FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 252205. June 23, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.SADIC DIVANSA A.K.A. "RYAN" AND SAIDAMIN PAO A.K.A. "DAMIN", accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 23, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 252205 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, versus SADIC DIVANSA a.k.a. "RYAN" and SAIDAMIN PAO a.k.a. "DAMIN,"accused-appellants.
After a careful review of the records of the case, the Court finds that the Court of Appeals Special Seventeenth Division erred in promulgating the Decision 1 dated October 3, 2019 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11658. The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellants Sadic Divansa a.k.a. "Ryan" and Saidamin Pao a.k.a. "Damin" (accused-appellants) are guilty of illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
In cases involving dangerous drugs, the prosecution bears the burden of proving the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti — the dangerous drug itself — by establishing an unbroken chain of custody thereof, strictly complying with the procedure and requirements in Section 21 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, 2 as amended by R.A. No. 10640. 3 Any lapses or deviations therefrom must be acknowledged and explained by the prosecution; otherwise, the integrity of the corpus delicti will not be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
In this case, the apprehending officers did not strictly comply with the provisions of Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165 when they failed to conduct inventory of the confiscated items immediately at the place of seizure and arrest. The prosecution was not able to offer any explanation for this lapse in procedure, and the justification proposed by plaintiff-appellee is not anchored in any of the testimonies or in the documentary evidence offered by the prosecution. In a long line of cases, 4 the Court recognized that such a lapse in procedure warranted a reversal of the conviction of accused-appellant/s due to reasonable doubt in the integrity of the corpus delicti.
In the same vein, the prosecution's evidence is significantly lacking as regards the fourth link in the chain of custody — the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drugs seized from the forensic chemist to the court. Forensic Chemist Meden A. Listanco (FC Listanco), testifying for the prosecution, mentioned two different evidence custodians to whom she allegedly turned over the seized drugs, namely, Domingo Villareal (Villareal) and Noreelyn Lopez (Lopez). 5 However, only Villareal was presented in court, and he made no mention whatsoever of Lopez or her role in the sequence of custody of the drugs. Neither does Villareal's testimony contain details on the measures he took, if any, to ensure the security and integrity of the specimen while in his possession, and while the same was being taken to court. Jurisprudence 6 has time and again affirmed that a break in the chain of custody at the fourth link in the chain — or at any point in said chain — would suffice to absolve the accused for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. ISHCcT
To reiterate, the rule on chain of custody is meant to assist the prosecution in proving, and the court in ascertaining, that the drugs purportedly seized from the accused are the very same ones presented in court. An unbroken chain eliminates reasonable doubt in the guilt of the accused, which arises from the susceptibility of such items to tampering, contamination, or even planting and substitution. While these risks are exponentially higher in cases where the amount of drugs seized is miniscule, 7 the Court cannot be complacent and presume that such risks cannot and will not be present when the amounts involved reach more sizeable amounts, as in this case.
Law enforcement and the prosecution alike must be expected to jealously guard the chain of custody to ensure that those who are truly guilty will not evade liability. Certainly, the law affords them reasonable leeway given the inherent difficulty in achieving a perfect chain. However, they cannot expect the Court to reach for this liberality on their behalf at every instance of non-compliance if they do not provide a good reason to do so. 8 Maintaining an unbroken chain of custody is a mandate of the law and the Court is, in turn, constitutionally-mandated to uphold this law. Strict compliance therewith cannot be brushed aside especially when the life and liberty of the innocent hang in the balance. As the Court has said:
The law, being a creature of justice, is blind towards both the guilty and the innocent. The Court, as justice incarnate, must then be relentless in exacting the standards laid down by our laws — in fact, the Court can do no less. For when the fundamental rights of life and liberty are already hanging in the balance, it is the Court that must, at the risk of letting the guilty go unpunished, remain unforgiving in its calling. And if the guilty does go unpunished, then that is on the police and the prosecution — that is for them to explain to the People. 9
For the foregoing reasons, and in line with prevailing jurisprudence, the Court is left with no alternative but to acquit accused-appellants.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated October 3, 2019 of the Court of Appeals Special Seventeenth Division, in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11658, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, Sadic Divansa a.k.a. "Ryan" and Saidamin Pao a.k.a. "Damin" are ACQUITTED of the crime charged on the ground of reasonable doubt, and are ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless they are being lawfully held for another cause. Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. Said Director General is ordered to report to this Court within five (5) working days from receipt of this Resolution the action he has taken.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-15. Penned by Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios with Associate Justices Rafael Antonio M. Santos and Louis P. Acosta concurring.
2. COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, approved on June 7, 2002.
3. 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.
4.Michael Tañamor y Acibo v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 228132, March 11, 2020; People of the Philippines v. Mustafa Sali y Alawaddin, G.R. No. 236596, January 29, 2020; People of the Philippines v. Jeffrey Fayo y Rubio, G.R. No. 239887, October 2, 2019; People of the Philippines v. Ronaldo Salenga y Gonzales, G.R. No. 239903, September 11, 2019; People v. Retada, G.R. No. 239331, July 10, 2019, 909 SCRA 1; People v. Dumanjug, G.R. No. 235468, July 1, 2019, 907 SCRA 89; People v. Tampan, G.R. No. 222648, February 13, 2019, 893 SCRA 1; People v. Mola, G.R. No. 226481, April 18, 2018, 862 SCRA 112.
5. TSN, November 24, 2015, pp. 6-10.
6.People v. Balubal, G.R. No. 234033, July 30, 2018, 875 SCRA 1; People v. Salcena, G.R. No. 192261, November 16, 2011, 660 SCRA 349; People v. Villarta, G.R. No. 217887, March 14, 2018, 859 SCRA 193; People v. Plaza, G.R. No. 235467, August 20, 2018, 878 SCRA 231; People v. Prudencio, G.R. No. 205148, November 16, 2016, 809 SCRA 204.
7.People v. Oliva, G.R. No. 234156, January 7, 2019, 890 SCRA 106.
8.People v. Gamboa, G.R. No. 233702, June 20, 2018, 867 SCRA 548.
9.People v. Luna, G.R. No. 219164, March 21, 2018, 860 SCRA 1, 36.