FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 251623. August 17, 2022.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. LESLIE CRUZ y AMODIA and MARIE JOY CADIZ y HABOZA, accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 17, 2022which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 251623 (People of the Philippines v. Leslie Cruz y Amodia and Marie Joy Cadiz y Haboza). — Before this Court is an appeal 1 filed by Leslie Cruz y Amodia (Cruz) and Marie Joy Cadiz y Haboza (Cadiz) assailing the September 23, 2019 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 11857, which affirmed the August 15, 2018 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 97 in Criminal Case No. R-QZN-16-12850-CR finding Cruz and Cadiz guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 26 (b) in relation to Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, 4 otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
The Factual Antecedents
On August 15, 2016, an Information 5 was filed against Cruz and Cadiz for violation of Section 26 (b) in relation to Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, which alleges:
That on or about the (sic) October 28, 2016, Quezon City, Philippines, said accused, conspiring together, confederating with and mutually helping each other, without lawful authority did then and there willfully and unlawfully attempt to sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport, or act as broker in said transaction, a dangerous drugs (sic), to wit: four point fifty (4.50) grams and four point forty seven (4.47) grams with a total net weight of eight point ninety seven (8.97) grams of white crystalline substance containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 6
On February 15, 2017, Cruz and Cadiz were arraigned and both pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. 7 After pre-trial, trial on the merits followed. 8 The facts as narrated in the CA Decision are as follows:
On October 27, 2016, at about 2:00 [p.m.], while [Police Officer 1 Alvin John Fermin (PO1 Fermin) and [Police Officer 1] Lesly Allan Corpuz (PO1 Corpuz) and their colleagues were at Station Anti-illegal Drugs-Special Operation Task Group (SAID-SOTG), Novaliches Police Station (PS-4), Quezon City Police District (QCPD), a regular informant reported to the said office that a certain "Lesley," who was later identified as accused-appellant Leslie Amodia Cruz, was allegedly involved in illegal drug trade activities operating in Quezon City, Caloocan City, Bulacan and Cavite.
Subsequently, Team Leader [Police Senior Inspector] Dennis P. Francisco formed a team composed of [Police Officer 1] Fermin and [Police Officer 1 Corpuz [PO1 Corpuz], together with [Senior Police Officer 1] Cesar Collado, [Police Officer 3] Fernando Salonga, [Police Officer 2] Jeffrey Suba, [Police Officer 2] Arthur Santos II, [Police Officer 1] John Dalle Ang, [Police Officer 1] Daryl Ciriaco, [Police Officer 1] John Benedict Naval, [Police Officer 1] Emmer Amar, [Police Officer 1] Jeams Menoza, [Police Officer 1] Sherwin Bumagat and [Police Officer 1] Anthony Baldeo to conduct a buy-bust operation against accused-appellant Leslie. The affiants then prepared a Pre-Operation Report and Coordination addressed to the District Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Group (DAID-SOTG) and Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) with control number 10001-102016-0805.
PO1 Corpuz, the designated poseur-buyer, was provided with one x x x piece of [P1000.00]-bill with serial number BA318705 which was marked with the initials "LC" and incorporated to the [49] pieces of bogus [P1000.00]-bills. The pre-arranged signal of the consummated drug deal would be the removal of the said poseur-buyer's cap. On the other hand, the rest of the team of the buy-bust operation would serve as perimeter backup.
At around 10:00 [p.m.] of the same date, the buy-bust operation team instructed the regular confidential informant to contact accused-appellant Leslie through his cellphone and inform the latter that he knew someone who wanted to purchase shabu worth [P]50,000.00. Eventually, accused-appellant relayed to the confidential informant that he would meet him in front of Jordan Plains Subdivision at around 3[:00 a.m.] of the following day, October 28, 2016.
On October 28, 2016 at about 2:40 [a.m.], the buy-bust operation team arrived at the aforementioned area and strategically positioned themselves from a viewing distance. Consequently, the informant spotted a white Toyota Corolla with plate number WNN 476 and informed PO1 Corpuz that the vehicle was that of accused-appellant Leslie. As such, PO1 Corpuz approached accused-appellant Leslie's vehicle, together with the informant who introduced him as the buyer of the shabu worth [P]50,000.00. Likewise, accused-appellant Leslie was with a companion who was later identified as accused-appellant Marie Joy.
In their brief interaction, PO1 Corpuz asked accused-appellant Leslie, "panalo ba yan pare?" to which the latter replied, "panalo to 'tol," upon getting the shabu from the center console of the car and showing the same to him. Afterwards, accused-appellant's companion Marie Joy uttered, "Bilisan niyo, akin na yung bayad, may aabutan pa kami, mainit ngayon sa mga pulis." When PO1 Corpuz was about to hand over the payment, accused-appellant Leslie sensed that he was a police [officer], shouted to her companion, "Pulis yan, yari tayo," immediately pulled up the gun tucked to his waist and fired it while escaping towards the direction of Quirino [H]ighway which propelled PO1 Corpuz and his team to run after accused-appellants. In the course of the car chase, accused-appellants stopped along Regalado Avenue near Commonwealth Medical Center and after which accused-appellant Leslie alighted from their vehicle, ran into a vacant lot and at the same time started shooting at the police operatives prompting the latter to fire back. Eventually, accused-appellant Leslie surrendered, and accused-appellants were then arrested.
After accused-appellants were arrested, PO1 Fermin confiscated the gun loaded with magazine and six x x x live ammunition (marked as AJF-LCA1-10-28-16, AJF-LCA-10-28-16, AJF-LCA2-10-28-16, AJF-LCA3-10-28-16, AJF-LCA4-10-28-16, AJF-LCA5-10-28-16, AJF-LCA6-10-28-16 & AJF-LCA7-10-28-16) from accused-appellant Leslie's possession and simultaneously introduced themselves as police officers and stated the constitutional rights of the accused-appellants.
As standard operating procedure, PO1 Corpuz searched and frisked accused-appellant Leslie and recovered from his right front pocket of his worn shortpants two x x x partially big heat-sealed transparent sachets containing white crystalline substance suspected to be shabu (marked as LAC-LCA-10-28-16, & LAC-LCA1-10-28-16). In the same manner, PO1 Corpuz recovered one x x x pair of surgical scissor (marked as LAC-LCA2-10-28-16) and one x x x digital weighing scale (marked as LAC-LCA3-10-28-16) upon his search of accused-appellant's vehicle.
Accused-appellants, identified as Leslie Cruz y Amodia and Marie Joy Cadiz y Haboza, were brought to the police station and presented to the duty desk officer together with the seized evidence for investigation and proper disposition. Thereafter, the apprehended accused-appellants, together with the confiscated evidence, were brought and turned over to Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory Office, PS-10, Kamuning Edsa, Quezon City for laboratory examination, drug test[,] and physical examination[,] and the result of the laboratory examination on the seized drugs yielded positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
For his part, accused-appellant Leslie maintained that the accusations hurled against him were erroneous. He testified that he was only charged of the instant offense on the basis that the illegal drugs and firearms were recovered from a car which belonged to the husband of her (sic) friend's daughter, and that he was arrested at 1:00 [a.m.] in Regalado, Fairview. He narrated that he drove the newly bought car of his friend to an apartelle and that on his way home, there were persons on board another vehicle wearing civilian clothes who blocked their track somewhere near a 7-eleven convenience store and started to chase them. When the said armed men caught up with him, they shot the windshield of the car he was driving and brought him to a grassy area while leaving his vehicle behind. According to accused-appellant Leslie, the armed men took his watch and wallet, asked him whether he had guns or firearms with him, forced him to kneel down whilst a gun was poked at his head, and as a result he begged for mercy and pleaded with them but, instead, he was brought inside their motor vehicle where he was forced to confess. Accused-appellant argued that the [individuals] drove around and it was on that occasion that he was told that illegal drugs and firearms were found inside his motor vehicle. He further contended that accused-appellant Marie Joy accompanied the armed [individuals] to the residence of the owner of the car who was supposedly demanded to give the sum of [P]100,000.00 for their release, and that when the son-in-law of the latter was not able to produce the money, said accused-appellant, Marie Joy and his friend were taken to Station 4 where they were forced to point to the illegal drugs placed on a table. Accused-appellant simply corroborated the narration of facts of accused-appellant Leslie. 9
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
On August 15, 2018, the RTC rendered its Decision convicting accused-appellants for violation of Section 26 (b) in relation to Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. The RTC gave credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and found that all the elements of the crime were sufficiently established by evidence. 10 The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, upon the view the court takes on the foregoing, the court renders judgment finding accused Leslie Cruz y Amodia and Marie Joy Cadiz y Haboza GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Section 26(b) in relation to Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and sentences each of the accused to suffer the penalty of Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Php500,000.00.
The period of preventive imprisonment during which the accused were detained shall be credited in their favor.
The Branch Clerk of Court is directed to turn over the specimens to the Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB), through the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) to be disposed of in accordance with law, and the receipt of transmittal shall be attached to the record of the case.
Furnish copies of this judgment to the Office of the DDB and PDEA, Office of the PNP Director General, District Director of the QCPD, as well as the Station Commander of Novaliches Police Station, Quezon City Police District for their proper guidance.
Cost against the accused.
SO ORDERED. 11
Aggrieved by the decision of the RTC, Cruz and Cadiz filed an appeal before the CA.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
In its Decision dated September 23, 2019, the CA denied the accused-appellants' appeal and affirmed the lower court's decision. Similar to the RTC, it gave full faith and credence to the narration of the police officers and found that Cruz and Cadiz had indeed attempted to sell, transport, dispense, or deliver illegal drugs. The buy-bust operation against the accused-appellants was valid and the apprehending team's noncompliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 was not fatal considering that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. The CA thus ruled:
IN LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, the instant appeal is DENIED. Accordingly, the Decision dated August 15, 2018 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 97, of Quezon City in Criminal Case No. R-QZN-16-12850-CR for violation of Section 26(b) in relation to Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 12
Hence, the instant appeal.
Issue
The sole issue to be resolved in the present case is whether the accused-appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 26 (b) in relation to Section 5, Article II of RA 9165.
Our Ruling
The appeal is meritorious.
Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 makes it illegal for any person to sell any dangerous drug regardless of its quantity and purity. To be convicted of this crime, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt the following elements: (1) identity of the seller and the buyer; (2) the object and consideration of the sale; and, (3) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. 13
A crime is attempted when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, but fails to perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. 14 Section 26 (b) of RA 9165 penalizes the crime of attempted sale of dangerous drugs as follows:
SEC. 26. Attempt or Conspiracy. — Any attempt or conspiracy to commit the following unlawful acts shall be penalized by the same penalty prescribed for the commission of the same as provided under this Act:
xxx xxx xxx
b) Sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution and transportation of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical; x x x
In illegal drugs cases, the confiscated drug constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is essential to sustain a guilty verdict. It is of prime importance that the prosecution sufficiently establish beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the dangerous drug. It must be proven with moral certainty that the substance obtained from the accused during the buy-bust operation is exactly the same substance offered in evidence before the court. 15 Thus, in order to prevent any unnecessary doubt as to its identity and integrity, the prosecution has to show an unbroken chain of custody over the dangerous drug and account for each link in the chain of custody from the moment it is seized up to its presentation in court as evidence of the crime. 16
In the case at bar, even if this Court were to believe as true the prosecution's version of the facts, the accused-appellants cannot be found guilty of violating Section 26 (b) of RA 9165 because of the police officers' failure to strictly comply with requirements laid down under Section 21 of the same law.
Section 21 provides the procedural safeguards that the apprehending team must observe in the custody and handling of seized illegal drugs in order to preserve their identity and integrity as evidence. "While it is true that a buy-bust operation is a legally effective and proven procedure, sanctioned by law, for apprehending drug peddlers and distributors, the law nevertheless also requires strict compliance with procedures laid down by it to ensure that rights are safeguarded." 17 Section 21 under RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, 18 states:
(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: x x x
It bears emphasis that RA 10640, which took effect on July 23, 2014, amended Section 21 of RA 9165 by requiring only two witnesses to be present during the conduct of the physical inventory and taking of photograph of the seized items, namely: (a) an elected public official; and, (b) either a representative from the National Prosecution Service (NPS) or the media. Prior to its amendment, three witnesses were required, namely: a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official. As the crime in this case was committed on October 28, 2016, the amended version of Section 21 is applicable.
A review of the records of the instant case would show that only the media representative, ABS-CBN Field Reporter Freddie Cipress, was present during the time the police officers conducted the inventory of the seized drugs. 19 Moreover, the inventory receipt was not signed by the accused, as required by Section 21; it only contained the signatures of Freddie Cipress and Jun Tobias, a reporter from Saksi/Bomba/Hirit. 20
Given the fact that a buy-bust operation is, by its very nature, a planned activity, it strains credulity why the buy-bust team could not have ensured the presence of the required witnesses. Verily, a buy-bust team normally has ample time to gather and bring with it the said witnesses. 21 The law requires their presence in order to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and to guard against the evils of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence. 22
While this Court has ruled that the absence of the required witnesses does not per se render the confiscated items inadmissible, a justifiable reason for such failure or a showing of any genuine and sufficient effort to secure the required witnesses must first be adduced. 23 Any discrepancy should be reasonably explained and accounted for, otherwise, the regularity of the entire seizure procedure would be put into question. 24 Here, the prosecution did not proffer any explanation as to why the police officers deviated from the procedure under Section 21, or whether they exerted earnest efforts in securing the presence of the required witnesses. The multiple breaches and the lack of justification therefor effectively tainted the integrity of the seized drugs presented in court; thus, the very identity of the seized drugs became highly questionable.
The unexplained gaps in the chain of custody give rise to the probability that the evidence seized from Cruz and Cadiz may have been compromised while under police custody, thereby militating against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. As this Court held in People v. Claudel: 25
Under the last paragraph of Section 21(a), Article II of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165, a saving mechanism has been provided to ensure that not every case of non-compliance with the procedures for the preservation of the chain of custody will irretrievably prejudice the prosecution's case against the accused. To warrant the application of this saving mechanism, however, the Prosecution must recognize the lapse or lapses, and justify or explain them. Such justification or explanation would be the basis for applying the saving mechanism. Yet, the Prosecution did not concede such lapses, and did not even tender any token justification or explanation for them. The failure to justify or explain underscored the doubt and suspicion about the integrity of the evidence of the corpus delicti. With the chain of custody having been compromised, the accused deserves acquittal. 26
From the foregoing, this Court finds that the prosecution failed to show that the chain of custody was properly preserved. Therefore, proof beyond reasonable doubt was likewise not established. Accordingly, the acquittal of the accused-appellants is warranted.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The September 23, 2019 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 11857 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellants Leslie Cruz y Amodia and Marie Joy Cadiz y Haboza are ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. They are ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless they are confined for some other lawful cause.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City and the Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for Women, Mandaluyong City, for immediate implementation. They are further DIRECTED to report to this Court the action taken hereon within five days from receipt of this Resolution.
Let entry of final judgement be issued immediately.
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. 14-15.
2. Id. at 3-13. Penned by Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante and concurred in by Associate Justices Pablito A. Perez and Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig.
3. CA rollo, pp. 42-57. Penned by Acting Presiding Judge Marilou D. Runes-Tamang.
4. Entitled "AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES." Approved: June 7, 2002.
5. Records, pp. 1-2.
6. Id. at 1. Emphasis in the original.
7. Id. at 34-35.
8. Id. at 41-43.
9. Rollo, pp. 5-8.
10. CA rollo, p. 56.
11. Id. at 56-57.
12. Rollo, pp. 12-13.
13. People v. Baldugo, G.R. No. 242275, February 3, 2021 (Notice).
14. People v. Buniag, G.R. No. 217661, June 26, 2019.
15. Id.
16. People v. Baldugo, supra.
17. People v. Manabat, G.R. No. 242947, July 17, 2019.
18. Entitled "AN ACT TO FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE ANTI-DRUG CAMPAIGN OF THE GOVERNMENT, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE SECTION 21 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS 'THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002.'" Approved on July 15, 2014.
19. Records, p. 120.
20. Id. at 115.
21. People v. Claudel, G.R. No. 219852, April 03, 2019.
22. People v. Esguerra, G.R. No. 243986, January 22, 2020.
23. People v. Ramos, 826 Phil. 981, 996 (2018).
24. People v. Lumaya, 827 Phil. 473, 487 (2018).
25. Supra.
26. Id., citing People v. Reyes, 797 Phil. 671, 690 (2016).