THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 230620. November 16, 2020.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. ABRAHAM DOMINGO y SORIANO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated November 16, 2020, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 230620 (People of the Philippines v. Abraham Domingo y Soriano). — On appeal is the September 20, 2016 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06649 which affirmed the January 6, 2014 Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 61 of Baguio City in Criminal Case No. 37243-R finding accused-appellant Abraham Domingo y Soriano (appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
The Antecedent Facts
Appellant was charged with Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 in an Information 3 which reads:
That on or about the 8th day of February 2012, in the City of Baguio, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without any authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver one (1) small heat-sealed plastic transparent sachet containing a total weight of 0.11 grams (sic) of white crystalline Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug popularly known as "shabu" to Police Officer PO1 RAMON CHRISTOPHER BUENO, a member of the City Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Operation Task Group (CAIDSOTG) who acted as poseur-buyer, in consideration of the sum of P2,000.00, knowing fully well that said shabu is a dangerous drug, in violation of the aforementioned provision of law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
Abraham entered a plea of "not guilty" 5 when arraigned. Trial ensued.
Version of the Prosecution:
At around 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon of February 8, 2012, Bernie, a confidential informant, reported to the Office of the City Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Group of Baguio City Police that appellant, a bartender at Double O Disco Bar along Magsaysay Road, Baguio City, is selling shabu, a prohibited drug. 6
To verify the information, Police Senior Inspector (PSI) Dino Walley Cogasi (PSI Cogasi) asked Bernie to buy shabu from appellant in a test-buy operation. Bernie then met appellant at the bar and bought shabu from the latter in the amount of P2,000.00. Afterwards, he went back to the police station and handed the illegal substance over to the officers. The item was subsequently brought to the Regional Crime Laboratory at Camp Bado Dangwa in La Trinidad, Benguet for examination which turned out to be positive as an illegal substance. 7
Convinced that appellant was indeed selling shabu at the bar, PSI Cogasi and his men planned a buy-bust operation against him upon coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency-Cordillera Administrative Region. The team was composed of Police Officer Christopher Bueno (PO Bueno) who would act as the poseur-buyer, and the arresting and back-up officers, namely: SPO2 Albert Dolinta, SPO2 Jerry Silawon (SPO2 Silawon), Senior Police Office Jouie Balao and SPO1 Reynaldo Badua (SPO1 Badua). 8
At ten minutes past nine in the evening of the same date, the team, together with Bernie, went to the disco bar. A few meters away, PO Bueno and Bernie alighted from the vehicle and walked towards the direction of the bar so as to avoid suspicion. Upon their arrival, Bernie immediately went inside the bar while PO Bueno waited outside the entrance thereof. A few minutes later, Bernie came back with appellant and introduced PO Bueno to him as the interested buyer of shabu for P2,000.00. PO Bueno then handed the P2,000.00 marked money to appellant who took out from his pocket a small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet and gave it to PO Bueno. Upon receipt of the sachet, PO Bueno removed his cap indicating that the sale of the shabu has been consummated. The other police officers immediately rushed to the scene and arrested appellant. 9
Afterwards, SPO1 Badua retrieved the marked money from appellant while SPO2 Silawon informed him of his constitutional rights. PO Bueno, on the other hand, immediately marked the confiscated item with "RCPB," his initials, wrote the date, and affixed his signature thereon. Appellant was brought to the police station where an inventory was conducted in the presence of a media representative, an elected official, and an Assistant City Prosecutor. 10
Meanwhile, PSI Cogasi prepared the request for examination of the seized item and personally delivered it to the crime laboratory in Camp Bado Dangwa. PO Bueno likewise personally turned over the confiscated item in his custody to PSI Rowena Canlas of the said laboratory for qualitative examination. The result of the examination on the item yielded positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride also known as shabu, a prohibited drug. 11
Appellant was then taken transferred to Camp Bado Dangwa and underwent a drug test examination for drug use which likewise yielded a positive result. 12
Version of the Defense:
Appellant vehemently denied that he sold shabu to Bernie. He claimed that on the night of the buy-bust operation, he was cleaning the bar area when he received a phone call from Bernie, his housemate, asking where he was. He replied that he was at work. Later, Bernie called again and asked him to meet him outside the bar because he wanted to talk to him. 13
When he went outside of the bar, he saw Bernie with a man whom he thought was the latter's nephew. The man, who turned out to be PO Bueno, suddenly wrapped his arms around his shoulder and brought him inside the van. He was handcuffed and subjected to a body search. His wallet was also confiscated by PO Bueno. 14
Appellant was subsequently brought to the nearest police station where a plastic sachet allegedly containing shabu was shown to him. Bernie claimed that he got the said item from appellant who fervidly denied giving it. 15
Appellant further averred that the marked money recovered from him was Bernie's partial payment of the loan he obtained from him and not a payment for the illegal drugs which he allegedly sold to PO Bueno. 16
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:
In its Decision 17 dated January 6, 2014, the RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs. It gave credence to the testimonies of the police officers, particularly that of PO Bueno, who categorically identified appellant as the person who sold the confiscated item to him and who received the marked money as payment therefor during the entrapment operation. The RTC lent credence to his positive identification over appellant's denial which is self-serving. The trial court further observed that appellant failed to disprove the presumption that the police officers performed their duties in a regular manner during the entrapment operation.
The fallo of the RTC Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered finding the accused Abraham Domingo y Soriano GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt and he is hereby sentenced to suffer Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of P1,000,000.00.
The accused is hereby ORDERED FOR TRANSFER immediately to the National Penitentiary and that the contraband subject of this case be DESTROYED in accordance with law.
SO ORDERED. 18
Aggrieved, appellant appealed before the CA.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
The appellate court, in its September 20, 2016 Decision, 19 affirmed the findings of the RTC. It echoed the trial court's conclusion that all the elements of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs were present.
The CA opined that the chain of custody rule with respect to the seized item has been complied with. It reasoned that it was more practicable for the police officers to make an inventory and to take a photograph of the confiscated items at the police station since they had to summon representatives from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the media, and a duly elected official to witness the said processes. The corpus delicti was likewise duly preserved since the illegal drug that was seized from appellant is the same illegal drug that was presented in court. 20
The CA thus decreed:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The January 6, 2014 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 61, in Criminal Case No. 32743-R, is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED. 21
Hence, the instant appeal.
Issue
The main issue in this case is whether appellant's guilt for the crime charged has been duly proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Our Ruling
The appeal has merit.
The Court has judiciously evaluated the records of the instant case and finds that the guilt of appellant has not been sufficiently proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The following elements must be duly established to warrant the conviction of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs: "(1) proof that the transaction or sale took place; and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence." 22 In other words, the prosecution must prove that the sale transaction of drugs actually took place and that the drug seized from the accused is the same item presented as evidence in court. 23
The identity of the dangerous drug, which constitutes the corpus delicti, must be established with moral certainty. 24 It is imperative that the integrity and identity of the seized drug have been properly preserved. As such, the chain of custody rule must be duly observed to remove unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence. 25
Chain of custody refers to the "duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping, to presentation in court for destruction." 26 It is the duty of the prosecution to establish the four (4) links in the chain of custody of the confiscated item, namely: (1) the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and (4) the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court. 27
Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 states:
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.
Section 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 also provides:
SEC. 21. (a) The apprehending officer/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.
The following guidelines must be strictly followed in the conduct of physical inventory and photograph of the seized illegal drug:
1. They must be done immediately after seizure or confiscation;
2. They must be done in the presence of the following persons: a) the accused or his representative or counsel; b) representative from the media; c) representative from the DOJ; and d) any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof; and
3. They shall be conducted at the following places: a) place where the search warrant is served; or b) at the nearest police station or nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizure. 28
In this case, a thorough evaluation of the records reveals that the apprehending officers did not adhere to the above-mentioned procedures. The severe lapses in the conduct of the inventory and taking of photograph of the seized item which was subject of the purported sale are at once apparent from the testimony of PO2 Bueno, to wit:
Q Mr. Witness, you testified yesterday that at around 9:10 p[sic]m of February 8, 2012 you proceeded to Double "O" disco Bar together with the CI in order to buy shabu from a certain Abe?
WITNESS:
A Yes, ma'am.
Q Were you able to buy shabu from Abe?
WITNESS:
A Yes, ma'am.
PROS. SORIANO:
Q How were you able to buy shabu from Abe?
A Together with our CI, ma'am. At around 9:10, we proceeded to the area of operation Double "O" Disco Bar. CI and I alighted from the vehicle and proceeded to Doulbe(sic) "O" Disco Bar. The Confidential Informant went inside to call the subject and after three (3) minutes, they went out and they approached me and the CI told to the CI that I am the one who is willing to buy shabu, ma'am.
Q So after you were introduced to Abe as the person interested to buy shabu, what was the reply of Abe?
WITNESS:
A I told to Abe that I am the one who is willing to buy his stuff and I handed to him the buy bust money worth P2,000.00, ma'am.
PROS. SORIANO:
Q After giving the P2,000.00 peso[s] to Abe, what happened next?
A Abe brought something from his pocket. A small heat-sealed plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance then gave it to me, ma'am.
Q After receiving this small heat transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance from Abe, what did you do next?
A I remove[d] my cap as the pre-arranged signal then the arresting back-up officers arrested Abe, ma'am.
xxx xxx xxx
PROS. SORIANO:
Q So after the arrest of the accused Mr. Witness, you were able to confirm that he is indeed working at Double "O" Disco Bar as waiter?
WITNESS:
A Yes, sir.
Q So what did you do with the item given to you by Abe?
A We brought to our office at the City Anti-Illegal Drugs, BCPO for the inventory, ma'am. But before that I sealed it with a masking tape.
Q And what did you do with the item?
A I marked it with my initial and signature, ma'am.
Q What place were you when you placed your markings on the item sold to you by Abe?
A At the area of operation, ma'am.
PROS. SORIANO:
Q So after the Inventory Mr. Witness, what did you do with the item subject of sale?
WITNESS:
A We brought it to the Crime Laboratory for Qualitative Examination, ma'am.
Q So from the place of your operation which is Double "O" Disco Bar to your office where the Inventory was conducted, who took possession of the item subject of sale?
A I, ma'am.
xxx xxx xxx
Q It was also your testimony Mr. Witness, that upon arrival at your office, an Inventory was conducted thereat in the presence of the representatives of the Barangay, DOJ and Media?
WITNESS:
A Yes, ma'am. 29
From the aforesaid testimony of PO2 Bueno, it was clear that the taking of the inventory and photograph was not immediately done at the scene of the crime but at the nearest police station. Pursuant to our pronouncement in People v. Lim, 30 this is "unacceptable as there was no genuine and sufficient attempt to comply with the law." The rule is clear that the physical inventory and taking of photograph of the seized item must be done immediately after seizure and confiscation. Any deviation from this rule must be satisfactorily explained and justified. Here, there was no attempt at all on the part of the prosecution to explain such deviation. We cannot subscribe to the appellate court's pronouncement that it was "deemed more practicable to do the inventory and photographing of the seized item at the police station as they still needed to summon an elected official and the representatives of the DOJ and the media[.]" 31
To repeat, the inventory and taking of the photograph must be done immediately after seizure and confiscation. Moreover, the conduct of physical inventory and taking of photograph of the confiscated item other than at the place of arrest can only be excused when the safety and security of the apprehending officers and the witnesses required by law, or of the items seized, are threatened by immediate or extreme danger such as retaliatory action of those who have the resources and capability to mount a counter-assault. 32 In this case, there was no such threat or danger to justify the conduct of inventory as well as taking of photograph to be made at the police station.
Notably, the prosecution did not provide any adequate explanation as to why the apprehending officers deviated from the required procedure other than that they still needed to secure the presence of the three (3) witnesses.
Verily, the Court finds the totality of evidence of the prosecution as insufficient to support appellant's conviction for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs. The chain of custody was already broken from the beginning since the inventory and taking of photograph of the confiscated item was not made immediately at the place of the arrest after seizure and confiscation. The police officers failed to adequately explain why they had to deviate from the required procedure thereby casting serious doubts on the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti. For failure of the prosecution to overcome the presumption of innocence enshrined in our Constitution, appellant deserves an unequivocal acquittal.
On a final note, the Court is aware of the prevalence of illegal drugs in our society. Its influence can be seen in people from all walks of life, whether rich or poor. Its presence is a lingering problem greatly affecting not only the individuals using or selling the same but also their families and the communities they live in. Indeed, the Court is one with the agencies in enforcing the laws to curtail this peril which has haunted our society for years. 33 However, no matter how noble the purpose of the government's campaigns against drugs, its agencies must not brush aside the procedural rules enshrined in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, a matter of substantive law. 34 Otherwise, the presumption of innocence of the accused should be upheld.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The September 20, 2016 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06649 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Abraham Domingo y Soriano is ACQUITTED in Criminal Case No. 32743-R of the charge of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City is ORDERED to: (a) cause the immediate RELEASE of accused-appellant Abraham Domingo y Soriano unless he is being held in custody for any other lawful reason; and (b) inform the court of the action he has taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-13; penned by Associate Justice Melchor Q.C. Sadang and concurred in by Associate Justices Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Amy C. Lazaro-Javier (now a Member of this Court).
2. CA rollo, pp. 40-45.
3. Records, pp. 1-2.
4.Id. at 1.
5.Id. at 30.
6.Rollo, p. 3.
7.Id.
8.Id.
9.Id. at 4.
10.Id.
11.Id.
12.Id.
13.Id. at 5.
14.Id.
15.Id.
16.Id.
17. CA rollo, pp. 40-45.
18.Id. at 44-45.
19.Rollo, pp. 2-13.
20.Id. at 7-8.
21.Id. at 13.
22.People v. Havana, 776 Phil. 462, 471 (2016).
23.People v. Villarta, 828 Phil. 259, 278-279 (2018).
24.People v. Del Mundo, 818 Phil. 575, 585 (2017).
25.People v. Villarta, supra at 278.
26.Id.
27.People v. Del Mundo, supra note 12, at 585-586.
28.People v. Tampan, G.R. No. 222648, February 13, 2019.
29. TSN, January 23, 2013, pp. 3-5, 7-8, 17-18.
30. G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018.
31.Rollo, p. 10.
32.People v. Lim, supra.
33.People v. Hilario, 823 Phil. 580, 606 (2018).
34.People v. Lim, supra note 18.