FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 242411. September 29, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,plaintiff-appellee, vs. LYNDON DAGATAN y CAÑACAO and WARREN DAGATAN y CAÑACAO,accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 29, 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 242411 (People of the Philippines v. Lyndon Dagatan y Cañacao and Warren Dagatan y Cañacao). — This is an appeal from the Decision 1 dated April 25, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02391, affirming the conviction of appellants Lyndon C. Dagatan (Lyndon) for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs and Warren C. Dagatan (Warren) for Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Sections 5 and 11, respectively, Article II, of Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. 9165), otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
On December 13, 2001, Intelligence Agent 5 David Mark Maramba (IA5 Maramba) of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) received a tip from an informant that appellants Lyndon and Warren were selling shabu in Villagonzalo II, Barangay Tejero, Cebu City. In response, IA5 Maramba formed a buy-bust team and designated Intelligence Officer 2 Jelou Paca (IO2 Paca) as the poseur-buyer. 2
On the same day, at around 1:30 in the afternoon, the buy-bust team, along with the informant, proceeded to the house of Lyndon and Warren. When they arrived, Lyndon was standing outside the house. The informant then introduced IO2 Paca to Lyndon as his "kumpare." A little later, Warren arrived and gave a pack of shabu to Lyndon upon the latter's signal. The pack of shabu was handed to IO2 Paca, who simultaneously paid with a P1,000.00 marked money. 3
Upon receipt of the pack of shabu, IO2 Paca called IA5 Maramba as their pre-arranged signal that the transaction has been consummated. The buy-bust team, led by IA5 Maramba, arrived at the scene. IO2 Paca then arrested Lyndon. Warren tried to resist, but he was subsequently subdued and arrested by IA5 Maramba. 4 Upon further searching Warren, IA5 Maramba recovered three sachets of shabu in his possession, 5 which he then turned over to IO2 Paca. 6
At the PDEA Office, IO2 Paca made an inventory of and marked all the evidence recovered from Lyndon and Warren. 7 The Certificate of Inventory 8 showed that it was signed by a certain Chito O. Aragon, a representative from the media, and Jerome B. Lim, the barangay captain. The seized items were later submitted by IO2 Paca to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory. 9 The Chemistry Report 10 signed by Forensic Chemical Expert Mutchit G. Salinas, stated that the substance seized from Lyndon and Warren tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. Lyndon was thus charged for illegal sale of dangerous drugs (Section 5 of R.A. 9165), while Warren was charged for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs (Sections 5 and 11, respectively, of R.A. 9165), before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 13, Cebu City. The Informations against Lyndon and Warren read:
For Criminal Case No. CBU-94518:
That on or about the 13th day of December 2011, at about 1:30 in the afternoon, more or less, in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, with deliberate intent and without authority of law, did then and there, sell, deliver or give away to a poseur-buyer One (1) small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet of white crystalline substance weighing 0.07 gram locally known as "shabu" containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 11
For Criminal Case No. CBU-94519:
That on or about the 13th day of December 2011, at about 1:30 o'clock in the afternoon, in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, did then and there, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver one (1) small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.07 gram of white crystalline substance to a poseur-buyer in a test-buy operation for and in consideration of One Thousand Peso Bill (Php1,000.00)[,] and when subjected to laboratory examination[,] gave positive result for Methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 12
For Criminal Case No. CBU-94520:
That on or about the 13th day of December 2011, at about 1:30 in the afternoon, in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, with deliberate intent, did then and there have in his possession and control three (3) large size heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet of white crystalline substance weighing 1.18 gram[s], locally known as shabu, containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 13
Lyndon and Warren denied the accusations against them. Lyndon averred that he was a sari-sari store owner. On December 13, 2011, at around 1 o'clock in the afternoon, while he was washing the dishes, he heard his mother from upstairs crying for help due to muscle cramps. While he was helping his mother, three men suddenly came upstairs. One of the men who was wearing a shirt with a PDEA logo then looked for a "Lyndon." When Lyndon identified himself, he was suddenly arrested. As he was worried for his mother, Lyndon did not resist. When he was brought downstairs, he saw his brother, Warren, standing with other PDEA agents. 14
Warren, for himself, narrated that on December 13, 2011, he was tending to his bingo machine when he heard a gunshot from the second floor of their house. When he attempted to check what was going on, a big man pointed a gun at him and ordered him to lie down. This man turned out to be IA5 Maramba. Subsequently, he saw that Lyndon was being brought down in handcuffs. When he asked the reason for Lyndon's arrest, he was told by the PDEA agents to come with them. 15
Eventually, Lyndon and Warren were brought to the PDEA Office. There, they were asked by the PDEA agents if they knew someone who is a "big timer," who shall be their "palit ulo" or replacement. When they answered in the negative, the PDEA agents placed them inside a detention cell. After a while, they were invited out of the detention cell and photographs of them were taken in front of a table on which packets of shabu and money were placed. They were brought back inside the detention cell afterwards. 16
After trial, the RTC rendered its Joint Decision 17 dated November 23, 2015, finding Lyndon guilty of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, and Warren guilty of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1. In Crim. Case No. CBU-94518, the court finds that Lyndon Dagatan y Cañacao is GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 5, Article II, R.A. 9165, and hereby imposes upon him the penalty of life imprisonment, without eligibility for parole, and a fine of Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00);
2. In Crim. Case No. CBU-94519, the court finds that Warren Dagatan y Cañacao is GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 5, Article II, R.A. 9165, and hereby imposes upon him the penalty of life imprisonment, without eligibility for parole, and a fine of Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00);
3. In Crim. Case No. CBU-94520, the court finds that Warren Dagatan y Cañacao is GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 11, Article II, R.A. 9165, and hereby imposes upon him the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to thirteen (13) years and a fine of Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00).
The four packs of shabu [Exhibit D] covered by Chemistry Report No. D-1478-2011 [Exhibit I] are hereby FORFEITED and CONFISCATED in favor of the government to be [DESTROYED] pursuant to R.A. 9165.
SO ORDERED. 18
On appeal, the CA affirmed the trial court's conviction of Lyndon and Warren, thus:
WHEREFORE, the Joint Decision dated November 23, 2015 rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 13, Cebu City in Criminal Case No. CBU-94518[,] convicting accused-appellant Lyndon Dagatan y Cañacao of Violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165[,] or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act[,] is AFFIRMED. The Joint Decision in Criminal Case No. CBU-94519 and Criminal Case No. CBU-94520 convicting accused-appellant Warren Dagatan y Cañacao for Violation of Section 5 and Violation of Section 11, respectively[,] of Article II of the Act is also AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 19
Hence, this appeal.
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to acquit appellants Lyndon C. Dagatan for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs and Warren C. Dagatan for Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Sections 5 and 11, respectively, Article II, of R.A. 9165.
It is well established that in cases of Illegal Sale and/or Possession of Dangerous Drugs, the identity of the prohibited drug must be established with moral certainty, considering that the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime. 20 The prosecution has to show an unbroken chain of custody over the dangerous drugs so as to obviate unnecessary doubts on the identity of the dangerous drugs on account of switching, "planting," or contaminating of evidence. 21 Consequently, the prosecution must show an unbroken chain of custody by accounting for each link in custody from the moment of seizure up to its presentation in court as evidence of the corpus delicti, in order to prove its identity beyond reasonable doubt. 22
The chain of custody is comprised of the following links: first,the seizure and marking of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third,the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court. 23
As part of the chain of custody procedure, the law requires that the apprehending team, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: (a) if prior to the amendment of R.A. 9165 by R.A. 10640, "a representative from the media AND the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official"; or, (b) if after the amendment of R.A. 9165 by R.A. 10640, "[a]n elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service OR the media." 24
In the present case, the Court finds that the apprehending officers committed glaring deviations from the chain of custody rule, thereby casting doubt on the integrity and evidentiary value of the dangerous drugs allegedly seized from appellants.
IO2 Paca testified that the inventory of the seized items was made in the PDEA Office and not at the place where these were supposedly confiscated from appellants, thus:
PROS. ANDAL
Q Mr. Witness, last time you mentioned that after Agent Maramba recovered those three packs of white crystalline substance from the accused he turned he turned (sic) them over and it was then that you returned to your office with you in custody of all the evidence, is that correct?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: When you arrived at the PDEA office, what did you do with this evidence, Mr. Witness?
A: First I made an inventory and marked all the evidence recovered. 25
The buy-bust operation in this case was conducted on December 13, 2011. 26 The applicable law, therefore, is R.A. 9165 before its amendment by R.A. 10640 in 2014. The original text of Section 21 of R.A. 9165 mandates that the seized items must be inventoried and photographed immediately after seizure and confiscation in the presence of the accused and the required witnesses. It is true that under Section 21 (a) 27 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 9165, deviation from the prescribed procedure shall not invalidate the seizure and custody of the items if non-compliance is with justifiable grounds, and as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team.
Here, however, no justifiable ground was given by the apprehending officers as to why the inventory was made at the PDEA Office. During his testimony, IO2 Paca said that the marking of the evidence was done at the PDEA Office because people were starting to gather around the area and that "it is not proper to further mark the evidence x x x." 28 In People v. Vertudes,29 the Court dismissed the police officer's explanation that the inventory was done at the barangay hall because the relatives of the accused were allegedly meddling with their operation. The Court noted that the police officers did not even allege that their safety was threatened by an immediate retaliatory action by the accused or the relatives who supposedly meddled with their operation. 30
Similarly, in this case, IO2 Paca's reason that people were gathering in the area, nothing more, is not sufficient justification to excuse compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. 9165. The mere presence of the people in the area, to be sure, would not have physically prevented the apprehending officers from taking an inventory and photographs of the seized items.
Moreover, it appears that no photographs of the seized items were taken and presented in court during trial. Upon examination of the records of the case, the photographs which the prosecution submitted during trial were photographs of the barangay official and the representative from the media presumably in the PDEA Office signing the inventory report, with the appellants behind them. The seized items were only placed on the table beside what appears to be the marked money used during the buy-bust operation. There were no photographs of the actual seized items.
In People v. Paz, 31 one of the factors which the Court took into consideration in ruling that there was non-compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. 9165 was the failure of the prosecution to present photographs of the conduct of inventory and the evidence itself. The same ruling was reached by the Court in People v. Baer, 32 where no photographs of the drug specimens were offered into evidence. In the present case, the absence of photographs of the illegal drugs supposedly confiscated from appellants is a serious breach of Section 21 of R.A. 9165 which ultimately breaks the chain of custody.
Moreover, the required witnesses under Section 21 of R.A. 9165 were not present during the conduct of the inventory. The Certificate of Inventory 33 shows that it was signed only by a representative of the media and a barangay official. As mentioned above, R.A. 9165, prior to its amendment, requires the following as witnesses to the taking of inventory and photographs of the seized items: (1) a representative from the media, (2) a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and (3) any elected public official.
In the present case, the absence of the DOJ representative was confirmed by IO2 Paca during his cross-examination, to wit:
Q It is also correct that there is no signature by the representative from the Department of Justice?
A Yes, Sir. 34
The prevailing rule is that in cases where the presence of the essential witnesses was not obtained, the prosecution must establish not only the reasons for their absence, but also that earnest efforts had been exerted to secure their presence. 35 In the present case, the prosecution failed to justify the absence of the DOJ representative and to establish that the apprehending officers exerted efforts to secure his or her presence. In fact, the prosecution never addressed this deficiency during trial, much less attempted to justify non-compliance with the rule.
In a line of cases, 36 the Court ruled that the chain of custody was not established because of the absence of any or all the required witnesses under Section 21 without justifiable reason. Verily, the presence of these witnesses is intended to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence. 37
The lapses in the chain of custody is further supported by the serious irregularities committed by the apprehending officers in the handling of the drug specimen supposedly confiscated from appellants.
IO2 Paca testified that he placed the supposed evidence in his pocket from the time he got hold of it in the crime scene until it was turned over to the crime laboratory, thus:
ATTY. BACOLOD
Q When you got hold of the evidence at the crime scene, Mr. Witness, where did you put it while going back to your station?
A It was in my pocket.
Q When you reached the police station, before it was turned over to the Crime Laboratory, where did you put the shabu that was turned over to you?
A It was in my pocket. 38
To repeat, the second link in the chain of custody is the turnover by the apprehending officer of the seized illegal drug to the investigating officer. Here, IO2 Paca effectively admitted that he did not turn over the supposed evidence to the investigating officer as he kept the item in his possession before it was turned over to the crime laboratory. Notably, the prosecution did not offer any explanation to justify this lapse in the chain of custody.
Even assuming that there was sufficient justification to excuse compliance with the second link, the Court finds that IO2 Paca's act of putting the supposed evidence in his pocket from the time of its confiscation is highly irregular. In People v. Dela Cruz, 39 the Court said that the police officer's act of putting the supposedly seized evidence in his pocket was "reckless" and "dubious." The Court ruled that such act is a doubtful and suspicious way of ensuring the integrity of the items. 40
The failure of the apprehending officers to strictly comply with the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. 9165 and establish the chain of custody, without any justifiable reason, casts doubt as to whether the supposedly seized items from appellants are the same as the ones subjected to laboratory examination and presented in court during trial. Verily, the repeated breach of the chain of custody in the present case is a fatal flaw which had destroyed the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti. 41 As such, the Court is constrained to acquit appellants based on reasonable doubt.
A final point, the Court notes that the illegal drugs supposedly seized from appellants for both charges amounted to a total of only 1.25 grams. In People v. Holgado, 42 the Court ruled that "[w]hile the miniscule amount of narcotics seized is by itself not a ground for acquittal, this circumstance underscores the need for more exacting compliance with Section 21." Citing Mallillin v. People, 43 the Court explained that this is because "the likelihood of tampering, loss or mistake with respect to an exhibit is greatest when the exhibit is small and is one that has physical characteristics fungible in nature and similar in form and substances familiar to people in their daily lives." HTcADC
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated April 25, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02391 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, appellants Lyndon C. Dagatan and Warren C. Dagatan are ACQUITTED.
The Court further DIRECTS the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Leyte, to (a) cause the IMMEDIATE RELEASE of Lyndon C. Dagatan and Warren C. Dagatan from custody unless they are being held for some other lawful cause; and (b) INFORM the Court of the action taken within five (5) days from receipt of notice. Copies shall also be furnished to the Police General of the Philippine National Police and the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for their information.
Let an entry of judgment 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. Penned by Associate Justice Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap, with Associate Justices Gabriel T. Ingles and Gabriel T. Robeniol, concurring; rollo, pp. 4-16.
2.Id. at 6-7.
3.Id. at 7.
4.Id.
5. TSN, July 28, 2014, p. 6.
6. TSN, October 8, 2013, p. 20.
7. TSN, July 14, 2014, p. 2.
8. Records, p. 29.
9. TSN, July 14, 2014, p. 6.
10.Rollo, p. 5.
11.Id. at 6.
12.Id.
13.Id. at 17-18.
14. RTC Decision, CA rollo, p. 45.
15.Id. at 45-46.
16.Id. at 46.
17. Penned by Presiding Judge Mory A. Nueva of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 13, Cebu City; CA rollo, pp. 42-53.
18.Id. at 53.
19.Rollo, pp. 15-16.
20.People v. Espejo, G.R. No. 240914, March 13, 2019; People v. Saidamen Olimpain Mama, G.R. No. 237204, October 1, 2018.
21.People v. Mamangon, 824 Phil. 728, 736 (2018).
22.People v. Libre, G.R. No. 235980, August 20, 2018.
23.People v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 235658, June 22, 2020; People v. Ubungen, 836 Phil. 888, 897 (2018).
24.Fuentes y Garcia v. People, G.R. No. 228718, January 7, 2019. (Italics and emphasis in the original.)
25. TSN, July, 14, 2014, p. 2.
26. Records, pp. 25-26.
27. (a) The apprehending officer/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: x x x Provided, further, that non-compliance with 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 of and custody over said items. (Emphasis supplied).
28. TSN, October 8, 2013, p. 20.
29. G.R. No. 220725, October 16, 2019.
30.Id.
31. 824 Phil. 1025, 1040 (2018).
32. G.R. No. 228958, August 14, 2019.
33. Records, p. 29.
34. TSN, July 14, 2014, p. 16.
35.People v. Cadiente, G.R. No. 228255, June 10, 2019.
36.People v. Balbarez, G.R. No. 246999, July 28, 2020; People v. Burdeos, G.R. No. 218434, July 17, 2019; People v. Frias, G.R. No. 234686, June 10, 2019; People v. Laway, G.R. No. 227741, March 27, 2019; People v. Malazo, G.R. No. 223713, January 7, 2019; People v. Torio, G.R. No. 225780, December 3, 2018; People v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 225061, October 10, 2018.
37.People v. Angeles, G.R. No. 224223, November 20, 2019.
38. TSN, July 14, 2014, p. 16.
39. 744 Phil. 816, 834 (2014).
40.Id.
41.People v. Diamante, G.R. No. 231980, October 9, 2019.
42. 741 Phil. 78, 99 (2014).
43. 576 Phil. 576, 588 (2008).