THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 242945. December 9, 2020.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. MELISSA EDILO y ELUMBARING a.k.a. MYRNA CAPANGPANG y EDILO alias LIZ, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedDecember 9, 2020, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 242945 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, v. MELISSA EDILO y ELUMBARING a.k.a. MYRNA CAPANGPANG y EDILO alias LIZ, accused-appellant). — In cases involving dangerous drugs, it is imperative on the part of the prosecution to prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti have been preserved. The chain of custody requirement under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended, functions as a method of authenticating evidence which eliminates unnecessary doubts concerning the identity and integrity of the evidence presented.
For this Court's resolution is an Appeal 1 challenging the Court of Appeals' Decision in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01764-MIN. 2 It affirmed the Regional Trial Court's Decision 3 finding Melissa Edilo (Edilo) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale, illegal possession of dangerous drugs, and illegal possession of drug paraphernalia.
Three separate amended Informations 4 were filed against Edilo and two other accused, namely, Rolando Jastiva (Jastiva) and Ian Gooc (Gooc), charging them with violation of Article II, Sections 5, 11, and 12 of Republic Act No. 9165, thus:
Criminal Case No. 19969
The undersigned City Prosecutor of Dapitan accuses MELISSA EDILO y Elumbaring a.k.a. MYRNA CAPANGPANG y Edilo alias "Liz," ROLANDO JASTIVA y Duga-Duga alias "Tibor" and IAN GOOC alias "Michael," of the crime of "VIOLATION OF SECTION 5, ARTICLE II OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165" committed as follows:
That on September 24, 2015 at about 10:00 o'clock in the evening at Brgy. Barcelona, Dapitan City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused knowing fully well that selling of prohibited/dangerous drug is punishable by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver one (1) small plastic sachet of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride commonly known as "shabu," a prohibited/dangerous drug, to a poseur-buyer without any legal authority to sell and deliver the same in gross Violation of Section 5 of Republic Act 9165.
Criminal Case No. 19970
The undersigned City Prosecutor of Dapitan accuses MELISSA EDILO y Elumbaring a.k.a. MYRNA CAPANGPANG y Edilo alias "Liz," ROLANDO JASTIVA y Duga-Duga alias "Tibor" and IAN GOOC alias "Michael," of the crime of "VIOLATION OF SECTION 11, ARTICLE II OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165" committed as follows:
That on September 24, 2015 at about 10:00 o'clock in the evening at Brgy. Barcelona, Dapitan City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused conspiring, confederating and helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in their possession, control and custody twelve (12) small plastic sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as "shabu," a prohibited/dangerous drug, weighing a total of 3.4996 grams without any legal authority to possess of use the same in gross violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. CAIHTE
Criminal Case No. 19971
The undersigned City Prosecutor of Dapitan accuses MELISSA EDILO y Elumbaring a.k.a. MYRNA CAPANGPANG y Edilo alias "Liz," ROLANDO JASTIVA y Duga-Duga alias "Tibor" and IAN GOOC alias "Michael," of the crime of "VIOLATION OF SECTION 12, ARTICLE II OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165" committed as follows:
That on September 24, 2015 at about 10:00 o'clock in the evening at Brgy. Barcelona, Dapitan City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused conspiring, confederating and helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in their control and custody one (1) pc. Cigarette foil; one (1) transparent pack (used as container of shabu); and one (1) pack transparent plastic containing sixteen (16) pcs. Cut rolled aluminum foils, all illegal drug paraphernalia, without any legal authority to possess or use the same in gross violation of Section 12, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. 5 (Emphasis in the original)
On arraignment, Edilo pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged. Gooc and Jastiva, however, remained at large. 6
After pre-trial, trial on the merits ensued. 7
The prosecution presented five witnesses, namely: (1) Police Chief Inspector Anne Aimee T. Pilayre (PCI Pilayre); (2) Police Officer III Rey R. Saldareiga (PO3 Saldareiga); (3) Intelligence Officer I Eugene Daniel Z. Morcilla (IO1 Morcilla); (4) Police Officer II Vanessa A. Andilab (PO2 Andilab); and (5) Agent Jury Rocamora (Agent Rocamora). 8
Based on their collective testimonies, it was revealed that in the evening of September 24, 2015, IO1 Morcilla received a message from his confidential informant apprising him of the alleged illegal activities of a certain "Tibor," later identified as Jastiva. IO1 Morcilla communicated this information to his superior, Agent Rocamora, who in turn, requested for Philippine National Police's (PNP) assistance. 9
Following this, Agent Rocamora held a briefing regarding the buy-bust operation to be conducted against Tibor. Senior Police Officer II Victor Saguin (SPO2 Saguin) was tasked to head the operation while IO1 Morcilla was designated as the poseur-buyer. The informant was then directed to arrange the sale between Tibor and IO1 Morcilla. 10
Later that night, the team proceeded to Barcelona, Dapitan City where Tibor's house is. Upon their arrival, IO1 Morcilla and the informant proceeded towards the back portion of the house where the business transactions allegedly occur. The rest of the team strategically positioned themselves near the area and waited for the pre-arranged signal. 11
After a brief introduction and conversation, Tibor demanded payment. Upon receipt of the P500.00 bill from IO1 Morcilla, Tibor instructed them to wait for Gooc, as he was in possession of the shabu. Once Gooc arrived with Edilo, Tibor ordered them to give the shabu to IO1 Morcilla. Edilo then took out a sachet of shabu from her black coin purse and gave it to Gooc, who wrapped the shabu in a cigarette foil before handing it over to Tibor. Upon receipt of the shabu, IO1 Morcilla removed his cap to signify that the sale had been consummated. 12
IO1 Morcilla then introduced himself as a Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) agent and announced the arrest of the three. However, only Edilo was arrested since Gooc and Jastiva had successfully escaped. 13 They then frisked Edilo, recovering from her a black coin purse which stored 12 pieces of transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance, suspected to be shabu, and 16 pieces of cut aluminum foil. 14
After the arrest, IO1 Morcilla started marking the confiscated items. 15 However, upon Agent Rocamora's directive, the team returned to the police station where IO1 Morcilla continued marking the confiscated items. He likewise made an inventory of the items and took photographs of them in the presence of Erna Baradillo (Baradilla), a media representative, and Gregorio Jarapan (Jarapan), a barangay official. 16
From the police station, IO1 Morcilla brought Edilo and the confiscated items to the Provincial Crime Laboratory for examination. Edilo's urine sample was likewise taken and submitted for drug test. The examination revealed that the seized items and Edilo's urine sample yielded positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. 17
For her part, Edilo pleaded denial. She maintained that on the night before the alleged incident, she and her live-in partner, Gooc, went to Tibor's house to help him prepare for the fiesta celebration. The next day, she and Gooc decided to stay at Tibor's house since it was raining. While she was entertaining some guests, PDEA agents suddenly barged into Tibor's house and searched the place. Gooc tried to persuade Edilo to escape, but the latter refused since Agent Rocamora was then holding an armalite. She further narrated that while Gooc and Tibor escaped, she was left at the house guarding Tibor's children. She denied that the black purse containing the shabu was taken from her. 18
In its August 29, 2017 Decision, the Regional Trial Court found Edilo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows: DETACa
1) With respect to Criminal Case No. 19969 referring to the charge of delivering shabu to Tibor, Melissa Edilo is hereby found guilty thereof. She is hereby sentenced to Life Imprisonment and to pay the fine P500,000;
2) With respect to Criminal Case No. 19970 referring to the charge of illegal possession of twelve (12) sachets of shabu weighing 3.4996 grams, this Court hereby finds her guilty as charged. She is hereby sentenced to an imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and to pay the fine of P300,000;
3) Furthermore, with respect to Criminal Case No. 19971 referring to illegal possession of 16 cut aluminum foils, which this court considers as prohibited drug paraphernalia within the context of shabu use, she is hereby found guilty as charged. She is hereby meted with imprisonment ranging from six (6) and one (1) day to four (4) years and to pay the fine of Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00).
Consequently, in accordance with the provision of the law, the twelve (12) sachets of shabu, sixteen (16) cut aluminum foils, and the motorcycle used in the drug deal are also ordered forfeited in favor of the state to be disposed in accordance with the rules.
Meanwhile, let alias warrants of arrest be issued against the other two accused, Rolando Jastiva and Ian Gooc. Finally, considering that they have remained at-large more than six months counted from the issuance of the warrants against them, let these cases be then archived, subject to reinstatement as soon as they are arrested and put before the jurisdiction of this Court.
SO ORDERED. 19
The Regional Trial Court brushed aside Edilo's defense of denial, and decreed that absent any improper motive on the part of the police officers and PDEA agents, they are presumed to have regularly performed their official duties and functions. 20
Aggrieved, Edilo appealed with the Court of Appeals. 21
In her Appellant's-Brief, 22 Edilo argued that the prosecution failed to prove that she participated in the alleged sale of illegal drugs. She maintained that neither did she receive the money from IO1 Morcilla nor did she hand him the sachet of shabu. 23 In addition, she contended that the corpus delicti of the crime was not established, considering that the items were not marked immediately after seizure. 24
For its part, the Office of the Solicitor General averred that the prosecution proved that Edilo delivered the sachet of dangerous drugs to Tibor in violation of Article II, Section 5, of Republic Act No. 9165. 25 Further, it argued that there is nothing irregular in the police officers' failure to mark the items immediately after seizure, insisting that the law allows the conduct of the inventory at the nearest police station in case or warrantless seizures. 26
In its August 31, 2018 Decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed accused-appellant's conviction. It ruled that contrary to accused-appellant's contention, it was proven during trial that IO1 Morcilla began marking the seized items at the scene of the crime. 27
It further decreed that even if the arresting officers failed to strictly comply with the chain of custody requirement, they have, nevertheless, established that the evidentiary value and integrity of the seized items were preserved. 28
Dissatisfied with the decision, accused-appellant filed a Notice of Appeal with the Court of Appeals. 29
In its January 21, 2019 Resolution, this Court noted the records of this case forwarded by the Court of Appeals, and notified the parties that they may file their supplemental briefs. 30
The Office of the Solicitor General filed a Manifestation, 31 on behalf of the People of the Philippines, manifesting that it would no longer file a Supplemental Brief and that it is adopting its Brief filed before the Court of Appeals.
Accused-appellant, on the other hand, filed a Supplemental Brief. 32 She argued, among others, that: (1) the prosecution failed to prove that the seized items were neither marked in her presence nor in the presence of any of the required third-party witnesses; and (2) not one of the required third-party witnesses was present at the time of her arrest.
For this Court's resolution is the issue of whether or not the guilt of accused-appellant Melissa Edilo was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The appeal is meritorious.
I
Time and again, this Court has held that every person charged with the commission of crime has in their favor the constitutional guarantee 33 of being presumed innocent until and unless proven otherwise. The prosecution bears the rigorous burden of establishing one's guilt by proof beyond reasonable doubt. 34 Its failure to discharge this burden warrants the accused's acquittal. 35
In cases involving illegal sale of dangerous drugs, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to establish the existence of the following elements: "(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor[.]" 36
On the other hand, to sustain a conviction for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must prove the following elements:
first, the accused was in possession of an item or object, which is identified to be a prohibited or dangerous drug; second, such possession was not authorized by law; and third, the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. 37 (Citation omitted) aDSIHc
For the prosecution or illegal possession of drug paraphernalia to prosper, the following elements must be shown to exist:
(1) possession or control by the accused of any equipment, apparatus or other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body; and (2) such possession is not authorized by law. 38 (Citation omitted)
In these cases, corpus delicti refers to the drugs and drug paraphernalia confiscated from the accused. 39 It is imperative that the arresting officers prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti of the crimes have been preserved. 40
In this regard, the chain of custody requirement under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended, functions as a method of authenticating evidence which "ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed[,]" 41 thus, the rule provides:
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 dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items 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, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media 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, finally, That noncompliance of 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 and custody over said items. (Emphasis in the original)
In People v. Junaide, 42 it was held that "[t]he first stage in the chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or related items. Marking is the affixing of the initials or other identifying signs on the seized items by the arresting officer or the poseur-buyer." 43 It is done in the presence of the accused and third-party witnesses. 44
The marking of the confiscated items immediately after seizure is vital in ensuring the integrity of the items. It "operates to set apart as evidence the dangerous drugs or related items from other material from the moment they are confiscated until they are disposed of at the close of the criminal proceedings, thereby forestalling switching, planting, or contamination of evidence." 45
Here, the evidence on record reveals that the marking was done in two different places. IO1 Morcilla recounted that while he commenced the marking at the place of arrest, it was continued and completed at the police station; thus:
Fiscal Lo:
Q: And after arresting the woman suspect alias Liz and after recovering from her sachets of shabu what did you do next, Mr. Witness?
A: After the conduct of markings to the confiscated drugs, sir, Agent Rocamora instructed the team to proceed to Dapitan City Police Station for the continuation of markings on the confiscated evidence and also for the inventory of the said items, sir.
Q: So with the order of your head to proceed to your office for the continuation of the markings as well as in the inventory what did you do next, Mr. Witness?
A: At Dapitan City Police Station, sir, we conducted the continuation of markings and inventory as witnessed by media representative in the person of Ms. Erna Armadillo and barangay official from Angara Barcelona in the person of Gregorio Jarapan, sir[.] 46
Furthermore, although IO1 Morcilla testified that he marked the items with "EM," "RDJ," and "BB," he failed to indicate whether this was done in the presence of accused-appellant. Worse, he admitted that no third-party witnesses were present:
"Q: In the pictures you have testified where the barangay representative Gregorio Jarapan, Jr. was included in the photograph taken?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And these photographs were taken at the Police Station?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: So during the marking of exhibits at the house of Tibor this Erna Beradillo and Gregorio Jarapan, Jr., barangay representative were not there?
A: Yes, sir." 47 (Emphasis supplied) ETHIDa
In People v. Que, 48 this Court emphasized that the third-party witnesses' presence during the marking serves as an "insulating" guarantee which protects the items from the dangers of planting and tampering. 49 While the law permits noncompliance with Section 21's mandate, it, however, requires the existence of a justifiable reason before any nonconformity may be countenanced.
Here, the prosecution offered no justifiable reason for its failure to comply with the law's mandate. They gave no explanation why no third-party witness was present during the initial marking. Likewise, the prosecution failed to indicate which among the confiscated items were marked at the place of arrest and at the police station. Not only is the evidentiary value of the confiscated items compromised, but also, this noncompliance raises doubt as to whether the items are the same items taken from accused-appellant.
II
Noncompliance with the chain of custody rule cannot be justified by the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties.
This Court is mindful of the presumption of regularity enjoyed by police officials. However, we stress that this presumption is not conclusive. People v. Pagaduan50 held that "[i]t cannot, by itself, overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence. Any taint of irregularity affects the whole performance and should make the presumption unavailable." 51 Moreover, in People v. Casabuena: 52
Finally, we stress that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty obtains only when there is no deviation from the regular performance of duty. Where the official act in question is irregular on its face, no presumption of regularity can arise. Our declaration in People v. Samuel Obmiranis y Oreta is particularly instructive:
. . . The presumption, in other words, obtains only where nothing in the records is suggestive of the fact that the law enforcers involved deviated from the standard conduct of official duty as provided for in the law. Otherwise, where the official act in question is irregular on its face, an adverse presumption arises as a matter of course. There is indeed merit in the contention that where no ill motives to make false charges was successfully attributed to the members of the buy-bust team, the presumption prevails that said police operatives had regularly performed their duty, but the theory is correct only where there is no showing that the conduct of police duty was irregular. People v. Dulay and People v. Ganenas in fact both suggest that the presumption of regularity is disputed where there is deviation from the regular performance of duty. Suffice it to say at this point that the presumption of regularity in the conduct of police duty is merely just that — a mere presumption disputable by contrary proof and which when challenged by the evidence cannot be regarded as binding truth. 53 (Citations omitted, emphasis in the original)
WHEREFORE, the August 31, 2018 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01764-MIN is RESERVED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Melissa Edilo y Elumbaring a.k.a. Myrna Capangpang y Edilo alias Liz is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. She is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless she is confined for some other lawful cause.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for Women for immediate implementation. The Superintendent is directed to report to this Court, within five days from receipt of this Resolution, the action she has taken. Copies shall also be furnished to the Police General of the Philippine National Police and the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for their information.
Let entry of final judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 19-21.
2.Id. at 3-17. The August 31, 2018 Decision was penned by Associate Justice Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas and concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo T. Lloren and Walter S. Ong of the Special Twenty-Third Division, Court of Appeals, Cagayan de Oro.
3. CA rollo, pp. 50-59. The Decision was penned by Judge Ric S. Bastasa of Branch 8, Regional Trial Court, Dipolog City.
4.Rollo, pp. 4-5.
5.Id.
6.Id. at 4 and 6.
7. CA rollo, p. 51.
8.Rollo, p. 6.
9.Id. at 6.
10.Id.
11.Id.
12.Id.
13.Id.
14.Id. at 7.
15.Id. at 15.
16.Id. at 7.
17.Id.
18.Id. at 8.
19. CA rollo, pp. 58-59.
20.Id. at 57.
21.Id. at 16.
22.Id. at 30-49.
23.Id. at 39-40.
24.Id. at 40.
25.CARollo, pp. 83-84.
26.Id. at 77-78.
27.Rollo, p. 15.
28.Id. at 17.
29.Id. at 19-21.
30.Id. at 26-27.
31.Id. at 28-30.
32.Id. at 36-57.
33. CONST., article III, sec. 14 (2) states:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused: Provided, that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.
34.Macayan, Jr. v. People, 756 Phil. 202 (2015) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
35.People v. Royol, G.R. No. 224297, February 13, 2019, <http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65005> [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
36.People v. Dumlao, 584 Phil. 732, 739 (2008) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, Third Division].
37.Valencia v. People, 725 Phil. 268, 277 (2014) [Per J. Reyes, First Division].
38.Saraum v. People, 779 Phil. 122, 128 (2016) [Per J. Peralta, Third Division].
39.Id.See also Mallillin y Lopez v. People, 576 Phil. 576 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
40.People v. Magat, 588 Phil. 395 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
41.Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 587 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
42. 733 Phil. 315 (2014) [Per J. Abad, Third Division].
43.Id. at 318.
44.People v. Binasing, G.R. No. 221439, July 4, 2018, 870 SCRA 602 [Per J. Del Castillo, First Division].
45.People v. Gonzales, 708 Phil. 121, 131 (2013) [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].
46.Rollo, pp. 15-16, citing TSN dated September 8, 2016, p. 11.
47. CA rollo, p. 43 citing TSN dated September 8, 2016, p. 25.
48.People v. Que, G.R. No. 212994, January 31, 2018, 853 SCRA 487 [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
49.Id. at 520-523.
50. 641 Phil. 432 (2010) [Per J. Brion, Third Division].
51.Id. at 450.
52.People v. Casabuena, 747 Phil. 358 (2014) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
53.Id. at 374.