FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 247278. February 15, 2022.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. HASSAN EDRES y ACOB a.k.a. 'HASSANOR EDRES', *accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated February 15, 2022 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 247278 (People of the Philippines vs. Hassan Edres y Acob a.k.a. 'Hassanor Edres'). — The conviction of Hassan Edres y Acob (Hassan) for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs 1 is the subject of this appeal assailing the Decision 2 dated May 31, 2018 and Resolution 3 dated January 23, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01653-MIN, which affirmed the findings of the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
ANTECEDENTS
On July 10, 2015, IO1 Cecil Vincent M. Orcales (IO1 Orcales) of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), Provincial Special Enforcement Team, Regional Office 10-Misamis Oriental, applied for a search warrant before the RTC, Branch 10, Cagayan de Oro City (RTC-Branch 10). In his application, IO1 Orcales narrated that, on July 8, 2015, their office received information from a confidential informant that Hassan and Diara Acob Edres (Diara) of Zone 3, Mabolo Street, Carmen, Cagayan de Oro City, were selling dangerous drugs. 4 Subsequently, the RTC issued a warrant for the search of an undetermined quantity of shabu in the address stated on the application.
Around 3:00 p.m. of July 11, 2015, IO1 Orcales conducted a briefing at the PDEA office for the implementation of the search warrant. The team was composed of thirteen (13) PDEA agents, with IO1 Liezel E. Baldovino (IO1 Baldovino) and IA1 Rodolfo S. Dela Cerna, Jr. (IA1 Dela Cerna) designated as searching officers. After the briefing, the team, together with a barangay kagawad and a representative from the media, proceeded to the house of the suspects. 5
When the team arrived, the door to Hassan's room on the ground floor was open and they saw Hassan standing near his bed. Diara was not present at that time. The PDEA agents announced their authority and informed Hassan that they were serving him a search warrant. 6 IO1 Baldovino subsequently searched the premises and discovered a Reynolds zip-lock bag with two (2) sachets containing white crystalline substance inside the drawer of a cabinet. Immediately after the search, IO1 Baldovino marked the items with her initials, and conducted an inventory in the presence of Kagawad Sunny Rae Cahayag and media representative Menzie Montes of Magnum Radio. Photographs of the confiscated items also taken during the marking and inventory. Thereafter, the seized articles were placed inside an evidence box and was brought to the PDEA Office, where IO1 Baldovino prepared a letter request for the examination of the confiscated items. 7
IO1 Baldovino then personally delivered the seized items at the PDEA Regional Laboratory Service, and were received by Chemist 1 Mary Ann. P. Ancheta (C1 Ancheta). C1 Ancheta conducted an examination of the specimens, and found that specimens submitted tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu as reflected in Chemistry Report No. PDEA-DD-205-038.
Despite her absence at the time of the implementation of the search warrant, Diara was charged, together with Hassan, for violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 under the following Information: 8
That on or about 11th day of July 2015 at around 3:30 o'clock [sic] in the afternoon, in Zone 3, Brgy. Carmen, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping each other, without authority of law or permit, did then and there, knowingly, willfully and unlawfully possess or keep in their possession, custody and control two pieces big square heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets, each containing white crystalline substance weighing 9.1176 grams and 9.1676 grams, respectively, or a total aggregate weight of 18.2852 grams, which upon laboratory examination tested positive of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, commonly called 'shabu,' a dangerous drug, which items were confiscated and recovered from their control and/or possession during a search conducted by members of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA)-X operatives/agents by virtue of Search Warrant No. 2015-017 issued by Executive Judge Dennis Z. Alcantar of the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City. 9
For his part, Hassan denied all the allegations against him, and claimed that he did not reside in Carmen, Cagayan de Oro City. He narrated that, about 2:00 p.m. of July 11, 2015, when his work shift at Red Ribbon had just ended, he received a message from his grandmother asking him to collect rent due from her boarders in Mabolo, Carmen, Cagayan de Oro City. While waiting for the boarders to arrive, he suddenly heard people screaming, 'Dapa! Dapa!' which startled him. At that point, he spotted the PDEA agents planting evidence inside the drawers of the cabinets. 10
On April 18, 2017, the RTC rendered a Decision 11 convicting Hassan of illegal possession of dangerous drugs; meanwhile, the case against Diara was archived considering that she had not been arrested, 12 thus: CAIHTE
WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused HASSAN EDRES y ACOB a.k.a 'Hassanor Edres' GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Sec. 11 of Article II of RA 9165 and sentences him to a penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P400,000.00.
The seized sachets of shabu with a total weight of 18.2852 grams marked as Exhibits 'C' and 'C-1' for prosecution are hereby confiscated and destroyed pursuant to R.A. 9165.
The case against DIARA EDRES y ACOB, she being at large is hereby ARCHIVED.
SO ORDERED. 13
The RTC ruled that the prosecution have proven Hassan's guilt for illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The house where the search warrant was to be served was sufficiently and clearly described. Ownership of the house is immaterial because Hassan was found in constructive possession of the dangerous drugs in the premises as mentioned in the warrant. The RTC also held that Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 had been complied with to establish the chain of custody over the confiscated items.
On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC's findings, and ruled that all the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs are present, as well as, the unbroken chain of custody over the illegal substance. 14 The dispositive portion of the CA's Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated April 18, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court, 10th Judicial Region, Branch 23, Cagayan de Oro City in CR-DRG-2015-411, finding accused-appellant Hassan Acob Edres a.k.a. Hasanor Edres guilty for possession of shabu, an illegal drug or for violation of Section 11, Article II or Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 is hereby AFFIRMED intoto.
SO ORDERED. 15
The CA confirmed the validity of the search warrant since there was a finding of probable cause to cause the search on Hassan's house. The CA likewise affirmed that the chain of custody requirements were established by the prosecution — that IO1 Baldovino confiscated two (2) plastic sachets of shabu from Hassan's house, which she marked with her initials then personally delivered to the crime laboratory. At the crime laboratory, C1 Ancheta examined the specimen and yielded a positive result for methamphetamine hydrochloride. The integrity of the evidence was preserved, and all the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs were proved.
Aggrieved, Hassan moved for reconsideration, 16 but was denied by the CA in a Resolution 17 dated January 23, 2019.
Hence, this appeal. Hassan maintains that the CA erred in affirming his conviction because there were lapses and breaks in the chain of custody in violation of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. 18
RULING
The appeal is meritorious.
As with any criminal case, it is critical to start with the law's own perspective on the status of the accused — that he is presumed innocent of the charge unless the contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt. The burden lies on the prosecution to overcome such presumption of innocence by presenting the quantum of evidence required. The prosecution must rest on the merits of its own evidence and not rely on the weakness of the defense. If the prosecution fails, the presumption of innocence prevails and the accused should necessarily be acquitted. 19
In cases involving dangerous drugs, the fact of existence of the contraband itself or the corpus delicti is vital to a judgment of conviction. 20 For this reason, it is essential to ensure that the substance recovered from the accused is the same substance offered in court. 21 Notably, the alleged crime in this case happened on July 11, 2015. Hence the law applicable is Section 21, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, 22 to wit:
(1) The apprehending learn 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.
In Tumabini v. People, 23 the Court clarified that Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, applies whether the drugs were seized either in a buy-bust operation or pursuant to a search warrant. A plain reading of the law shows that it applies as long as there has been a seizure and confiscation of drugs. There is nothing in the statutory provision which states that it is only applicable when there is a warrantless seizure in a buy-bust operation. Thus, it should be applied in every situation when an apprehending team seizes and confiscates drugs from an accused, whether through a buy-bust operation or through a search warrant. The only recognizable difference between seizure and confiscation of drugs pursuant to a search warrant and a buy-bust operation is the venue of the physical inventory and taking of photographs of the said drugs, thus:
When the drugs are seized pursuant to a search warrant, then the physical inventory and taking of photographs shall be conducted at the place where the said search warrant was served. In contrast, when the drugs are seized pursuant to a buy-bust operation or a warrantless seizure, then these can be conducted at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending team. Other than that, there is no other difference between seizure and confiscation of drugs with a search warrant and without it (such as a buy-bust operation). Consistent with Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165, its IRR does not suspend the application of the chain of custody rule simply because the drugs were seized pursuant to a search warrant. Thus, the witnesses under the law are required to be present. Again, the only difference is with respect to the venue of the inventory and taking of photographs. 24 (Emphasis supplied.)
Jurisprudence has consistently applied Section 21 in the implementation of a search warrant. In Santos v. People, 25 the police operatives secured a warrant to search both houses of the accused where seven (7) sachets of shabu were recovered. After the search, the confiscated items were marked, inventoried and photographed in the presence of a barangay kagawad, a DOJ representative and a media representative. The items were later brought to the crime laboratory where, after examination, the specimens yielded positive result for the presence of dangerous drugs. Similarly, in Aranas v. People, 26 the police officers sufficiently complied with the chain of custody of two sachets of shabu found pursuant to a search warrant. After placing the accused under arrest, the police officers marked, inventoried and photographed the items in the presence of the accused, a barangay chairman, a media representative and a DOJ representative. At the crime laboratory, examination on the contents of the sachets confirmed the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
To ensure that the items confiscated from the accused are the same items submitted into evidence, the prosecution must satisfactorily establish the movement and custody of the seized drugs through the following links: first, the confiscation and marking of the specimen seized from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the seized item by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the investigating officer's turnover of the specimen to the forensic chemist for examination; and, fourth, the submission of the item by the forensic chemist to the court. 27
In this case, we find that the identity of the seized drugs had been compromised. The prosecution failed to establish that the illegal drug seized from Hassan was the same drug presented before the trial court. DETACa
Foremost, the records are bereft of indication as to the specific marking made by IO1 Baldovino on the two (2) plastic sachets found in Hassan's constructive possession. The importance of marking seized drugs during the first stage in the chain of custody cannot be overemphasized. Marking — which is the affixing on the dangerous drugs or related items by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his initials or signature or other identifying signs — operates to set apart as evidence the dangerous drugs or related items from other materials from the moment they are confiscated until they are disposed of at the close of the criminal proceedings. The markings are used as reference by the succeeding handlers of the dangerous drugs or related items, thereby forestalling switching, planting or contamination of evidence. In short, the marking immediately upon confiscation or recovery of dangerous drugs or related items is indispensable in the preservation of their integrity and evidentiary value. 28
Under the 2010 Philippine National Police (PNP) Manual on Anti-Illegal Drugs Operation and Investigation (AIDSOTF Manual), the conduct of buy-bust operations requires the following:
Rule II — General Rules and Procedures
xxx xxx xxx
Section 13. Handling, Custody and Disposition of Drug Evidence. —
a. In the handling, custody and disposition of the evidence, the provision of Section, RA 9165 and its IRR shall be strictly observed.
b. x x x.
c. The seizing officer must mark the evidence with his initials indicating therein the date, time and place where the evidence was found and seized. The seizing officer shall secure and preserve the evidence in a suitable evidence bag or in an appropriate container for further laboratory examination. 29
In People v. Manabat, 30 the accused was acquitted on the ground of the apprehending team's failure to include the time and place of the buy-bust operation in the markings in contravention to the PNP Manual. Here, the records simply bear that IO1 Baldovino marked the plastic sachet with her initials, without however, stating in particular the markings made. This can hardly be deemed as sufficient compliance with the dictates of the chain of custody rule, and causes a significant gap in the handling of the confiscated drugs.
Moreover, from the time of arrest and seizure and during transit from Hassan's house to the PDEA office, it is unclear as to who had custody of the evidence box containing the two (2) plastic sachets. The records lack details pertaining to the handling of the seized items and whether the search team undertook precautionary measures to ensure the integrity and identity of the drugs. Without these material details, compliance by the search team with the chain of custody requirements becomes suspicious. 31
At the police station, there was no turnover of the seized drugs to an investigating officer in compliance with the second link in the chain of custody as no evidence was submitted to show that IO1 Baldovino presented the seized items to an investigating officer for the conduct of a proper examination and preparation of necessary documents for the developing criminal case. 32 The prosecution likewise failed to establish how the seized drug was delivered to the crime laboratory, its subsequent receipt in by C1 Ancheta for examination, and the attending precautions observed to maintain the integrity of the seized items.
Finally, as to the fourth link pertaining to the submission of the items by the forensic chemist to the court, the Court, in People v. Dahil, 33 stressed that the failure to show that precautions were taken to ensure that there was no change in the condition of the drugs, and that there was no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have its possession during the fourth link warrants the acquittal of an accused. In case the testimony of the forensic chemist is stipulated upon, the following matters must be included in the stipulations: (1) that the chemist received the seized article as marked, properly sealed, and intact; (2) that he resealed it after examination of the content; and (3) that he placed his own marking on the same to ensure that it could not be tampered with pending trial. 34 In the present case, C1 Ancheta failed to testify as to the circumstances of her receipt of the confiscated items, the safekeeping of the drugs while it was in her custody, and the precautionary steps she took to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item. The prosecution failed to establish the custody of the seized drug from the time it was turned over to the laboratory up to its presentation in court. 35
All told, the prosecution miserably failed to demonstrate the continuous custody over the dangerous drugs after its seizure until it was presented in evidence before the trial court. Without these material details, it cannot be ascertained that the drug presented in evidence is that same drug recovered from Hassan during the implementation of the search warrant. In effect, there can be no crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs considering that there are doubts on whether the seized substance was the same substance examined and found to be prohibited.
Jurisprudence dictates that the procedure enshrined in Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 is a matter of substantive law, and cannot be brushed aside as simple procedural technicality; or worse, ignored as an impediment to the conviction of illegal drug suspects. For indeed, however noble the purpose or necessary the exigencies of our campaign against illegal drugs may be, it is still a governmental action that must always be executed within the boundaries of law. 36 Owing to the unjustified breach of Section 21 that compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti, we acquit the accused-appellant. aDSIHc
FOR THESE REASONS, the appeal is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals' Decision dated May 31, 2018 and Resolution dated January 23, 2019 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01653-MIN are REVERSED. Hassan Edres y Acob is ACQUITTED in Criminal Case No. CR-DRG-2015-411 and is ORDEREDIMMEDIATELYRELEASED from detention, unless he is being lawfully held for another cause.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections for immediate implementation. The Director General is directed to report to this Court the action taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
* Also spelled "Hasanor Edres" in some parts of the rollo.
1. Under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165.
2.Rollo, pp. 4-15. Penned by Associate Justice Oscar V. Badelles and concurred by Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Tita Marilyn Payoyo-Villordon.
3. CA rollo, pp. 141-143. Penned by Associate Justice Oscar V. Badelles and concurred by Associate Justices Tita Marilyn Payoyo-Villordon and Loida S. Posadas-Kahulugan.
4.Id. p. 5.
5.Id.
6.Id.
7.Id. p. 6.
8.Id.
9.Id. pp. 6-7.
10.Id. p. 7.
11.Id. pp. 48-70.
12.Id. p. 70.
13.Id.
14.Id. p. 11.
15.Id. p. 14.
16.Id. p. 40.
17.Id. pp. 141-143.
18.Id. p. 29.
19.People v. Capuno, 655 Phil. 226-245 (2011).
20.People v. Partoza, 605 Phil. 883-894 (2009).
21.People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21-38 (2017).
22. RA No. 10640 took effect on August 7, 2014. See OCA Circular No. 77-2015 dated April 23, 2015. As amended, it is now mandated that the conduct of physical inventory and photograph of the seized items must be in the presence of (1) the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, (2) with an elected public official, and (3) a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
23. G.R. No. 224495, February 19, 2020.
24.Id.
25. G.R. No. 242656, August 14, 2019.
26. G.R. No. 242315, July 3, 2019.
27.People v. Bugtong, 826 Phil. 628 (2018).
28.People of the Philippines v. Ismael, G.R. No. 208093, February 20, 2017.
29. See People v. Labsan, G.R. No. 227184, February 6, 2019.
30. G.R. No. 242947, July 17, 2019.
31.People v. Que, G.R. No. 212994, January 31, 2018.
32.People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 235 (2015).
33.Id.
34.Id. at 466.
35.People v. Pajarin, 654 Phil. 461 (2011).
36.People of the Philippines v. Baptista, G.R. No. 225783, August 20, 2018.