FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 252206. October 13, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.DENVER CORPIN y OLINO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 13, 2021which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 252206 (People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, v. Denver Corpin y Olino, accused-appellant).
This Appeal 1 seeks to reverse and set aside the June 26, 2019 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10810. The CA affirmed the February 19, 2018 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 222 (RTC), in Criminal Case Nos. R-QZN-16-10466-CR 4 and R-QZN-16-10467-CR, finding Denver Corpin y Olino (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Antecedents
In two separate Informations, 5 accused-appellant was charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Secs. 5 and 11, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, to wit:
Criminal Case No. R-QZN-16-10466-CR
That on or about the 17th day of September 2016, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused without any lawful authority, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport, or act as broker in the said transaction, one (1) [heat-sealed] transparent plastic sachet containing zero point zero four (0.04) gram of white crystalline substance containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 6
Criminal Case No. R-QZN-16-10467-CR
That on or about the 17th day of September 2016, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused without any lawful authority, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully possess to wit: three (3) [heat-sealed] transparent plastic sachets containing zero point zero one (0.01) gram, zero point twelve (0.12) gram and zero point zero four (0.04) gram with a total net weight of zero point seventeen (0.17) gram of white crystalline substance containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 7
During arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
Version of the Prosecution
The prosecution presented as witness Senior Police Officer I Rey Lachica (SPO1 Lachica). On the other hand, the parties entered into stipulations regarding the testimonies of Police Officer III Robert Ocampo (PO3 Ocampo), Police Chief Inspector Rhea Fe Alviar (PCI Alviar), Senior Police Officer I Terebio Besa (SPO1 Besa), and Police Officer II Junia Tuccad 8(PO2 Tuccad).
On September 17, 2016, at around 1:00 p.m., the Cubao Police Station, through Police Senior Inspector Ramon Aquiatan (PSI Aquiatan), received a tip from an informant that accused-appellant was engaged in illegal drug activities. PSI Aquiatan formed a buy-bust team and designated SPO1 Lachica as the poseur-buyer and PO3 Ocampo as backup officer. SPO1 Lachica was given four (4) one hundred-peso (P100.00) bills and two (2) fifty-peso (P50.00) bills as buy-bust money. The buy-bust team also coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency regarding the operation against accused-appellant. 9
Around 2:00 p.m. of the same day, the buy-bust team and the informant proceeded to Zambales Street, Barangay San Martin de Porres, Cubao, Quezon City. Upon their arrival at the target area, the informant and SPO1 Lachica found accused-appellant standing along the road. The informant introduced SPO1 Lachica and said "Kaibigan ko," but accused-appellant seemed reluctant. After the informant assured accused-appellant that SPO1 Lachica was a longtime friend, accused-appellant asked SPO1 Lachica how much shabu he wanted to buy. SPO1 Lachica responded that he wanted to buy P500.00 worth of shabu. Accused-appellant then handed him a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. SPO1 Lachica gave accused-appellant the buy-bust money and thereafter executed the pre-arranged signal. 10
SPO1 Lachica arrested accused-appellant and instructed him to empty his pocket. Accused-appellant complied and brought out three (3) plastic sachets from his pocket containing white crystalline substance. SPO1 Lachica immediately marked the sachet he bought with "RL/DC BUYBUST 09-17-16," while the recovered sachets from accused-appellant were marked by him with "RL/DC-1 09-17-16," "RL/DC-2 09-17-16," and "RL/DC-3 09-17-16." Afterwards, the buy-bust team proceeded to the barangay hall, where SPO1 Lachica conducted the inventory of the confiscated items in the presence of Barangay Kagawad Rodel Salato (Kagawad Salato) and media representative Clyte Ocampo (Ocampo), while photographs were being taken. 11
Thereafter, the buy-bust team went to the police station, where SPO1 Besa, the investigator assigned to the case, prepared the necessary requests for laboratory and drug examination. After securing the requests from SPO1 Besa, SPO1 Lachica personally brought the confiscated plastic sachets and the requests to the Quezon City Police District Crime Laboratory. PCI Alviar, the forensic chemist, personally received the confiscated sachets from SPO1 Lachica and conducted a qualitative examination on the contents thereof. In her Chemistry Report No. D-1368-16, PCI Alviar confirmed that the contents of the sachets seized from accused-appellant were positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. PCI Alviar turned over the sachets to PO2 Tuccad, the evidence custodian, for safekeeping, and retrieved these only on the day she turned them over to the court. 12
Version of the Defense
Accused-appellant testified for the defense and denied the charges against him. He narrated that he was merely inside his house on September 17, 2016 when, suddenly, men in civilian clothes who were outside of his house called him. He went outside and the men asked him to show them the house of one Buboy Salonga. When accused-appellant answered that he did not know such person, the men handcuffed him and brought him to the police station. Accused-appellant denied that illegal drugs were found in his possession. 13
The RTC Ruling
In its February 19, 2018 Decision, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty of the offenses charged. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused DENVER CORPIN y OLINO GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT for VIOLATION OF SECTION[S] 5, AND 11, ARTICLE II OF REPUBLIC ACT 9165 and he is hereby sentenced as follows:
A. For Violation of Section 5, R.A. 9165
To suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of P500,000.00, and;
B. For Violation of Section 11, R.A. 9165
To suffer the penalty of imprisonment of TWELVE (12) YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY TO FOURTEEN (14) YEARS and to pay a fine of P300,000.00[.]
The period of preventive imprisonment of the accused is hereby credited in full in his favor.
The subject evidence are hereby confiscated in favor of the government.
SO ORDERED.14
The RTC held that all the elements of the offenses charged were proven by the prosecution. The RTC gave credence to SPO1 Lachica's testimony regarding the transaction. As narrated by SPO1 Lachica, he bought P500.00 worth of shabu from accused-appellant. After arresting accused-appellant, SPO1 Lachica recovered from him three (3) more plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance. PCI Alviar later on confirmed that the contents of the sachets bought and recovered from accused-appellant were positive for the presence of shabu. The RTC noted the imperfect compliance by the police officers of the procedure outlined under Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, but nonetheless ruled that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized sachets were unaffected.
Aggrieved, accused-appellant filed an appeal to the CA.
The CA Ruling
In its June 26, 2019 Decision, the CA affirmed accused-appellant's conviction for the offenses charged, to wit:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated 19 February 2018 of the Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 222, Quezon City in Criminal Case Nos. R-QZN-16-10466-CR and R-QZN-16-10467-CR, finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.15
The CA upheld SPO1 Lachica's direct, categorical, and detailed testimony about the buy-bust operation. It found that the buy-bust team duly complied with the chain of custody rule. The sachets were immediately marked by SPO1 Lachica at the place of arrest which eliminated the possible switching or planting of evidence. The inventory and photographs were also conducted at the barangay hall as witnessed by accused-appellant, Kagawad Salato, and Ocampo. SPO1 Lachica also testified that he had custody of the seized items from the time of confiscation until their turnover to PCI Alviar. The CA, thus, ruled that there were no breaks in the chain of custody and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized illegal drugs were preserved.
Hence, this appeal.
Issues
Accused-appellant submits the following grounds in support of his appeal:
I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT FOR VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 5 AND 11, ARTICLE II OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, DESPITE THE UNCORROBORATED AND CONFLICTING TESTIMONY OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES.
II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT FOR VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 5 AND 11, ARTICLE II OF R.A. NO. 9165, DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF THE [CORPUS DELICTI] AND THE SEIZING OFFICER'S [NONCOMPLIANCE] WITH THE STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES IN DRUG OPERATIONS. 16
In its July 27, 2020 Resolution, 17 the Court required the parties to submit their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desired. Accused-appellant filed his Manifestation (in lieu of a Supplemental Brief with Profuse Apology) 18 dated November 16, 2020, and manifested that he was adopting his Brief for the Accused-Appellant 19 dated November 19, 2018, as his supplemental brief. On the other hand, the appellee, through the Office of the Solicitor General, averred in its Manifestation (In Lieu of Supplemental Brief) 20 dated December 9, 2020, that it was adopting its Brief for the Appellee 21 dated March 22, 2019, as it substantially and exhaustively refuted accused-appellant's arguments in its brief.
Accused-appellant mainly contends that the police officers failed to comply with the chain of custody rule. Specifically, there was no statement whether SPO1 Besa took hold of the seized items while preparing the necessary requests for laboratory examination. Moreover, according to accused-appellant, the absence in the testimony of PCI Alviar on how she handled the seized items is considered a break in the chain.
Appellee, on the other hand, counters that an examination of the records would reveal that SPO1 Besa did not handle the seized items. Appellee averred that SPO1 Besa's participation was limited to the preparation of the documents and requests for laboratory examination. The third and fourth links in the chain of custody were also duly proven by the prosecution. PCI Alviar personally received the specimen from SPO1 Lachica and conducted a qualitative examination thereon. Subsequently, PCI Alviar confirmed in her Chemistry Report No. D-1368-16 that the contents of the sachets she received were positive for shabu. Thereafter, she turned over the sachets to PO1 Tuccad for safekeeping.
The Court's Ruling
The appeal is meritorious. Accused-appellant is acquitted for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
A successful prosecution of crimes involving illegal drugs requires more than the perfunctory presentation of evidence establishing each element of the crime. 22 Equally important is the prosecution's duty to show, with unwavering exactitude, that the intrinsic worth of the evidence presented, especially the identity and integrity of the prohibited drug, was preserved. 23 In other words, it must be established with moral certainty that the drugs examined and presented in court are the very ones seized from the accused. 24 The chain of custody rule performs this function as it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. 25 Thus, the prosecution must account for each link in the chain of custody, from the moment of seizure of the drug up to its presentation in court. 26
Pertinent to this case is the second link in the chain of custody. The second link pertains to the transfer of the seized drugs by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer. Usually, the police officer who seizes the suspected substance turns it over to a supervising officer, who will then send it by courier to the police crime laboratory for testing. 27
In the case at bar, the parties stipulated on the testimony of SPO1 Besa in this wise:
1. That the witness is a member of the Philippine National Police assigned at Cubao police station, Station of Anti-Illegal Drugs, Special Operation Task Group;
2. That he was assigned by PSI Ramon [Acquiatan] to investigate this case for Violation of [S]ection 5, Article II, RA 9165 against accused Denver Corpin;
3. That his participation was limited only to the preparation of the following documents: the referral report to the Quezon City Prosecutor's Office, the preparation of the affidavit of arresting back-up officers, preparation of the affidavit of the poseur-buyer, preparation of the spot report, preparation of the request for laboratory examination, the preparation of the documents showing chain of custody, and prepared his own affidavit of undertaking;
4. [T]hat [he] has no personal knowledge on the arrest of the accused as well as the source of the specimen recovered. 28
It can be gleaned from the foregoing that SPO1 Besa appeared to have not taken possession of the seized contraband despite supposedly investigating the illegal transaction and the subsequent arrest and seizure that occurred. The Court finds this procedure as disturbing.
In People v. Dahil, 29 the Court held that the turnover of evidence from the apprehending officer to the investigating officer is a necessary step in the chain of custody because it is the investigating officer who will conduct the proper investigation and prepare the necessary documents for the developing criminal case. Certainly, the investigating officer must have possession of the illegal drugs to properly prepare the required documents. 30
It was likewise clarified in People v. Villojan, Jr., 31 that the police officer who records the incident in the police station and prepares the requests for laboratory examination would, most certainly, if not remotely, come into contact with the seized illegal drugs. Hence, the handling or investigating officer must be identified, and he should explain the steps undertaken to ensure the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized illegal drugs.
The Court, in People v. Bangcola, 32 citing People v. Remigio, 33 also held that the arresting officer's act of keeping the seized evidence until its submission to the forensic chemist and the failure to turn over the seized evidence to an investigating officer are considered breaks in the chain of custody.
Thus, the stipulations of the parties on the testimony of SPO1 Besa failed to convince the Court that the second link had been established. A mere attestation that the investigating officer had only prepared the necessary documents, especially the request for laboratory examination and chain of custody form, does not suffice.
Aside from the irregularity in the second link, the fourth link in the chain of custody of the seized illegal drugs in this case is also lacking. The fourth link constitutes the manner in which the forensic chemist handled the seized evidence while it was in his custody. In People v. Ubungen, 34 the Court held that the stipulation on the forensic chemist's testimony must include the precautionary steps required in preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. Hence, it must be shown that: (1) the forensic chemist received the seized item as marked, properly sealed, and intact; (2) he resealed it after examination of the content; and (3) he placed his own marking on the same to ensure that it could not be tampered with pending trial. 35
Here, the testimony of PCI Alviar, the forensic chemist, was stipulated upon by the parties as follows:
1. That she is a registered chemist since 2001;
2. That she [has been] a forensic chemist of the Quezon City Police District Crime Laboratory since April 2016;
3. That she is qualified to testify as an expert;
4. That she officially received a request for laboratory examination together with the specimen from SPO1 Lachica on September 17, 2016;
5. That after qualitative examination, the plastic packets tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug;
6. That she issued Initial Laboratory Report No. D-1368-16 dated September 17, 2016 for the purpose of inquest proceedings;
7. That she issued Chemistry Report No. D-1368-16 for the purpose of confirming her initial findings;
8. That she retrieved the subject drug specimen from [PO2] Junia Tuccad before proceeding to the trial court;
9. That she can identify the request for laboratory examination, Initial Laboratory Report No. D-1368-16 and Chemistry Report No. D-1368-16. 36
It is clear that the above-stated stipulations are flawed and noncompliant with the required stipulations on the testimony of a forensic chemist. There are no statements on the condition of the seized items upon receipt thereof by PCI Alviar. The manner by which she managed, handled, or stored the seized items while it was in her custody is also unexplained. Lastly, there was no mention at all of the steps and measures that PCI Alviar undertook to preserve the identity and integrity of the seized items after conducting the qualitative examination.
The fourth link is further weakened by the inadequate stipulations on the testimony of PO2 Tuccad, the evidence custodian, viz.:
1. That she acted as the evidence custodian of the subject drug specimen after the laboratory examination conducted by PCI Alviar;
2. That the specimens were turned over by PCI Alviar as shown in the Log Book Entry;
3. That she can identify the drug specimen; and
4. That she is not an [eyewitness] and had no personal knowledge as to the source of the items and the facts surrounding the arrest of accused-appellant. 37
Similar to the stipulations on PCI Alviar's testimony, the stipulations on the testimony of PO2 Tuccad are lacking in all respects. There are no statements on the condition of the items when PO2 Tuccad received them from PCI Alviar and on how she stored and managed the seized items while they were in her custody. 38 The stipulations are also wanting of the safekeeping measures that PO2 Tuccad adopted to ensure that no other persons had access to the place where she stored the specimens before their turnover to the court. 39
Consequently, it cannot be said with moral certainty that all the links in the chain of custody were established in this case. The prosecution's failure to comply with Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, and with the fourth link, has rendered the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti questionable. The Court is, thus, constrained to acquit accused-appellant based on reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is GRANTED. The June 26, 2019 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10810, which affirmed the February 19, 2018 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 222, in Criminal Case Nos. R-QZN-16-10466-CR and R-QZN-16-10467-CR, finding Denver Corpin y Olino guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Denver Corpin y Olino is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City is ORDERED to IMMEDIATELY RELEASE accused-appellant from detention, unless he is being lawfully held in custody for any other reason, and to INFORM this Court of his action taken hereon within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately. aScITE
SO ORDERED."Lopez, M., J., on official leave.
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. 34-36.
2.Id. at 3-33; penned by Associate Justice Rafael Antonio M. Santos, with Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Danton Q. Bueser, concurring.
3. CA rollo, pp. 50-57; penned by Judge Edgar Dalmacio Santos.
4. Also referred to as Criminal Case No. R-QZN-16-10465-CR in the RTC Decision.
5.Rollo, pp. 4-5.
6.Id. at 4-5.
7.Id. at 5.
8. Also referred to as PO1 Tuccad in some parts of the rollo.
9.Rollo, pp. 6, 11-12.
10.Id. at 6-7.
11.Id. at 7.
12.Id.
13.Id. at 8.
14. CA rollo, pp. 56-57.
15.Rollo, pp. 32-33.
16.Id. at 8-9.
17.Id. at 39-40.
18.Id. at 43-44.
19. CA rollo, pp. 31-49.
20.Rollo, pp. 47-48.
21. CA rollo, pp. 72-92.
22.People v. Nuarin, 764 Phil. 550, 557 (2015).
23.Id.; People v. Bombasi, 794 Phil. 509, 515 (2016).
24.People v. Nandi, 639 Phil. 134, 142 (2010).
25.People v. Gutierrez, 614 Phil. 285, 293 (2009).
26.People v. Camiñas, G.R. No. 241017, January 7, 2019.
27.People v. Amorin, G.R. No. 224884, December 10, 2019.
28. CA rollo, pp. 52-53.
29. 750 Phil. 212 (2015).
30.Id. at 235.
31. G.R. No. 239635, July 22, 2019.
32. G.R. No. 237802, March 18, 2019.
33. 700 Phil. 452 (2012).
34. 836 Phil. 888 (2018).
35.Id. at 901.
36. CA rollo, pp. 76-77.
37.Id. at 77-78.
38.Izon v. People, G.R. No. 222509, March 3, 2021.
39.People v. Delos Reyes, G.R. No. 218426, January 13, 2021.