FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 251475. June 14, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.JOSEPH CEJALVO y IGNACIO, A.K.A. "PECHAY", AND GAMOR BLANCA y MORALES, A.K.A. "GAMOR", accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 14, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 251475 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, versus JOSEPH CEJALVO y IGNACIO, a.k.a. "Pechay," and GAMOR BLANCA y MORALES, a.k.a. "Gamor,"accused-appellants. — After a careful review of the records of the case and the issues submitted by the parties, the Court finds that the Court of Appeals (CA) Ninth Division erred in promulgating the Decision 1 dated February 26, 2018 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07954. The facts, as borne out by the records, support the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellants Joseph Cejalvo y Ignacio and Gamor Blanca y Morales (accused-appellants) are guilty of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs.
In cases involving dangerous drugs, the prosecution bears the burden of proving the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti — the dangerous drug itself — by establishing an unbroken chain of custody thereof, strictly complying with the procedure and requirements in Section 21 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165. 2 Any lapses or deviations therefrom must be acknowledged and explained by the prosecution; otherwise, the integrity of the corpus delicti will not be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
In this case, both the CA and the Regional Trial Court of Marikina City, Branch 165, from which this case arises, found that the apprehending officers failed to strictly comply with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. The prosecution failed to present photographs showing the seized evidence during inventory at the place where the arrest and seizure were executed. 3 Likewise, the inventory was not done in the presence of an elected public official, a member of the media, and a representative from the Department of Justice. 4 Later on, a member of the media and an elected official were present at the police station solely for the purpose of signing the certificate of inventory. 5
The general, self-serving, and unverifiable explanation given by the police officers for the lack of photographs during inventory, i.e., that the said photographs were corrupted, cannot be given credence. 6 Likewise, mere statements of the unavailability 7 of the required witnesses, without an explanation on whether serious efforts were exerted in procuring their presence during inventory, are unacceptable as justification for non-compliance. 8 Following a long line of cases 9 where the Court acquitted the accused due to the apprehending officers' unjustified failure to comply with Section 21, accused-appellants must similarly be acquitted.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated February 26, 2018 of the Court of Appeals Ninth Division, in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07954, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellants Joseph Cejalvo y Ignacio and Gamor Blanca y Morales are ACQUITTED of the crimes charged on the ground of reasonable doubt, and are ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED 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 Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. Said Director General is ordered to report to this Court within five (5) working days from receipt of this Resolution the action he has taken.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
(SGD.) MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. CA rollo, pp. 169-201. Penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (now a Member of this Court), with Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Danton Q. Bueser concurring.
2. COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002 approved on June 7, 2002.
3. CA rollo, p. 119.
4.Id.
5.Id.
6.Id.
7.Id.
8.People of the Philippines v. Romy Lim, G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018, p. 13. See also People of the Philippines v. Danilo Garcia Miranda, G.R. No. 218126, July 10, 2019, p. 13, and Limbo v. People, G.R. No. 238299, July 1, 2019, 907 SCRA 129, 139.
9.See People of the Philippines v. Raul Del Rosario, G.R. No. 235658, June 22, 2020; People of the Philippines v. Norman Angeles, G.R. No. 224223, November 20, 2019; People of the Philippines v. Eutiquio Baer, G.R. No. 228958, August 14, 2019; People of the Philippines v. Benjie Caranto, G.R. No. 217668, February 20, 2019; People of the Philippines v. Edgardo Royol, G.R. No. 224297, February 13, 2019; People v. Tomawis, G.R. No. 228890, April 18, 2018, 862 SCRA 131; People v. Sagana, G.R. No. 208471, August 2, 2017, 834 SCRA 225; People v. Reyes, G.R. No. 199271, October 19, 2016, 806 SCRA 513; and People v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 192432, June 23, 2014, 727 SCRA 113.