SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 240446. October 13, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. NIDA DATUWATA y MAMA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated13 October 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 240446 (People of the Philippines v. Nida Datuwata y Mama). — This is an Appeal 1 from the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision 2 dated August 9, 2017 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08499 which affirmed the Decision 3 dated March 28, 2016 of Branch 78, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Quezon City. The RTC found Nida Datuwata y Mama (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 5 and 15, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002." 4
The Antecedents
Accused-appellant was charged under the following Informations:
[Criminal Case No. Q-08-150611]
That on or about the 13th day of September 2007 in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, not being authorized by law to sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any dangerous drug, did then and there, willfully and unlawfully sell, dispense, deliver, transport, distribute or act as broker in the said transaction, twelve point thirty five (12.35) grams of white crystalline substance containing Methylamphetamine hydrochloride also known as "[s]habu[,]" a dangerous drug. 5
[Criminal Case No. Q-08-150612]
That on or about the 13th day of September 2007 in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, knowingly use or introduce into her body methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug[,] without authority of law. 6
When arraigned, accused-appellant entered a plea of not guilty to the violations charged. 7
Trial ensued. 8
Version of the Prosecution
The prosecution established that in the morning of September 13, 2007, a confidential informant (CI) went to the office of Police Officer 3 Manuel Caparal (PO3 Caparal) and reported that a certain "Nora" was engaged in Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs in Muñoz, Quezon City. Nora offered the CI a commission if the latter would find a buyer of shabu. 9
PO3 Caparal, together with other police officers, immediately arranged a buy-bust operation. PO3 Caparal acted as the poseur-buyer. Thereafter, the CI contacted accused-appellant and both agreed to meet at Jollibee in Muñoz, Quezon City. Meanwhile, the buy-bust team coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) and local police officials, and secured an authority to operate before proceeding to the target area. 10 CAIHTE
The team arrived at Jollibee Muñoz. PO3 Caparal and the CI then took a seat inside. Thereafter, accused-appellant arrived and casually approached the table where PO3 Caparal and the CI were seated. The CI introduced PO3 Caparal as the buyer of shabu. Accused-appellant then asked PO3 Caparal if he had the money, but the latter wanted to see the item first. Accused-appellant told them to wait for her phone call as she would get the item. 11
At around 5:00 p.m., the CI received a call from accused-appellant. Accused-appellant told the CI that she was waiting at McDonald's Muñoz which was next to Jollibee. PO3 Caparal and the CI then proceeded to McDonald's and approached accused-appellant who was seated beside the counter. Accused-appellant again demanded to see the money, but PO3 Caparal insisted to see the item first. Accused-appellant opened her handbag, took out a white plastic bag containing one heat-sealed transparent plastic bag with brownish crystalline substance, and showed it to PO3 Caparal. After confirming that the plastic bag contained suspected shabu, PO3 Caparal handed the money to accused-appellant. 12
After the exchange, PO3 Caparal tucked his shirt which was the pre-arranged signal that the sale had taken place. Thereafter, Special Agent Rico Maisog (Agent Maisog) and the other arresting officers arrived at the scene, introduced themselves to accused-appellant, informed her of her violation, and arrested her. To avoid any commotion with the onlookers, the PDEA agents immediately brought accused-appellant to the barangay hall in Brgy. Piñahan, Quezon City. In the presence of accused-appellant and barangay officials Juanito Olonan and Benjamin Navarez, PO3 Caparal marked the plastic bag containing shabu with the markings "MCC/RGM 13 September 07'', while the other agents took photographs and conducted an inventory of the seized items. PO3 Caparal and Agent Maisog executed an affidavit of arrest while PO2 Rogelito Daculla prepared the booking sheet and the request for laboratory and physical examination of accused-appellant. 13
On the same day, PO3 Caparal brought the request together with the confiscated items to the PDEA laboratory for qualitative examination. Forensic Chemist Severino Uy, Jr. (Uy) received the request. After examination, Uy found the specimen to be positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. Accused-appellant's medical examination and urine sample likewise tested positive for the presence of dangerous drugs. 14
Version of the Defense
Accused-appellant denied the charges against her. She averred that on September 13, 2007, while she was preparing dinner, some men barged into her house and pointed a gun at her. They forced her to board a van and brought her to the PDEA office. They told her that she could be freed if she gave them P1,000,000.00 which was later lowered to P700,000.00. 15
Ruling of the RTC
On March 28, 2016, the RTC rendered a Decision, 16 the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1) In Criminal Case No. Q-08-150611, the Court finds the accused Nida Datuwata y Mama GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of having violated the provisions of Section 5, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 more known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (drug-sale) and hereby sentences her to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine in the amount of P500,000.00 pesos, Philippine Currency. The accused being a detention prisoner, her period of detention shall be properly credited in her favor in conformity with the provisions of our laws.
2) In Criminal Case No. Q-08-150612, and finding accused Nida Datuwata y Mama GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of [v]iolation of Section 15, Article II, RA 9165 (drug-use), and sentencing her to undergo rehabilitation for at least six (6) months in a government rehabilitation center under the auspices of the Bureau of Correction subject to the provisions of Article VIII, RA 9165.
It is further ordered that the plastic sachet containing shabu, subject of Criminal Case No. Q-08-150611, be transmitted to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for the latter's appropriate disposition.
Let the Mittimus and necessary documents be prepared for the immediate transfer of the custody of the accused to the Correctional Institution for Women, Barangay Addition Hills, Nueve de Pebrero Street, Mandaluyong City pursuant to OCA Circular No. 4-92-A.
SO ORDERED. 17
The RTC gave weight and credence to the evidence presented by the prosecution because of the positive testimonies of PO3 Caparal and Agent Maisog. 18 The RTC likewise ruled that the prosecution substantially complied with the requirements under RA 9165 and sufficiently established the crucial links in the chain of custody. 19
Aggrieved, accused-appellant filed an Appeal 20 to the CA. DETACa
Ruling of the CA
On August 9, 2017, the CA agreed with the findings of the RTC and affirmed 21 accused-appellant's conviction of the charged offenses.
Hence, the Appeal 22 before the Court.
The Issue
The principal issue for the Court's Resolution is whether accused-appellant's guilt of violation of Sections 5 and 15, Article II of RA 9165 has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Our Ruling
The appeal is meritorious.
The elements of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 are: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. 23
For a successful prosecution of the offense of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, not only must the prosecution establish the above elements, it is equally essential that the identity of the dangerous drug be established with moral certainty considering that the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus delicti of the offense. 24
Thus, the prosecution must be able to account for each link of the chain of custody from the moment the drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as evidence of the offense. 25 As part of the chain of custody procedure, the law requires, inter alia, that the marking, physical inventory, and photography of the seized items be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation of the same. 26
The law further requires that the inventory and photography be done 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 RA 9165 by RA 10640, 27 a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official; or (b) if after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media. 28
In cases where strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure is not possible, non-compliance with the witness requirement may be permitted if the prosecution proves that the apprehending officers exerted genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of the required witnesses, albeit the latter failed to appear. 29
After a review of the records of the case, the Court finds that the prosecution utterly failed to prove the corpus delicti of the offense of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs as it failed to demonstrate that the police officers observed the requirements mandated by Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. The violations charged were purportedly committed on September 13, 2007 when RA 9165 was not yet amended by RA 10640. Thus, the three-witness rule applies.
In the case, there was a deviation from the three-witness requirement under RA 9165. It appears that only barangay officials witnessed the inventory. The other required witnesses, i.e., a representative from the media and the DOJ, were not present to witness the inventory of the seized items.
The procedure on the custody and handling of the seized dangerous drugs authorizes "substantial compliance," provided that the prosecution satisfactorily proves that: (1) there is justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (2) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. 30
However, nothing in the records would show that the police officers or the prosecution provided any justifiable reason for the failure to observe the three-witness requirement. The affidavit of arrest and the affidavit of the poseur-buyer did not even mention any justifiable reason why the inventory was witnessed only by barangay officials. Neither did the prosecution show that the police officers exerted genuine and earnest efforts to secure the presence of the required witnesses to the inventory.
Considering that the marking and inventory of the allegedly seized item were highly questionable, there is no assurance that the drugs tested in the laboratory and presented in court were the same drugs allegedly confiscated from accused-appellant. Evidently, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized sachets of shabu have not been preserved.
The prosecution's sweeping guarantees as to the identity and integrity of seized drugs will not secure a conviction. 31 In drug cases, conviction cannot be sustained if there is a persistent doubt on the identity of the drug. The identity of the prohibited drug must be established with moral certainty. Apart from showing that the elements of illegal possession or illegal sale are present, the fact that the substance illegally sold or possessed in the first place is the same substance offered in court as exhibit must likewise be established with the same degree of certitude as that needed to sustain a guilty verdict. 32
The Court holds that the evidence on record and the circumstances obtaining here do not support a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In light of this, accused-appellant must perforce be acquitted as regards the charge of violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165.
In view of accused-appellant's acquittal of the charge of violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, it follows then that she should likewise be acquitted in Criminal Case No. Q-08-150612 as to the charge of violation of Section 15, Article II of RA 9165.
It must be pointed out that the case of violation of Section 15, Article II of RA 9165 was filed because accused-appellant was found positive for the use of methamphetamine hydrochloride after she was subjected to a drug test following her arrest in compliance with Section 38, 33 Article III of RA 9165.
In People v. Angeles, 34 wherein the accused-appellant was charged with violations of Sections 5 and 15, Article II of RA 9165, the Court had the occasion to rule:
The results of the drug test cannot thus be used against the accused-appellant for it is considered, under the law, as "fruit of the poisonous tree." x x x.
xxx xxx xxx.
[S]ince the apprehension of the accused-appellant by the police officers was illegal for non-compliance with the procedure provided by Section 21, RA 9165, it therefore follows that the drug test conducted on him was likewise illegal for it is an indirect result of his arrest. Otherwise stated, if the accused-appellant was not arrested in the first place, he would not have been subjected to a drug test because Section 38 refers to "any person apprehended or arrested for violating the provisions of this Act." As the accused-appellant was not proved to have violated any of the provisions of RA 9165, then the drug test conducted on him has no leg to stand on. The accused-appellant must perforce be also acquitted of the charge of violating Section 15, RA 9165. 35 aDSIHc
In the case at bar, accused-appellant's acquittal of violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 is due to the failure of the prosecution to prove the corpus delicti of the offense of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs when the police officers failed to comply with the three-witness rule. Applying the above-stated ruling, accused-appellant should also be acquitted of the charge of violation of Section 15, Article II of RA 9165.
In fine, reasonable doubt does exist in the present case. Because the quantum of proof required for the conviction of accused-appellant of the violations charged was not met, her acquittal is therefore in order.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated August 9, 2017 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08499 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Nida Datuwata y Mama is hereby ACQUITTED of the violations charged on the ground of reasonable doubt.
The Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for Women, Mandaluyong City, is ORDERED to: (a) cause the immediate release of Nida Datuwata y Mama, unless she is being held in custody for any other lawful reason; and (b) inform the Court of the action taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED." (PERLAS-BERNABE, S.A.J., on official leave; HERNANDO, J., Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2846 dated October 6, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. CA rollo, pp. 106-107.
2.Id. at 80-100; penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan-Castillo with Associate Justices Rodil V. Zalameda (now a member of the Court) and Ma. Luisa Quijano-Padilla, concurring.
3.Id. at 36-48; penned by Presiding Judge Fernando T. Sagun, Jr.
4.Id. at 48.
5.Id. at 36.
6.Id. at 37.
7.Id.
8.Id.
9.Id. at 60.
10.Id. at 60-61.
11.Id. at 61.
12.Id. at 61-62.
13.Id. at 62.
14.Id.
15.Id. at 41.
16.Id. at 36-48.
17.Id. at 48.
18.Id. at 44.
19.Id. at 44-45.
20.Id. at 17-18.
21.Id. at 100.
22.Id. at 106-107.
23.People v. Crispo, 828 Phil. 416, 429 (2018).
24.People v. Santos, G.R. No. 243627, November 27, 2019.
25.People v. Año, 828 Phil. 439, 448 (2018). See also People v. Viterbo, 739 Phil. 593, 601 (2014) and People v. Alagarme, 754 Phil. 449, 459-460 (2015).
26.People v. Gabunada, G.R. No. 242827, September 9, 2019.
27. 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, and which took effect on August 7, 2014.
28.People v. Gabunada, supra.
29.Id.
30.People v. Goco, 797 Phil. 433, 443 (2016).
31.People v. Saunar, 816 Phil. 482, 495 (2017), citing People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78 (2014).
32.People v. Lorenzo, 633 Phil 393, 403 (2010).
33. Section 38. Laboratory Examination or Test on Apprehended/Arrested Offenders. — Subject to Section 15 of this Act, any person apprehended or arrested for violating the provisions of this Act shall be subjected to screening laboratory examination or test within twenty-four (24) hours[.] (Italics supplied.)
34. G.R. No. 237355, November 21, 2018.
35.Id.