SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 247978. December 1, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.KENNETH CHAN y NARON, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated01 December 2021which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 247978 (People of the Philippines v. Kenneth Chan y Naron). — This is an appeal 1 from the November 22, 2018 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 09673 affirming the July 6, 2017 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lingayen, Pangasinan, Branch 69, in Criminal Case No. L-11378, finding accused-appellant Kenneth Chan y Naron (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs.
On December 7, 2016, accused-appellant was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 in an Information 4 which alleged as follows:
That sometime in the afternoon of December 6, 2016 in Brgy. Poblacion, Bugallon, Pangasinan and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did, then and there, willfully and unlawfully sell one (1) piece heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or Shabu, a dangerous drug worth Php300.00, in the form of three (3) Php100.00 peso bills, marked money to PO1 Franklyn P. Aquino, a police operative acting as poseur-buyer during the police buy-bust operation conducted against him due to his dealings with dangerous drugs without authority.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
Accused-appellant entered a plea of not guilty during his arraignment. 6
Version of the Prosecution:
The version of the prosecution as culled from the testimonies of Police Officer (PO) 1 Franklyn Aquino (PO1 Aquino) and Forensic Chemist Police Inspector (P/Insp) Michaela Binalay (P/Insp. Binalay) is as follows:
On December 6, 2016, a confidential asset arrived at Bugallon Police Station in Bugallon, Pangasinan to report about the illegal drug activities of accused-appellant. Police Chief Inspector (PCI) Joseph Imperial (PCI Imperial) then organized a buy-bust team composed of PO1 Aquino as the poseur-buyer, with Senior Police Officer (SPO) 1 Dick Soriano (SPO1 Soriano), as back-up operative, 7 together with PO3 Danilo Santos, PO1 Roderick Cruz, and PO3 Odelon Gumapos (PO3 Gumapos), 8 who made the coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). 9
The confidential asset then informed accused-appellant that he found a buyer of shabu and both agreed to meet at the public plaza in Barangay Poblacion, Bugallon, Pangasinan. 10 Thereafter, PO1 Aquino and the confidential asset went to the meeting place while the rest of the buy-bust team strategically positioned themselves around the area. 11
When accused-appellant arrived at around 2:15 pm of the same date, the confidential asset introduced to him PO1 Aquino as the buyer of shabu. After negotiating on the price, PO1 Aquino handed accused-appellant the P300.00 buy-bust money, consisting of three pieces of pre-marked P100.00 bills. In turn, accused-appellant gave PO1 Aquino one piece of heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing crystalline granules suspected to be shabu. At that moment, PO1 Aquino raised his left hand to signal the consummation of the sale. 12
SPO1 Soriano and the rest of the team then rushed to the area and introduced themselves to accused-appellant as police officers. SPO1 Soriano frisked accused-appellant while PO1 Aquino arrested him. One piece of heat-sealed transparent plastic containing crystalline granules suspected to be shabu and the buy-bust money were confiscated from accused-appellant, who was immediately brought to the police station. 13 Upon arrival at the police station, PO1 Aquino marked the confiscated heat-sealed transparent plastic containing crystalline granules with "FPA" and the buy-bust money with "FPA1", "FPA2" and "FPA3." 14 The marking and inventory of the confiscated items were witnessed by media representative, Emil Toledo. 15
PO1 Aquino then brought the seized heat-sealed transparent plastic containing crystalline granules to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory in Urdaneta City, Pangasinan, which was received by Police Inspector Binalay for examination. 16 The laboratory examination report 17 showed that the substance contained in the seized plastic sachet, weighing 0.030 gram, was positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. 18 Thereafter, P/Insp. Binalay sealed the specimen and put markings thereon and turned it over to the evidence custodian, a certain Velasco, for safekeeping. 19
Version of the Defense:
The defense presented the testimony of accused-appellant.
Accused-appellant recalled that in the morning of December 6, 2016, his friend, Orly Bauzon (Orly), invited him to attend a birthday party. On their way to the party, Orly left accused-appellant in the basketball court with his motorcycle while he went to fetch his son. At around 9:30 a.m., while accused-appellant was waiting for Orly, three men approached him and poked a gun at him telling him not to resist. Accused-appellant began shouting and when several persons took notice, the men boarded him in a black car and took him to the police station. 20 At around 1:00 p.m., accused-appellant was brought to a hospital for medical examination, and later to Urdaneta City for a drug test. Accused-appellant claimed that he saw for the first time the plastic sachet when PO1 Aquino handed it to the woman conducting the drug test. He further testified that the marking and inventory of the alleged seized items were done on December 7, 2016 and that the photos taken during the alleged inventory and marking were staged as he was merely pretending to write on the paper. 21
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:
In its July 6, 2017 Decision, 22 the trial court found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. The RTC gave more credence to the evidence presented by the prosecution and ruled that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated illegal drug were preserved. 23 The fallo of the Decision states:
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. 24
Accused-appellant appealed to the CA. 25
Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
Accused-appellant questioned the legality of the buy-bust operation citing the lack of signature and receiving stamp/seal in the PDEA Coordination Form. He likewise posited that the prosecution failed to show due compliance with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 considering that the marking and inventory were not done at the place of arrest and in the presence of the required witnesses. 26
In a Decision 27 dated November 22, 2018, the CA affirmed the RTC's Decision and held that the prosecution sufficiently proved accused-appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The appellate court ruled that while the requirements of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 were not strictly complied with, the same was not fatal to the case as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved. 28
Dissatisfied with the CA's Decision, accused-appellant filed this appeal. 29
Accused-appellant adopts the arguments that he raised in his appeal before the appellate court. 30
Our Ruling
The appeal is meritorious. Accordingly, accused-appellant is acquitted.
In the prosecution for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, the following elements must be duly established: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. 31 Simply stated, the prosecution must prove that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation of the seized dangerous drugs as evidence in court. 32 The prosecution must likewise establish with moral certainty the identity of the prohibited drug; and that there was an unbroken chain of custody over the seized drug. Moreover, the prosecution must account for each link in the chain of custody, from the moment the drug is seized up to its presentation in court as evidence of the crime. 33
"Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. 34 Such record of movements and custody of the seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition. 35
Compliance with the chain of custody requirement ensures the integrity of confiscated drugs and related paraphernalia in four 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. 36
It is, therefore, necessary to observe the chain of custody requirement under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, as amended by RA 19640, and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR).
Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, provides:
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 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.
Thus, the following links should be established in the chain of custody of the confiscated item: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, 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. 37 Stated differently, the prosecution has to account for all the links in the chain of custody of the dangerous drug, from the moment of seizure from the accused until their presentation in court as proof of corpus delicti. 38
The first link in the chain of custody involves seizure and marking, including the physical inventory and photograph of the seized items.
Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, requires:
(1) the seized items be inventoried and photographed immediately after confiscation at the place of seizure or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable;
(2) the physical inventory and photographing must be done in the presence of (a) the accused or his/her representative or counsel, (b) an elected public official, and (c) a representative of the National Prosecution Service, or the media; and
(3) the accused or his/her representative and all of the aforesaid witnesses shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. 39
After a careful review of the records of the case, We find that the prosecution failed to clearly establish compliance with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165.
Marking is the first and most crucial step in the chain of custody rule as it initiates the process of protecting innocent persons from dubious and concocted searches, and of protecting as well the apprehending officers from harassment suits based on planting of evidence. 40 Consequently, marking must be done in the presence of the accused or his/her representative, and immediately upon confiscation, to ensure the integrity of the seized item as it enters into the chain of custody. 41 In short, the marking immediately upon confiscation or recovery of the dangerous drugs or related items is indispensable in the preservation of their integrity and evidentiary value. 42 Nevertheless, marking of the seized items at the police station instead of at the place of arrest does not ipso facto render the marking infirm as long as the same is availed of due to practical and justifiable reasons. It is, likewise, required that such move be supported by a justification in writing and proven as fact in court. 43
In the case at bar, PO1 Aquino testified that the marking of the seized item was done at the police station and not at the place of arrest 44 allegedly because several people converged at the crime scene. 45
This explanation, however, is insufficient to justify the deviation from the requirement of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. There was no account of danger or threat to the safety of the officers and community if the marking was done at the place of arrest. 46 In fact, when asked during his cross-examination, PO1 Aquino testified that the buy-bust team was not threatened by the bystanders present at the place of arrest. 47
Even assuming that the presence of a crowd at the place of arrest is enough to justify the marking of the confiscated items at the police station, PO1 Aquino did not however testify on the precautions that he took when transporting the then unmarked sachet from the place of arrest to the police station. He merely stated that the confiscated items were in his possession without more. 48 This significant lapse, thus, created a doubt as to the identity of the seized sachet. 49
Moreover, no evidence was presented to show that the seized plastic sachet was photographed. The photographs presented by the prosecution were pictures of Emil Toledo (Toledo) 50 and PO1 Aquino 51 signing the Receipt of Property Seized 52 in the presence of accused-appellant and picture of the buy-bust money. 53
The prosecution likewise failed to establish that the conduct of the inventory and taking of photograph were done in the presence of the insulating witnesses. To reiterate, the physical inventory and photograph of the seized items must be done in the presence of (1) the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, (2) with an elected public official, and (3) a representative of the National Prosecution Service (NPS) or the media who shall sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. The purpose of this rule is to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized dangerous drugs in order to fully remove doubts as to its identity. 54 This requirement also seeks to avoid frame ups or wrongful arrests of persons suspected to be violators of the law. 55 Failure to strictly comply with this rule, however, does not ipso facto invalidate or render void the seizure and custody over the items as long as the prosecution is able to show that "(a) there is justifiable ground for noncompliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved." 56
In this case, records show that the inventory of the seized items were only witnessed by Toledo, a media practitioner. There was no elected public official present. 57 When asked about the absence of the required witness, PO1 Aquino merely stated that one of his team members tried to contact a barangay official but he was not aware as to what happened after. 58
The Court has emphasized that the prosecution bears the burden of alleging and proving that the absence of the witnesses was due to justifiable reasons. It must prove that the arresting officers exerted genuine and earnest efforts to secure the attendance of the required witnesses. It must adequately explain and establish as a fact, the reasons behind the officers' failure to follow the mandated procedures. In this regard, mere statements of unavailability, unaccompanied by actual serious attempts to contact the witnesses shall be deemed unacceptable. 59
Although the Court recognizes that strict compliance with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 is not always possible as actual ground conditions may render its compliance impractical or place the success of the entire operation in jeopardy, it must be emphasized that the prosecution must be able to satisfactorily explain the reasons for its noncompliance with the rule. The justifiable ground for noncompliance must be proven as a fact because the Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist. 60
Unfortunately, in the case at bar, the prosecution failed to present any justification for the deviation from the set procedure.
Neither can the presumption of regularity in the performance of duties save the prosecution's case. While the police officers are presumed to have regularly performed their duty, the presumption only applies when there is nothing to suggest that the police officers deviated from the standard conduct of official duty required by law. 61 Where there was noncompliance with the requirements set forth in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, as amended, as in this case, there can be no presumption that the official duties have been regularly performed by the police officers. The presumption of regularity cannot preponderate over the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. 62
The first link already having compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item, it goes without saying that doubt already exists when the items were sent for examination and presentation in court. Considering that the saving clause was not complied with, any and all evidence tending to establish the chain of custody of the seized drugs become immaterial. Even the identification of the seized evidence in court during the trial became ambiguous and unreliable, rendering the proof of the links in the chain of custody of the corpus delicti unworthy of belief. 63
The Court reiterates that in a prosecution for Illegal Sale or Possession of Dangerous Drugs under RA 9165, the State carries the heavy burden of proving not only the elements of the offense, but also to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti, failing in which renders the evidence for the State insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. When moral certainty as to culpability hangs in the balance, acquittal on reasonable doubt becomes a matter of right, irrespective of the reputation of the accused who enjoys the right to be presumed innocent until the contrary is shown. 64
Given that the present case involves a minuscule amount of 0.030 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, there is more reason for the Court to strictly apply the rules on chain of custody, markings, and inventory due to the possibility that the subject illegal drug is a product of planting or substitution and that it can easily be contaminated or tampered while being passed on from one hand to another. 65
In deciding cases involving minuscule amounts of illegal drugs, courts are reminded to exercise a higher level of scrutiny. The Court has mandated that there should be stricter compliance with the rules when the amount of the dangerous drug is minute due to the possibility that the seized item was tampered. 66 The Court is aware that, in some instances, law enforcers resort to the practice of planting evidence to extract information from or even to harass civilians. The Court has repeatedly been issuing warnings to trial courts to exercise extra vigilance in trying drug cases, lest an innocent person is made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug offenses. 67
In light of the foregoing considerations, a verdict of acquittal is in order.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The assailed November 22, 2018 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 09673 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Accused-appellant Kenneth Chan y Naron is ACQUITTED based on reasonable doubt. The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City is DIRECTED to cause the immediate release of Kenneth Chan y Naron from custody unless he is being held for some other lawful cause, and to submit his report on the action taken within five days from notice of this Resolution. DETACa
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED." (Inting, J. recused from the case due to prior action in the Court of Appeals; Gesmundo, C.J., designated additional member per Raffle dated January 27, 2020. Gaerlan, J. no part due to prior action in the Court of Appeals; Lopez, M.V., J., designated additional member per Raffle dated November 15, 2021; Dimaampao, J., on official leave.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 22-24.
2.Id. at 3-21, Penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and concurred in by Associate Justices Danton Q. Bueser and Pablito A. Perez.
3. CA rollo, pp. 46-57. Penned by Presiding Judge Loreto S. Alog, Jr.
4. Records, pp. 1-2.
5.Id. at 1.
6.Id. at 25.
7. Affidavit of Poseur-Buyer, PO1 Franklyn Aquino, records, p. 9.
8. Certification, Bugallon Police Station, Police Blotter Book, Series of 2016, Entry No. 1659, records, p. 13.
9. TSN, March 21, 2017, pp. 3-4.
10. Affidavit of Poseur-Buyer, PO1 Franklyn Aquino, records, p, 9.
11.Id.
12.Id.
13.Id. at 10.
14. Affidavit of Poseur-Buyer, PO1 Franklyn Aquino, records, p. 10; TSN, March 21, 2017, pp. 5, 7-8.
15. Records, p. 16.
16. TSN, May 4, 2017, p. 3; records, p. 47, Chain of Custody Form for Seized Dangerous Drugs.
17. Records, p. 19.
18.Id.
19. TSN, May 4, 2017, p. 3; records, p. 47 Chain of Custody Form for Seized Dangerous Drugs.
20. TSN, June 21, 2017, pp. 4-6.
21.Id. at 8-10.
22. CA rollo, pp. 46-57.
23.Id. at 51-56.
24.Id. at 46-57.
25. Records, p. 71.
26. CA ratio, pp. 30-41.
27.Rollo, pp. 3-21.
28. Records, pp. 3-21.
29.Rollo, pp. 22-24.
30.Id. at 40-41.
31.People v. Buesa, G.R. No. 237850, September 16, 2020.
32.People v. Dayag, G.R. No. 251648, February 17, 2021.
33.Amago v. People, G.R. No. 205531, June 10, 2020.
34.People v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 235658, June 22, 2020.
35. Section 1 (b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002.
36.People v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 242269, March 3, 2021.
37.Panti v. People, G.R. No. 251332, July 6, 2020.
38.People v. Ali, G.R. No. 224207, January 29, 2020.
39.People v. Ordinario, G.R. No. 251436, March 1, 2021.
40.People v. Garcia, G.R. No. 230983, September 4, 2019.
41.People v. Bernardo, G.R. No. 230614, July 1, 2020.
42.People v. Ortega, Jr., G.R. No. 247524, March 1, 2021.
43.People v. Bayaua, G.R. No. 245493, October 14, 2020.
44. TSN, January 25, 2006, pp. 16-18.
45. TSN, March 21, 2017, p. 8.
46.People v. Chiu Chien Chun, G.R. No. 247271, December 2, 2020.
47. TSN, May 10, 2017, p. 8.
Q. Were you threatened by the persons present at the place where the accused got arrested?
A. None, sir.
Q. And if any of them threatened you, you can just arrest them for obstruction of justice, would you agree with me?
A. Yes, sir.
48. TSN, March 21, 2017, p. 11.
Q. Mr. Witness, from the place of transaction wherein Kenneth Chan sold to you one heat-sealed plastic sachet of methamphetamine hydrochloride, to the police station who was in possession of the one heat-sealed plastic sachet of methamphetamine hydrochloride?
A. Me, sir.
49.People v. Baltazar, G.R. No. 215736, February 19, 2020.
50. Exhibit "L" tor the Prosecution, records p. 20.
51. Exhibit "L-1" for the Prosecution, id.
52. Records, p. 16.
53. Exhibit "L-2" for the Prosecution, id. at 21.
54.People v. Baluyot, G.R. No. 243350, October 5, 2020.
55.Id.
56.People v. Ortega, Jr., supra note 42.
57. Records, p. 16.
58. TSN, May 10, 2017, p. 6.
59.People v. Belen, G.R. No. 238520, January 26, 2021, citing People v. Lim, G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018.
60.People v. Ortega, Jr., supra note 42.
61.People v. Manansala, G.R. No. 228825, July 28, 2020.
62.People v. Guinoo, G.R. No. 238114, September 16, 2020.
63.People v. Manansala, supra note 61.
64.Amago v. People, supra note 33.
65.De Guzman v. People, G.R. No. 228038, June 22, 2020.
66.Id.
67.Id.