FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 254631. September 14, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.ALBERTO DANGOY y TAGOTONGAN @ "AGIPO" OR "AGIW'', respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 14, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 254631 (People of the Philippines v. Alberto Dangoy y Tagotongan @ "Agipo" or "Agiw''). — The conviction of Alberto Dangoy y Tagotongan for Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs is the subject of review in this Appeal assailing the Court of Appeals' Decision dated August 20, 2020 in CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 02918, 1 which affirmed the findings of the Regional Trial Court. 2
We acquit.
For an accused to be convicted of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, the prosecution must establish: (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold, and its payment. 3 On the other hand, in prosecutions for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, it must be shown that: (a) the accused was in possession of an item or object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug; (b) such possession is not authorized by law, and; (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. 4 The corpus delicti is the dangerous drug itself. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is necessary to prove that the seized item is the very same object tested to be positive for dangerous drugs and presented in court. Since the existence of the dangerous drug is crucial to a judgment of conviction, it is indispensable that the identity of the prohibited drug is established with the same unwavering exactitude as that required to make a finding of guilt. To this end, the prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized items. 5 EcTCAD
To ensure that the drug specimens presented in the court as evidence against the accused, are the same drugs seized from him. Section 21, 6 Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 7 outlines the post-seizure procedure to be observed by the apprehending officers for the custody and disposition of the seized drugs, to wit:
SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, x x x so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending 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 copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof;
xxx xxx xxx 8
To this end, the prosecution must satisfactorily establish the movement and custody of the seized drug through the following links: first, the confiscation and marking of the specimen seized from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the seized item by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the investigating officer's turnover of the specimen to the forensic chemist for examination; and fourth, the submission of the item by the forensic chemist to the court. 9 Here, we find that the identity of the corpus delicti had been compromised.
There is a breach in the third link or the transmittal of the dangerous drugs to the crime laboratory. Police Officer 1 Carlito Gamalo (PO1 Gamalo) testified that, after the inventory on February 17, 2014, he brought the seized items from the barangay outpost to the Provincial Intelligence Branch (PIB) office and kept them inside his locker. 10 The following day or on February 18, 2014, PO1 Gamalo delivered the specimens to the crime laboratory for qualitative examination. 11 These narration of facts are wanting of the precautionary details that PO1 Gamalo took to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs while they were in his custody. There was no showing that PO1 Gamalo had sole access to the locker, nor did he clarify that the locker remained closed from the moment the 12 sachets of shabu were stored. It was also unclear whether the locker contained only the confiscated drugs, or similar items, i.e., identical evidence recovered from other buy-bust operations conducted by the PIB. Further, there were no details on the retrieval of the seized items before they were turned over to the crime laboratory. We are left to speculate the integrity of the specimens since the prosecution failed to rule out the possibility of substitution of the seized items. 12
In People v. Abetong, 13 the confiscated drug was kept in the evidence locker of the Drug Enforcement Unit Office and removed three (3) days later for delivery to the crime laboratory. The testimony of the apprehending officer that the inspector was the lone key holder of the evidence locker was insufficient to attest that the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs were preserved during the three-day interval. The prosecution offered no evidence on what safety mechanisms have been installed by the inspector, consequently resulting in a break in the chain of custody. Thus, we held in Abetong14 that the seized drug was exposed to a higher probability of tampering or alteration. As in this case, the prosecution failed to account for the manner by which PO1 Gamalo handled and preserved the 12 sachets of shabu in the PIB office before they were turned over to the crime laboratory.
The fourth link in the chain is also tainted with infirmity. The prosecution established that PO1 Gamalo delivered the drugs to Bohol Provincial Crime Laboratory where they were received by Police Officer 3 Aurelia Bagundol. Later, Police Chief Inspector Pinky Acog (PCI Acog) conducted a qualitative examination on the specimens. 15 Nothing in the records, however, would show how the drugs were linked from the custody of the receiving personnel to the forensic chemist. There was no evidence, who submitted the specimens to PCI Acog for examination. In addition, the records do not reflect the chain of handling the specimens after the forensic chemist completed her examination and before the drugs were submitted to the trial court. Apparently, the prosecution failed to establish the identities of: (1) the person who had custody of the specimens after they were examined by PCI Acog; (2) the person who received the drugs for safekeeping pending its presentation in the court; and (3) lastly, the person who submitted the drugs to the trial court. 16 The prosecution failed to prove the continuous custody of the dangerous drugs from the time they were confiscated until they were offered in evidence.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused is presumed innocent of the charges laid, unless the contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution. In drug cases, the prosecution has the burden of establishing the identity of the confiscated items. 17 The accused's conviction depends on the integrity of the illicit drugs, which are the very corpus delicti of the offenses. Indeed, a unique characteristic of narcotic substances is that they are not readily identifiable as they are subject to scientific analysis to determine their composition and nature. The risk of tampering, loss, or mistake is greatest, 18 and the prosecution is duty-bound to negate the risks involved with moral certainty. We stress, while the law enforcers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties, this presumption cannot prevail over the constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent and it cannot by itself constitute proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of regularity is disputable and cannot be regarded as binding truth. 19 It is effectively destroyed when the performance of duty is tainted with irregularities. 20 Accordingly, the accused Alberto Dangoy y Tagotongan must be acquitted. AScHCD
FOR THESE REASONS, the Appeal is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals' Decision dated August 20, 2020 in CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 02918 is REVERSED. Alberto Dangoy y Tagotongan @ "Agipo" or "Agiw" is ACQUITTED and is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention unless he is being lawfully held for another cause. Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City for immediate implementation. The Director General is directed to report to this Court the action taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
The accused-appellant's manifestation (in lieu of supplemental brief), pursuant to the Resolution dated February 17, 2021, is NOTED; and the accused-appellant is hereby required to SUBMIT, within five (5) days from notice hereof, a soft copy in compact disc, USB or e-mail containing the PDF file of the signed manifestation in lieu of supplemental brief pursuant to A.M. Nos. 10-3-7-SC and 11-9-4-SC.
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. 6-20. Penned by Associate Justice Pamela Ann Abella Maxino, with concurrence of Associate Justices Gabriel T. Ingles and Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap.
2. CA rollo, pp. 54-64. Penned by Presiding Judge Sisinio C. Virtudazo.
3.People v. Flor, 824 Phil. 46, 53 (2018).
4.People v. Que, 824 Phil. 882, 893 (2018).
5.People v. Enad, 780 Phil. 346, 358 (2016).
6. See RA No. 10640 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. RA No. 10640 states that it shall "take effect fifteen (15) days after its complete publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation." Verily, a copy of the law was published on July 23, 2014 in the respective issues of The Philippine Star (Vol. XXVIII, No. 359, Philippine Star Metro section, p. 21) and the Manila Bulletin (Vol. 499, No. 23, World News section, p. 6); hence, RA No. 10640 became effective on August 7, 2014.
7. 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 on June 7, 2002.
8. This is implemented by Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA No. 9165 which reads as follows:
SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, x x x so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(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: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and 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;
xxx xxx xxx
9.People v. Bugtong, 826 Phil. 628, 638-639 (2018).
10. CA rollo, p. 78.
11.Rollo, p. 9.
12.People v. Sagana, 815 Phil. 356, 376 (2017).
13. 735 Phil. 476, 487-488 (2014).
14.Supra.
15.Rollo, p. 9; CA rollo, p. 57.
16. See People v. Plaza, G.R. No. 235467, August 20, 2018; People v. Veedor, Jr., 834 Phil. 88, 104-105 (2018); People v. Mola, 830 Phil. 364, 380-381 (2018); People v. De Guzman, 825 Phil. 43, 59 (2018).
17.People v. Sagana, 815 Phil. 356, 376 (2017).
18.Cariño v. People, 600 Phil. 433, 447 (2009); Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 588 (2008).
19.Mallillin v. People, supra at 593; People v. Cañete, 433 Phil. 781, 794 (2002).
20.People v. Dela Cruz, 589 Phil. 259, 272 (2008).