SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 233886. September 27, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.AUGUSTO LEYVA ESTORES, JR., accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 27 September 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 233886 (People of the Philippines v. Augusto Leyva Estores, Jr.). — Challenged in this appeal 1 is the May 31, 2017 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA/appellate court) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07971 which affirmed with modification accused-appellant Augusto Leyva Estores, Jr.'s (accused-appellant/Estores, Jr.) conviction for Illegal Sale and Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165), otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
The Antecedents:
Estores, Jr. was charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC/trial court) of Calamba City, Branch 37 with violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165 under two separate Informations 3 which read:
Criminal Case No. 17465-2010-C:
That on or about 10:00 p.m. of 12 August 2010 at Purok 7, Ilaya, Brgy. Parian, Calamba City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping with one another, without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to a poseur-buyer a quantity of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride weighing 0.02 gram.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
Criminal Case No. 17466-2010-C:
That on or about 10:00 p.m. of 12 August 2010 at Purok 7, Ilaya, Brgy. Parian, Calamba City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously possess three (3) plastic sachet of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, otherwise known as "shabu," a dangerous drug, having a total weight of 0.06 [gram], in violation of the aforementioned law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
Upon arraignment, Estores, Jr. pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged. 6 Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued. The prosecution presented Forensic Chemist Lalaine Ong-Rodrigo (FC Ong-Rodrigo), Senior Police Officer 1 Apolonio Naredo, Jr. (SPO1 Naredo, Jr.) and Police Officer 1 Gerie Estenor (PO1 Estenor) as witnesses while the defense presented appellant Estores, Jr. as its sole witness. 7
Evidence for the Prosecution:
On August 12, 2010, at around 10 o'clock in the evening, SPO1 Naredo, Jr. of Calamba City Police Station received a report from a confidential informant that a certain alias "JR.," later identified as Estores, Jr., was selling prohibited drugs at Sitio Silangan, Purok 7, Brgy. Parian, Calamba City. SPO1 Naredo, Jr. immediately informed his superior, Police Senior Inspector Rogel Sarreal (PSI Sarreal), who then relayed the information to Police Superintendent Raul Loy Bargamento (P/Supt. Bargamento). Hence, a buy-bust team was formed composed of SPO1 Naredo, Jr., PO3 Rogel Aldabe, PO2 Arnel Sanque, and PO2 Allen Llorente. A Pre-Operation Report and Coordination Form for the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) were likewise prepared by PSI Sarreal. 8
Thereafter, SPO1 Naredo, Jr. and the confidential informant together with the other members of the buy-bust team went to Sitio Silangan, Purok 7, Brgy. Parian, Calamba City. Upon arrival, they saw accused-appellant inside the fenced backyard of his house. SPO1 Naredo, Jr. and the confidential informant immediately approached Estores, Jr. who then asked the confidential informant "mayroon ako dito maganda ang kasa, kukuha ka ba?" to which the latter replied that he would buy worth P100.00. The informant then gave Estores, Jr. the marked P100 bill while the latter handed over to the former one (1) small plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. Immediately thereafter, SPO1 Naredo, Jr. introduced himself as a police officer and arrested accused-appellant. Afterwards, he frisked Estores, Jr. and found in his possession three (3) more plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance and the marked P100 bill. The informant then tendered to SPO1 Naredo, Jr. the sold item which he marked with "ACN-ALE". The other three seized items were marked with "ACN-ALE-1," "ACN-ALE-2," and "ACN-ALE-3". The other members of the buy-bust team tried to contact representatives from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and barangay officials to witness the conduct of the inventory but no one arrived. 9 CAIHTE
Thereafter, they brought accused-appellant to the police station with the seized items under the custody of SPO1 Naredo, Jr. A Request for Laboratory Examination was prepared by SPO1 Naredo, Jr. which was signed by P/Supt. Bargamento. Later, SPO1 Naredo, Jr. and PO1 Estenor brought the seized items to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Regional Crime Laboratory Office 4-A CALABARZON for laboratory examination. The seized items were personally received by PO2 Jaime Ag (PO2 Ag) who later turned them over to FC Ong-Rodrigo. Then, FC Ong-Rodrigo put the markings "D-246-10 LOR-A-1," "D-246-10 LOR-A-2," "D-246-10 LOR-A-3," and "D-246-10 LOR-A-4" on the plastic sachets marked as "ACN-ALE," "ACN-ALE-1," "ACN-ALE-2," and "ACN-ALE-3," respectively. Later, the Chemistry Report No. D-246-10 showed that the four plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance yielded positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. 10
Evidence for the Defense:
On the other hand, the defense presented accused-appellant himself as the lone witness. He denied having sold and possessed shabu and claimed that he was framed-up by the police officers. He claimed that on August 12, 2010, at around 9 o'clock in the evening, he was resting inside his house when two armed men, later identified as Melvin Llanes (Melvin), a former police officer and Arnel Ulalan (Ulalan), also known as "Boy Asim," barged in. The duo asked accused-appellant if he was "Junior" to which the latter positively responded. Then, they searched accused-appellant and his house, but no illegal items were found. Afterwards, Ulalan handcuffed accused-appellant while Melvin uttered "positive" which alerted more armed men including SPO1 Naredo, Jr. to enter accused-appellant's house and arrest the latter. Thereafter, Estores, Jr. was brought to the police station, detained and charged with criminal cases. He later learned that all men nicknamed "Junior" in their barangay were arrested by the police officers. 11
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:
On November 16, 2015, the trial court rendered its Decision 12 convicting Estores, Jr. of violation of Section 5 and Section 11, paragraph 2 (3), Article II of RA 9165. The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision reads:
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, in Criminal Case No. 17465-2010-C, the Court finds the accused, AUGUSTO LEYVA ESTORES, JR., GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act 9165. The accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and TO PAY A FINE OF FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P500,000.00) PESOS.
In Criminal Case No. 17466-2010-C, the Court finds the accused, AUGUSTO LEYVA ESTORES, JR., GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of violation of Section 11, paragraph 2(3), Article II of Republic Act 9165. He is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY, as minimum, to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS, as maximum, and to PAY A FINE of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P300,000.00) PESOS.
The Branch Clerk of Court is hereby ordered to turn over the illegal drugs subject of this case to PDEA for proper disposition and destruction.
SO ORDERED. 13
The trial court found the police officers to have regularly performed their duties there being no showing of any ill motive on their part to falsely testify against the accused-appellant. Aside from the bare denial and defense of frame-up, accused-appellant offered no other evidence or witnesses to corroborate his claims. 14
Moreover, the trial court found that all the elements of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs were sufficiently established in the case at bar, namely: (1) identities of the buyer and seller, object and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. Likewise, all the elements of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, such as: (1) the accused was in possession of the dangerous drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the dangerous drugs, were present. 15
The trial court also held that the prosecution proved satisfactorily the unbroken chain of custody starting from the purchase of illegal drugs by the confidential informant, the confiscation of the other plastic sachets during the preventive search done by SPO1 Naredo, Jr., their marking and delivery to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination, and their presentation in court. Although the police officers failed to strictly comply with the requirements of Section 21 (a), Article II of RA 9165 by dispensing with the inventory and the presence of the insulating witnesses, the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. The trial court held that based on jurisprudence, these lapses do not automatically render them inadmissible in evidence or impair the integrity of the chain of custody. Besides, SPO1 Naredo, Jr. offered a justification as to the absence of the insulating witnesses during the arrest and why they dispensed with the inventory of the seized items. Thus, the trial court ruled that such non-compliance with Section 21 (a), Article II of RA 9165 will not warrant the acquittal of the accused-appellant. 16
Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
In its assailed Decision, 17 the appellate court denied accused-appellant's appeal and affirmed the trial court's conviction of Estores, Jr. for Illegal Sale and Possession of Dangerous Drugs but modified the penalty imposed on Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs. The dispositive portion of the appellate court's Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, all premises considered, the Judgment dated 16 November 2016 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 37, Calamba City, is MODIFIED insofar as Criminal Case No. 17466-2010-C for illegal possession of dangerous drugs is concerned.
Accused-appellant Augusto Leyva Estores, Jr., in Criminal Case No. 17466-2010-C, is hereby sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months as maximum.
All the other aspects of the assailed Judgment, especially with regard to the fine imposed in Criminal Case No. 17466-2010-C, and more particularly to the penalty of both life imprisonment and fine in Criminal Case No. 17465-2010-C for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, are all hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 18
According to the appellate court, the evidence for the prosecution clearly provides every link in the chain of custody of the seized items starting from their confiscation, to their marking and turnover to the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory for laboratory examination. Although the police officers failed to take pictures of the seized items in his presence or before representatives from the media and the DOJ and any elective official, such non-compliance is not fatal, considering that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item were properly preserved and safeguarded. Besides, the defense failed to object on or challenge the custody, disposition and preservation of the seized items before the trial court. Thus, accused-appellant is now estopped from questioning the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items before the appellate court. 19
Moreover, the appellate court held that the police officers' failure to place the seized items in a separate container before being transported to the crime laboratory is not one of the procedures laid down under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. Hence, the police officers are not expected to comply with such non-existent procedure. In addition, the police officers' failure to strictly comply with Section 13, paragraph (c) of the Manual on Anti-Illegal Drugs Operation and Investigation regarding the marking of the evidence with the date, time, and place where it was seized and found is irrelevant to the prosecution for illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs as neither Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 nor its implementing rules and regulations requires the date, time, and place where the items were seized to be indicated on the confiscated items. 20
Nonetheless, the appellate court modified the penalty imposed by the trial court on accused-appellant with regard to Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs to imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months as maximum. 21 DETACa
Issues
Both Estores, Jr. and the People adopted their respective briefs filed before the appellate court. 22 The following are the issues 23 raised for consideration of this Court:
1. Whether or not the courts a quo gravely erred despite the prosecution's failure to sufficiently showed that there is an unbroken chain of custody of the seized items;
2. Whether or not the courts a quo gravely erred in declaring that the police officers properly handled and disposed of the seized items in compliance with the law; and
3. Whether or not the courts a quo gravely erred in discarding outright appellant's defense of denial and frame-up. 24
Arguments of the Defense:
Estores, Jr. argues that there exists reasonable doubt that the seized items presented in court are the very same items allegedly seized from him. He insists that the testimony about every link in the chain of custody from confiscation until presentation in court must be presented. Hence, every person who touched the exhibit should describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the seized items. 25
Accused-appellant maintains that there were substantial gaps in the chain of custody which rendered the identity and integrity of the seized items as doubtful. First, after the marking of the plastic sachets, SPO1 Naredo, Jr. and PO1 Estenor allegedly delivered them to the crime laboratory. However, there was no mention that the alleged seized items were placed in a separate plastic container and sealed before being transported to the crime laboratory. Citing People v. Martinez, 26 accused-appellant avers that the police officer should place the confiscated item inside a plastic container and seal it before transporting it to the crime laboratory. If the confiscated item is not sealed, the prosecution must present every police officer, messenger, laboratory technician, and storage personnel to testify that the substance, although unsealed, has not been tampered with or substituted while under his or her custody. 27
Second, although the markings made by SPO1 Naredo, Jr. can be verified, the same cannot be considered sufficient compliance with the procedure laid down under Section 13, paragraph (c) of the Manual on Anti-Illegal Drugs Operation and Investigation which provides that the "seizing officer must mark the evidence with his initials indicating therein the date, time, and place where the evidence was found and seized." 28
Third, SPO1 Naredo, Jr. categorically stated that he turned over the Request for Laboratory Examination and the seized items to PO1 Estenor who delivered them to the crime laboratory. The seized items were received by PO2 Ag. However, the testimonies of PO1 Estenor and PO2 Ag were dispensed with. Hence, the chain of custody of the seized items allegedly confiscated from accused-appellant can only be verified up until the same were under the custody of SPO1 Naredo, Jr. Lacking verification of the subsequent custodians, i.e., PO1 Estenor and PO2 Ag, the identity of the seized items presented before the court is compromised. The prosecution's failure to disclose and present the police officers who allegedly had subsequent custody of the seized item constituted a break in the chain of custody. 29
Fourth, the stipulation entered into by the parties regarding the testimony of FC Ong-Rodrigo only covers the handling of the specimen at the forensic laboratory and the result of the examination but not the manner the specimen was handled before it came to the possession of the forensic chemist and after it left her possession. The failure to present the testimony of FC Ong-Rodrigo is a fatal flaw to the prosecution's case in proving the identity and integrity of the seized items before they were presented in court. 30
Furthermore, accused-appellant argues that the police officers failed to conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and to photograph the same in his presence or his representative or counsel, an elected public official and representatives of the DOJ and the media who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory. He opines that in case of failure to strictly comply with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, the arresting officers must explain why the procedure was not followed and prove that the reason provided a justifiable ground. Accused-appellant insists that the police officers' non-observance of the required procedure cannot be excused as they failed to offer any justifiable ground for such deviation. 31
Lastly, Estores, Jr. contends that although the defense of frame-up, denial or alibi especially when based on accused's testimony alone is inherently weak, such should not be disregarded when the evidence for the prosecution is insufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence of the accused. The substantial gaps in the chain of custody, as well as the non-compliance with the procedural requirements imposed by RA 9165 rendered the identity and integrity of the seized items questionable. Hence, the prosecution's failure to discharge its duty to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence warrants his acquittal. 32
Arguments of the People:
On the other hand, the People argues that the prosecution was able to establish all the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, namely, (a) the identity of the buyer and seller; (b) the identity of the object of the sale and the consideration; and (c) the delivery of the thing sold upon payment. First, SPO1 Naredo, Jr., an eyewitness to the sale, testified that his companion, the confidential informant, acted as the poseur-buyer while the accused-appellant was the seller. Second, the prosecution presented in evidence: (a) the plastic sachet bought from accused-appellant containing 0.02 gram of shabu which was confirmed as methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu in Chemistry Report No. D-246-10; and (b) the P100 buy-bust money paid to accused-appellant. Lastly, SPO1 Naredo, Jr. categorically testified that after the confidential informant gave the marked money to Estores, Jr., the latter handed over a plastic sachet of shabu. 33
Likewise, the People argues that the prosecution sufficiently proved all the elements of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, to wit: (a) accused-appellant was in possession of an item or object identified as prohibited drugs; (b) such possession is unauthorized by law; and (c) accused-appellant was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug. SPO1 Naredo, Jr. testified that during accused-appellant's arrest for illegal sale of shabu, he was able to confiscate from accused-appellant's possession three (3) more plastic sachets of shabu which were all confirmed as such in Chemistry Report No. D-246-10. His possession thereof was illegal which constituted prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi in the absence of any satisfactory explanation of possession thereof. 34
As to accused-appellant's defense of denial and frame-up, the People contends that such was invariably viewed with disfavor as they are easily concocted. In order to prosper, such defenses must be proved with strong and convincing evidence. However, accused-appellant failed to present other witnesses to corroborate his testimony. In the absence of proof of motive to falsely impute frame-up on the police officers, the presumption of regularity of performance of official duty and the trial court's finding of credibility of the witness prevail. 35
Further, the People maintains that the integrity and evidentiary value of the subject drugs were duly preserved. It avers that the chain of custody of the seized items was sufficiently established. After SPO1 Naredo, Jr. received from the confidential informant the sold plastic sachet containing shabu and the three (3) more plastic sachets containing shabu confiscated from the accused-appellant, he immediately marked them with his and accused-appellant's initials. SPO1 Naredo, Jr. took custody of the seized item on the way back to the police station. Upon arrival at the police station, the police officers prepared a Request for Laboratory Examination. Then, SPO1 Naredo, Jr. and PO1 Estenor delivered the request and the seized items to the crime laboratory at around 11:30 p.m. of August 12, 2010, the same day the items were seized from accused-appellant. Upon receipt, FC Ong-Rodrigo examined the seized items and found them positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. During trial, the seized items with their respective markings were presented before the court.
The People contends that accused-appellant's argument that the seized items must be placed in a separate container and sealed before transported to the crime laboratory is not part of the procedure laid down under Section 21 (1), Article II of RA 9165. Hence, the police officers cannot be expected to comply with such procedure. In addition, a violation of the Manual on Anti-Illegal Drugs Operation, specifically Section 13, paragraph (c) thereof which mandates the marking of evidence with the date, time, and place where it was found and seized, is also irrelevant to the prosecution for illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs as it was not required under RA 9165 or its implementing rules and regulations. 36
Lastly, the People argues that RA 9165 does not require all those who came in contact with the seized drug to testify in court. Also, the absence of physical inventory and photograph of the confiscated items are not fatal and will not render the seized drugs inadmissible in evidence. Even the omission to show justifiable ground for failure to comply with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 will not render the arrest illegal or the seized items inadmissible in evidence as what is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items. The People contends that substantial compliance with the legal requirements on the handling of the seized items is sufficient. 37 aDSIHc
Our Ruling
After due consideration, we resolve to acquit accused-appellant of the crimes charged based on reasonable doubt as the prosecution failed to: (a) strictly adhere with the procedural requirements under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 or offer any justifiable grounds therefor; and (b) establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized items.
The crux of the controversy in the present case is the irregularity of the procedures conducted by the police officers in handling the seized items from the time of their confiscation from accused-appellant until their presentation before the court. The required procedure on the seizure and custody of drugs is embodied in Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of RA 9165, which states:
a. 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.
This is implemented by Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165, which reads:
(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 observed by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items. [Emphasis ours.]
Strict compliance with the prescribed procedure is required because of the illegal drug's unique characteristic rendering it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution either by accident or otherwise. 38 It is of utmost importance in the prosecution of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs that the corpus delicti or the body of the crime, i.e., the identity and integrity of confiscated illicit drugs, must be preserved. Hence, strict compliance with the procedure laid down under RA 9165 is required as the failure to adhere with the said rules raises a doubt on the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated items from the accused. As held in People v. Lim: 39
[A]ny apprehending team having initial custody and control of said drugs and/or paraphernalia, should immediately after seizure and confiscation, have the same physically inventoried and photographed in the presence of the accused, if there be any, and or his representative, who shall be required to sign copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. The failure of the agents to comply with such a requirement raises a doubt whether what was submitted for laboratory examination and presented in court was actually recovered from the appellants. It negates the presumption that official duties have been regularly performed by the PAOC-TF agents.40 [Emphasis ours.]
Nonetheless, Section 21 (a), Article II of the IRR offers some flexibility in complying with the express requirements under paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, i.e., "non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and 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[.]" This saving clause, however, applies only where the prosecution recognized the procedural lapses and thereafter explained the cited justifiable grounds, and when the prosecution established that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized had been preserved. 41
Evidently, the police officers did not conduct a physical inventory of the seized items from accused-appellant. Neither did they mark, or took photographs of the seized items in his presence or his representative or counsel, or in the presence of a representative from the media, a DOJ personnel and an elected public official who shall be required to sign copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. In fact, SPO1 Naredo, Jr. categorically stated that they dispensed with the conduct of physical inventory and taking of photographs as there was a commotion at the scene of the crime. He also attested that they called the attention of the media, DOJ and barangay officials but no one arrived. As testified by SPO1 Naredo, Jr.:
Q After you marked the 4 plastic sachets, what did you do next?
A We called the attention of the media, the DOJ and also the Barangay Officials but no one arrived, sir.
Q What was the purpose why you called the media and the DOJ representatives?
A For the inventory so that there will be representatives from the media, the DOJ and the Barangay Officials, sir.
Q So when the people arrived, you just dispensed with the inventory?
A Yes, sir because there was already a commotion in the area so we decided to leave the place, sir. 42
The explanation offered by the prosecution for their failure to conduct physical inventory and take photographs, i.e., a commotion at the crime scene and absence of media representative, DOJ personnel and barangay officials, is not satisfactory under the rules. The presence of unruly by-standers at the crime scene or an impending commotion does not justify dispensing totally with the conduct of the physical inventory.
Moreover, this Court ruled in People v. Umipang43 that the prosecution must show that earnest efforts were employed in securing the presence of the required witnesses under the law. Mere statements that the representatives are not available sans any explanation on whether serious attempts were employed to look for other representatives given the circumstances will not suffice and is unacceptable. Thus, the prosecution must not only state the reasons for non-compliance but should also convince the court that it exerted earnest efforts to comply with the mandated procedure and that the actions of the police officers were reasonable under the circumstances. 44 However, that is not case here as the prosecution failed to offer justifiable grounds or special circumstances that would excuse the police officers' lapses. 45 SPO1 Naredo, Jr.'s explanation that they did not conduct a physical inventory and take photographs due to an impending commotion at the crime scene, as well as the absence of the required representatives despite calling their attention is but a flimsy excuse deserving no evidentiary weight before this Court.
Obviously, the police officers had not strictly complied with the provisions of RA 9165 and its IRR. It bears emphasizing that "ostensibly approximate compliance" does not suffice, there must be actual compliance with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. 46 The failure to do so is tantamount to a failure to establish corpus delicti which is a crucial element of the crimes charged. 47 In a prosecution for Illegal Sale and Possession of Dangerous Drugs under RA 9165, the State carries the heavy burden of proving not only the elements of the offense, but also to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti. 48 Failure in such would render the evidence for the State insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 49 The procedure laid down under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 is a matter of substantive law and cannot be simply brushed aside as a procedural technicality or ignored as an impediment to the conviction of illegal drug suspects. 50 Hence, the appellate court erred when it affirmed the finding of the trial court that the prosecution sufficiently proved the corpus delicti despite the glaring irregularities committed by the police officers without offering any justifiable grounds for non-compliance with RA 9165 and its IRR.
Furthermore, not only did the prosecution fail to offer justifiable grounds to explain its procedural lapses, it also failed to establish that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items had been preserved in an unbroken chain of custody from the time of their confiscation until they were presented in court as evidence. Section 1 (b) of the IRR explains the chain of custody rule as follows:
"Chain of Custody" means 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. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition.
The case of People v. Capuno51 is particularly instructive on how the chain of custody is to be maintained, to wit:
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of the exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would, thus, include a testimony about the every link in the chain, from the moment the item was seized to the time it was offered in court as evidence, such that every person who handled the same would admit as to how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. The same witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. It is from the testimony of every witness who handled the evidence from which a reliable assurance can be derived that the evidence presented in court is one and the same as that seized from the accused. 52
The following links must be established in the chain of custody: 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 of the illegal drug seized 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. In the present case, the prosecution failed to establish that the seized items presented were the very same specimen seized from the accused-appellant.
(a) The first link in the chain of custody.
We observe that the sold plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance was handed by accused-appellant to the confidential informant who acted as the poseur-buyer. Although SPO1 Naredo, Jr. testified that he personally witnessed the sale between accused-appellant and the confidential informant, it bears stressing that SPO1 Naredo, Jr. was not the original recipient of the alleged plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance sold by Estores, Jr. to the confidential informant. In fact, he testified that he arrested and frisked accused-appellant first before the confidential informant tendered to him the sold plastic sachet, to wit:
Q It was the confidential informant that handed the buy-bust money to the accused, right?
A Yes, sir.
Q And likewise, it was accused that handed the small plastic sachet to the confidential informant?
A Yes, sir.
Q Where were you at that time? ETHIDa
A I was beside him, sir.
Q So you saw the exchanged? (sic)
A Yes, sir.
Q After the exchanged, what did you do next? (sic)
A When I saw that the money was already handed and I already purchased, so I introduced myself as police officer, sir.
Q When you say introduced yourself, you arrested the accused?
A Yes, sir.
Q When you arrested the accused, what happened next?
A I conducted a preventive search to the accused, sir.
Q What was the result of your preventive search against the accused?
A I found 3 small plastic sachets in possession of the accused with crystalline substance, sir.
Q What did you do with the 3 plastic sachets that you recovered in possession of the accused?
A I marked the plastic sachet and I also recovered from him the marked money and the confidential informant handed to me the purchased item and I also marked it, sir.53 [Emphasis ours.]
Evidently, SPO1 Naredo, Jr. marked the sold plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance with "ACN-ALE," immediately after the confidential informant handed it to him. Marking 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, immediately upon arrest. 54 True, SPO1 Naredo, Jr. witnessed the sale between the accused-appellant and the confidential informant. However, it bears stressing that reasonable doubt exists as to the identity of the sold plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance especially when the confidential informant, who acted as the poseur-buyer, did not place his markings on the said seized item after receiving the same from accused-appellant before tendering it to SPO1 Naredo, Jr.
Moreover, the confidential informant did not immediately tender the sold plastic sachet to SPO1 Naredo, Jr. after receipt from accused-appellant. He handed it to SPO1 Naredo, Jr. only after the latter arrested and frisked Estores, Jr. Marking is indispensable in the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items 55 as it forestalls switching, planting or contamination of evidence 56 hence, the absence of the confidential informant's markings on the sold plastic sachet or testimony to prove his participation as the poseur-buyer in the buy-bust operation is fatal to the prosecution's case as it is vital in establishing the unbroken chain of custody of the alleged plastic sachet sold by the accused-appellant to him in order to ensure that the alleged seized item was the very same plastic sachet handed by accused-appellant, especially when the person who acted as the poseur-buyer is not the same arresting officer.
(b) The second link in the chain of custody.
The second link in the chain of custody of the seized items is from the apprehending officer to the investigating officer. SPO1 Naredo, Jr. testified that he had the custody of the seized items during the preparation of Request for Laboratory Examination at the police station. In this case, the seized items were never turned over by him to an investigation officer. A review of SPO1 Naredo, Jr.'s testimony reveals that:
Q At the police station, who was in possession of the 4 plastic sachets?
A It was in my possession, sir.
Q From the time of the arrest up to the time of the delivery, you were in possession of the specimen?
A Yes, sir. Because when were at the crime lab., I requested Officer Estenor to deliver the items because the accused was resisting, sir. 57
(c) The third link in the chain of custody.
As to the third link in the chain of custody, that is, the turnover of the alleged seized items to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination, SPO1 Naredo, Jr. testified that he had the custody of the seized items when he and PO1 Estenor went to the PNP Crime Laboratory Office. However, at the laboratory office, he turned over the seized items to PO1 Estenor to deliver them to the forensic chemist. He reasoned that accused-appellant was resisting at that time so he decided to turn over the seized items to PO1 Estenor and have the latter deliver the same while he secured the accused-appellant. The Request for Laboratory Examination reveals that it was PO1 Estenor who delivered the item to PO2 Ag of the PNP Crime Laboratory Office at 11:30 p.m. of August 12, 2020. As the parties stipulated:
Parties further stipulated and admitted the following:
1. That PO1 Gerry Estenor was the one who delivered the specimen to the Regional Crime Laboratory Office as evidenced by the stamp marked receipt.
2. That PO1 Estenor has no personal knowledge that the specimen subject of this case was taken/seized from the accused. 58
(d) The fourth link in the chain of custody.
Lastly, Sections 3 and 6, paragraph 8 of Dangerous Drugs Board ("DDB") Resolution No. 2, Series of 2003 (Implementing Rules and Regulations Governing Accreditation of Drug Testing Laboratories in the Philippines) require laboratory personnel to document the chain of custody each time a specimen is handled or transferred until its disposal. The board regulation also requires identification of the individuals in this part of the chain. The Request for Laboratory Examination showed that PO2 Ag received the seized items from PO1 Estenor. Thereafter, the items were turned over to FC Ong-Rodrigo who conducted an examination of the seized items which yielded positive results for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
However, the prosecution failed to establish the manner on how the seized items were handled before it came to the possession of FC Ong-Rodrigo. It must be recalled that the trial court dispensed with the testimony of FC Ong-Rodrigo in view of the stipulations entered into by the parties as per Order dated February 1, 2012. 59 In case the testimony of the forensic chemist is dispensed with, it should be stipulated that he or she took the precautionary measures required in order to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, thus: (a) that the forensic chemist received the seized article as marked, properly sealed, and intact; (b) that he or she resealed it after examination of the content; and (c) that he or she placed his or her own marking on the same to ensure that it could not be tampered pending trial. 60
A perusal of the Order dated February 1, 2012 shows no stipulation as to how the seized items were handled after their turn over by PO1 Estenor to PO2 Ag of the laboratory office and how FC Ong-Rodrigo came into the possession of the seized items with markings "ACN-ALE," "ACN-ALE-1," "ACN-ALE-2," and "ACN-ALE-3." Also, the stipulations failed to state that FC Ong-Rodrigo resealed the seized items after the examination thereof. Further, no testimonial or documentary evidence was presented to show how FC Ong-Rodrigo kept the seized items after the laboratory examination until they were presented in court. The stipulations of the parties regarding FC Ong-Rodrigo's testimony are replete of information regarding the safekeeping of the seized items to ensure that there was no change in the condition of the seized items and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession thereof. Absent any testimony regarding the management, storage, and preservation of the seized items after its qualitative examination, the fourth link in the chain of custody of the seized items could not be reasonably established. 61
In sum, the substantial lapses committed by the police officers in not strictly complying with the procedures laid down under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 and its IRR and their failure to provide justifiable grounds for such lapses, as well as the failure of the prosecution to establish every link in the chain of custody of the seized items from the confiscation thereof until their presentation before the court engender reasonable doubt that the seized items were the same items offered in evidence. Indeed, the procedures laid down in RA 9165 and its IRR, and the establishment of every link in the chain of custody are crucial in the preservation of the identity, integrity and evidentiary value of the seized illegal drugs. With the prosecution's considerable failure to comply with the said rules, the Court finds the acquittal of accused-appellant Estores, Jr. to be in order.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The May 31, 2017 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07971 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE for failure of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of Augusto Leyva Estores, Jr. He is hereby ACQUITTED of the crimes charged against him and ordered immediately RELEASED from custody, unless he is being held for some other lawful cause.
The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City is ORDERED to implement this Resolution and to inform this Court of the action he/she has taken within five (5) days from receipt thereof.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
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. CA rollo, pp. 156-158.
2.Id. at 130-148; penned by Associate Justice Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob and concurred in by Associate Justices Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and Danton Q. Bueser.
3. Records (Criminal Case No. 17465-10-C), pp. 1-2 and records (Criminal Case No. 17466-10-C), pp. 1-2.
4. Records (Criminal Case No. 17465-10-C), pp. 1-2.
5. Records (Criminal Case No. 17466-10-C), pp. 1-2.
6. Records (Criminal Case No. 17465-10-C), p. 20.
7.Id. at 29.
8. TSN, March 13, 2015, pp. 3-4.
9. TSN, March 13, 2015, pp. 5-9.
10.Id. at 9-11.
11. TSN, October 28, 2015, pp. 3-10.
12. Records (Criminal Case No. 17465-10-C), pp. 111-124; penned by Presiding Judge Caesar C. Buenagua.
13.Id. at 123-124.
14.Id. at 114-115.
15.Id. at 115-116.
16.Id. at 116-123.
17. CA rollo, pp. 130-148.
18.Id. at 147-148.
19.Rollo, pp. 8-12.
20.Id. at 13-17.
21.Id. at 17-19.
22.Id. at 27-33 and 34-38.
23. CA rollo, pp. 40-61 and 91-113.
24.Id. at 42-43.
25.Id. at 47-49.
26. 652 Phil. 347, 370-371 (2010).
27. CA rollo, p. 49.
28.Id. at 49-50.
29.Id. at 50-52.
30.Id. at 52-53.
31.Id. at 54-57.
32.Id. at 58-59.
33.Id. at 99-102.
34.Id. at 103.
35.Id. at 103-104.
36.Id. at 104-108.
37.Id. at 108-111.
38.People v. Kamad, 624 Phil. 289, 301-302 (2010).
39.435 Phil. 640 (2002). As cited also in People v. Balibay, 742 Phil. 746, 757-758 (2014).
40.People v. Lim, supra note 39 at 659-660.
41.People v. Capuno, 655 Phil. 226, 240-241 (2011).
42.TSN, March 13, 2015, p. 9.
43.686 Phil. 1024, 1052 (2012).
44.People v. Cabrellos, G.R. No. 229826, July 30, 2018 citing People v. Crispo, 828 Phil. 416, 435-436 (2018).
45.Id.
46.People v. Saragena, 817 Phil. 117, 132 (2017) citing People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78, 94 (2014).
47.Id. at 139 citing Lescano v. People, 778 Phil. 460, 470 (2016).
48.People v. Cabrellos, supra citing People v. Gamboa, 833 Phil. 1055, 1066 (2018) citing People v. Umipang, 686 Phil. 1024, 1038 (2012).
49.Id.
50.Id. citing People v. Macapundag, 807 Phil. 234, 244 (2017); People v. Umipang, supra.
51.People vs. Capuno, supra note 41 at 226-245.
52.Id. at 241-242, citing People v. Obmiramis, 594 Phil. 561, 570-571 (2008).
53.TSN, March 13, 2015, pp. 6-7.
54.People v. Lumaya, 827 Phil. 473, 489-490 (2018).
55.Id. at 490 citing People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 31-32 (2017).
56.Id. at 484 citing People v. Viterbo, 739 Phil. 593, 601 (2014).
57.TSN, March 13, 2015, p. 10.
58.Records (Criminal Case No. 17565-10-C), p. 64.
59.Id. at 63-64.
60.People v. Ubungen, Phil. 888, 901 (2018) citing People v. Pajarin, 654 Phil. 461, 466 (2011).
61.Id. at 902.