy-bust operation, nor are these detrimental to the prosecution of a case for the violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. 3 There is no textbook method of conducting buy-bust operations. "This Court has left to the discretion of police authorities the selection of effective means to apprehend drug dealers. A prior surveillance, much less a lengthy one, is not necessary, especially where the police operatives are accompanied by their informant during the entrapment," 4 which exactly describes what happened in the case at bar.
Anent the claims of Caramonte that the custodial link of the corpus delicti has been broken, this Court finds the same meritorious.
In People v. Omamos, 5 this Court made it clear that the prosecution bears the burden of establishing the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti, or the illegal drugs seized from the accused. In doing so, the People must prove the links in the chain of custody of the illegal drugs to ensure that the illegal drugs presented as evidence against the accused are the very ones seized from him, thus:
In drug related cases, the State bears the burden not only of proving the elements of the offense but also the corpus delicti itself. The dangerous drugs seized from appellant constitutes such corpus delicti. It is thus imperative that the prosecution establish that the identity and integrity of the dangerous drugs were duly preserved in order to support a verdict of conviction. It must prove that the substance seized from appellant is truly the substance offered in court as corpus delicti with the same unshakeable accuracy as that required to sustain a finding of guilt.
xxx xxx xxx
x x x It is the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory, to safekeeping and their presentation in court for identification and destruction. This record of movements and custody shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when the transfer of custody was made in the course of the item's safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and its final disposition.
People v. Hementiza reiterated that the following four links in the chain of custody must be proved:
First, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the dangerous drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer;
Second, the turnover of the dangerous drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer;
Third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the dangerous drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and
Fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked dangerous drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court. 6 (Citations omitted; emphasis in the original)
In this regard, Quilet v. People of the Philippines7 explains that the marking of evidence is a crucial step in protecting the chain of custody. Since it serves to separate the corpus delicti from all the other evidence and preclude the possibility of contamination of evidence, marking must be properly done by the apprehending officer, to wit:
"Marking" means the placing by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initials and signature on the items seized. Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link; hence it is vital that the seized contraband be immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. Marking of the seized item must not only be prompt but proper as well, since marking of the evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of the criminal proceedings, obviating switching, "planting," or contamination of evidence. 8 (Citations omitted)
In the instant case, the RTC and the CA convicted Caramonte for the sale and possession of illegal drugs based on the three items allegedly seized from him, namely, one medium size heat-sealed plastic sachet marked as "DGP 12/11/12," or the corpus delicti of the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, and two medium size heat-sealed plastic sachets marked as "DGP-1 12/11/12" and "DGP-2 12/11/12," or the corpus delicti of the illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
An examination of the evidence submitted by the prosecution reveals that the foregoing items were uniformly and consistently described in the records of the law enforcement officers as "DGP 12/11/12,""DGP-1 12/11/12" and "DGP-2 12/11/2."9 The manner of identification was only slightly varied in the Chemistry Report No. D-59-2012 10 issued by Police Inspector Ruby Charles Villagen (P/Insp. Villagen), where the items were described with more particularity as "A1 — 0.44 gram ("DGP 12/11/12" with signature)," "A2 — 0.97 gram ("DGP-1 12/11/12" with signature)," and "A3 — 1.91 grams ("DGP-2 12/11/12" with signature)," respectively.
Still, during the hearing on July 16, 2013, the RTC called P/Insp. Villagen's attention to the actual markings on the sachets of dangerous drugs submitted in Court. As to why the specimens presented before the RTC bear "A," "B" and "C" as markings and not "A1," "A2" and "A3" as listed in Chemistry Report No. D-59-2012, P/Insp. Villagen explained that it was due to a mere mistake in nomenclature, and that his intention was for specimens "A," "B," and "C" to represent "A1," "A2," and "A3," respectively in his report. P/Insp. Villagen assured the RTC that he indeed examined the same specimens submitted in court considering that it was he himself who made the markings and who placed the specimens in a brown envelope for safekeeping. 11
Aside from the foregoing discrepancy, the RTC also noticed that the plastic sachets submitted in court bear the marking "12-11-12," and not "12/11/12" as shown in all the reports. While he did not provide an explanation for such dissimilarities, P/Insp. Villagen admitted noticing that the "pre-markings" in the request letter for laboratory examination did not match the actual markings on the specimens:
Q: And the fact remains Mr. witness, that the specimen you submitted does not reflect 12-11-12 in three of them and non 12/11/12 as what have been stated in your report correct?
A: Actually, Your Honor in the request letter it is described as DGP 12/11/12, but on the markings on those specimens submitted it is 12-11-12. So even in the request letter the date was not correctly or doesn't match. I don't know who placed the pre-markings on those markings. So, I think the request letter is the one that gives me the authorization to do the drug examination. So it is my first basis then the next is the specimen submitted, and it doesn't matter what the arrangement of the pre-markings but the importance is the contents of the markings for identification, sir. 12 (Emphasis supplied)
That the date comes before the initials on the marking of the actual sachets is another discrepancy left unexplained during trial. There is no question that the actual markings on the specimens were written in three lines — the first line being the date "12-11-12," the second line being "DGP," "DGP-1" or "DGP-2," and the last line being the signature of Police Officer 2 Dominico G. Petere (PO2 Petere). 13 This is not only inconsistent with the marking of the corpus delicti as described in the documents, e.g., "DGP 12/11/," "DGP-1 12/11/12" and "DGP-2 12/11/12," but is also inconsistent with PO2 Petere's testimony that he marked the sachets with his initials first, and then the date of the incident, and then his signature:
Q: What is your basis in saying that this is the same sachet of shabu handed to you by the accused, Mr. Witness?
A: I marked it with my initial DGP then, the date of incident and my signature.14 (Emphasis supplied)
As the person who supposedly made the foregoing markings on the actual specimens, PO2 Petere was in the best position to explain the discrepancy between the actual markings and the markings as contained in the Receipt of Property Seized/Certificate of Inventory. Unfortunately, the prosecution failed to take the opportunity to address the confusion once and for all when it presented PO2 Petere on the witness stand on July 30, 2013, or just a few days after the RTC questioned the previous witness, P/Insp. Villagen, regarding discrepancies in the markings. 15
Meanwhile, the prosecution also passed up the chance to let Barangay Kagawad Noel D. Binongo (Kagawad Binongo) identify the actual specimens, if only to convince the Court that the items listed in the inventory indeed pertained to the three plastic sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride, presented as Exhibits "P," "Q" and "Q-1." To recall, both Kagawad Binongo 16 and PO2 Petere 17 testified that Binongo personally saw the items that were listed in the Receipt of Property Seized/Certificate of Inventory. It is very telling that the prosecution did not even ask Binongo to identify Exhibits "P," "Q" nor "Q-1," considering that he had personal knowledge of these items. What the prosecution made the witness identify instead, are Exhibits "O" and series, which are merely photographs of the plastic sachets where the markings do not even appear. 18 Surely, Binongo's positive identification of the specimens submitted in Court could have put to rest the issue on the variations between the markings in the documents and those on the actual specimens.
Jurisprudence is replete with instances where discrepancies in the markings of the corpus delicti led to the acquittal of the accused. In the recent case of Quilet v. People, 19 the markings as appearing in the Information, the inventory and the decisions of the RTC and the CA, varied as to whether the plastic sachet containing marijuana was marked as "GTL," "GTL 04-10-14," "GTL-07-10-14," or "GTL III 107-10-14." Thus, this Court ruled that there was no moral certainty that the substance taken from the accused is the same dangerous drug submitted to the laboratory and the trial court.
Similarly, in People v. Ameril, 20 this Court reversed the conviction of the accused due to the failure of the prosecution to establish the integrity of the corpus delicti with inconsistencies in the markings. The prosecution stipulated that three plastic sachets with markings "LAA-1," "LAA-2," and "LAA-3," were seized from the accused, consistent with the testimony of the special investigator who handled the specimens. However, the plastic sachets presented during trial bear the markings "LLA-1," "LLA-2," and "LLA." This Court held that the glaring inconsistency in the markings of the seized illegal drugs should have warned the trial court and the CA that something was amiss.
In another case, People v. Ubungen, 21 this Court acquitted the accused due to the unexplained discrepancy between the marking of the actual specimen "JA," and the marking "A JA" in the chemistry report. While this Court acknowledged the possibility that the forensic chemist merely committed a typographical error when she typed the marking "A JA" instead of "JA" in her chemistry report, the Court still did not accept such theory as the truth considering that the prosecution gave no explanation for the glaring and obvious variance.
In the instant case, the reason behind the glaring differences between the actual markings "12-11-12 DGP," "12-11-12 DGP-1" and "12-11-12 DGP-2" on the evidence submitted, and the markings "DGP 12/11/12," "DGP-1 12/11/12" and "DGP-2 12/11/12" in the records of the police station, remains a mystery. This is even made more dubious by the fact that no less than PO2 Petere himself, testified that he placed his initials first, followed by the date of the incident on the confiscated items. This Court therefore doubts that the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti has been duly preserved.
Furthermore, the prosecution failed to establish the third link in the chain of custody, or the proper turnover by the investigating officer of the dangerous drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination. In drug related cases, it is of paramount necessity that the forensic chemist testifies on the details pertaining to the handling and analysis of the dangerous drug submitted for examination, such as when and from whom the dangerous drug was received. 22 While the prosecution established that PO1 Julius Linde (PO1 Linde) received the seized items from PO2 Petere, 23 it failed to stipulate nor present evidence on the identity of the person to whom the seized drugs were turned over after it came to PO1 Linde's custody. Meanwhile, the forensic chemist, P/Insp. Villagen, only recalled receiving a request letter for drug examination together with the three heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets seized from Caramonte. His recollection did not include the identification of the person who delivered the letter and the specimens to his office. Clearly, the missing significant link between PO1 Linde and P/Insp. Villagen creates a gap in the chain of custody.
At this juncture, this Court finds instructive its pronouncement in Mallillin v. People, 24 which explained the need to exact sufficient completeness in the chain of custody of the seized item to ensure that the original item has not been exchanged nor contaminated or tampered with, especially considering the peculiar nature of dangerous drugs:
Indeed, the likelihood of tampering, loss or mistake with respect to an exhibit is greatest when the exhibit is small and is one that has physical characteristics fungible in nature and similar in form to substances familiar to people in their daily lives.
xxx xxx xxx
A unique characteristic of narcotic substances is that they are not readily identifiable as in fact they are subject to scientific analysis to determine their composition and nature. The Court cannot reluctantly close its eyes to the likelihood, or at least the possibility, that at any of the links in the chain of custody over the same there could have been tampering, alteration or substitution of substances from other cases — by accident or otherwise — in which similar evidence was seized or in which similar evidence was submitted for laboratory testing. Hence, in authenticating the same, a standard more stringent than that applied to cases involving objects which are readily identifiable must be applied, a more exacting standard that entails a chain of custody of the item with sufficient completeness if only to render it improbable that the original item has either been exchanged with another or been contaminated or tampered with. 25 (Citations omitted; emphasis supplied)
Accordingly, it is of paramount importance that the identity of the dangerous drug be established beyond reasonable doubt. It must be proven with exactitude that the substance bought during the buy-bust operation is the same substance offered in evidence before the court. 26
Measured against such stringent and exacting standards imposed by the law and jurisprudence, this Court cannot sustain the guilty verdict and sentence Caramonte to life imprisonment, while doubts remain as to the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti. As there is no moral certainty that Exhibits "P," "Q," and "Q-1" are the exact items seized from Caramonte, his guilt for the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs has not been established beyond reasonable doubt. This Court thus finds it proper to acquit him in both charges.
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated December 10, 2018 rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02255 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant HARRY ARONG CARAMONTE is ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt.
The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is hereby ORDERED to: a) immediately release accused-appellant from custody unless he is being held for some other lawful cause; and b) submit his or her report on the action taken within five (5) days from notice. Copies of this Resolution shall also be furnished to the Police General of the Philippine National Police and the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for their information.
Let an entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED."Lopez, M., J. on official leave.
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Edward B. Contreras, with Associate Justices Gabriel T. Ingles and Dorothy P. Montejo-Gonzaga concurring; rollo, pp. 4-14.
2. Rendered by Judge Bethany G. Kapili; records, pp. 74-86.
3.People v. Adrid, 705 Phil. 654, 668 (2013).
4.People of the Philippines v. Peter Lopez y Canlas, G.R. No. 247974, July 13, 2020.
5. G.R. No. 223036, July 10, 2019, 908 SCRA 367, 376.
6.Id. at 376-379.
7. G.R. No. 242118, September 2, 2020.
8.Id.
9. Folder of Exhibits, Receipt of Property Seized/Certificate of Inventory (Exhibit "H"), p. 11, Request for Laboratory Examination (Exhibit "G"), p. 10, and Chain of Custody Register Form (Exhibit "K"), p. 14.
10. Exhibit "L"; id. at 15.
11. TSN, July 16, 2013, pp. 12-13.
12.Id. at 13.
13.Id. at 7.
14. TSN, July 30, 2013, p. 10.
15. TSN, July 16, 2013, pp. 12-13.
16. TSN, October 1, 2013, p. 7.
17. TSN, July 30, 2013, p. 17.
18.Id. at 1-25; Folder of Exhibits, Exhibit "O" series, pp. 19-21.
19.Supra note 7.
20. G.R. No. 222192, March 13, 2019.
21. 836 Phil. 888, 900-901 (2018).
22.People v. Omamos y Pajo, supra note 5.
23. TSN, January 14, 2014, p. 3.
24. 576 Phil. 576 (2008).
25.Id. at 588-589.
26.People v. Andrada, 833 Phil. 999, 1009 (2018).