FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 243657. September 14, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROLANDO DELA CRUZ y ONILONGO @ "AHAS", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated September 14, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 243657 (People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee v. Rolando Dela Cruz y Onilongo @ "Ahas," accused-appellant).
The present appeal seeks to reverse and set aside the June 27, 2018 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 09671, which found Rolando Dela Cruz y Onilongo @ "Ahas" (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of shabu, punishable under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002." Accused-appellant was sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).
Antecedents
An Information 2 for violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 was filed against accused-appellant and Freddie Fullantez 3 (Fullantez), the accusatory portion of which reads:
That, on or about the 21st day of August 2012, in the Municipality of Binangonan, Province of Rizal, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, in conspiracy with one another, without having been authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell, deliver and give away to another, one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.04 gram of white crystalline substance, which substance was found positive to the test for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Another information charging Fullantez of possession of drug paraphernalia punishable under Sec. 12 of R.A. No. 9165 was also filed. 4 However, the case was dismissed in the March 6, 2013 Order of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) upon the death of Fullantez. 5
During arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges. Trial on the merits ensued. 6
Version of the Prosecution
During trial, the prosecution presented PO1 Mark Riel Canilon (PO1 Canilon) and PCI Beaune Villaraza (PCI Villaraza). POI Canilon testified on the events leading to the buy-bust operation, the consummated illegal sale of shabu, and the marking, inventory, and delivery of the confiscated items to PCI Villaraza. On the other hand, PCI Villaraza attested to the results of the laboratory examination and identified the shabu that PO1 Canilon delivered to him. 7
On August 21, 2012, at about 8:30 p.m., upon a tip-off by a confidential informant (CI) that a certain alias "Ahas," who was later identified as accused-appellant, was peddling shabu, Police Chief Inspector Bartolome Marigondon of Binangonan Police Station (police station) formed a buy-bust team to entrap accused-appellant. SPO1 Renato Membrebe was the team leader while PO1 Canilon was the designated poseur-buyer. Five (5) other police officers, namely: PO2 Froilan Quisquino (PO2 Quisquino), PO2 Jeffray Mejala (PO2 Mejala), PO2 Remson Colacion (PO2 Colacion), PO1 Rommel Bilog (PO1 Bilog), and PO1 Jaefran Bernardino (PO1 Bernardino), were assigned as backup operatives. 8
A pre-operation report was sent to the Rizal Provincial Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Force (PAIDSOTF) and the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) as evidenced by Control Nos. 08-21-0005 and 0812-00136. 9
Prior to the buy-bust operation, PO1 Canilon and PO1 Bilog, together with the CI, conducted a surveillance operation in the area, which yielded a positive result. Upon confirmation, the group went back to the police station and marked the buy-bust money. Thereafter, the buy-bust team proceeded to the target area. 10
At the target area, PO1 Canilon and the CI approached accused-appellant who was then talking to alias "Pogi," later identified as Fullantez. The CI introduced PO1 Canilon as a co-worker. Accused-appellant asked the CI, "Kukuha ka ba?" to which PO1 Canilon answered, "Oo pare, dalawang daan lang." From his pocket, accused-appellant pulled out one plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance. When PO1 Canilon was about to hand the marked money to accused-appellant, Fullantez stopped him and said, "Pare, dito mo na ibigay sa akin ang pera." Accused-appellant simultaneously handed the plastic sachet to the informant after PO1 Canilon gave the marked money to Fullantez. 11
As soon as PO1 Canilon gave the pre-arranged signal that the sale had already been consummated, PO1 Bilog rushed to the scene while PO1 Canilon introduced himself as a police officer and held the arms of Fullantez. From Fullantez, PO1 Canilon recovered two (2) pieces of P100.00-bill buy-bust money marked as "RAB-1" and "RAB-2," two (2) aluminum foil strips, and an improvised tooter. Accused-appellant and Fullantez were then apprised of their constitutional rights. 12
While at the crime scene, PO1 Canilon marked the seized items. An Inventory of Evidence Seized was prepared in the presence of Tata Rey Abella (Abella), a media representative. Photographs were also taken at the crime scene during the marking and inventory. Accused-appellant and Fullantez were then brought to the police station for investigation. 13
PO1 Canilon prepared a Request for Laboratory Examination at the police station. While PO1 Canilon delivered the letter-request and the recovered items to the Rizal Crime Laboratory Office. PCI Villaraza, a forensic chemist, received the items. 14
Upon testing, the 0.04 gram of white crystalline substance seized from accused-appellant was found positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. On the other hand, the two aluminum foil strips and improvised tooter yielded negative results. 15
Version of the Defense
Accused-appellant denied the charge against him. He testified that at around 7:00 p.m. on August 21, 2012, he was asleep in the living room of his house when four (4) police officers stormed in and demanded that he bring out shabu. He remained seated on the sofa while two (2) police officers searched his room, but they found nothing. He then claimed that an alias "Dungis" said that they had to go to the house of "Pogi" because a certain "Iking" could be there and that they might find something there. Accused-appellant was then handcuffed and brought to Fullantez's house. 16
The group arrived at the said house and chanced upon Fullantez having dinner with his wife. The police officers conducted a search but did not find anything. Thereafter, accused-appellant and Fullantez were brought to the Binangonan Police Station. 17
Fullantez corroborated the testimony of accused-appellant. He claimed that the charge filed against him was fabricated. 18
Aiza dela Cruz, accused-appellant's neighbor, testified that she was watching television when she heard a commotion next door. She saw four (4) persons enter accused-appellant's house. While the men were searching the room, she heard one of the men say to accused-appellant, "Ahas, ilabas mo na." When they could not find anything, they took accused-appellant with them. 19
Ruling of the RTC
In its June 17, 2017 Decision, 20 the RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of shabu. It found that the prosecution was able to identify accused-appellant as the person who sold PO1 Canilon a plastic sachet containing shabu.
The dispositive portion of the RTC decision reads:
In light of the above, we find accused Dela Cruz GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 and sentence him to suffer a penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of [P]500,000.00.
Let the drug samples in this case be forwarded to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper disposition. Furnish PDEA with a copy of this Decision per OCA Circular No. 70-2007.
SO ORDERED. 21
Accused-appellant appealed to the CA. 22
Ruling of the CA
In the now assailed June 27, 2018 Decision, 23 the CA affirmed the RTC. It determined that the prosecution was able to establish the presence of all the elements of illegal sale of drugs. It also gave full credence to the testimony of PO1 Canilon, which was supported by the chemistry report and the corpus delicti of the case, the 0.04 gram of shabu marked as "HAS."
Contrary to accused-appellant's contention, the CA found that the chain of custody remained unbroken. Looking into the records of the case, the CA referred to the fact that the inventory was conducted in front of accused-appellant, a media representative, and the other members of the buy-bust team. 24
The CA explained that the mere fact that the marking "HAS" on the illegal drugs did not represent the initials of either accused-appellant or PO1 Canilon, the same did not prove that the chain was broken. The CA reasoned that R.A. No. 9165 does not require the markings on the seized items to bear the initials of the seizing officers or that of the accused. The markings are only for purposes of identification of the confiscated items. It further stated that the initials "HAS" may be read as an abbreviation for "Ahas," accused-appellant's nickname. 25
Anent POI Canilon's failure to identify the seized illegal drugs in open court, the CA discussed that such did not affect its evidentiary value, what is important was that the chain of custody remained unbroken. The CA pointed out that at the time PO1 Canilon testified on January 24, 2013, the marked plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance was still in the custody of the crime laboratory. 26 It was only on March 6, 2013, that it was presented in court when PCI Villaraza testified. 27
As regards the absence of a barangay official or a·DOJ representative during the marking and inventory of the seized items, the CA held that such was inconsequential. It explained that while the requirements in Sec. 21 were not strictly complied with, such did not exonerate accused-appellant or render his arrest illegal and the items seized from him inadmissible in evidence. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, which was present in the case at bar. 28
Finally, the CA held that accused-appellant's bare denial could not prevail over the prosecution witness's positive identification of him as the seller of shabu, who was caught in flagrante delicto. Besides, there was no showing that the apprehending officers were impelled by ill motive to testify falsely against him. Without any proof, the presumption of regularity prevails over accused-appellant's self-serving and uncorroborated accusations. 29
The dispositive portion of the CA decision reads:
In view of the foregoing, this Court finds no reason to depart or veer from the ruling of the court a quo.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated June 17, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 67, Binangonan, Rizal is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.30
Hence, the instant appeal.
ISSUES
Accused-appellant submits the following errors committed by the courts a quo:
I
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING [THE] ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO ESTABLISH BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THE CORPUS DELICTI AND THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF THE ALLEGED CONFISCATED DRUGS.
II
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN DISREGARDING OUTRIGHT [THE] ACCUSED-APPELLANT'S DEFENSE OF DENIAL. 31
Accused-appellant argues that the prosecution failed to establish that the marking of the seized items was done in compliance with Sec. 21 of R.A. 9165: it was not shown as to how, where, and in what manner the marking was done; the identity of the police officer who marked the plastic sachet containing shabu allegedly sold to PO1 Canilon was not established. Further, PO1 Canilon failed to identify the shabu in open court; the plastic sachet was marked with "HAS" which did not represent the initials of PO1 Canilon, the poseur-buyer, or that of accused-appellant's; and the inventory was conducted in violation of Sec. 21 because no barangay official or Department of Justice (DOJ) representative was present during the inventory. 32
The prosecution, thru the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), maintains that the elements of illegal sale had been established. PO1 Canilon positively identified accused-appellant as the person who sold the plastic sachet containing shabu. The forensic chemist confirmed that the item sold by accused-appellant was shabu. Further, the chain of custody remained unbroken. After the item was sold to POI Canilon, he immediately marked them on site with "HAS," and the inventory followed at the police station. He was also the same person who delivered the seized contraband to the crime laboratory for examination. Verily, there was no gap in the chain of custody, thus ensuring the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item. 33
The Court's Ruling
The appeal has merit.
In order for the prosecution to successfully prosecute a case of illegal sale of drugs, the following elements should be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor. 34 To prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution must present in evidence the corpus delicti or the seized illegal drugs. Hence, it becomes essential for the prosecution to establish that the drugs confiscated from the accused-appellant are the same items being presented in court.
To ensure the identity of the corpus delicti with moral certainty, the apprehending officers must comply with the requirements provided in Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, which is part of the first link in the chain of custody procedure. Considering that the crime in this case was committed on August 21, 2012, and the amendment under R.A. No. 10640 was only approved on August 7, 2014, the procedure under Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 shall apply. Sec. 21 reads:
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, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment 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 the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof[.] 35
Sec. 21 requires that upon seizure of illegal drug items, the apprehending team having initial custody of the drugs shall (a) conduct a physical inventory of the drugs and (b) take photographs thereof, (c) in the presence of the person from whom these items were seized or confiscated and ( d) a representative from the media, the DOJ, and any elected public official (e) who shall all be required to sign the inventory and be given copies thereof. The inventory and photograph of the seized items should be conducted "immediately after seizure and confiscation" in the presence of the three necessary witnesses — the representatives from the DOJ and the media, and any local public official — at the place of apprehension or, if not practicable, at the nearest police station or office. Because by its nature, buy-bust operations are carefully planned, arresting officers are expected to be able to comply with the requirements, allowing the witnesses to be present even at the time of the apprehension, seizure, and the inventory. 36
In this case, the apprehending officers failed to comply with the requirements laid down by Sec. 21, as the inventory was irregularly conducted. As borne by the records, only Abella, a media representative, was present during the inventory instead of the three necessary witnesses, namely, a representative of the DOJ and the media, and an elected public official.
Nevertheless, noncompliance with the regulations is not necessarily fatal as to render accused-appellant' s arrest illegal or the items confiscated from him inadmissible as evidence of his guilt, for what is of the utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated items that will be utilized in the determination of his guilt or innocence. 37 Such that, when there is a failure to strictly follow the said procedure, the crime can still be proven, i.e., that the nonfulfillment of the requirements was under justifiable grounds and that the shabu taken is the same one presented in court by proof of "chain of custody." 38 In line with these principles, Sec. 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165 provide for the saving proviso in case of noncompliance, viz.:
(a) The apprehending office/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 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.
A perusal of the records reveals that the police officers' failure to comply with the procedure is unjustified. In fact, the arresting officers did not proffer any excuse for their deviation from the rules. Worse, PO1 Canilon admitted that no coordination was made with the barangay officials. 39
While a media representative witnessed the marking and inventory, such falls short of the requirements of the law. The presence of the media representative cannot validate the inadequacies committed during the buy-bust operation. 40 The attendance of all three required witnesses during the conduct of inventory and taking of photographs of the seized items is mandatory. 41 The purpose for such requirement is not a pro forma exercise. Its raison d'etre is to insulate against police practices of planting, contaminating, or tampering of evidence in any manner. 42
Indeed, the arresting officers' utter failure to observe the rules and to provide a justifiable reason for such deviation plants doubt as to the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated drugs. 43
Finally, the prosecution failed to establish that every link in the chain of custody was unbroken. While it was established that PO1 Canilon marked the plastic sachet containing shabu allegedly sold to him by accused-appellant, PO1 Canilon failed to identify the same in open court. Instead, it was PSI Villaraza who identified the specimen during trial.
In People v. Salonga, 44 the Court clarified that despite the identification of the seized shabu by the forensic chemist in open court, if the arresting officer who had seized and marked the recovered shabu failed to identify the same in court, such is fatal to the prosecution.
Here, PSI Villaraza had no personal knowledge of the shabu PO1 Canilon confiscated from accused-appellant. While PSI Villaraza attested that the specimens he received for testing were the same ones presented in court, such cannot accurately determine whether the tested specimens were the same items seized from accused-appellant and marked by PO1 Canilon. Although PO1 Canilon testified that he was the one who marked the recovered shabu, he did not identify it in open court. By omitting to identify the evidence in court as the one seized and marked during the arrest and was the same specimen brought to the laboratory for testing and eventually presented in open court, the prosecution failed to prove the corpus delicti. 45
Noncompliance with the procedural requirements laid down in Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 is tantamount to failure in establishing the identity of the corpus delicti, an essential element of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. 46 Tersely put, without establishing the identity of the corpus delicti, the prosecution failed to ascertain that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items have been preserved. Without the identity of the corpus delicti, the acquittal of accused-appellant is in order.
WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the appeal; REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the June 27, 2018 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 09671; ACQUITS accused-appellant Rolando Dela Cruz y Onilongo @ "Ahas" for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt; and ORDERS his IMMEDIATE RELEASE 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 the Director General, New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. The said Director General is ORDERED to REPORT to this Court the action he has taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
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. 2-18; penned by Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia with Associate Justices Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez and Germano Francisco D. Legaspi, concurring.
2. CA rollo, p. 46.
3. Also known as "Pogi" in some parts of the rollo.
4. CA rollo, p. 48.
5.Rollo, p. 8.
6.Id. at 4.
7.Id. at 4-5.
8.Id.
9.Id. at 5.
10.Id.
11.Id.
12.Id. at 5-6.
13.Id. at 6.
14.Id.
15.Id.
16.Id. at 7.
17.Id.
18.Id.
19.Id. at 8.
20. CA rollo, pp. 44-45; penned by Presiding Judge Dennis Patrick Z. Perez.
21. CA rollo, p. 45.
22.Rollo, p. 19.
23.Id. at 2-18.
24.Id. at 11-15.
25.Id. at 15-16.
26.Id. at 16.
27.Id.
28.Id. at 16-17.
29.Id. at 17.
30.Id. at 17-18.
31. CA rollo, p. 27.
32.Id. at 32-40.
33.Id. at 64-68.
34.People v. Lorenzo, 633 Phil. 393, 402 (2010).
35. Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165.
36.People v. Salenga, G.R. No. 239903, September 11, 2019.
37.People v. Pringas, 558 Phil. 579, 593 (2007).
38.Id.
39. CA rollo, p. 38, citing TSN, January 24, 2013, pp. 21 and 26.
40.People v. Salenga, supra note 36.
41.Id.
42.Id.
43.Limbo v. People, G.R. No. 238299, July 1, 2019.
44. 717 Phil. 117 (2013).
45.Id. at 129.
46.Id.