SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 257370. August 15, 2022.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.MERLINA ESCOBAR y NARAG, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 15, 2022 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 257370 (People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appelleev. Merlina Escobar y Narag, accused-appellant). — Assailed in this ordinary appeal 1 are the Decision 2 dated March 22, 2019 and the Resolution 3 dated July 1, 2020 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 10192, which affirmed the Joint Judgment 4 dated September 29, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court of Tuguegarao City, Cagayan (RTC), Branch 5, finding accused-appellant Merlina Escobar y Narag (Merlina) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Sale and Possession of Dangerous Drugs, as defined and penalized under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, otherwise known as the 'Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,' 5 respectively.
The Facts
In two (2) separate Informations 6 both dated July 27, 2015, Merlina was charged with violations of Section 5, together with her son, Felicito N. Escobar (Felicito), and Section 11, Article II of RA 9165, as follows:
Criminal Case No. 17463(Section 5, Article II of RA 9165)
That on or about June 10, 2015 in the municipality of Solana, province of Cagayan and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, MERLINA ESCOBAR Y NARAG AKA LINA and FELICITO ESCOBAR Y NARAG AKA BOY without authority conspiring together and mutually confederating and aiding each other, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously sell, transport, give away and deliver one (1) piece heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance, methamphetamine hydrochloride locally known as SHAB[U] weighing approximately 0.9613 grams (sic), a dangerous drug to a PDEA Agent who posed as buyer for and in consideration of the amount of PHP5,000.00 which resulted to the apprehension of the accused and the confiscation from their possession [of] the pre-marked buy bust money consisting of one (1) piece genuine one thousand peso bearing serial number CU077461 and four (4) pieces one thousand peso bill boodle money. 7 HSAcaE
Criminal Case No. 17464(Section 11, Article II of RA 9165)
That on or about June 10, 2015 in the municipality of Solana, province of Cagayan and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, MERLINA ESCOBAR Y NARAG AKA LINA without authority after having been caught by PDEA Agent in the act of selling methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug and when frished (sic) and searched upon her person with her consent, did, then and there willfully unlawfully and feloniously still have in her possession, control and custody (sic) twelve (12) pieces of heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance, methamphetamine hydrochloride locally known as SHABU weighing approximately 0.2921, 0.1560, 0.1145, 0.1104, 0.1093, 0.1371, 0.2921, 0.1164, 0.0989, 0.0987, 0.1054 and 0.1219 grams, respectively, a dangerous drug. 8
Criminal Case. No. 17463 was raffled to RTC-Branch 5, while Criminal Case No. 17464 was raffled to RTC-Branch 1. Both cases were then consolidated for joint trial to RTC-Branch 5. 9 Upon arraignment, Merlina and Felicito pleaded not guilty to the charges. 10 Both filed a Petition for Bail. 11 During the hearings for bail, the prosecution presented as witnesses Investigating Officer (IO) 1 Robert Baldovizo (IO1 Baldovizo), the poseur-buyer, and chemist Maria Luz Isabel Daisa (Chemist Daisa), whose testimony was dispensed with, 12 as well as Police Officer (PO) 2 Joemar Esperanza (PO2 Esperanza). 13
In its Order 14 dated December 2, 2015, the RTC-Branch 5 granted bail to Felicito, considering that '[n]o evidence yet at this point has been forwarded that both accused conspired, confederated and aided each other x x x except for the fact that Felicito was inside the motor vehicle when the sale between Merlina and IO1 Baldovizo was made.' 15 However, the RTC-Branch 5 denied Merlina's bail petition because she was positively identified as the seller and possessor of the dangerous drugs. 16
Thereafter, trial proceeded. The testimonies during the bail proceedings, as well as that of IO1 Rovina Littaua (IO1 Littaua), established the facts according to the prosecution. 17
The prosecution alleged that on June 10, 2015, IO2 Philip Bermijiso (IO2 Bermijiso) of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA)-Regional Office II in Camp Adduru, Tuguegarao City, received a tip from a confidential informant (CI) about Merlina selling shabu at her residence in Cattaran, Solana, Cagayan. A team was immediately formed. 18
At around 4:00 p.m., the team proceeded to Solana, Cagayan to pick up the CI, then went to the Police Station of Solana where a final briefing was held. IO1 Baldovizo was designated as the poseur-buyer and was handed with one (1) one-thousand-peso bill bearing serial number CU77461 and four (4) pieces of one-thousand-peso boodle money, while IO1 Littaua and PO2 Esperanza were designated to act as arresting officers/immediate backups. The prearranged signal signifying the consummation of the transaction would be the ringing of IO1 Littaua's cellular phone. 19 HESIcT
After confirmation that Merlina was at her house and had stocks of shabu, the team proceeded to her residence. The CI and IO1 Baldovizo rode a motorcycle, while the rest of the team followed and took strategic positions where they could observe the transaction. Merlina and Felicito were in a white Mitsubishi Adventure parked in front of the house. Merlina waved to the CI, who approached her, and IO1 Baldovizo followed. The CI introduced IO1 Baldovizo as the buyer of shabu and the CI said they were going to buy P5,000.00 worth of shabu. Merlina then handed a heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance and IO1 Baldovizo handed the money. After the completion of the transaction, IO1 Baldovizo made the prearranged signal and introduced himself as a PDEA agent. Then the team rushed in. Felicito introduced himself as a police officer. 20
IO1 Littaua frisked Merlina and seized from the latter twelve (12) pieces of heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance inside a red TM 21 sim card envelope. On the other hand, PO2 Esperanza frisked Felicito and recovered the buy-bust money, two (2) units of cellular phones, as well as one (1) unit caliber 9mm pistol with magazine and ten (10) live ammunitions. 22
IO1 Baldovizo initially marked the item subject of the sale with 'RAB, 06-10-2015,' while IO1 Littaua marked the confiscated sachets with 'RRL.' 23
While in possession of the buy-bust item, IO1 Baldovizo, IO1 Littaua, and the rest of the team proceeded to the Solana Police Station for the conclusion of the inventory, which was later observed by Barangay Captain Freddie Layugan and media representative Romel B. Campos. After the inventory, IO1 Baldovizo and IO1 Littaua delivered the items to the crime laboratory for examination, which was received by Chemist Daisa, who reported that the confiscated sachets contained presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, or shabu, a dangerous drug. 24
As defense, Merlina denied the accusations against her 25 and merely corroborated Felicito's assertions that '[w]hile cleaning his vehicle, suddenly[,] members of the [Philippine National Police-]Solana and [the] PDEA [x x x] arrived and frisked his mother[,] who was at that time just standing outside the car particularly at its right side [x x x].' 26
The RTC Ruling
In a Joint Judgment 27 dated September 29, 2017, the RTC ruled as follows: (a) In Criminal Case No. 17463, Merlina was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, and accordingly, sentenced her to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine in the amount of P1,000,000.00; and (b) In Criminal Case No. 17464, Merlina was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, and accordingly, sentenced her to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of twelve (12) years and one (1) day of prision mayor to fourteen (14) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal and a fine P500,000.00. On the other hand, Felicito was acquitted in both charges due to insufficiency of evidence against him. 28
In convicting Merlina, the RTC found that 'there is evidence to substantially support the conclusion that indeed there was an honest-to-goodness buy-bust operation and the rule on [c]hain of [c]ustody has substantially been established. 29 As to the illegal possession showing how chain of custody was established, the RTC found that 'initial markings were made at the place of arrest, x x x [t]hat from the place of arrest to the Solana Police Station for Inventory and thereafter to the [c]rime [l]aboratory, the same 12 plastic sachets were in the possession of IO1 Littaua.' 30 The RTC also found that Merlina's defense of denial is weak and failed to overturn the prima facie evidence presented by the prosecution. 31
Aggrieved, Merlina appealed to the CA.
The CA Ruling
In a Decision 32 dated March 22, 2019, CA affirmed the RTC's Joint Judgment in toto. 33 The CA found that all the elements for the Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs are present. It explained that '[t]he asseveration raised by [Merlina] failed to convince this Court, as the chain of custody was clearly established.' 34 Further, 'the integrity of the evidence is presumed to have been preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered with. [Merlina] bears the burden of showing that the evidence was tampered or meddled with in order to overcome the presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers and the presumption that public officers properly discharged their duties. [Merlina] in this case failed to present any plausible reason to impute ill motive on the part of the arresting officers. Thus, the testimonies of the apprehending officers deserve full faith and credit.' 35 caITAC
Merlina's motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA in a Resolution 36 dated July 1, 2020. Hence, this appeal.
The Court's Ruling
The appeal is granted.
At the outset, it must be stressed that 'in criminal cases, an appeal throws the entire case wide open for review and the reviewing tribunal can correct errors, though unassigned in the appealed judgment, or even reverse the trial court's decision based on the grounds other than those that the parties raised as errors. The appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and renders such court competent to examine records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law.' 37
Guided by the foregoing consideration, the Court is constrained to acquit Merlina of the crimes charged, as will be explained below.
In cases for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs 38 and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under RA 9165, 39 'it is essential that the identity of the dangerous drug be established with moral certainty, considering that the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime. Failing to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti renders the evidence for the state insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and, hence, warrants an acquittal.' 40
In this regard, case law instructs that there are four (4) links in the chain of custody of the purported drugs confiscated from the accused, namely: 'first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.' 41 Notably, an unjustified deviation from any of the links in the chain of custody shall be sufficient to produce an acquittal on the ground that the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti had not been adequately preserved.
After a thorough review of the records, the Court finds that there were unjustified deviations in the first and fourth links, as will be explained below.
There are four (4) activities that are performed during the first link in relation to the drugs, namely: (a) apprehension/seizure; (b)marking; (c) conduct of inventory; and (d) taking of photographs. While marking is not explicitly mentioned in RA 9165, its IRR, and RA 10640 which amended RA 9165, case law nevertheless recognizes marking as 'the first and most crucial step in the chain of custody rule as it initiates the process of protecting innocent persons from dubious and concocted searches, and of protecting as well the apprehending officers from harassment suits based on planting of evidence. This is when the apprehending officer or poseur-buyer places his or her initials and signature on the item/s seized.' 42 It 'serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of criminal proceedings, thus preventing switching, planting, or contamination of evidence.' 43 As such, 'the Court had consistently held that failure of the authorities to immediately mark the seized drugs would cast reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti." 44 In People v. Santos, 45 the Court ruled that the marking should be conducted in the presence of the apprehended violator and immediately after confiscation, to wit:
On the first link, jurisprudence dictates that '(M)arking' is the placing by the apprehending officer of some distinguishing signs with his/her initials and signature on the items seized. It helps ensure that the dangerous drugs seized upon apprehension are the same dangerous drugs subjected to inventory and photography when these activities are undertaken at the police station or at some other practicable venue rather than at the place of arrest. Consistency with the 'chain of custody' rule requires that the 'marking' of the seized items — to truly ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence — should be done (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator and (2) immediately upon confiscation. 46 (emphasis and underscoring supplied) ICHDca
In this case, records show that while IO1 Baldovizo claimed that he made initial markings on the subject buy-bust item (subject matter of Criminal Case No. 17463) immediately at the place of the arrest, he finished the markings only when he was already at the police station. Pertinent portions of IO1 Baldovizo's testimony read:
[Direct Examination]
Q: Mr. Witness, I have here with me a plastic sachet with white crystalline substance sealed by two masking tapes with markings therein. The marking on the upper masking tape reads Exh. A, RAB, 06-10-2015, and there is a signature herein. Will you kindly go over this marking and identify who made those markings?
A: This is my marking, sir.
Q: Where and when did you place this marking?
A: This was the initial marking at the place of transaction, then it was finished at the Police Station. 47
[Cross-examination]
Q: Okay. Mr. Witness, you also made mention during your direct testimony that the initial marking was done at the place of transaction?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: But again, in your two-page affidavit, you did not mention that initial marking was ever done at the place of transaction?
A: Yes, sir, but I think there is a photograph taken at the place of transaction that we made an initial marking.
Q: Can you show that to the court this photograph, Mr. Witness?
A: We can ask the investigator of the case. 48
In the same vein, in her testimony, IO1 Littaua gave conflicting answers on whether she marked the confiscated drugs at the place of transaction (subject of Criminal Case No. 17464), to wit:
[Direct Examination]
Q: Where did you conduct initial marking of the items?
A: At the place of transaction, Sir.
Q: What happened next after you conducted initial marking?
A: We proceeded to Solana Police Station, sir. 49
[Cross-Examination]
Q: Madam Witness, isn't it a fact that you did not conduct marking and inventory of the alleged seized items at the place of the alleged transaction?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: In fact, Madam Witness, there is nothing in your Joint Affidavit that markings were done at the place of the alleged transaction?
A: Yes, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: And you said a while ago that the markings of the inventory were not done at the place of the alleged confiscation[,] and this was despite that there were many members of the alleged buy-bust team?
A: The marking of the buy-bust stuff was done at the place of arrest, sir.
Q: But you confirm, Madam Witness, that you did not state that in your Judicial Affidavit? TCAScE
A: Yes, sir. 50
To reiterate, 'the seized item must be immediately marked at the place of arrest to obviate any possibility of tampering or switching,' 51 which they failed to do. There was no explanation from the apprehending officers why they did not finish the markings at the place of arrest — if indeed they made the markings at the place of arrest. This renders questionable the integrity and evidentiary value of the items seized from Merlina.
Further, as regards the fourth link of the chain of custody, 'it is of paramount necessity that the forensic chemist testifies on the details pertaining to the handling and analysis of the dangerous drug submitted for examination, i.e., when and from whom the dangerous drugs was received; what identifying labels or other things accompanied it; description of the specimen; and the container it was in. Further, the forensic chemist must also identify the name and method of analysis used in determining the chemical composition of the subject specimen.' 52 Relatedly, should the prosecution and the defense opt to stipulate and dispense with the attendance of the forensic chemist, case law instructs that 'it should be stipulated that the forensic chemist would have testified that he [or she] took the precautionary steps required in order to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item, thus: (1) the forensic chemist received the seized article as marked, properly sealed, and intact; (2) he [or she] resealed it after examination of the content; and (3) he [or she] placed his [or her] own marking on the same to ensure that it could not be tampered pending trial.' 53
Here, the defense stipulated on the testimony of the witness who will testify 'on the Standard Operating Procedure adopted by their office whenever evidence or illegal drugs are being submitted for laboratory examination; she will identify the drug subject of the buy bust operation[,] as well as the subject of the possession case under Criminal Case No. 17454 which report is contained in Chemistry Report No. POEA-DT02-15-028 TO 029; she will identify the methamphetamine hydrochloride contained in the possession case as well as in the selling case, your Honor; she will testify on other relevant matters.' 54 Verily, the prosecution and the defense failed to agree on the required stipulations as stated above, thereby resulting in a break insofar as the fourth link of the chain of custody is concerned.
To reiterate, establishing every link in the chain of custody is crucial to the preservation of the integrity, identity, and evidentiary value of the seized illegal drug. As such, the failure to demonstrate compliance with even just one of these links creates reasonable doubt than the substance confiscated from the accused is the same substance offered in evidence. Accordingly, in light of the unjustified deviations in the first and fourth links of the chain of custody as above-described, the Court is constrained to conclude that the integrity and evidentiary value of the items seized from Merlina had been compromised. Perforce, her acquittal is in order.
FOR THESE REASONS, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated March 22, 2019 and the Resolution dated July 1, 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 10193 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Merlina Escobar y Narag is ACQUITTED of the crimes charged.
The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is ORDERED to: (a) cause the immediate release of accused-appellant Merlina Escobar y Narag, unless she is being lawfully held in custody for any other lawful reason; and (b) inform the Court of the action taken within five (5) days from receipt of this ruling.
Let copies of this Resolution 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 judgment be issued immediately. cTDaEH
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MA. CONSOLACION GAMINDE-CRUZADADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. See Notice of Appeal with Compliance of ILLEGIBLE PORTION 2020, CA rollo, pp. 184-186.
2.Rollo, pp. 9-24; Penned by Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser and concurred in by Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Rafael Antonio M. Santos.
3. CA rollo, pp. 181-183.
4.Rollo, pp. 25-27. Penned by ILLEGIBLE PORTION.
5. Entitled "AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 5445, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on June 7, 2002.
6. Not attached to the rollo.
7. See rollo, p. 14.
8. See id. at 15.
9.Id.
10.Id. at 16.
11. Records (Crim. Case No. 17461), pp. 79-81.
12.Id. at 96.
13.Rollo, p. 16.
14. Records (Crim. Case No. 174631, pp. 110-113. Penned by Judge Jezarene C. Aquino.
15.Id. at 112.
16.Rollo, p. 16.
17. See id.
18. See id. at 11.
19. See id.
20. See id. at 11-12.
21. Abbreviated term for "Touch Mobile."
22. See rollo, p. 12.
23. See id. at 12.
24. See id.
25.Id. at 32.
26.Id. at 31.
27.Id. at 25-37.
28.Id. at 37.
29.Id. at 33.
30.Id. at 35.
31.Id. at 36.
32.Id. at 9-24.
33.Id. at 24.
34.Id. at 21.
35.Id. at 22.
36. CA rollo, pp. 181-183.
37.People v. Bernardo, G.R. No. 242696, November 11, 2020, citing Arambulo v. People, G.R. No. 241834, July 24, 2019. See also Sindac v. People, 794 Phil. 421, 527 (2016).
38. 'The elements of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 are: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment.' (See People v. Villalon, Jr., G.R. No. 249412, March 15, 2021.)
39. '[T]he elements of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 are: (a) the accused was in possession of an item or object identified as a prohibited drug; (b) such possession was not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.' (See id.)
40. See Saban v. People, G.R. No. 253812, June 28, 2021; citations omitted.
41.People v. Que, 824 Phil. 882, 895 (2018), citing People v. Nandi, 639 Phil. 134, 144-145 (2010).
42.People v. Ramirez, 823 Phil. 1215, 1225-1226 (2018).
43.Id., citing People v. Nuarin, 764 Phil. 550, 558 (2015).
44.People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 232 (2015).
45. 823 Phil. 1162 (2018).
46.Id. at 1181-1182, citing People v. Somoza, 714 Phil. 368, 387-388 (2013).
47. TSN dated November 17, 2015 of IO1 Baldovizo, p. 15.
48. TSN dated November 17, 2015 of IO1 Baldovizo, p. 24.
49. TSN dated November 24, 2016 of IO1 Littaua, p. 8.
50. TSN dated November 24, 2016 of IOI Littaua, p. 24.
51. See People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 242520, November 15, 2021.
52.People v. Villalon, supra note 35, citing People v. Omamos, G.R. No. 223036, July 10, 2019.
53.Id., citing People v. Ubungen, G.R. No. 225497, July 23, 2018, 873 SCRA 172; emphasis, italics, and underscoring supplied.
54. TSN dated November 20, 2015 of ILLEGIBLE PORTION.