FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 253299. July 28, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. GODOFREDO CARREON, JR. y YUZON @ "JR. TINAPA" and ARNEL REYES y LINIC, accused,
ARNEL REYES y LINIC, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated July 28, 2021 which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 253299 — People of the Philippines v. Godofredo Carreon, Jr. y Yuzon @ "Jr. Tinapa" and Arnel Reyes y Linic, accused; Arnel Reyes y Linic, accused-appellant.
Appellant Arnel Reyes y Linic (Reyes) was charged with violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165) or unauthorized possession of dangerous drugs allegedly committed on May 30, 2016. The applicable law is RA 9165, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640 (RA 10640). Section 21 thereof prescribes the standard in preserving the corpus delicti in illegal drugs cases:
SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the persons from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected public official and a representativeof the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, That the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures: Provided, finally, That noncompliance of these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items;
(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination;
(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued immediately upon the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not allow the completion of testing within the time frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided, however, That a final certification shall be issued immediately upon completion of the said examination and certification.
The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 further mandates:
SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items;
On the other hand, his co-accused Godofredo Carreon, Jr. @ "JR Tinapa" (Carreon), was charged with violations of Sections 5 and 11 of the same law.
In illegal drugs cases, the drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense. The prosecution is, therefore, tasked to establish that the substance illegally possessed by the accused is the same substance presented in court. 1 Proof beyond reasonable doubt demands that unwavering exactitude be observed in establishing the corpus delicti. The chain of custody rule performs this function as it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. 2
To ensure the integrity of the seized drug item, the prosecution must account for each link in its chain of custody: first, the seizure and marking of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug by the forensic chemist to the court. 3
Here, we focus on the first and fourth links.
The first link starts with marking after seizure. It is important that the seized items be immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. The 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, thus, preventing switching, planting or contamination of evidence. 4 The marking of the seized items, being meant to truly ensure that the same items which enter the chain are eventually the ones offered in evidence, should be done immediately upon confiscation. 5
Here, PO1 Alberto Tagudin, Jr. (PO1 Tagudin) and PO1 Michael Valenzuela (PO1 Valenzuela) testified that after Reyes and Carreon were arrested, they were brought to the police station and only there did the two police officers mark the items seized from the accused. These police officers did not even explain why they did the marking at the police station. From the place of arrest up to the police station, the seized items remained unmarked and were thus exposed to the possibility of switching or tampering while in transit.
In People v. Bumanlag, 6 citing People v. Ismael, 7 the Court ruled that there was a significant break in the chain of custody link when the arresting officers failed to mark the shabu sachets immediately upon seizure which omission they even failed to explain, thus:
First, the marking was not done immediately at the place of arrest. PO1 Dela Cruz and PO2 Benigno both testified that after appellant's arrest, the buy-bust team went to San Nicolas Municipal Police Station and only there did PO1 Dela Cruz mark the confiscated drug with "JD" and "QB." No one from the buy-bust team, however, explained why marking was not done immediately. En route to the municipal station, the seized drug remained unmarked. This omission, therefore, exposed the seized drug to the possibility of switching or tampering while in transit to the police office.
In People v. Ismael, the Court considered there was already a significant break in the very first link of the chain ofcustody when the arresting officer failed to mark the sachets of shabu immediately upon seizing them from the accused. In that case, the arresting officers similarly gave no explanation for said lapse of procedure. The Court ruled that because of this break in the chain of custody there can be no assurance that switching, planting, or contamination did not actually take place.
The OSG's allegation that the marking was done at the police station because the same was more convenient, fails to persuade. Compliance with the prescribed procedures in authenticating the seized drug was not imposed for anyone's convenience, least of all the arresting officers. The short distance between the place of arrest and the police station in this case certainly does not excuse the buy-bust team's non-compliance with the rule on immediate marking. On the contrary, the same raises more question rather than present a valid justification on the matter. It did not explain why the buy-bust team had to bring the confiscated drug all the way to another place when marking could have been easily done right where the drug was confiscated and appellant was arrested. Transporting the drug all the way from the place of arrest to the police station rendered the seized drug susceptible to tampering or switching. (Emphases supplied)
So must it be. The first link here had been incipiently breached early on. There is no way this breach could be undone, let alone, cured even though the subsequent links may not have been similarly infirm.
In any event, another breach in the chain of custody here should be brought to fore. The fourth link. It refers to the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drugs by the forensic chemist to the court. 8
Here, the prosecution and the defense dispensed with the testimony of forensic chemist Police Chief Inspector Ma. Cecilia Tang (PCI Tang) and stipulated that she examined the subject specimens, the results of which were borne in her Chemistry Report Nos. D-233-2016 and DT-323-2016 and DT-324-2016, and that the specimens brought for examination were the same ones she examined and presented in court. Nevertheless, there was no stipulation on how the specimens were stored and safeguarded by PCI Tang after she examined them until they were brought and presented to the court as evidence. This is a serious gap in the chain of custody.
In People v. Dahil, 9 the Court acquitted the accused in view of the absence of testimonial or documentary evidence as to how the drugs were kept while in the custody of the forensic chemist until the same were brought for presentation as evidence in court. We decreed that the forensic chemist should have personally testified on the safekeeping of the drugs instead of the parties resorting merely to a general stipulation of her testimony.
Verily, the chain of custody here had been seriously violated at least twice. We cannot, therefore, consider the identity and integrity of the seized drug items to have been duly preserved. Hence, Reyes must be acquitted as a matter of right.
Acquittal of Reyes should also
Section 11 (a) of Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure states:
Section 11. Effect of appeal by any of several accused. — (a) An appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter; x x x (Emphasis supplied)
Notably, the same infirmities which attended the chain of custody over the items seized from Reyes also attended those seized from Carreon. For these items were all together marked, inventoried, examined, and brought for presentation in court as evidence in the same manner, on the same occasion or occasions, and by the same police officer or officers. Consequently, the identity, integrity, and evidentiary value of all the items subject of the cases below, including those recovered from Carreon are also deemed to have been compromised. Hence, like Reyes, Carreon is entitled to a verdict of acquittal.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated September 12, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10076 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
ACCORDINGLY, in Criminal Case No. 2016-949, ARNEL REYES y LINIC is ACQUITTED of violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 as amended. On the other hand, in Criminal Case Nos. 2016-947 and 2016-948, GODOFREDO CARREON, JR. y YUZON @ "JR TINAPA" is ACQUITTED of violations of Section 5 and Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended, respectively.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City is ordered TO CAUSE their immediate release, unless they are being lawfully held in custody for any other reason; and TO SUBMIT to the Court his compliance within five (5) days from notice.
Let an entry of judgment be immediately issued.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.People v. Barte, 806 Phil. 533, 542 (2017).
2.People v. Ameril, G.R. No. 222192, March 13, 2019.
3. See People v. Luminda, G.R. No. 229661, November 20, 2019.
4.People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 232 (2015).
5. See People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214, 241 (2008).
6. G.R. No. 228884, August 19, 2019.
7. 806 Phil. 21 (2017).
8.People v. Luminda, supra.
9. See 750 Phil. 212, 237 (2015).