THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 200309. November 13, 2013.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs.JOSIE DICAL Y REYES, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated November 13, 2013,which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 200309 (People of the Philippines v. Josie Dical y Reyes). — The Assistant City Procesutor of Caloocan filed separate charges against accused Josie Reyes Dical of selling shabu and illegally possessing the same in violation of Article II, Sections 5 and 11, respectively, of Republic Act 9165 1 before the Caloocan Regional Trial Court (RTC).
Based on the prosecution's evidence, on April 20, 2006 at around 10:00 p.m., an informant called PO3 Ferdinand Modina of the Caloocan police with a report that a certain "Jot-Jot" had been selling drugs on C. Namie Street, Barangay 36, in Caloocan. With PO1 Rolly Jones Montefrio acting as the poseur buyer and PO3 Modina, PO3 Ramon Galvez, and other officers as back-up, the group picked up their informant at P. Sevilla Street.
Upon inquiry from those idling in the area, the police officers learned that Jot-Jot was at Macabalo Street Extension in Marulas A. It was already about 11:30 p.m. when PO1 Montefrio and the informant saw Jot-Jot standing along Macabalo Street. The informant introduced to her PO1 Montefrio who wanted to buy P100.00 worth of shabu.The officer handed over a marked P100.00 to Jot-Jot who took out three transparent heat-sealed plastic sachets containing white crystalline granules from her pocket and gave one to PO1 Montefrio. The latter immediately scratched his nape as a signal to his police companions to help nab her.
PO1 Montefrio grabbed Jot-Jot and confiscated the marked money. PO3 Galvez came and seized the remaining two plastic sachets from Jot-Jot's left hand. The police subsequently brought her to the police station where they learned that her real name was Josie Reyes Dical. PO1 Montefrio and PO3 Galvez then turned over the plastic sachets and the money to police investigator SPO1 Fernando Moran. SPO1 Moran supposedly did the markings on the sachets and delivered the same to the crime laboratory for analysis. The sachets contained methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Accused Dical, on the other hand, claimed that the police officers fabricated the charges against her. She found out only during her arraignment about what crimes the police charged her with. According to her, she had just come from the wake of her live-in partner's mother at the North Cemetery and was walking near the railroad tracks in Marulas, when three men in civilian clothes suddenly approached her. They asked her if she knew of a certain "Cion".When she replied in the negative, they ordered her to board an owner-type jeepney and took her to the Drug Enforcement Unit's office. There, they asked her again if she knew Cion and she gave the same answer. They brought her into another room, placed her hand on a white bond paper, and made a sketch of it.
On April 13, 2009 the RTC rendered a Joint Decision finding Dical guilty of illegal sale of shabu in Criminal Case C-75161 and sentenced her to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and pay a fine of P500,000.00. It acquitted her, however, of the charge of illegal possession in Criminal Case C-75162. On appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC 03895, it affirmed the RTC's ruling in toto on May 30, 2011.
To sustain conviction for illegal sale of shabu,the prosecution must establish the following elements: (a) the identity of the buyer and seller object, and consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for the same. The transaction or sale must have actually taken place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti. 2 HDcaAI
The Court has consistently ruled that failure to comply with the above requirements does not necessarily render the seizure of the illegal drugs void so long as the apprehending officers offer justiciable reason for their imperfect conduct 3 and show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated items had not been compromised. 4
Here, the police officers involved in the seizure operation admittedly failed to mark the plastic sachets shortly after to show that these were the ones they took from Dical. Rather, the police did the markings later at the police station. What is worse, the evidence is not clear as to who made the markings and when. It was he, said PO3 Galvez, who made the markings just before handing the sachets over to the station investigator, SPO1 Moran. 5 But SPO1 Moran claimed the honor, stating that he placed the markings after receiving the confiscated items. 6 PO1 Montefrio corroborated his testimony. It was precisely because of these inconsistencies that the Caloocan RTC acquitted Dical of the charge of illegal possession in Criminal Case C-75162.
The trial court could not convict Dical solely on the strength of the evidence that a sale of prohibited drug had been consummated. The corpus delicti must likewise be proved in court. The marking of the captured items immediately after they had been seized from the accused is the starting point in the custodial link. Failure to place such markings paves the way for swapping, planting, and contamination of the evidence. These lapses seriously cast doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti, warranting acquittal of the accused on reasonable doubt. 7
WHEREFORE,the Court GRANTS the petition and SETS ASIDE the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated May 30, 2011 in CA-G.R. CR-HC 03895 as well as the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan, Branch 127, in Criminal Case C-75161 dated April 13, 2009, and ACQUITS the accused-appellant Josie Dical y Reyes of the crime charged on the ground of reasonable doubt. The Court orders her immediate RELEASE from custody unless she is being held for some other lawful cause.
The Court further ORDERS the Director of the Bureau of Corrections to implement this Resolution forthwith and to inform this Court, within five (5) days from receipt hereof, of the date appellant was actually released from confinement. Costs de oficio. HAECID
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
2. People v. Serrano,G.R. No. 179038, May 6, 2010, 620 SCRA 327, 340.
3. People v. Habana,G.R. No. 188900, March 5, 2010, 614 SCRA 433, 440.
4. People v. Daria, Jr.,G.R. No. 186138, September 11, 2009, 599 SCRA 688, 700, citing People v. Agulay,G.R. No. 181747, September 26, 2008, 566 SCRA 571, 624.
5. TSN, September 27, 2007, p. 17; TSN, December 13, 2007, pp. 10-11.
6. RTC Decision, pp. 8-9.
7. People v. Pajarin, G.R. No. 190640, January 12, 2011, 639 SCRA 489, 494.