FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 253304. June 30, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. CHARISON COLLANTES y JURILLA and AMADO PAYCAO y ANATEL, accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 30, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 253304 (People of the Philippines v. Charison Collantes y Jurilla and Amado Paycao y Anatel).
This appeal 1 seeks to reverse and set aside the January 22, 2020 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10589. The CA affirmed the January 30, 2018 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City, Branch 200 (RTC), in Criminal Case No. 08-0819, finding Charison Collantes y Jurilla (Collantes) and Amado Paycao y Anatel (Paycao)(collectively, accused-appellants) guilty of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Antecedents
In an Information 4 dated October 3, 2008, accused-appellants were charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, to wit:
Criminal Case No. 08-0819
That on or about the 30th day of [September 2008], in the City of Las Piñas, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and both of them mutually helping and aiding one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and knowingly sell, trade, dispense, deliver or give away to another, on any terms whatsoever or distribute, dispatches (sic) in transit or transport the following to wit[:] 1,916.43 grams, 1,997.89 grams, 2,009.83 grams, 2,031.18 grams, 2,018.91 grams, 2,047.20 grams, 1,985.38 grams, 2,049.38 grams, 969.30 grams, 2,020.91 grams, 2,003.59 grams, 1,983.42 grams, 1,995.13 grams, 1,848.39 grams, 1,976.80 grams, 1,968.21 grams, 2,014.21 grams, 1,910.52 grams, 1,985.08 grams, 1,983.82 grams, 1,984.87 grams, 2,024.90 grams, 2,011.14 grams, 1,008.22 grams, respectively, with a total weight of FORTY-FIVE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED [FORTY-FOUR] point SEVENTY-ONE (45,744.71) grams of MARIJUANA FRUITING TOPS, a dangerous drugs, in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
During their arraignment, accused-appellants pleaded not guilty to the charge. Thus, trial on the merits ensued. 6
Version of the Prosecution
The prosecution presented as witnesses Police Officer I Benjie De Villa (PO1 De Villa), Police Officer III Jay Joseph De Guzman (PO3 De Guzman), Police Officer III Junnifer Tuldanes (PO3 Tuldanes), Police Officer II Erwin Sabbun (PO2 Sabbun), Police Officer II Wilson Paule (PO2 Paule), and Barangay Captain Reynato Alfonso (Barangay Captain Alfonso). The direct testimonies of Police Officer III Ernie Ortega (PO3 Ortega), Police Officer III Michael Holanda (PO3 Holanda), 7 Police Officer III Rodel Ordinaryo (PO3 Ordinaryo), and Forensic Chemist Police Chief Inspector Abraham Verde Tecson (PCI Tecson) were dispensed with after a stipulation by the parties. 8
On September 29, 2008, at around 9:00 p.m., a confidential informant (CI) arrived at the Anti-Illegal Drug-Special Operations Task Group of the Las Piñas City Police Station. He relayed to PO1 De Villa that a certain "Ricky Igorot" had agreed to a drug transaction for forty-five (45) kilos of marijuana worth P76,500.00. The transaction would transpire at around 5:00 a.m. of the next day at Bernabe Compound, Barangay Pulanglupa I, Las Piñas City. PO1 De Villa informed Police Senior Inspector Nicholas N. Maamo who conducted a briefing for the conduct of a buy-bust operation. The buy-bust team consisted of PO1 De Villa as the poseur-buyer; PO3 De Guzman, PO2 Paule, and PO2 Sabbun as immediate backup officers; and PO3 Ortega, PO3 Tuldanes, and PO3 Ordinaryo as perimeter backup officers. Two (2) One Thousand Peso (P1,000.00) bills and seventy-four (74) newspaper cut-outs as boodle money were prepared and given to PO1 De Villa. The pre-arranged signal agreed upon by the buy-bust team was PO1 De Villa's removal of his cap. 9
The next day, at around 5:00 a.m., the CI and PO1 De Villa proceeded to Bernabe Compound while the rest of the buy-bust team strategically positioned themselves. After a while, a taxi arrived and two men alighted therefrom. The two men approached the CI, and the latter introduced them to PO1 De Villa as the "scorer" of marijuana. One of the men was alias "Ricky Igorot," who was later identified as Collantes. Collantes confirmed that they had a bulk of marijuana for sale and said, "Pare, mahigit 45 kilos tong dala ko at yung iba na-deliver ko na sa Fairview na nagkakahalaga to ng P76,500.00." Collantes asked for the payment, hence, PO1 De Villa handed him the buy-bust money. Collantes placed the money in his pocket and had his companion, who was later identified as Amado Paycao y Anatel (Paycao), help him bring and show to PO1 De Villa the marijuana contained inside the four boxes they had brought with them. After confirming the items to be marijuana, PO1 De Villa removed his cap and introduced himself to accused-appellants as a police officer. Accused-appellants attempted to flee but PO3 De Guzman, PO2 Paule, and PO2 Sabbun helped PO1 De Villa to successfully subdue and arrest them. 10
Thereafter, the backup officers seized from accused-appellants the four (4) boxes containing twenty-four (24) tape-wrapped bricks of marijuana. PO1 De Villa also recovered from Collantes's pocket the buy-bust money. The buy-bust team decided to bring accused-appellants to Barangay Pulanglupa, the nearest barangay hall, for the marking and inventory of the seized items. 11
Upon their arrival at the barangay hall, the buy-bust team waited for three (3) hours for the arrival of Barangay Captain Alfonso before proceeding to mark, inventory, and photograph the seized items. PO3 Rolanda marked and photographed the seized items in the presence of accused-appellants, Barangay Captain Alfonso, and the arresting officers, while PO1 De Villa conducted the inventory. Afterwards, the buy-bust team proceeded to the police station where PO1 De Villa turned over the seized items to PO3 Holanda, who was also the investigator. After preparing the Request for Laboratory Examination, PO3 Holanda forwarded the seized items to the crime laboratory for examination. PCI Tecson, the forensic chemist, confirmed in his Physical Science Report No. D-369-08S that the contents of the boxes were positive for marijuana. 12
Version of the Defense
The defense presented accused-appellants as its witnesses.
Collantes testified that, on September 29, 2008, he was at the Bernabe Compound for the baptism of the child of his friend, Michael Batanes (Batanes). During the party, at around 7:00 p.m., an unidentified man asked him if he knew the whereabouts of a certain alias Ricky to which Collantes answered, "no." An hour later, a commotion began and Collantes saw some men running towards him. These men went to Batanes's house, and looked for alias "Ricky." Collantes again answered that he did not know. Thereafter, the men arrested Collantes, Batanes, and Paycao, who Collantes claimed he had just met at the party. The three of them were asked to board a vehicle where he saw four boxes. One of the men who arrested them said that the boxes came from Collantes and his two other companions and that they should give them money if they wished to go home. Thereafter, Collantes, Batanes, and Paycao were brought to the police station. Eventually, the police freed Batanes after talking to the latter's relatives. Collantes and Paycao, however, remained in detention. Collantes denied that he knew who Paycao was before the party. 13
On the other hand, Paycao testified that he was invited by Batanes to the baptism of the latter's child on September 29, 2008. During the party, at around 7:00 p.m., a man approached Paycao and asked for a certain Ricky. Batanes replied that he did not know Ricky. At around 8:30 p.m., a commotion began and he was suddenly arrested along with Collantes and Batanes. The three of them were told to board a vehicle. Paycao saw four boxes inside the vehicle and denied that he owned the boxes when told that the boxes were theirs. The men who arrested them asked for P500,000.00 to be able to go home, but he replied that he did not have that amount. When they reached the police station, Batanes was set free by the police officers while he and Collantes were detained. Paycao claimed that he only met Collantes at Batanes's party. 14
RTC Ruling
In its January 30, 2018 Decision, the RTC found accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, this court finds the accused CHARISON COLLANTES y JURILLA @ "RICKY IGOROT" and AMADO PAYCAO y ANATEL, GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of illegal sale of 45,744.71 kilograms of marijuana penalized under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, otherwise known as Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and they are hereby sentenced to suffer LIFE IMPRISONMENT and ordered to pay a FINE of PhP500,000.00 each.
Accordingly, the Jail Warden of the Las Piñas City Jail is hereby ORDERED to transmit the person of the accused CHARISON COLLANTES y JURILLA @ "RICKY IGOROT" and AMADO PAYCAO y ANATEL to the National Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City, with proper escort within fifteen (15) days upon receipt of this Order.
The Branch Clerk of Court of this Court is hereby ordered to prepare the corresponding Mittimus Order to the National Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City.
The confiscated twenty-four (24) bricks of marijuana [or] shabu (Exhibits "RR" up to "OOO-") are hereby declared forfeited in favor of the government and shall be disposed of in accordance with the law.
SO ORDERED.15
The RTC held that the prosecution sufficiently established all the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. PO1 De Villa, the poseur-buyer, positively identified accused-appellants as the men who sold him the four (4) boxes that contained forty-five (45) kilos of marijuana fruiting tops for a consideration of P76,500.00.
The RTC also found that the prosecution showed an unbroken chain of custody. After the arrest and seizure, accused-appellants were brought to the nearest barangay hall where PO3 Holanda marked the seized items. Subsequently, PO3 Holanda personally delivered the seized items to the crime laboratory for forensic examination, which later on revealed a positive result for the presence of marijuana. The RTC ruled that the absence of representatives from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the media during the marking and inventory did not affect the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized evidence as it remained intact all throughout. According to the RTC, the fact that the seized items were marked immediately at the nearest barangay hall was substantial compliance as it left no room for any switching, altering, or tampering of evidence.
The defense, on the other hand, failed to show any ill motive on the part of the police officers to impute a serious crime to accused-appellants whose lives and liberties would be placed in jeopardy.
Aggrieved, accused-appellants appealed to the CA.
The CA Ruling
In its January 22, 2020 Decision, the CA affirmed the conviction of accused-appellants for the crime charged. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated January 30, 2018 of the Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City, Branch 200, in Criminal Case No. 08-0819, is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.16
The CA concurred with the RTC that all the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs were established by the prosecution. Contrary to accused-appellants' claim that PO1 De Villa's testimony, which was heavily relied upon by the RTC, was merely hearsay, the CA held that PO1 De Villa's testimony was based on his personal knowledge of the transaction, being the poseur-buyer during the buy-bust operation. Moreover, the testimonies of the other police officers, and the documentary evidence presented, corroborated PO1 De Villa's account of events.
As to the chain of custody of the seized evidence, the CA held that the integrity of the corpus delicti was unaffected by the belated marking and inventory, which PO1 De Villa explained was occasioned by the delayed arrival of Barangay Captain Alfonso. Even the absence of representatives from the DOJ and the media did not compromise the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs, since Barangay Captain Alfonso's presence sufficiently ensured that the marking and inventory were insulated from the perils of contamination of the seized evidence. The CA noted that the volume of the seized items, which amounted to a total of 45 kilos, made the switching or planting of evidence remotely improbable.
Hence, this appeal.
Issues
I.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS OF VIOLATION OF SECTION 5 OF R.A. NO. 9165 DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE ALL THE ELEMENTS THEREOF;
II.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS OF VIOLATION OF SECTION 5 OF R.A. NO. 9165 DESPITE THE BROKEN CHAIN OF CUSTODY AND THE POLICE OFFICERS' NON-COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 21 OF THE SAME LAW;
III.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FAILING TO GIVE CREDENCE TO THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS' DEFENSE IN LIGHT OF THE WEAKNESS OF THE PROSECUTION'S CASE. 17
In its November 18, 2020 Resolution, 18 this Court required the parties to submit their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desired. In its February 4, 2021 Manifestation (In Lieu of Supplemental Brief), 19 accused-appellants, represented by the Public Attorney's Office, manifested that they would no longer file a supplemental brief considering that they had exhaustively discussed the assigned errors in their Brief for the Accused-Appellants 20 dated October 15, 2018. Similarly, appellee, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), averred in their February 24, 2021 Manifestation, 21 that it would no longer file a supplemental brief considering that it had extensively discussed in its Appellee's Brief, 22 dated January 29, 2019, all the matters and issues raised by accused-appellants.
Accused-appellants reiterate their arguments in their Brief for the Accused-appellants 23 before the CA. They argue that PO1 De Villa had no personal knowledge of the transaction since it was the CI who contacted accused-appellants and arranged the transaction. Accused-appellants contend that even during the actual transaction, it was the CI who talked to them and PO1 De Villa simply handed the money to them. Moreover, the police officers failed to follow the chain of custody rule since the marking of the items was not conducted at the place of arrest and was only done at the barangay hall three (3) hours after accused-appellants' arrest. The testimonies of PO3 Holanda and PCI Tecson also lacked statements on their custody of the seized items and the conditions of the items when they turned over the same. Accused-appellants also reiterate the failure of the police officers to comply with the procedural safeguards under Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640. Aside from the fact that the inventory and taking of photographs were made three (3) hours after the confiscation, these were done without the presence of representatives from the DOJ and the media. The police officers also failed to state any justifiable ground for their noncompliance with the requirements under Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165.
Appellee, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), counters in its Appellee's Brief, 24 that all the elements of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs were established by the prosecution. The OSG contends that PO1 De Villa was introduced by the CI to accused-appellants as the buyer and that he was a direct participant in the transaction. As to the issue on the chain of custody, the OSG referred to the trial court's ruling that, despite procedural lapses, the police officers were able to preserve the identity and integrity of the seized evidence. Lastly, the OSG argues that accused-appellants' defense of denial was unsupported and unsubstantiated.
The Court's Ruling
In actions involving the 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. 25
In this case, the first element was sufficiently proven by the prosecution. PO1 De Villa testified that the CI came to the police station to relay that a transaction with accused-appellants was in place for the sale of forty-five (45) kilos marijuana worth P76,500.00. Although it was the CI who arranged the transaction with accused-appellants, PO1 De Villa, the poseur-buyer, was the one who transacted with accused-appellants during the buy-bust operation. As testified to by PO1 De Villa, after giving Collantes the buy-bust money, the latter and Paycao brought him the four boxes of bulk marijuana:
Q: And then what happened next after you were introduced to alias Ricky Igorot?
A: After I was introduced by the confidential informant to alias Ricky Igorot and he said in the vernacular, "Pare mahigit 45 kilos itong dala ko at ang iba ay na-deliver ko na sa Fairview. [N]agkakahalaga ito ng [P76,500.00.]"
Q: And then what else did he say after that if any?
A: Alias Ricky Igorot demanded the payment for the bulk of marijuana Sir.
Q: And after he demanded [from] you the payment[,] what happened next?
A: I handed to him the envelope containing two pieces of P1000 peso bill and 74 cuts of [boodle] money inserted on the white envelope Sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: So what did alias Igorot do when you handed the envelope containing those items?
A: He received it and put it on his pocket Sir.
Q: And after he pocketed it, what did he do next if any?
A: He called the assistance of his companion and brought to me the four boxes of bulk marijuana Sir. 26
Indeed, contrary to accused-appellants' submission, PO1 De Villa testified based on his personal knowledge, considering that he was the poseur-buyer of the forty-five (45) kilos of marijuana during the buy-bust operation.
Nonetheless, the appeal is impressed with merit due to the failure by the prosecution to prove the second element of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. There are glaring lapses in the police officers' handling and custody of the seized evidence which raise doubts as to its integrity and evidentiary value.
It is well settled that the evidence of the corpus delicti must be established beyond reasonable doubt 27 with the same accuracy as that required to sustain a finding of guilt. 28 The prosecution must prove that the illegal drug seized from accused is the very same substance presented in court, which defines the chain of custody rule. 29
In Mallillin v. People, 30 the chain of custody rule and its importance were explained by the Court:
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.
While testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard because it is almost always impossible to obtain, an unbroken chain of custody becomes indispensable and essential when the item of real evidence is not distinctive and is not readily identifiable, or when its condition at the time of testing or trial is critical, or when a witness has failed to observe its uniqueness. The same standard likewise obtains in case the evidence is susceptible to alteration, tampering, contamination and even substitution and exchange. In other words, the exhibit's level of susceptibility to fungibility, alteration or tampering — without regard to whether the same is advertent or otherwise not — dictates the level of strictness in the application of the chain of custody rule. (citations omitted)
The links that the prosecution must establish in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation are: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the [turn over] of the illegal drug seized to the investigating officer; third, the [turn over] by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the [turn over] and submission of the [seized marked] illegal drug from the forensic chemist to the court. 31
In this case, the prosecution witnesses testified that it was PO3 Holanda who marked the seized items upon the buy-bust team's arrival at the barangay hall of Barangay Pulanglupa. PO3 Holanda, however, was not present during the arrest of accused-appellants and seizure of the illegal drugs, nor was he a member of the buy-bust team. Significantly, there was no mention of the name of the police officer/s who confiscated and handled the boxes of marijuana during the buy-bust operation. Thus, uncertainty lies as to the handling and custody of the seizing officer/s of the boxes of marijuana before the actual turn over to PO3 Holanda for marking. Consequently, it cannot be ascertained with moral certainty that the seized items marked by PO3 Holanda were the same ones confiscated by the buy-bust team during the buy-bust operation.
Moreover, the fact that the marking of the seized items occurred three (3) hours after seizure cannot be glossed over, especially because the prosecution failed to account for the condition of the seized items during the three (3)-hour interval.
In People v. Ramirez, 32 the Court emphasized the importance of marking the seized drugs immediately after its confiscation:
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. This is when the apprehending officer or poseur-buyer places his or her initials and signature on the item/s seized.
Here, the prosecution admitted that three (3) hours from the time of confiscation of the drugs had lapsed when PO3 Holanda placed his markings thereon. There was also no mention in the testimonies of the members of the buy-bust team of the person/s who had custody of the confiscated drugs while waiting at the barangay hall for Barangay Captain Alfonso's arrival. This Court has consistently held that failure of the authorities to immediately mark the seized drugs raises reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti and suffices to rebut the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties. 33
It is significant to note, however, that the marking of the seized items may be done at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team, 34 contrary to accused-appellants' claim that it must only be done at the place of arrest.
The first link in the chain of custody also includes the inventory and photographing of the seized evidence as described under Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, which states:
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 (DOJ), 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 took effect on August 7, 2014, amended Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 in this wise:
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.
Since the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs in this case was committed before the effectivity of R.A. No. 10640, Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 shall apply.
Here, there was noncompliance with the requirements under Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165. Specifically, there were no representatives from the DOJ and the media during the conduct of the inventory and taking of photographs of the confiscated drugs.
This Court has ruled in numerous cases that the presence of all the witnesses, under Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 is necessary to establish the chain of custody and to remove any suspicion of contamination of evidence which could adversely affect the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused. 35
There are, however, exceptions to Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, such that the confiscated drugs would not necessarily be rendered inadmissible. The prosecution must satisfactorily prove that the apprehending officers exerted genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of such witnesses. 36 In People v. Crispo, 37 the Court held that the prosecution has the positive duty to prove compliance with the procedure set forth in Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165. They must acknowledge and justify any perceived deviations from the said procedure during the proceedings before the trial court.
Here, there was nothing in the prosecution witnesses' testimonies that exhibited any earnest efforts by the buy-bust team to comply with the witness requirement under Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640. In fact, PO1 De Villa admitted during his re-cross-examination that the buy-bust team did not even try to secure the presence of representatives from the DOJ and the media. 38 Consequently, the prosecution's failure to provide a justifiable ground casts doubt on the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti.
Missing also was PO3 Holanda's testimony relating to his custody of the seized items when he marked the same at Barangay Pulanglupa and when these were turned over to him by PO1 De Villa at the police station. As the investigator, his testimony on the manner he handled the seized evidence when it was in his custody, as well as its condition, is crucial in establishing the links in the chain of custody.
In the same vein, the condition and manner of handling by PCI Tecson of the confiscated items before, during, and after the forensic examination were not established by the prosecution. The Court ruled that absent any testimony by the forensic chemist on the management, storage, and preservation of the seized illegal drug, the fourth link in the chain of custody could not be clearly established. 39
In fine, this Court is constrained to acquit accused-appellants based on reasonable doubt because of the prosecution's failure to prove the corpus delicti of the crime and to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs. Moreover, the prosecution failed to offer any explanation why the provisions of Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 were not complied with.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is GRANTED. The January 22, 2020 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10589, which affirmed the January 30, 2018 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City, Branch 200, in Criminal Case No. 08-0819 finding accused-appellants Charison Collantes y Jurilla and Amado Paycao y Anatel guilty of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellants are ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is ORDERED to IMMEDIATELY RELEASE accused-appellants from detention, unless they are being lawfully held in custody for any other reason, and to INFORM the Court of the action taken hereon within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
The accused-appellants' manifestation (in lieu of supplemental brief), pursuant to the Resolution dated November 18, 2020, stating that they will no longer file a supplemental brief considering that they had exhaustively discussed the assigned errors in the appellants' brief filed before the Court of Appeals and no new issues material to the case were discovered is NOTED; and the Office of the Solicitor General's manifestation, pursuant to the Resolution dated November 18, 2020, requesting that it be allowed to dispense with the filing of a supplemental brief in this case for reasons stated therein is NOTED and GRANTED.
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. 19-21.
2.Id. at 3-18; penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Robeniol, with Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Ramon A. Cruz, concurring.
3. CA Rollo, pp. 53-75; penned by Presiding Judge Leopoldo E. Baraquia.
4.Id. at 53.
5.Id.
6.Id.
7. Referred to as "PO2" Michael Holanda in other parts of the rollo.
8.Rollo, p. 4.
9.Id. at 4-5.
10.Id. at 5-6.
11.Id.
12.Id. at 6.
13.Id. at 6-7.
14.Id. at 7-8.
15. CA rollo, p. 75.
16.Rollo, p. 18.
17.Id. at 9.
18.Id. at 26.
19.Id. at 28-30.
20. CA rollo, pp. 33-51.
21.Rollo, pp. 33-35.
22. CA rollo, pp. 88-103.
23.Id. at 33-51.
24.Id. at 88-103.
25.People v. Morales, 630 Phil. 215, 228 (2010).
26.Rollo, pp. 11-12.
27.People v. Morales, supra note 25.
28.People v. Borromeo, G.R. No. 245251, December 5, 2019.
29.People v. Pasiona, G.R. No. 247820, October 14, 2020.
30. 576 Phil. 576, 587-588 (2008).
31. 833 Phil. 67, 81 (2018).
32. 823 Phil. 1215, 1225 (2018).
33.Lopez v. People, 725 Phil. 499, 510 (2014).
34.People v. Quilang, G.R. No. 232619, August 29, 2018.
35.People v. Bangalan, G.R. No. 232249, September 3, 2018; People v. Tomawis, 830 Phil. 385, 409 (2018).
36.Matabilas v. People, G.R. No. 243615, November 11, 2019.
37. 828 Phil. 416, 437 (2018).
38. CA rollo, p. 58.
39.People v. Lalu, G.R. No. 245998, February 10, 2020.