FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 232077. July 6, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARK LORENZ HO SOLON AND ADAMS GUIVELONDO CUEVAS, JR.,accused,
ADAMS GUIVELONDO CUEVAS, JR.,accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated July 6, 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 232077— PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, versus MARK LORENZ HO SOLON AND ADAMS GUIVELONDO CUEVAS, JR., accused;ADAMS GUIVELONDO CUEVAS, JR., accused-appellant.
After a careful review of the records of the case and the issues submitted by the parties, the Court REVERSES the Decision 1 dated May 4, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01979 which affirmed the Joint Judgment 2 dated November 6, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 30, Dumaguete City convicting accused-appellant Adams Guivelondo Cuevas, Jr. (accused-appellant) for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9165, 3 in Criminal Case No. 2013-22021. The Court acquits accused-appellant for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
In cases involving dangerous drugs, the burden of the prosecution weighs heavily on the proof of the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti, which is the dangerous drug itself. 4 To discharge this burden, the prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized items and prove compliance with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of R.A. 9165. 5 Strict compliance with these requirements is mandatory, and any deviation therefrom must be acknowledged and explained or justified by the prosecution; otherwise, the integrity and credibility of the corpus delicti are tarnished and the claim that a violation of R.A. 9165 was committed by the accused becomes questionable. 6
Section 21 imposes upon the members of the buy-bust team to comply with the following requirements: (1) the seized items must be inventoried and photographed immediately after seizure or confiscation; and (2) the physical inventory and photographing must be done in the presence of (a) the accused or his/her representative or counsel, (b) an elected public official, (c) a representative from the media, and (d) a representative from the Department of Justice, all of whom shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. 7
In a long line of cases, 8 the Court has consistently explained that the enumerated witnesses are required to be present at or near the place of arrest so that they could witness the inventory immediately after the seizure of the confiscated items to ensure the absence of any irregularities in the arrest of the accused and seizure of the dangerous drugs and at the same time, to protect the apprehending officers from accusations of frame-ups and extortion. 9 Failure to comply with this requirement jeopardizes the trustworthiness of the corpus delicti, breaks the chain of custody and, by result, puts the guilt of the accused in doubt. 10
In the instant case, the buy-bust team failed to strictly comply with this three-witness rule. The enumerated witnesses under Section 21 were not at or near the place of the arrest as indeed, they had no prior knowledge of the buy-bust operation conducted against accused appellant 11 and were merely called in after the alleged arrest and seizure had already been consummated to verify the items listed in the inventory. 12 This belated participation of the required witnesses defeats the purpose of the law and creates doubt on the accusation that the illegal drug presented in court as the corpus delicti was indeed legally seized from accused-appellant. HTcADC
Furthermore, the prosecution in this case failed to give any justifiable reason for the police officers' deviation from the law. No reasonable explanation or justification was offered as to why the required witnesses were merely called in after the apprehension of accused-appellant especially considering that the police officers in this case had more than sufficient time to comply with the law. 13
Verily, since the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the identity and integrity of the seized drug, accused-appellant must perforce be acquitted.
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal 14 is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated May 4, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01979 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Adams Guivelondo Cuevas, Jr. is hereby ACQUITTED in Criminal Case No. 2013-22021 for failure of the prosecution to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless he is being lawfully held for another cause. Let an entry of judgment be issued immediately.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Director General of the New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City for immediate implementation. The said Director General is ORDERED to REPORT to this Court within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution the action he has taken.
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. 4-23. Penned by Associate Justice Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap with Associate Justices Gabriel T. Ingles and Germano Francisco D. Legaspi, concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 13-32. Penned by Judge Rafael Crescencio C. Tan, Jr.
3. 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."
4.People v. Labsan, G.R. No. 227184, February 6, 2019, 892 SCRA 112, 128.
5.People v. Supat, G.R. No. 217027, June 6, 2018, 865 SCRA 45, 82.
6. See People v. Que, G.R. No. 212994, January 31, 2018, 853 SCRA 487.
7.People v. De Leon, G.R. No. 214472, November 28, 2018, 887 SCRA 349, 363.
8. See People v. Que, supra note 6; People v. Marcelo, G.R. No. 228893, November 26, 2018, 887 SCRA 97; People v. Asaytuno, Jr., G.R. No. 245972, December 2, 2019; People v. Caranto, G.R. No. 217668, February 20, 2019, 894 SCRA 18; People v. Castillo y Maranan, G.R. No. 238339, August 7, 2019; Tañamor y Acibo v. People, G.R. No. 228132, March 11, 2020.
9. See People v. Rabino, G.R. No. 247526, February 10, 2021, pp. 2-3 (Unsigned Resolution).
10.Tañamor y Acibo v. People, supra note 8, at 13.
11. TSN, August 11 , 2014, pp. 6-9; TSN, August 18, 2014, pp. 1-16.
12.Id.
13. See rollo, pp. 8-9.
14.Id. at 24-25.