SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 248604. September 16, 2020.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, accused-appellee, vs. DESIREE DELA CRUZ y SAGANA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 16 September 2020 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 248604 (People of the Philippines v. Desiree Dela Cruz y Sagana). — On appeal is the Decision 1 dated June 17, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10606 which affirmed the Decision 2 dated December 1, 2017 of Branch 42, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dagupan City in Criminal Case No. 2014-0269-D finding Desiree Dela Cruz y Sagana (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs in violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165. 3
The Antecedents
Accused-appellant was charged with Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under the following Information:
That on or about the 28th day of April, 2014, in the City of Dagupan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, DESIREE DELA CRUZ y SAGANA did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and criminally sell and deliver to a poseur-buyer one (1) heat sealed plastic sachet containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu), weighing more or less 1.385 grams, in exchange of money, without authority to do so.
Contrary to Article II, Section 5 of R.A. 9165. 4
When arraigned, accused-appellant pleaded "not guilty" to the charge. Trial on the merits ensued. 5
Version of the Prosecution
At around 1:00 p.m. of April 28, 2014, a confidential informant (CI) went to the office of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), Region I asserting that he can arrange a drug deal between accused-appellant and a PDEA Agent, who would pose as a poseur-buyer. Consequently, the PDEA Assistant Team Leader instructed the CI to meet and inform the accused-appellant that he has a potential buyer of her (accused-appellant's) illicit goods. 6
At around 4:00 p.m. of the same day, the CI returned and informed the PDEA Office that accused-appellant accepted the drug deal; that the transaction would involve one gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu worth P4,000.00; and that it would take place at about 6:00 p.m. of even date in Paras Street, across the Annunciation of the Lord Parish Church in Bonuan Gueset, Dagupan City. 7
Meanwhile, during the briefing, the buy-bust team designated one of its regular members, Karen May A. Benmaso (Benmaso), as poseur-buyer with Agent Jerico Jorge C. Inocencio as her immediate back-up officer. The other members of the buy-bust team were composed of other five PDEA Agents: PDEA Agents Rechie Camacho, Balbin, Tabuyo, Tagibudon, and Jasmin. 8
The buy-bust team agreed to the pre-arranged signal where Benmaso would place her sling bag from the left to the right side when the transaction had been consummated. Benmaso then prepared the buy-bust money consisting of one genuine P500.00 bill bearing the Serial No. MB353099 with marking "KAB" and the rest was boodle money. 9
At around 5:00 p.m. of the same day, the CI, Benmaso, and the other members of the buy-bust team proceeded to the area of transaction. Benmaso and the CI stayed along the agreed meeting place, while the rest of the buy-bust team positioned themselves strategically to avoid detection. 10
At about 6:15 p.m., a woman, later identified as accused-appellant, alighted from a jeepney and approached Benmaso and the CI. The CI introduced Benmaso to accused-appellant as the buyer of her merchandise. Accused-appellant immediately asked for the payment of the shabu. Benmaso replied that she wanted to see the item first. Accused-appellant pulled a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance from inside her bra and handed it to Benmaso. Accused-appellant then demanded for the payment so that Benmaso reached for the money in her sling bag and handed it to her. Afterwards, Benmaso placed the sling bag to her right side: the pre-arranged signal that the transaction was completed. 11
Subsequently, Berunaso grabbed the hand of accused-appellant, introduced herself as a PDEA agent, and informed accused-appellant that she was under arrest. The other members of the buy-bust team approached and introduced themselves as PDEA agents. Thereafter, Benmaso recovered from accused-appellant the marked money and informed the latter of her constitutional rights. 12 Benmaso also immediately marked the item subject of the sale with "AKAB 4/28/14." To avoid commotion and as security measures, the buy-bust team, along with accused-appellant, withdrew from the vicinity and went back to their office. 13
At their office, the buy-bust team conducted the inventory of the seized item in the presence of Jette Arcellano of GMA Media, and Robert R. Ramirez, who was from the Department of Justice (DOJ). 14
After the preparation of the request for laboratory examination, Benmaso brought the seized item to the Lingayen Crime Laboratory. There, one PO1 Frias received the item and handed it to Forensic Chemist PCI Myrna Malojo-Todeño (PCI Todeño) and thereafter, they both signed the chain of custody form. 15
During her testimony, PCI Todeño stated that she personally received from Benmaso the subject seized item, which, upon qualitative examination, yielded positive to the test for shabu. 16
Version of the Defense
Meanwhile, accused-appellant denied her involvement in the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, and instead narrated the following events:
At about 5:00 p.m. on April 28, 2014, accused-appellant was on her way home from Dagupan City when two men accosted her at the Lay Formation Center (LFC) in Simbahang Bato, just in front of the Amigo Gasoline Station. The two men told her to go with them as they would just ask her some questions. Accused-appellant agreed and went along with the men; they proceeded to the Dagupan City Astrodome where the PDEA office was located. 17
When they arrived at their destination, the two men informed accused-appellant that they would file drug cases against her. They also asked her to sign a document, but she refused. Accused-appellant likewise denied that Benmaso arrested her. 18
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
On December 1, 2017, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt as charged, imposed against her the penalty of life imprisonment, and ordered her to pay a fine of P500,000.00. 19
The RTC ruled that there being no showing of any violation done against accused-appellant especially anent her arrest, the PDEA agents conducted the buy-bust operation in the regular performance of their duties. It added that accused-appellant's defense of alibi and denial were weak such that the presumption that the PDEA agents performed their duties regularly must prevail. 20
The RTC also stressed that the identity of the seized item was preserved noting that after its confiscation, the subject drug was properly marked by Benmaso. It further noted that representatives from the media and the DOJ signed the certificate of inventory. 21
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
On appeal, 22 the CA affirmed the RTC Decision. 23
According to the CA, the elements for the prosecution of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs were present, namely, the identity of the buyer (Benmaso) and the seller (accused-appellant), the object (one sachet of shabu) and the consideration (marked money), and the delivery and payment of the subject item. 24
The CA decreed that the prosecution witnesses established the identity of the seized drug, and its integrity duly preserved. Particularly, it noted that Benmaso, as poseur-buyer, handed the marked money to accused-appellant who, in turn, gave the subject drug to Benmaso which Benmaso marked and later identified in court.
The CA further stressed that after confiscation, and at the police station, the inventory and taking of photographs of the seized item were conducted in the presence of accused-appellant, the members of the buy-bust team, and the representatives from the media and the DOJ. It added that upon examination of the confiscated item by the crime laboratory, the results yielded positive for the presence of shabu. 25
Hence, the appeal.
Issue
Whether accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs.
Our Ruling
The Court finds the appeal meritorious.
Accordingly, accused-appellant is acquitted as her guilt was not established beyond reasonable doubt.
It is settled that in order for an accused to be convicted of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt the elements of this offense. It is also of equal significance to establish with moral certainty the existence of the corpus delicti through observance of the rule governing the chain of custody of the seized illegal drug. The chain of custody requirement is with the intention to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the recovered drug, which is primordial for the conviction of the accused. 26
Chain of custody is more specifically defined as the "recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs x x x from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction." 27 Generally, there are four links in the chain of custody of the recovered drug: (1) the recovery and marking, if practicable, of the seized item from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) its turnover by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) its turnover by the investigating officer to the forensic chemist;·and (4) and its submission by the forensic chemist to the court. 28
It is worth noting that at the time of the buy-bust operation against accused-appellant, the applicable law is RA 9165 as the commission of the offense transpired on April 28, 2014 or prior to the amendments introduced by RA 10640. 29 In this regard, Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 provides for the chain of custody requirement or the procedure governing the custody of seized drugs, viz.:
Sec. 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[.] (Emphasis supplied).
Similarly, the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 provide that the physical inventory and photograph of the seized item shall be made in the presence of representatives from the media, the DOJ and any elected public official who must sign the inventory and be given its copy. The IRR further stated that failure to comply with such a requirement under justifiable ground as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug are preserved shall not render void its confiscation and custody by the apprehending officer or team. 30
It bears stressing that the burden to prove the observance with the chain of custody rule is with the prosecution. In case the chain of custody is not complied with, the prosecution must provide justifiable ground for the non-observance of the requirement and ensure that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated drug were preserved. 31
In this case, while representatives from the media and the DOJ witnessed the inventory of the subject drug, no elective official was present during that time. More importantly, the prosecution did not provide any justifiable ground or clear explanation for the non-compliance with such requirement.
Notably, in People v. Lim, 32 the Court elucidated on the need for the prosecution to allege and establish the justifiable reasons on the failure to secure the presence of the necessary witnesses during the inventory and the taking of photographs of the seized drug. Here, considering that the prosecution did not provide such justification and in fact, omitted any mention of the required presence of an elective official during inventory, then there is a clear gap in the chain of custody of the alleged illegal drug seized from accused-appellant. It thus follows that there is doubt as to whether the integrity and evidentiary value of the drug were preserved.
Indeed, while the strict compliance with the requirements under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 may not in every instance be possible, the prosecution must, nonetheless, allege and prove the justifiable ground for the failure to comply with the rules governing the chain of custody of the seized drug. In the absence of such justification, the evidence against the accused is compromised and would create doubt as to the guilt of the latter for any violation of RA 9165. 33
In addition, the Court noticed the discrepancy between the claim of Benmaso and PCI Todeño as regards the person who received the subject item at the crime laboratory for examination. On one hand, Benmaso testified that it was a certain PO1 Frias who received it. On the other hand, PCI Todeño claimed that she personally received it from Benmaso. This circumstance presents another gap in the chain of custody requirement.
Based on the foregoing, it is evident that the requirements of the chain of custody rule were not observed. As a result, the constitutional right of accused-appellant to be presumed innocent must prevail over the presumption that the concerned PDEA agents regularly performed their duties. Undoubtedly, the latter presumption had been overcome by contrary proof, as established by the gaps in the chain of custody, a clear indication of non-compliance with the procedure under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. 34
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated June 17, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10606 is REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Desiree Dela Cruz y Sagana is hereby ACQUITTED of the charge of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City is ORDERED to: (a) cause the immediate release of Desiree Dela Cruz y Sagana 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.
SO ORDERED." (BALTAZAR-PADILLA, J., no part as she concurred in the assailed CA rulings; ZALAMEDA, J., designated Additional Member per Raffle dated September 16, 2020.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-29; penned by Associate Justice Louis P. Acosta with Associate Justices Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla (now a member of the Court) and Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig, concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 44-52; penned by Acting Presiding Judge Junius F. Dalaten.
3. "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.Rollo, p. 4.
5.Id.
6. CA rollo, pp. 45-46.
7.Id. at 46.
8.Rollo, p. 5.
9. CA rollo, p. 46.
10. CA rollo, p. 46.
11.Id. at 46-47.
12.Id. at 47.
13.Rollo, p. 6.
14. CA rollo, p. 51.
15.Rollo, p. 7.
16.Id.
17. CA rollo, p. 48.
18.Rollo, p. 7.
19. CA rollo, p. 52.
20.Id. at 49.
21.Id. at 50-51.
22.Id. at 16.
23.Rollo, p. 29.
24.Id. at 10-11.
25.Id. at 24.
26.People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 29 (2017).
27.People v. Dumagay, 825 Phil. 726, 737 (2018).
28.People v. Hementiza, 807 Phil. 1017, 1030 (2017).
29. "An Act to Further Strengthen the Anti-Drug Campaign of the Government, Amending for the Purpose Section 21 of RA 9165," approved on July 15, 2014.
30. Section 21 (a), Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165, August 30, 2002; underscoring supplied.
31.People v. Dumagay, supra.
32. G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018.
33.People v. Macapundag, 807 Phil. 234 (2017).
34.People v. Gajo, 824 Phil. 140 (2018).