THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 217688. January 22, 2018.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and MELCHOR RUBIN, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated January 22, 2018, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 217688 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and MELCHOR RUBIN, Respondents.) — Through certiorari, the State seeks to nullify and set aside the decision promulgated on January 30, 2015 in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 01299, 1 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA), with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, acquitted respondent Melchor Rubin of the crime of violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002).
Rubin was in the top 10 of illegal drug personalities in the order of battle of the Bacolod City Police Office. On May 2, 2003, at around 4:30 p.m., the Bacolod City Police Office received information from a civilian asset that Rubin was involved in the illegal sale of drugs in Purok Sigay of Barangay 2 in Bacolod City. The City Mobile Group then composed a buy-bust team made up of operatives of the Police Precinct 2 and the elements of the Regional Mobile Group. P. S. Insp. Clarence Dungail was the team leader, while PO2 Roel Villacanas was designated as the poseur-buyer who would buy isa ka bulto worth P7,000.00 of shabu (average of five grams) using two marked P100.00 bills with several pieces of cut yellow pages as boodle money. 2
The team arrived in Purok Sigay around 7:00 p.m. PO2 Villacanas approached Rubin, handed over the money to him, and the latter, in turn, gave to the former the heat-sealed plastic packet containing white crystalline substances. Thereafter, PO2 Villacanas announced that he was a police officer, and arrested Rubin. The team brought Rubin to Police Station 2 to book and detain him there. PO2 Villacanas affixed his initials ROV on the heat-sealed plastic packet in his custody. He delivered the plastic packet to the crime laboratory together with the request for examination. P. S. Insp. Alexis Guinanao received the plastic packet and the request. Ultimately, the contents of the plastic packet tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, and such findings were reflected in Chemistry Report No. D-229-2003. 3
As a consequence, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Bacolod City charged Rubin with violation of Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165 in the Regional Trial Court in Bacolod City (RTC), alleging in the information the following:
That on or about the second day of May[,] 2003, in the City of Bacolod, Philippines, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the herein accused, not being authorized by law to sell, trade, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drugs, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver, give away to a police poseur-buyer in a buy-bust operation one (1) big, heat-sealed transparent plastic packet containing methylamphetamine hydrochloride weighing 4.43 grams in exchange for a price of P200.00 in marked money, consisting of two (2) 100.00 peso bills with serial nos. CR 43519 and ET 662052, in violation of the law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
In his defense, Rubin denied the charge. He claimed that he had been talking to his kumpare Ireneo Villarma when three men suddenly came around and grabbed and carried him to a police car parked on the main road without telling him why; that upon reaching the police station, the officers who had seized him compelled him to admit that he had been engaged in the sale of illegal drugs; 5 that he was maltreated inside the office of P. S. Insp. Dungail; that the policemen wrapped his face in masking tape after inserting a dirty rag in his mouth; that they opened slits for his eyes and nose to allow him to breathe; that they punched and kicked him; that he was thus forced to admit his involvement in the sale of illegal drugs, and they made him choose between several leaves and a plastic sachet; that he just replied: Whatever you like, sir; and that he did not file any charges against the police officers for the maltreatment and coercion. 6
On April 30, 2008, the RTC rendered judgment finding Rubin guilty as charged, 7 disposing:
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the court hereby finds the accused MELCHOR RUBIN GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged in the Information. For selling 4.43 grams of shabu (Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride) the accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty, as provided for in Section 5, of R.A. 9165, of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00 and the costs. The 4.43 grams of shabu are ordered confiscated and to be disposed and destroyed in accordance with law.
SO ORDERED. 8
The RTC gave weight to the testimony of the Prosecution's witnesses for being public officers. It ruled that there had been an actual buy-bust operation conducted against Rubin; that, therefore, the State had established all the elements of the crime; and that the police officers did not have any motive to concoct a story about his involvement in the sale of illegal drugs unless it was true. 9
Rubin appealed to the CA, assigning the following errors to the RTC, namely:
I. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN PRONOUNCING MELCHOR RUBIN GUILTY OF VIOLATION OF SECTION 5 OF REPUBLIC ACT 9165 OR SALE OF PROHIBITED DRUGS DESPITE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO SHOW THAT A SALE EVER OCURRED;
II. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN CONVICTING MELCHOR RUBIN FOR VIOLATION OF SECTION 5 OF REPUBLIC ACT 9165 DESPITE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE CORPUS DELICTI; and
III. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN CONVICTING MELCHOR RUBIN DESPITE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE SUFFICIENTLY SHOWING GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. 10
As stated, the CA promulgated its assailed decision reversing the conviction of Rubin, to wit:
WHEREFOR, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated April 30, 2008 of the Regional Trial Court, Sixth Judicial Region, Branch 53, Bacolod City, in Crim. Case No. 03-24806, is REVERSEDand SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Melchor Rubin is ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt. Let a copy of the Decision be furnished to the Director of Prisons, Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, who is ORDERED to cause the immediate release of accused-appellant, unless he is being lawfully held for another cause, and to inform this Court of action taken within five (5) days from notice.
SO ORDERED.11
The CA rendered the following explanation for the result:
The Court cannot close its eyes to the likelihood, or at least the possibility, that at any of the links in the chain of custody over the same, there could have been tampering, alteration or substitution of substances from other cases — by accident or otherwise — in which similar evidence was seized or in which similar evidence was submitted for laboratory testing. Thus, the corpus delicti should be identified with unwavering exactitude. To emphasize, in order to remove any doubt or uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the seized drug, evidence must definitely show that the illegal drug presented in court is the same illegal drug actually recovered from the accused-appellant; otherwise, the prosecution for possession or for drug pushing under R.A. No. 9165 fails.
In this case, accused-appellant was allegedly caught selling shabu in a buy bust operation conducted by police officers. x x x Because of the built-in danger for abuse that a buy-bust operation carries, it is governed by specific procedures on the seizure and custody of drugs, separately from the general law procedures geared to ensure that the rights of people under criminal investigation and of the accused facing a criminal charge are safeguarded. x x x
With regards (sic) to the buy bust operation which allegedly transpired, PO2 Ruel Villacanas testified that:
Atty. Natuel
Q: How did you approach the accused?
Witness
A: I directly went to him, handed my money and he handed the item.
Q: Without telling him that you are looking for shabu, you just handed him the 2 P100.00 bills?
A: It is already the system in Purok Sigay." TSN, August 4, 2003, p. 36.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Did you not tell him that you are buying one (1) bulto of shabu?
A: No sir, the transaction is automatic, when we arrived, we just exchange money and shabu.
Q: Without instruction that you wanted to buy shabu, immediately you handed the 2 P100.00 bills together with the budol money of yellow pages in between?
A: Yes sir.
TSN, August 4, 2003, pp. 38-39.
On the other hand, P/Insp. Clarence Dungail, the other prosecution witness also failed to testify that he saw the actual exchange of shabu and money, thus:
xxx xxx xxx
Q: It is not a fact that awhile ago you said to my question that you were only about 10 meters distance from the accused when your poseur-buyer actually apprehended them (sic)?
A: Yes sir, through a pre-arranged signal sir we immediately proceeded to the area considering that herein accused resisted the arrest during the buy bust operation.
Q: Now this poseur-buyer offered to buy drugs from the accused?
A: What you mean sir?
Q: Requested to buy drugs from the accused, is that correct, have you heard him saying that?
A: I did not hear.
Q: You were not able to hear?
A: Yes sir.
Q: But when this poseur-buyer handed this did this poseur-buyer handed (sic) the bundle of budol money to the accused when he approached the accused?
A: I cannot testify on that sir as I have said the location of the buy bust was not visible in my location.
Q: And you have not seen him also getting something from his body and delivered to your poseur-buyer?
A: Yes sir. "
TSN, January 17, 2005, pp. 24-25.
From the testimonies of the two prosecution witnesses, it appears that a buy-bust operation was not clearly established by the prosecution.
xxx xxx xxx
The first link in the chain of custody starts with the seizure of the plastic sachet from accused-appellant. PO2 Villacanas mentioned that he placed his initials "ROV" on the confiscated sachet after apprehending accused-appellant. Notably, this testimony constituted the totality of the prosecution's evidence on the marking of the seized evidence. PO2 Villacanas' testimony lacked a detailed account on how he marked the sachet and who witnessed the marking. x x x
The second link in the chain of custody is its turnover of the seized shabu from PO2 Villacanas to P/Insp. Clarence Dungail. However, it should be pointed out that in handing over to P/Insp. Dungail the confiscated sachet, there was no acknowledgement receipt thereof. There was no clear narration either as to what time P/Insp. Dungail arrived at the scene. It appears that he came into the picture only after the arrest of accused-appellant. As mentioned earlier, he did not witness the transaction that took place between poseur-buyer and accused-appellant.
The records do not show that P/Insp. Dungail saw the markings made by PO2 Villacanas in the presence of accused-appellant. Nor do the records prove that he witnessed the consummation of the sale or that he saw PO2 Villacanas confiscate the alleged drug from accused-appellant as he testified that the area was dimly lit. Contrary to the findings of the court a quo, the records show that it was actually PO2 Villacanas who had custody of the seized sachet at the time of its transportation to the police station and not P/Insp. Dungail. The records are likewise bereft of any details as to the taking of inventory of the seized sachet.
Too, the prosecution failed to present proof pertaining to the identity of the duty desk officer of the police station who received the plastic sachet containing shabu from the buy-bust team or that PO2 Villacanas had custody of the seized item during this period or where he kept the said item for safekeeping. This is particularly significant since the seized specimen was turned over to the PNP Crime Laboratory only on May 5, 2003 and not immediately after its seizure on the same day, on May 2, 2003. It was not, therefore, clear who had temporary custody of the seized item during this significant intervening period of time. Although the records show that the request for laboratory examination of the seized plastic sachet was prepared by P/Insp. Dungail, the evidence does not pinpoint who received the marked plastic sachet when it was brought to the police station. We cannot discount even the smallest possibility that other persons besides PO2 Villacanas had access to the seized drugs tampered with the evidence inside during this intermittent period pending its delivery to the crime laboratory.
We reiterate that there is no testimony regarding the taking of inventory of the confiscated drugs. Such an irregularity in procedure was not even explained by the prosecution witnesses.
It is to be noted that there were no photographs of the suspected shabu that were taken — not in the presence of the accused or the person from whom such items were confiscated or seized, or his representative or counsel or a representative from the media and the DOJ and any elected public official who are required to sign the copies of the inventory and given a copy thereof. Any kind of explanation was not offered for this omission by the police operatives.
Another crucial link in the chain of custody pertains to transfer of the seized drugs from the police station to the Crime Laboratory for examination. The records reveal that PO2 Villacanas brought the confiscated shabu to the PNP Crime Laboratory for laboratory examination only on May 5, 2003, that is, two days after the same was seized from accused-appellant. There is no proof in the records of the name of the officer or personnel of the crime laboratory who received the specimen. x x x
In totality, personnel within the police hierarchy surely must have handled the drugs but evidence of how this was done, i.e., how it was managed, stored, preserved, labeled and recorded from the time of its seizure, to its receipt by the forensic laboratory, up until it was presented in court and subsequently destroyed — is wanting from the evidence adduced during the trial.
xxx xxx xxx
x x x Accordingly, noncompliance with the strict directive of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution's case; police procedures in the handling of confiscated evidence may still have some lapses, as in the present case. These lapses, however, must be recognized and explained in terms of their justifiable grounds, and the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized must be shown to have been preserved. The irregularities in procedure in the case at bar were not even explained nor acknowledged by the police operatives. 12
Hence, the State, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), has come to the Court on certiorari, insisting that:
X X X SERIOUS ERROR OF LAW AND GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION TAINT THE JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL SINCE:
I. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE CLEARLY ESTABLISHED PRIVATE RESPONDENT'S GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
II. THE IDENTITY OF THE ILLEGAL DRUG WAS PROPERLY ESTABLISHED. ITS INTEGRITY AND EVIDENTIARY VALUE WERE PROPERLY PRESERVED BY THE ARRESTING OFFICERS. 13
Ruling of the Court
The petition for certiorari is bereft of merit.
We declare that the CA did not gravely abuse its discretion in acquitting the accused.
Although the remedy of certiorari may be resorted to in order to undo the acquittal of an accused, the State, in order to succeed in doing so, must clearly and categorically show that the CA or other lower court had deliberately abused its authority to a point so serious as to deprive it of its very power to dispense justice. If the petition filed for that purpose, irrespective of its taxonomy, in reality only seeks a review of the findings of fact of the respondent court, the remedy of certiorari should be rejected because the constitutional right against double jeopardy of the accused would be violated thereby. Any such challenge against the acquittal must be struck down for converting the extraordinary remedy of certiorari into an appeal, which is procedurally unsound and thus impermissible, even as such a challenge violates the prohibition of the Constitution of subjecting the accused to double jeopardy. Verily, there is a definite distinction between errors of judgment and errors of jurisdiction that cannot be ignored.
It cannot be denied that the State only seeks the review and revisit of the CA's appreciation and assessment of the evidence against Rubin. Even in that regard the recourse being advocated by the OSG fails. The CA clearly and undeniably made a careful, thorough and detached consideration and appreciation of the record of the trial before arriving at the acquittal. Contrary to the OSG's remonstrations, the CA's scrutiny and review did not omit any proper evidence of the guilt of Rubin. Thereby, the CA could not be held guilty of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES the petition for certiorari for its lack of merit, without pronouncement on costs of suit.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 26-38; penned by Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid, and concurred in by Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro, and Associate Justice Florito S. Macalino.
2.Id. at 35.
3.Id.
4.Id.
5.Id. at 36.
6.Id.
7.Id. at 57-68; penned by Judge Pepito B. Gellada.
8.Id. at 68.
9.Id. at 66.
10.Id. at 37.
11.Id. at 50.
12.Id. at 41-49.
13.Id. at 12-13.