People v. Cerezo, Jr. y Sevilla

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 251879. September 13, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EDUARDO CEREZO, JR. y SEVILLA, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated13 September 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 251879 — (People of the Philippines v. Eduardo Cerezo, Jr. y Sevilla) — Challenged in this appeal is the October 18, 2019 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11374 affirming the May 17, 2018 Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 69 of Lingayen, Pangasinan, in Criminal Case No. L-11980. The RTC convicted accused-appellant Eduardo Cerezo, Jr. y Sevilla (Eduardo) of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs in violation of Section 5, Article II, of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

Factual Antecedents

Eduardo was charged with Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs in an Information dated February 6, 2018 which reads:

That on or about February 05, 2018 around 3:20 o'clock in the afternoon at Brgy. Basing, Binmaley, Pangasinan and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell for Php500.00 (marked money) one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug, marked as JCS2 02-05-18, to PO2 Joel C. Sabordo, acting as poseur-buyer, without lawful authority to do so.

Contrary to Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 (The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). 3

When arraigned, Eduardo pleaded not guilty to the offense charged. 4 Trial then ensued.

The antecedent facts are of record.

On February 5, 2018, the Binmaley Police Station of Pangasinan received an information from a confidential informant that Eduardo is engaged in illegal drug activities in their municipality. Acting on the information, a police team was formed to conduct an entrapment operation with Senior Police Officer (SPO) 2 Larry Cayabyab (SPO2 Cayabyab) as the team leader. Police Officer (PO) 2 Joel Sabordo (PO2 Sabordo) was the designated poseur-buyer. PO3 Ramon De Guzman (PO3 De Guzman) was assigned to coordinate with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). The police team likewise coordinated with Barangay Captain Jonathan Rillera and Kagawad Nelso Lopez of Brgy. Basing, Binmaley, Pangasinan, Department of Justice (DOJ) Prosecutor Jeffrey Catungal, and media personnel Emil Toledo of Northwest Sun.

Afterwards, the confidential informant called Eduardo to arrange a deal for PO2 Sabordo. He informed him that his interested buyer would be wearing a black t-shirt, black jacket, and maong pants. Eduardo then told the informant that he would meet the buyer at Brgy. Basing and he would be wearing a white jersey shirt and black short pants.

At around two o'clock in the afternoon of the same date, the buy-bust team went to the agreed place and strategically positioned themselves. When Eduardo arrived a few minutes later, PO2 Sabordo introduced himself as the buyer of shabu for P500.00. He then handed to Eduardo the marked money who, in turn, gave him a piece of paper containing a heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with white crystalline substance, which is suspected to be shabu. PO2 Sabordo then raised his left hand, the pre-arranged signal, indicating that the sale transaction of shabu had already been consummated. He immediately introduced himself as a police officer while PO3 De Guzman ran towards their direction.

PO2 Sabordo then frisked Eduardo and recovered from him the marked money. He marked the white paper and the sachet containing white crystalline substance with "JCS1 02-05-18" "JCS2 02-05-18," respectively. The marked money, on the other hand, was marked as "JCS 02-05-18." A Confiscation Receipt was likewise prepared enumerating the confiscated items. 5 Photographs of the seized items were likewise taken. 6 The inventory process was conducted at the crime scene in front of Eduardo, and was witnessed by a media representative and the barangay elective officials. 7 CAIHTE

Thereafter, the buy-bust team, together with the accused, proceeded to the police station and recorded the incident in the police blotter. A request for laboratory examination was immediately prepared. Then, PO2 Sabordo, who was in exclusive possession of the seized drug, went to the Pangasinan Provincial Crime Laboratory to deliver the said item for examination. He turned over the item to PCI Myrna Malojo Todeño (PCI Todeño), the forensic chemist who conducted a qualitative examination thereon. The Chemistry Report Number D-034-2018L 8 prepared by PCI Todeño showed that the plastic sachet contained 0.012 gram of white crystalline substance which yielded a positive result for methamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as shabu.

Eduardo interposed the defense of denial. He claimed that at around three o'clock in the afternoon, he was at a sari-sari store buying a cigarette when Police Officers Tomagos and Tuazon arrived. They asked him if he was Eduardo Cerezo to which he replied in the affirmative. To his surprise, the police officers suddenly brought him to a nearby waiting shed where he was handcuffed and made to write on a piece of paper. PO2 Sabordo then arrived and brought out a plastic sachet and money. The barangay officials, including Brgy. Capt. Rillera, also arrived at the crime scene upon the directive of the police officers. Upon seeing the barangay captain, Eduardo told him that he did not own the seized items but he was ordered to stop talking. 9

Eduardo further averred that he already knew PO2 Sabordo before the incident since he arrested him in 2015 for a carnapping incident. 10

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:

In its May 17, 2018 Decision, 11 the RTC rendered a judgment of conviction against Eduardo thus sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00, viz.:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the accused is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and is accordingly sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment together with such accessory penalties provided for in the law and to pay a fine of P500,000.00.

The sachet of methamphetamine hydrochloride subject of this case is confiscated in favor of the government to be dealt with as the law directs.

SO ORDERED. 12

The RTC held that the prosecution sufficiently established all the elements of the crime charged. A consummated sale of shabu transpired between PO2 Sabordo, as poseur-buyer, and Eduardo, as seller. PO2 Sabordo positively identified Eduardo as the person who sold to him the seized shabu for P500.00 in a legitimate entrapment operation.

The trial court further opined that the absence of a DOJ representative during the inventory is immaterial as the apprehending officers faithfully observed the chain of custody. In fact, the prosecution duly established who and how the illegal drug was handled from the moment it was seized until it was presented before the court during trial. Thus, the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated shabu was duly preserved.

Lastly, the RTC did not give weight on Eduardo's defenses of denial and frame-up which were self-serving for lack of evidentiary support. Neither did the trial court give credit to his claim that PO2 Sabordo already knew him before the incident as familiarity between them is immaterial in drug cases.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals:

Aggrieved, Eduardo appealed before the CA arguing that the prosecution did not sufficiently establish that a sale transaction of shabu actually took place. He also proffered that the chain of custody was unbroken. The Chain of Custody Form and Confiscation Receipt did not indicate the exact weight of the alleged seized drug, and the time and place where the item was seized. The second link was likewise not established due to the non-presentation of the investigator who prepared the Confiscation Receipt. The fourth link was severely breached because the prosecution did not present the testimony of the evidence custodian who was in custody of the illegal drug after PCI Todeño conducted an examination thereof and before the said evidence was presented before the court.

The CA, in its October 18, 2019 Decision, 12 denied Eduardo's appeal and affirmed the RTC Decision, to wit:

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The assailed May 17, 2018 Decision of the Lingayen, Pangasinan, Regional Trial Court, Branch 69, in Criminal Case No. L-1198 finding the herein accused-appellant Eduardo Cerezo, Jr. y Sevilla guilty for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended, is hereby AFFIRMED. No costs.

SO ORDERED. 13

The CA echoed the findings of the RTC that a sale transaction of shabu between PO2 Sabordo and Eduardo actually took place. Furthermore, the chain of custody remained unbroken thus preserving the corpus delicti of the crime charged. Hence, this instant petition.

Issue

Whether the prosecution sufficiently proved Eduardo's guilt for the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs.

Our Ruling

The appeal is meritorious.

To sustain a conviction for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, the following elements must first be established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took place; and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence. 14 It is imperative to prove that the sale transaction of drugs actually took place and that the object thereof is presented as evidence in court and is shown to be the same drugs seized from the accused. 15

Furthermore, the drug itself is the corpus delicti of the offense in illegal drugs cases. 16 The prosecution must therefore prove that the seized drugs are the same as those presented before the court during the trial. 17 It must satisfactorily establish that the chain of custody remained unbroken. The prosecution must therefore prove that each of the following links have been duly observed: 18first, 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 by the forensic chemist to the court. 19

Here, the sale of shabu, a criminal offense, happened on February 5, 2018. Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, 20 therefore applies, viz.:

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 persons 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 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.

A careful examination of the records reveals a breach in the first link.

Section 2-6 of the 2014 Revised PNP Manual on Anti-Illegal Drugs Operations and Investigation (PNP Manual) prescribes the rule on handling, custody and disposition of drug evidence, among others, to wit:

2.33 During handling, custody and disposition of evidence, provisions of Section 21, RA 9165 and its IRR as amended by RA 10640 shall be strictly observed.

2.34 Photographs of pieces of evidence must be taken immediately upon discovery of such, without moving or altering its original position including the process of recording the inventory and the weighing of illegal drugs in the presence of required witnesses, as stipulated in Section 21, Art. II, RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640.

2.35 The Seizing Officer must mark the evidence with his initials indicating therein the date, time and place where the evidence was found/recovered or seized. (Emphases ours.)

The PNP Manual further mandates that all illegal drugs "shall be properly marked for identification, weighed when possible or counted, sealed, packed and labeled. The exact weight of the illegal drugs seized or recovered should be recorded in the Inventory and Chain of Custody Forms or Evidence Vouchers." 21

A thorough examination of the records of the case reveals that the weight of the seized drug in the buy-bust operation was not indicated in the Confiscation Receipt, 22 to wit: DETACa

This is to acknowledge that the undersigned confiscating officer x x x confiscated from the custody of Eduardo Sevilla Cerezo, Jr., a.k.a. "Dondon", 34 years old, single, self-employed, resident of Brgy. Basing, Binmaley, Pangasinan the following items listed below such as:

1.) one (1) piece of paper marked as "JCS1 02-05-18", one (1) piece of heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance of suspected "shabu" marked as "JCS2 02-05-18";

2.) one (1) piece of five hundred peso bill (Php500.00) buy bust money with serial number AVO61086 with marking "JCS 02-05-18". 23

It also appears from the February 5, 2018 Certification 24 issued by SPO1 Enrico Rosales of the Binmaley Police Station that the police blotter with respect to the said entrapment did not state the weight of the shabu subject of the sale. The Information likewise did not state the same relative to the filing of the case.

Notably, the weight of the illegal drug, i.e., 0.012 gram, was only stated in the Chemistry Report prepared by PCI Todeño, to wit:

SPECIMEN SUBMITTED:

A — One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with markings containing 0.012 gram of white crystalline substance. x x x 25

In People v. Holgado, 26 the Court held:

Compliance with the chain of custody requirement provided by Section 21, therefore, ensures the integrity of confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered drugs and/or drug paraphernalia in four (4) respects: first, the nature of the substances or items seized; second, the quantity (e.g., weight) of the substances or items seized; third, the relation of the substances or items seized to the incident allegedly causing their seizure; and fourth, the relation of the substances or items seized to the person/s alleged to have been in possession of or peddling them. Compliance with this requirement forecloses opportunities for planting, contaminating, or tampering of evidence in any manner. 27 [Emphasis supplied.]

The Court, in a number of cases, 28 acquitted the accused due to discrepancies in the weight of the drugs seized from those examined by the forensic chemist and subsequently presented as evidence before the court, among others. We thus held that said variance in the weight of the seized drugs resulted in the prosecution's failure to preserve the identity of the same, the corpus delicti of the crime.

This case does not deal with a mere variance in weight but an absolute lack of reference as to the weight of the seized shabu. Consequently, there was no way for the Court to determine whether the shabu examined was in its original condition, i.e., the very same drug subject of the sale and seized from Eduardo during the entrapment operation. Failure to state the weight of the confiscated illegal drug from the accused is fatal to the case of the prosecution. The absence of any declaration on its quantity gives rise to the probability that the illegal drug could have been tampered, planted or substituted. Hence, the identity of the seized shabu in this case was not established beyond reasonable doubt. 29

Although the miniscule amount of the illegal drug is not by itself a ground for acquittal, such circumstance all the more warrants strict compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165. 30 Exhibits that are of small quantities are more prone to tampering, loss, alteration or substitution especially if their physical characteristics are fungible in nature and interchangeable in form. 31

The recent case of People v. Tolentino32(Tolentino) is similar in the case at bench. Accused-appellant therein was acquitted of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs due to severe gaps in the chain of custody. Among the lapses committed is the total absence of evidence as regards the weight of the drug confiscated from appellant.

Like in Tolentino, the prosecution in this case did not proffer any justifiable explanation on the buy-bust team's failure to account for the weight of the shabu seized from Eduardo. Thus, the Court finds the saving clause under Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended, inapplicable. Without any explanation as regards the deviation from the mandated procedure, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized shabu have been compromised. 33

Moreover, the police officers did not place on the seized item the date and the place of confiscation as prescribed under Section 2.35, Chapter 2 of the PNP Manual. The absence of these required details increased the probability that the seized shabu had been tampered with. 34 It therefore raised doubts on the integrity of the shabu purportedly seized from Eduardo. 35

All told, the Court finds a breach in the chain of custody warranting the reversal of the findings of the CA and the RTC. For failure to observe the procedure under Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended, the Court acquits Eduardo of the crime charged on the ground of reasonable doubt.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The October 18, 2019 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11374 is REVERSEDandSET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Eduardo Cerezo, Jr. y Sevilla is hereby ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless he is confined for any other lawful cause.

Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections of Muntinlupa City for immediate implementation. Furthermore, the Director General is DIRECTED to report to this Court the action he/she has taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.

Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.

SO ORDERED." (J. Rosario designated as additional Member per Special Order No. 2835 dated July 15, 2021.)

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 3-15; penned by Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante and concurred in by Associate Justices Pablito A. Perez and Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas.

2. CA rollo, pp. 63-68. Penned by Presiding Judge Loreto S. Alog, Jr.

3. Records, p. 1.

4. Records, pp. 34-35.

5.Id. at 20.

6.Id. at 25.

7.Id. at 26-28.

8.Id. at 24.

9. CA rollo, p. 50.

10.Id.

11.Id. at 63-68.

12.Id. at 68.

12.Rollo, pp. 3-15.

13.Id. at 14.

14.People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 29 (2017).

15.Id.

16.People v. Claudel, G.R. No. 219852, April 3, 2019, citing People v. Sagana, 815 Phil. 356, 367 (2017).

17.Id., citing People v. Alvaro, 823 Phil. 444, 458 (2018).

18.Id., citing People v. Manansala, 826 Phil. 578, 586 (2018).

19.People v. Miranda, G.R. No. 218216, July 10, 2019, citing People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 231 (2015).

20. An Act to Further Strengthen the Anti-Drug Campaign of the Government, Amending for the Purpose Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, Otherwise Known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002" dated July 15, 2014.

21. Section 2-6 (2.39) (a) (1) (5) of the PNP Manual.

22. Records, p. 20.

23.Id.

24.Id. at 17.

25.Id. at 24.

26. 741 Phil. 78 (2018).

27.Id. at 93.

28.Calma v. People, 820 Phil. 858, 873 (2017); People v. Pornillos, 718 Phil. 675 (2013); Calahi v. People, 820 Phil. 886, 906 (2017); People v. Guzon, 719 Phil. 441 (2013); People v. Abetong, 735 Phil. 476 (2014); People v. Suan, 627 Phil. 174, 191 (2010).

29.People v. Suan, 627 Phil. 174, 188 (2010).

30.People v. Dela Cruz, 744 Phil. 816, 836 (2014).

31.People v. Soria, G.R. No. 246462, June 29, 2020, citing Mallillin v. People, 576, Phil. 461, 467 (2011).

32. G.R. No. 251020, February 3, 2021.

33.Mascariola v. People, G.R. No. 251312, October 7, 2020.

34. See People v. Cabais, G.R. No. 247827, October 7, 2020.

35.Id.