FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 251747. August 4, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs.ALPIO CATARININ y OLIVAR A.K.A. "ALFIE" AND CHONA MACABENTA y SORIYAO A.K.A. "NINA", accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 4, 2021which reads as follows: DETACa
"G.R. No. 251747 (People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee v. Alpio Catarinin y Olivar a.k.a. "Alfie" and Chona Macabenta y Soriyao a.k.a. "Nina," accused-appellants).
This appeal seeks to reverse and set aside the October 11, 2019 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10720, affirming the February 12, 2018 Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court of Tagaytay City, Branch 133 (RTC), in Criminal Case No. TG-17-758 (AS), which found accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, punishable under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the ComprehensiveDangerous Drugs Act of 2002, as amended by R.A. No. 10640.
Antecedents
Alpio Catarinin y Olivar a.k.a."Alfie" (Catarinin) and Chona Macabenta y Soriyao a.k.a. "Nina" (Macabenta)(collectively, accused-appellants) were charged of illegal sale of dangerous drugs in an information worded as follows:
That on or about the 28th day of July 2017, in the Municipality of Silang, Province of Cavite, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, without authority of law, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver, and distribute to poseur-buyer zero point zero five (0.05) [gram] of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, commonly known as "shabu," dangerous drug, in violation of the provisions of Republic Act 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 3
Accused-appellants pleaded not guilty to the charge. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued. 4
The prosecution presented PO2 Alex Hore, Jr. (PO2 Hore) as its witness. The parties also entered into stipulation regarding the testimonies of PO2 Arwin Torres (PO2 Torres), the arresting officer; PCI Maridel R. Martinez (PCI Martinez), forensic chemist; and PO3 Rommel Atibagos (PO3 Atibagos), the evidence custodian. On the other hand, the defense presented accused-appellants as witnesses. 5
Version of the Prosecution
On July 24, 2017, at around 3:00 p.m., a confidential informant (CI), together with an employee from Camacho General Merchandise (Camacho), informed PO2 Hore that certain employees from Camacho, known as "Alfie" and "Nina," later identified as herein accused-appellants, were selling illegal drugs to their co-workers. A surveillance operation conducted in July 26, 2017, verified the information. Consequently, a buy-bust team was formed designating PO2 Hore to act as poseur-buyer with three other policemen as backup. 6
On July 28, 2017, at around 12:15 a.m., the buy-bust team went to Camacho to proceed with the entrapment operation. PO2 Hore and the informant went to appellants' room. The CI introduced PO2 Hore by saying "tropa ko pinasok ko dito." Catarinin then asked "kukuha kayo" and "magkano," to which PO2 Hore answered, "oo pre kuha ako ng dos," and handed over two (2) marked P100.00-bills. Macabenta then handed over a small plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance to PO2 Hore. Upon receipt, PO2 Hore removed his cap, signaling that the sale had been consummated, prompting PO2 Torres to arrest appellants. 7
PO2 Hore marked the seized sachet with "AC" and inventoried the same at the locus criminis in the presence of media representative Elsa C. Parilla (Parilla) and a representative from the barangay justice Armando Mapalad. Accused-appellants and the confiscated item were then turned over to PO3 Robert Dimailig (PO3 Dimailig), the investigating officer. Thereafter, PO3 Dimailig delivered the specimen to PCI Martinez for laboratory examination. Upon testing, the confiscated item yielded positive result for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. 8
Version of the Defense
Accused-appellants denied the accusations against them. They claimed that they were live-in partners and employees of Camacho. As they were about to sleep around 9:35 p.m. on July 28, 2017, they saw a man peeping near the sink of their room. Macabenta asked for the man's identity, who responded, "pulis kami." Four (4) armed men in civilian clothes suddenly entered their room. One of the men took their cellphones, while another took Catarinin's wallet and held him by his waist. The men searched the room and, despite not finding anything illegal, arrested them. 9
Ruling of the RTC
The RTC found accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of shabu, and disposed as follows:
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Court hereby renders judgment and finds both accused ALPIO CATARININ y OLIVAR [a.k.a.] ALFIE and CHONA MACABENTA y SORIYAO [a.k.a.] NINA GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of illegal sale of 0.05 [gram] of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu in violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and [are] hereby sentenced to each suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos ([P500,000.00]). The 0.05 [gram] of Methamphetamine [Hydrochloride] or shabu is hereby confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government, to be disposed of in accordance with law.
In the service of sentence, the accused shall be credited with the full time during which [they had] undergone preventive imprisonment, provided [they] [agree] voluntarily in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners.
With costsde officio.
SO ORDERED.10
The RTC held that the arresting officers substantially complied with the procedure provided in Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended. It also opined that there was no gap in the chain of custody. The trial court also gave credence to the undisputed statements of the prosecution witnesses, vis-à-vis accused-appellants' bare denials. 11
Aggrieved, accused-appellants appealed to the CA.
Ruling of the CA
In the now assailed decision, the CA denied the appeal and affirmed the ruling of the RTC in toto. The CA rejected accused-appellants' contention that the non-presentation of PO3 Dimailig and PO3 Atibagos as witnesses was fatal to the prosecution. It explained that even if the two witnesses did not testify, the chain of custody remained unbroken and the integrity of the recovered drugs was duly preserved. 12
Anent accused-appellants' claim that no elected public official was present during the inventory as the one present was an appointed member of the barangay justice, the CA opined that such divergence did not diminish the evidentiary value of the seized drugs. The chain of custody had been sufficiently established by the prosecution and the deviation committed by the police officers cannot be considered as irregular to have compromised the integrity of the seized drugs. 13
Issues
Accused-appellants anchor the present appeal on the following errors:
I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING [THE] ACCUSED-APPELLANT[S] OF ILLEGAL SALE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS DESPITE THE POLICE OFFICERS' [NONCOMPLIANCE] WITH SECTION 21, ARTICLE II OF R.A. NO. 9165[;]
II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING [THE] ACCUSED-APPELLANT[S] OF ILLEGAL SALE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO ESTABLISH ALL THE LINKS IN THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF THE CORPUS DELICTI. 14
Accused-appellants argue: that the police officers failed to comply with the rules provided in Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 because only a media representative witnessed the inventory; that the barangay official who attended the inventory was not an elected official, but only an appointed member of the barangay justice; that the inventory receipt did not contain the signature of accused-appellants or their counsel, their representative, and an elected public official; that despite ample time for the police officers to plan the buy-bust operation, they still failed to comply with the procedural requirements; that the arresting officers did not proffer any justification for their failure to observe the procedure in Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165; that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody, i.e., from case investigator PO3 Dimailig to Forensic Chemist PCI Martinez; that there was neither testimony nor stipulation as to how the evidence custodian, PO3 Atibagos, preserved the identity and integrity of the seized evidence and turned over the same to the trial court; and that the drug purportedly recovered from accused-appellants cannot be identified with moral certainty. 15
The State, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), contends that the prosecution established all the elements of illegal sale; that the apprehending officers substantially complied with Sec. 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165; that substantial compliance is allowed under Sec. 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165; that PO2 Hore immediately marked the seized item with "AC" in the presence of accused-appellants; that the marking and inventory was also witnessed by a barangay official and a member of the media; and that accused-appellants failed to show any ill motive on the part of the police officers to falsely testify against them. 16
Did the CA correctly affirm the ruling of the RTC despite the alleged noncompliance of the police officers with Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, as amended?
The Courts Ruling
The appeal has merits.
In order for the prosecution to successfully prosecute a case of illegal sale of drugs, the following elements should be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor. 17 To prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution must present in evidence the corpus delicti or the seized illegal drugs.
Owing to the unique characteristic of illegal drugs rendering them indistinct, not readily identifiable, and susceptible to tampering, alteration or substitution either by accident or otherwise, the law laid down rules to preserve the identity and integrity of the seized illegal drugs. 18 Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, provides for the procedure to ensure that the drugs confiscated are the ones presented in court, thus:
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 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, and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof[.]
R.A. No. 10640 which amended Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 became effective on August 7, 2014. Significantly, R.A. No. 10640, reduced the number of representatives required to witness the conduct of the inventory and taking of photographs of the seized items. Only the accused, an elected public official, and a representative from the National Prosecution Service (NPS) or the media, are required by R.A. No. 10640 as witnesses. The amended Sec. 21 now reads:
SEC. 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 person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected public official and a representative of 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 [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 and custody over said items.
R.A. No. 10640 applies in this case since the alleged crime was committed on July 28, 2017. Hence, the requirement under Sec. 21 is that upon seizure of the illegal drug items, the apprehending team having initial custody of the drugs shall (a) conduct a physical inventory of the drugs and (b) take photographs thereof (c) in the presence of the person from whom these items were seized or confiscated and (d) an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media (e) who shall all be required to sign the inventory and be given copies thereof.
It is undisputed that the arresting officers failed to comply with the requirements laid down in Sec. 21. Although the seized items were immediately marked upon the apprehension of accused-appellants at the crime scene, (1) no elected public official was present during the inventory, and (2) the arresting officers did not proffer any justification for their failure to observe the procedure in Sec. 21. It should be emphasized that a representative of the barangay justice is not one of those witnesses required by law to be present. 19 Hence, the apprehending officers only had one witness, media representative Parilla, to observe the marking and inventory of the item purportedly seized from accused-appellants. Ineluctably, this falls short of the requirement under Sec. 21.
Nevertheless, noncompliance with the regulations is not necessarily fatal as to render accused-appellants' arrest illegal or the items confiscated from them inadmissible as evidence of their guilt, for what is of the utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated items that will be utilized in the determination of their guilt or innocence. 20 Such that, when there is a failure to follow strictly the said procedure, the crime can still be proven, i.e., that the nonfulfillment of the requirements was under justifiable grounds and that the shabu taken is the same one presented in court by proof of chain of custody.
The last sentence of Sec. 21 (a) of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 provides the saving proviso in case of noncompliance, viz.:
(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 noncompliance 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[.]
However, the prosecution did not offer any justification for not being able to secure the presence of the required witnesses. Despite having an ample time of four days to prepare and plan the buy-bust operation, only a media representative was able to attend the inventory. Worse, the police officers did not appear to have exerted any effort to comply with the witness requirement. The records are likewise bereft of any proof that the buy-bust team employed even a single attempt to contact an elected public official. 21
The failure of the prosecution to provide a justifiable reason to deviate from the rule created doubt as to the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated drugs. 22 Consequently, noncompliance with the witness requirement without proffering any justifiable grounds for such violation and without offering any means employed to comply with the procedure will lead to the conclusion that the first link in the chain of custody, the point of seizure, was not established. Tersely put, the prosecution failed to establish that the integrity and identity of the recovered items had been preserved. The nonfulfillment of the requirements was not justifiable and, notably, the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody.
It should be remembered that in order to prove that the integrity and identity of the seized items were preserved, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to establish the following links: 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 seized from the forensic chemist to the court. 23
By failing to secure the presence of an elected public official, the chain of custody had already been broken. Accordingly, the Court finds no reason to sustain the conviction of accused-appellants. The identity and integrity of the corpus delicti cannot be established with moral certainty, and the Court cannot rule out the possibility of substitution of the exhibits.
Noncompliance with the procedural requirements laid down in Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 is tantamount to failure in establishing the identity of the corpus delicti, an essential element of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. 24 Simply put, without establishing the identity of the corpus delicti, the prosecution has also failed to ascertain that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items had been preserved. Without the establishment of the identity of the corpus delicti, the acquittal of accused-appellants is in order.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The October 11, 2019 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10720, affirming the February 12, 2018 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Tagaytay City, Branch 133, in Criminal Case No. TG-17-758 (AS), finding accused-appellants Alpio Catarinin y Olivar and Chona Macabenta y Soriyao guilty of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Court ACQUITS accused-appellants and ORDERS their IMMEDIATE RELEASE from detention unless they are being lawfully held for another cause. Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Director General of the New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City and the Correctional Institution for Women, Mandaluyong City. The said Director General is ORDERED to REPORT to this Court within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution the action he has taken thereon. aDSIHc
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-12; penned by Associate Justice Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas with Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr., and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr., concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 48-56; penned by Presiding Judge Ethel V. Mercado-Gutay.
3.Rollo, p. 4.
4.Id.
5.Id.
6.Id.
7.Id.
8.Id.
9.Id. at 6.
10. CA rollo, p. 56.
11.Id. at 52-54.
12.Rollo, pp. 8-10.
13.Id. at 11-12.
14. CA rollo, p. 36.
15.Id. at 40-45.
16.Id. at 67-81.
17.People v. Lorenzo, 633 Phil. 393, 402 (2010).
18.People v. Bulotano, 736 Phil. 245, 252 (2014).
19.People v. Miranda, G.R. No. 218126, July 10, 2019.
20.People v. Pringas, 558 Phil. 579, 593 (2007).
21.People v. Salenga, G.R. No. 239903, September 11, 2019.
22.Limbo v. People, G.R. No. 238299, July 01, 2019.
23.People v. Fronda, G.R. No. 228815, February 5, 2020.
24.Limbo v. People, G.R. No. 238299, July 01, 2019.