FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 252698. November 11, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.DARWIN EVASCO y GESTIADA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 11, 2021which reads as follows: CAIHTE
"G.R. No. 252698 (People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee v. Darwin Evasco y Gestiada, accused-appellant).
This Appeal 1 seeks to reverse and set aside the January 20, 2020 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11004. The CA affirmed the February 28, 2018 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court of Bulan, Sorsogon, Branch 65 (RTC) in Criminal Case Nos. 17-1909 and 17-1910, finding Darwin Evasco y Gestiada (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Antecedents
In two (2) separate informations, accused-appellant was charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Secs. 5 and 11, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, to wit:
Criminal Case No. 17-1909
That on or about 7:15 o'clock in the evening of July 27, 2017, at Barangay Zone-8, Municipality of Bulan, Province of Sorsogon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously trade, deliver, sell and dispense to a poseur-buyer one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance known as Methamphetamine Hydrochloride weighing 0.049 gram, a prohibited drug, in exchange of [P]500.00, to the damage and prejudice of the state and the general public.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
Criminal Case No. 17-1910
That on or about 7:15 o'clock in the evening of July 27, 2017 at Barangay Zone-8, Municipality of Bulan, Province of Sorsogon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, have in his possession, custody and control two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance known as Methamphetamine Hydrochloride with their respective weights of 0.060 gram, 0.054 gram with a total weight of 0.114 gram, a prohibited drug, to the damage and prejudice of the state and the general public.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
During his arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
Version of the Prosecution
The prosecution presented as witnesses Police Officer I Anthony Bryan Belir (PO1 Belir) and Forensic Chemist/Police Chief Inspector Wilfredo Pabustan, Jr. (FC Pabustan). The testimony of Police Officer II Raffy Miranda Goñez (PO2 Goñez) was dispensed with after the parties entered into stipulations regarding his participation as the back-up arresting officer as well as the genuineness and due execution of his judicial affidavit of arrest.
On July 27, 2017, the Municipal Police Station of Bulan, Sorsogon, through PO1 Belir, received a tip from a confidential informant (CI) that a certain Darwin Evasco, who was later on identified as herein accused-appellant, was selling prohibited drugs. Acting on the information, the police officers conducted a briefing for the conduct of a buy-bust operation against accused-appellant. PO1 Belir was designated as the poseur-buyer and arresting officer and PO2 Goñez as back-up arresting officer. PO1 Belir received one (1) P500.00 bill with serial number YC492013. The buy-bust team also coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency and prepared the necessary documents for the operation. Meanwhile, the CI sent a text message to accused-appellant and informed the latter of an interested buyer. Thereafter, the buy-bust team and the CI went to the target area. 6
Upon the buy-bust team's arrival at the target area, the CI sent another text message to accused-appellant and told him that the interested buyer was already at the meeting place agreed upon. After a while, accused-appellant arrived and approached the CI and PO1 Belir. Accused-appellant asked PO1 Belir if he was the interested buyer which the latter confirmed. PO1 Belir then handed to accused-appellant the buy-bust money and the latter gave PO1 Belir one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. Afterwards, PO1 Belir executed the pre-arranged signal which caused the buy-bust team to rush to the scene. PO1 Belir and the rest of the buy-bust team introduced themselves as police officers and arrested accused-appellant. 7
Thereafter, representatives from the media, namely Herculano Teope Tabuso and Ian De Leon, who both worked at FM-Bulan, and barangay officials, namely Punong Barangay Mariben M. Nas, Kagawad Lorilie Gozarin, Kagawad Melba Gipit, and Kagawad Erlina Gepulle, arrived at the place of arrest. PO1 Belir showed the media and barangay representatives the plastic sachet he bought from accused-appellant and marked the same in their presence with "AAB BB 7/27/2017." PO1 Belir then frisked accused-appellant in the presence of the witnesses and recovered a matchbox that contained two (2) heat-sealed plastic sachets with white crystalline substance. 8 These two plastic sachets were also marked by PO1 Belir with "AAB POS1 7/27/2017" and "AAB POS2 7/27/2017." PO1 Belir proceeded to conduct the inventory of the seized items while photographs were being taken. After the witnesses signed the inventory, PO1 Belir placed the seized items inside an ice bag and the buy-bust team proceeded to the nearest police station, with PO1 Belir maintaining possession of the seized items. 9
At the police station, PO1 Belir sought the preparation of the chain of custody form and request for laboratory examination. Afterwards, he turned over the seized items and the request for laboratory examination to FC Pabustan, the forensic chemist of the PNP Crime Laboratory of Legazpi City, who personally received the same from PO1 Belir. After conducting a qualitative examination on the contents of the plastic sachets, FC Pabustan confirmed in his Chemistry Report No. D-301-2017 that the white crystalline substance contained in the sachets were positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. Thereafter, FC Pabustan re-sealed the plastic sachets and placed his markings thereon. He placed the plastic sachets in a bigger plastic, which he also sealed and marked. 10
Version of the Defense
The defense presented accused-appellant as its sole witness. He denied the charges against him and testified that on July 27, 2017, as he was waiting in a shed inside his tricycle, he noticed that a motorcycle was following him. When the motorcycle caught up with his tricycle, the rider pointed to him and uttered "Yaa hu, yaa hu!" which meant "It's him, it's him!" Accused-appellant then noticed that four (4) individuals were waiting at the side of the road. He stopped in front of them, thinking that they were passengers, but to his surprise, the four individuals grabbed him, pinned him down, and turned off the engine of his tricycle. Accused-appellant asked them why he was being treated that way but they ignored him. A few minutes later, a patrol car arrived and a police officer, who accused-appellant later identified as PO1 Belir, approached them while shouting "Hwag paalisin ang complainant!" At that point, accused-appellant noticed that PO1 Belir was holding shabu in his hand. After a while, a barangay captain and media representative arrived. PO1 Belir then instructed accused-appellant to stand up, pull out his wallet from his back pocket, and to place it on the ground. Thereafter, accused-appellant felt that something was inserted in his back pocket. 11
The RTC Ruling
In its February 28, 2018 Decision, 12 the RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court finds accused DARWIN EVASCO y GRAFIL (sic) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. 9165 (illegal sale of shabu) and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and pay the fine of [P]500,000.00 without eligibility for parole in Criminal Case No. 17-1909 while in Criminal Case No. 17-1910, he is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Sec. 11, Art. II of R.A. 9165 (illegal possession of shabu) and is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY to FIFTEEN (15) YEARS and pay the fine of [P]300,000.00.
The illegal drugs seized from the accused offered as evidence by the prosecution are ordered confiscated and shall be disposed in accordance with law.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED. 13
The RTC ruled that the respective elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs were duly established by the prosecution. PO1 Belir's testimony that accused-appellant sold him shabu, and that he found in accused-appellant's possession two (2) more plastic sachets containing shabu, was clear, straightforward, and consistent. Thereafter, FC Pabustan confirmed that the contents of the seized plastic sachets from accused-appellant were positive for shabu. The RTC also held that the police officers complied with the chain of custody rule. PO1 Belir immediately marked the seized items at the scene of the crime and inventoried the same in the presence of accused-appellant and the required witnesses. He remained in possession of the seized items from the moment of seizure until their turn over to FC Pabustan for forensic examination. 14
Accused-appellant appealed to the CA.
The CA Ruling
In its January 20, 2020 Decision, 15 the CA affirmed in toto the conviction of accused-appellant for the crimes charged. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present appeal is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated 28 February 2018 of the Regional Trial Court of Bulan, Sorsogon, Branch 65, in Criminal Case Nos. 17-1909 and 17-1910, finding accused-appellant Darwin Evasco y Gestiada GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for Violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 is hereby AFFIRMED IN TOTO.
SO ORDERED.16
The CA upheld the finding of the RTC that all the elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs were adequately established by the prosecution and that there was an unbroken chain of custody. The CA noted that the absence of a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ) was not fatal since R.A. No. 10640 only requires two (2) other witnesses to the inventory and photographing of the seized evidence. It also observed that there were no inconsistencies in PO1 Belir's testimony, which was corroborated at all material points by PO2 Goñez in the latter's Judicial Affidavit of Arrest. 17
Hence, this appeal.
Assignment of Errors
I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE PROCEDURE FOR THE CUSTODY AND CONTROL OF THE SEIZED PROHIBITED DRUGS WAS COMPLIED WITH;
II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE CRIMES CHARGED DESPITE THE BROKEN CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF THE ALLEGEDLY SEIZED DRUGS;
III
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE UNCORROBORATED AND DUBIOUS TESTIMONY OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESS OVER THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT'S DEFENSE OF DENIAL. 18
In its September 14, 2020 Resolution, 19 this Court required the parties to submit their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desired. Accused-appellant filed his Manifestation in Lieu of Supplemental Brief 20 dated December 15, 2020 and manifested that he was adopting his Brief for the Accused-appellant, 21 dated November 20, 2018, as his supplemental brief. The appellee, through the Office of the Solicitor General, averred in its Manifestation, 22 dated January 13, 2021, that it would no longer file a supplemental brief since the issues and arguments raised by accused-appellant were already addressed in its Brief for the Appellee. 23
Accused-appellant asserts that PO1 Belir's testimony is uncorroborated since PO2 Goñez and the CI were not presented in court. Moreover, there are inconsistencies in PO1 Belir's testimony which raise doubts as to the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized plastic sachets. The prosecution also failed to establish compliance with the chain of custody requirements since there was no DOJ representative during the inventory of the seized items and there was no turnover of the seized evidence from the apprehending officer to the investigating officer. Lastly, accused-appellant claims that the prosecution failed to duly prove the fourth link in the chain of custody. 24
The appellee, on the other hand, contends that the prosecution successfully established all the links in the chain of custody. According to the appellee, PO1 Belir was both the arresting officer and the investigating officer. Thus, no turn over of the seized evidence was necessary. The appellee also argues that the inconsistencies pointed out by accused-appellant in PO1 Belir's testimony pertained to minor details, which does not affect his direct and categorical testimony on what transpired during the buy-bust operation. As to accused-appellant's claim that the fourth link was missing, the appellee points to FC Pabustan's testimony regarding his custody and handling of the seized specimen. 25
The Court's Ruling
The appeal is meritorious.
In both illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the drug seized from the accused constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense. Thus, it is of utmost importance that the identity of the seized drugs must be established by the prosecution with moral certainty. 26 The chain of custody rule performs this function as it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. 27
The rule on chain of custody expressly demands the identification of the persons who handled the confiscated items for the purpose of duly monitoring the authorized movements of the illegal drugs and/or drug paraphernalia from the time they were seized from the accused until the time they are presented in court. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered in evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would 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 the condition in which it was 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 item and there was no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. 28
In People v. Kamad, 29 the Court set out the links in the chain of custody that must be established by the prosecution in buy-bust situations: (1) the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the turnover of the illegal drugs seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and (4) the turnover and submission of the seized and marked illegal drug from the forensic chemist to the court. 30
In this case, the second link was entirely omitted by the buy-bust team. During his direct examination, PO1 Belir failed to mention the name of the investigating officer who prepared the requests for laboratory examination upon reaching the police station:
PROS. ASTANO: (to Witness)
Q: After the witness signed the Certificate of Inventory and you signed it also, what happened?
A: After placing the evidence inside the plastic we brought Darwin Evasco to the Police Station for documentation.
Q: After bringing Darwin Evasco to the Police Station what happened?
A: A request for medical examination was prepared so he can be submitted for medical check-up.
Q: Where is the drug evidence?
A: In my possession.
Q: And what did you do to the drug evidence in your possession?
A: I requested for the preparation of the Request for Laboratory Examination and the Chain of Custody Form for the purpose of submitting the drug evidence to the crime laboratory. 31
A careful perusal of the records reveals that Police Officer III Edwin Dela Fuente (PO3 Dela Fuente) and Police Officer II Ruel Hila (PO2 Hila) were the investigators assigned to accused-appellant's case. Their names appeared in the PNP Arrest and Booking Sheet 32 as the on-duty investigators at that time, and that they were the ones who prepared and signed the requests 33 procured by PO1 Belir for the drug examination of accused-appellant and laboratory examination of the confiscated drugs. Despite the necessity of the investigating officers having custody of the illegal drugs for the preparation of the documents, PO1 Belir testified that he remained in possession of the seized illegal drugs. This is a serious procedural breach that casts doubt on the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized illegal drugs.
It bears stressing that the turnover by the apprehending officer of the seized illegal drugs to the investigating officer is needed for the conduct of a proper investigation and for the preparation of the necessary documents of the developing criminal case. 34 It is a necessary step in the chain of custody, 35 and the investigating officer must necessarily obtain custody of the seized illegal drugs to perform his duty, and such custody must be documented and established. 36 As such, the handling or investigating officer must be identified and accounted for and made to explain about the steps he/she/they had undertaken to ensure that the integrity and evidentiary value of the illegal drugs were not compromised while in his/her/their possession. 37 Hence, the apprehending officer's failure to turn over the drugs to the investigating officer, as in this case, is fatal to the prosecution's case.
Aside from the second link, the fourth link in the chain of custody is also flawed. The fourth link deals with the custody of the forensic chemist until the submission of the seized illegal drugs to the court. More often than not, crime laboratories have an evidence custodian to whom the forensic chemist hands over the seized evidence for safekeeping after forensic examination until its identification in court. Thus, the safekeeping measures employed and precautions undertaken by the evidence custodian after the qualitative examination must also be established. 38
Here, FC Pabustan admitted that he turned over the seized evidence to an evidence custodian after conducting the examination. When asked if he had personal knowledge as to the storage and handling by the evidence custodian of the specimen during the intervening period, FC Pabustan also admitted that only the evidence custodian had knowledge thereof. 39 The prosecution, however, failed to present the evidence custodian, or to even identify him. Consequently, the evidence custodian's manner of handling and storing the seized evidence while it was in his custody is unknown to the Court, which renders its integrity and evidentiary value doubtful.
In People v. Sorrera, 40 the Court acquitted the accused-appellant therein because the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the evidence custodian to whom the forensic chemist turned over the seized illegal drugs and how the unknown custodian handled the specimen while it was in his custody.
Inevitably, the glaring lapses in the chain of custody create reasonable doubt as to the corpus delicti of the crimes charged, thereby warranting the acquittal of accused-appellant.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The January 20, 2020 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11004, which affirmed the February 28, 2018 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Bulan, Sorsogon, Branch 65, in Criminal Case Nos. 17-1909 and 17-1910, finding Darwin Evasco y Gestiada guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Let entry of judgment be issued IMMEDIATELY.
The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, is ORDERED to IMMEDIATELY RELEASE accused-appellant from detention, unless he is being lawfully held in custody for any other reason, and to INFORM this Court of his action hereon 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
1.Rollo, pp. 18-19.
2.Id. at 3-17; penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr. with Associate Justices Victoria Isabel A. Paredes and Gabriel T. Robeniol, concurring.
3. CA rollo, pp. 61-80; penned by Judge Adolfo G. Fajardo.
4.Rollo, pp. 3-4.
5.Id. at 4.
6.Id. at 4-5.
7.Id. at 5.
8.Id.
9.Id. at 5-6.
10.Id. at 6.
11.Id. at 6-7.
12. CA rollo, pp. 61-80.
13.Id. at 79-80.
14.Id. at 70-79.
15.Rollo, pp. 3-17.
16.Id. at 17.
17.Id. at 10-16.
18.Id. at 8.
19.Id. at 23-24.
20.Id. at 28-32.
21. CA rollo, pp. 82-103.
22.Rollo, pp. 33-37.
23. CA rollo, pp. 197-240.
24.Id. at 89-102.
25.Id. at 210-239.
26.People v. Ladip, 729 Phil. 495, 516 (2014).
27.People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 29 (2017).
28.People v. Plaza, G.R. No. 235467, August 20, 2018, 878 SCRA 231, 254.
29. 624 Phil. 289 (2010).
30.Id. at 304.
31. TSN dated August 17, 2017, p. 15.
32. Records, p. 21.
33.Id. at 22.
34.People v. Quiam, G.R. No. 239633, February 17, 2021.
35. See People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 235 (2015).
36.People v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 235658, June 22, 2020.
37.People v. Villojan, Jr., G.R. No. 239635, July 22, 2019, 910 SCRA 58, 76.
38.People v. Pasiona, G.R. No. 247820, October 14, 2020.
39. TSN dated August 22, 2017, p. 13.
40. G.R. No. 251110, February 3, 2021.