FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 245247. January 27, 2020.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. ROLANDO EXCONDE y BRINAS, * accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJanuary 27, 2020which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 245247 — People of the Philippines v. Rolando Exconde y Brinas
On appeal is the September 28, 2018 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07821 which affirmed the April 29, 2015 Joint Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 32, San Pablo City in Criminal Case Nos. 20392-SP (13) to 20394-SP (13) finding accused-appellant Rolando Exconde y Brinas (Exconde) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Sale and Possession of Dangerous Drugs, defined and penalized under Sections 5 and 11, respectively, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. HTcADC
Exconde was originally charged under three separate Information docketed as: Criminal Case No. 20392-SP (13) for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs (Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165), Criminal Case No. 20393-SP (13) for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs (Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165) and Criminal Case No. 20394-SP (13) for Illegal Possession of Drug Paraphernalia (Section 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165). Of these charges, Exconde was only convicted of Illegal Sale and Possession of Dangerous Drugs.
The Information read as follows:
Criminal Case No. 20392-SP(13)
That on or about 5:00 p.m., April 3, 2013, in the Municipality of Nagcarlan, Province of Laguna, Republic of the Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and distribute one (1) piece of heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.05 gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride [shabu]; a dangerous drugs without being authorized by law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 3
Criminal Case No. 20393-SP(l3)
That on or about 5:00 p.m., April 3, 2013, in the Municipality of Nagcarlan, Province of Laguna, Republic of the Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and therefore willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and control one (1) piece of heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.04 gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride [shabu], a dangerous drug, without being authorized by law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
Criminal Case No. 20394-SP(13)
That on or about 5:00 p.m., April 3, 2013, in the Municipality of Nagcarlan, Province of Laguna, Republic of the Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the [above-named accused], did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and control the following paraphernalia, to wit: two (2) crumpled aluminum foil strips with suspected [shabu] residue, three (3) unused aluminum foil strips and two (2) disposable lighters, all intended for smoking/consuming dangerous drugs, without being authorized by law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
The facts are as follows:
On April 3, 2013, Police Officer (PO) III Joven J. Dacayanan (PO3 Dacayanan), a member of the Provincial Intelligence Bureau (PIB) was directed by their Chief, Police Senior Inspector (PS/Insp.) Dalisay to coordinate with the Municipal Police Station (MPS) of Rizal, Laguna to conduct a buy-bust operation against a certain Bernard. At around 2:00 p.m., the members of the PIB and MPS of Laguna conducted the said operation and arrested Bernard. Bernard revealed to the police operatives that Exconde is his source of the shabu that he was selling. He also divulged that he was supposed to meet Exconde to get shabu at Royo's Resort, Barangay Silangan, Napapatid, Nagcarlan, Laguna on that same day. 6
The PIB police operatives then coordinated with Nagcarlan MPS for a buy-bust operation against Exconde. PS/Insp. Dalisay gave a P500.00 bill to PO3 Dacayanan, the designated poseur-buyer who marked the same with "DJJ." Thereafter, PO3 Dacayanan gave the marked P500.00 bill to Bernard to be used in purchasing the illegal drug. The team also coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency before they conducted their buy-bust operation. 7
At around 5:00 p.m., the buy-bust team arrived at Royo's Resort. While inside the vehicle, the team conducted surveillance. Bernard informed the buy-bust team that Exconde was staying at Room No. 3 of the resort, which is about eight to nine meters away from where the vehicle was parked. Later, they saw a man, whom Bernard identified as Exconde, peeped through the jalousie window of Room No. 3. 8
PS/Insp. Dalisay instructed PO3 Dacayanan and Bernard to proceed to Room No. 3 of the said resort. Bernard knocked on the door of Room No. 3 and uttered, "Boss, may kasama po ako, aking sidekick, at kukuha po kami." Subsequently, Exconde opened the door and replied, "Ah sige, sige." Exconde handed to Bernard a small heat-sealed plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance and in exchange, Bernard gave Exconde the buy-bust money. Immediately, PO3 Dacayanan touched his right ear, as a pre-arranged signal, prompting the team to rush and assist in the apprehension of Exconde. PO2 Ronald Morallos 9 arrested and handcuffed Exconde while PO3 Dacayanan frisked the latter and found another plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance in his right pocket. At the crime scene, PO3 Dacayanan marked the two seized items by placing his initial "JJD-1" on the plastic sachet purchased from Exconde which he took from Bernard and "JJD-2" on the plastic sachet retrieved from Exconde. PO3 Dacayanan also declared that during the transaction, he noticed that a woman, later identified as Jennelyn Iranzo (Jennelyn), Exconde's girlfriend, was on the bed lighting up a lighter and holding a foil. Upon confiscation, he marked the crumpled foil "DJJ-3," the uncrumpled foil "DJJ-4" and the lighter as "JJD-5." At the police station, the seized items were inventoried and photographed in the presence of Exconde and witnessed by a representative from the media and an elected public official. A letter-request for laboratory examination was also prepared. The items were under the custody of PO3 Dacayanan from the time it was recovered at the crime scene up to the time he transmitted the same to the Laguna Provincial Crime Laboratory for chemical analysis. 10
The testimony of Forensic Chemist Grace Bombasi was dispensed with after the prosecution and defense stipulated that she will merely testify that the drugs subject matter of the case were forwarded to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory for examination. The laboratory examination was conducted, and the result thereof was positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. 11 aScITE
On the other hand, Exconde denied the accusation against him. He testified that he and his live-in partner Jennelyn arrived at Royo's Resort at around 10:00 a.m. of April 3, 2013. They went swimming up to 3:00 p.m. of the same day. Thereafter, they went to their room to rest. While inside the room, somebody knocked on the door. When he was about to open the door, four armed person pushed the door and told him to lay down facing the floor. He was asked to produce his firearm, and he replied, "Wala po akong ganyan na hinahanap [ninyo]." The armed men searched their room for about 30 minutes. They also frisked Jennelyn. Finding nothing illegal, the armed men handcuffed him and Jennelyn and brought them to the PNP Detachment in Rizal, Laguna. When asked the reason why they were brought to the PNP Detachment, the police operatives told him to keep silent. They were later transferred to MPS Nagcarlan, Laguna and were detained for two nights and one day. Thereafter, they were brought to Sta. Cruz Provincial Station where they were presented to the Prosecutor's Office, but were later on released. The charge against Jennelyn was dismissed for lack of probable cause. 12
To exculpate himself from any criminal liability, Exconde presented Bernard, the alleged poseur-buyer during the buy-bust operation. On the witness stand Bernard denied having acted as a poseur-buyer in the said operation. On cross-examination, he admitted that he knew Exconde and even called him "boss" as he served as kristo for him every time the latter goes to cockpits to bet on his chosen fighting cocks and earned 10% of Exconde's earning whenever he won. Having a relationship as a bettor and a kristo, he does not want to lose the trust given to him by Exconde so he agreed with the latter's request to testify in his favor. He also admitted that their relationship might be destroyed and his service as a kristo would be terminated if Exconde would know that he pinpointed him as his source of shabu. 13
In its Joint Decision dated April 29, 2015, the RTC found Exconde guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of violation of Sections 5 and 11 of R.A. No. 9165. Likewise, the court did not find any merit on the testimony of Bernard on the following ratiocination:
This Court seriously doubts the denial of Bernard Veridiano. In the first place, he gave his testimony more than three (3) months after the defense had rested its case, with the case at that time already submitted for decision. The testimony, thus, of Bernard Veridiano is just merely an afterthought. In the second place, based on his admission, Bernard Veridiano considers the accused as his "Boss" whom he knows for several years already. He claims that he always acted as accused's "Kristo" every time the latter goes to cockpits to bet on his chosen fighting cocks, for which Bernard Veridiano gets paid ten percent (10%) of the [accused's] winnings per "sultada." Certainly, the commission being paid by the accused consists of large money particularly since there are several "sultadas" held in a day of cockfights. While relationship does not disqualify a person to testify as a witness, the accused's close relationship to Bernard Veridiano goes beyond just ordinary relationship through commissions that he receives from the accused's winnings in cockfighting. The evidence shows that Bernard Veridiano is a mere tricycle driver who has no other sources of income except that of being a "Kristo" and as tricycle driver.
In fine, the testimony of Bernard Veridiano is doubtful as it is tainted by his close relationship with the accused. In the third place, Bernard Veridiano himself also stands charged with violation of Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165, in Criminal Case No. 20100-SP (13) now pending before Branch 29 of this Court, for allegedly having caught selling [shabu] in another buy-bust operation early in the same day of April 3, 2013. The evidence shows that after the buy-bust operation against Bernard Veridiano, the police operatives asked him where he gets the [shabu] that he was peddling, to which Bernard Veridiano pointed to his "Boss," the accused in the case, as his source. 14
The dispositive portion of the RTC Joint Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court FINDS the accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of violation of Section 5, Republic Act No. 9165, as charged in Criminal Case No. 20392-SP(13), and hereby sentences him with the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000,00.
Likewise, the accused is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of violation of Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165, as charged in Criminal Case No. 20393-SP(13), and hereby sentences him with the penalty of imprisonment of Twelve (12) Years and One (1) day to Twenty Years (20) and a fine of P300,000.00.
This Court, however, ACQUITS the accused of the offense of violation of Section 12, Republic Act No. 9165, as charged in Criminal Case No. 20394-SP (13), for lack of evidence.
The [shabu] and illegal drugs paraphernalia seized from the accused on April 3, 2013, shall be destroyed in accordance with the guidelines promulgated by the Dangerous Drugs Board. The money used in the buy-bust shall be turned over to the National Treasury.
The accused shall be transferred to the National Bilibid Prisons upon issuance of the mittimus.
SO ORDERED. 15
On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC ruling and held that the prosecution was able to prove all the elements constituting the crime of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs, that is, the sale transaction had taken place, as well as the existence of the seized items. It also ruled that the identity and integrity of the illegal drugs have been preserved. HEITAD
Accordingly, the CA disposed as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The assailed Joint Decision dated April 29, 2015, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 32, San Pablo City, in Criminal Case Nos. 20392-SP (13) and 20393-SP (13), is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 16
Hence, this appeal.
In deciding a criminal case, the policy of the courts is always to look at the case in its entirety. The totality of the evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defense are weighed, thus, averting general conclusions from isolated pieces of evidence. This means that an appeal of a criminal case opens its entire records for review. 17
Exconde was charged of Illegal Sale and Possession of Dangerous Drugs. In a prosecution for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the following elements must be established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took place; (2) presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence; and (3) identification of the buyer and the seller. On the other hand, in prosecuting a case for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following elements must concur: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object, which is identified as a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. 18
However, the presentation of evidence establishing the elements of the offenses of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs only is not enough to secure or sustain a conviction under R.A. No. 9165. In People v. Denoman, 19 the Court explained:
A successful prosecution for the sale of illegal drugs requires more than the perfunctory presentation of evidence establishing each element of the crime: the identities of the buyer and seller, the transaction or sale of the illegal drug and the existence of the corpus delicti. In securing or sustaining a conviction under [R.A.] No. 9165, the intrinsic worth of these pieces of evidence, especially the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti, must definitely be shown to have been preserved. This requirement necessarily arises from the illegal drug's unique characteristic that renders it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution either by accident or otherwise. Thus, to remove any doubt or uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the seized drug, evidence must definitely show that the illegal drug presented in court is the same illegal drug actually recovered from the accused-appellant; otherwise, the prosecution for possession or for drug pushing under R.A. No. 9165 fails. (Emphasis supplied)
In Derilo v. People, 20 the Court laid down the guidelines in order to show an unbroken chain of custody of seized dangerous drugs, viz.:
To show an unbroken link in the chain of custody, the prosecution's evidence must include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was seized to the time it is offered in court as evidence, such that every person who handled the evidence would acknowledge 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 witness 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 its possession. 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. (Emphases and underscoring in the original).
In People v. Kamad, 21 the Court recognized the following links that 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 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.
The Information alleged that the offense was committed on April 3, 2013. The governing law therefore is R.A. No. 9165.
Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165 outlines the procedure to be followed by the apprehending officers in the seizure, initial custody, and handling of confiscated illegal drugs and/or paraphernalia, to wit:
(1) 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;
Supplementing this provision is Section 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165, which mandates that:
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physical 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 preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items. ATICcS
In this case, the records, as well as the testimony of the prosecution witness PO3 Dacayanan, showed that the buy-bust team failed to strictly comply with the prescribed procedure under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.
First, it is glaring from the record, specifically from the testimony of PO3 Dacayanan that after the arrest of Exconde and subsequent search, he immediately took custody of the seized items and put markings on the same at the place of the arrest. Part of his testimony is reproduced as follows:
Q And you were the one who found another plastic sachet?
A Yes, sir.
Q From where?
A From his right pocket, sir.
Q After you recovered the plastic sachet, what if anything did you do next?
A I placed marking, sir.
Q You marked the plastic sachet you found?
A Yes, sir.
Q How about the plastic sachet delivered to Bernard?
A I also placed marking, sir.
Q Who gave you that plastic sachet delivered by [Exconde] to Bernard?
A I took it from Bernard, sir.
Q So, there were two (2) plastic sachets recovered during that time?
A One is the buy-bust plastic sachet and the other one was found inside the pocket, sir.
Q Of [Exconde]?
A Yes, sir.
Q What markings did you place?
A "JJD-l" for buy-bust and "JJD-2" to the other plastic sachet, sir.
Q Where did you place the marking, at the hotel or in the police station?
A At the hotel, sir.
Q After having placed the marking, what if anything did you do next?
A We brought them to the police station of Rizal, sir.
Based on the foregoing testimony, PO3 Dacayanan immediately proceeded to the police station after marking the seized items. He did not mention in his direct or cross-examination that the markings were made in the presence of the accused or his representative. Also, a perusal of the Joint Statement of PO3 Dacayanan and PO2 Morallos revealed that, indeed, PO3 Dacayanan put markings on the seized items, but, without any hint or insinuation as to the identities of the persons who were present when he did the markings on the seized items. As ruled in People v. Salonga, 22 the marking must always be done in the presence of the accused or his representative, otherwise, there would be a gap in determining whether the specimens that entered into the chain were actually the ones examined and offered in evidence.
In People v. Ismael, 23 the Court ruled that marking should be done in the presence of the accused to assure that the identity and integrity of the drugs were properly preserved and that failure to comply with this requirement is fatal to the prosecution's case.
Second, it is required that the physical inventory and taking of the photograph of the seized drugs immediately after seizure or confiscation shall be done immediately at the place of the arrest and in the presence of the accused, a media representative, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected local official. Here, PO3 Dacayanan testified that the inventory and photograph of the seized items were done not at the place of the arrest, but at the police station. No mention was made as to who witnessed the said inventory and photograph of the seized items although per Certificate of Inventory, the signature appearing thereat was only that of the representative from the DOJ and a local elected official. The prosecution did not recognize their procedural lapses or give any justifiable explanation as to why the apprehending team did not conduct the inventory and photograph of the seized items at the place of the arrest, as well as the absence of a representative from the media.
In People v. Seguiente, 24 the Court acquitted the accused because there was no showing at all that a representative from the DOJ was present during the inventory and photograph. The Court keenly noted that the prosecution failed to recognize this particular deficiency. The Court, thus, concluded that this lapse, among others, effectively produced serious doubts on the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti especially in the face of allegation of frame-up.
In People v. Rojas, 25 the Court likewise acquitted the accused because the presence of representatives from the DOJ and the media was not obtained despite the fact that the buy-bust operation on the accused was supposedly pre-planned. The prosecution, too, did not acknowledge, let alone, explain this deficiency.
Likewise, in People v. Macud, 26 the Court acquitted therein accused for the prosecution's failure to offer any justifiable explanation for the absence of the witnesses required by law. This effectively invalidated the seizure of and custody over the seized drugs, thus, compromising the identity and integrity of the same. TIADCc
Third, PO3 Dacayanan declared that upon arrival at the police station, the police investigator made a spot report and a request for a crime laboratory examination. He also admitted that he has custody of the seized items from the place of the arrest up to the police station and then from the police station to the crime laboratory where the request for laboratory examination together with the seized items were received by an unknown receiving clerk. He testified:
Pros. Co
Q Who was in possession of the items recovered from the scene up to the police station?
A I am, sir.
Q No one else handled the items?
A None, sir.
Q When you arrived at the police station, what happened next?
A The Police Investigat[or] made a spot report, request for crime laboratory examination, sir. 27
xxx xxx xxx
Q Who brought it to the crime laboratory?
A I am, sir.
Q From the police station to the crime laboratory, who hold the items?
A I am, sir.
Q Aside from you, were there other police officers who handled or possessed the items?
A None, I am, sir. 28
From the above testimony, it was not clear whether the seized items were turned over by PO3 Dacayanan to Investigator PO1 Mark Anthony A. Manrique (PO1 Manrique) when the latter conducted his investigation. In a drug-related case, it is highly improbable for an investigator to effectively perform his work without having custody of the seized item. 29 And assuming that PO1 Manrique did take possession of the seized items when he conducted his investigation, then it would be fatal to PO3 Dacayanan's testimony that he has custody of the illegal drugs from the time Exconde was arrested up to the time he turned over said items to the receiving clerk at the crime laboratory.
In People v. Remigio, 30 the Court noted the failure of the police officers to establish the chain of custody as the apprehending officer did not transfer the seized items to the investigating officer. The apprehending officer kept the alleged shabu from the time of confiscation until the time he transferred them to the forensic chemist. The deviation from the links in the chain of custody led to the acquittal of the accused in the said case.
Fourth, PO3 Dacayanan testified that he turned over the seized items to an unnamed receiving clerk at the crime laboratory. The prosecution failed to disclose the identity of the receiving clerk who has custody of the seized items after it was turned over by PO3 Dacayanan and before it reached the hands of the forensic chemist. PO3 Dacayanan merely declared:
Q What happened to the Crime Laboratory, what if anything happened there?
A It was received by the Receiving Clerk at the Crime Laboratory, sir. 31
The unnamed receiving clerk was not presented to testify on how he handled the dangerous drugs from the time it was turned over to him up to the time he endorsed the same to the forensic chemist. Again, the seized items were then once more open to tampering, alteration or substitution, for which reason, the integrity and identity of the seized items cannot be deemed to have been preserved.
Lastly, the prosecution and defense stipulated to dispense with the testimony of Forensic Chemist Bombasi as she will merely testify that the seized drugs were forwarded to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination and that the said examination was indeed conducted and gave a positive result to the test for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), a regulated drug.
In People v. Ubungen, 32 it emphasized that stipulation on the testimony of a forensic chemist should cover the management, storage, and preservation of the seized drugs, thus:
Clear from the foregoing is the lack of the stipulations required for the proper and effective dispensation of the testimony of the forensic chemist. While the stipulations between the parties herein may be viewed as referring to the handling of the specimen at the forensic laboratory and to the analytical results obtained, they do not cover the manner the specimen was handled before it came to the possession of the forensic chemist and after it left her possession. Absent any testimony regarding the management, storage, and preservation of the illegal drug allegedly seized herein after its qualitative examination, the fourth link in the chain of custody of the said illegal drug could not be reasonably established. (Emphasis supplied)
In People v. Cabuhay, 33 the Court also ruled:
In case of a stipulation by the parties to dispense with the attendance and testimony of the forensic chemist, it should be stipulated that the forensic chemist would have testified that he took the precautionary steps required in order to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item, thus: (1) that the forensic chemist received the seized article as marked, properly sealed, and intact; (2) that he resealed it after examination of the content; and (3) that he placed his own marking on the same to ensure that it could not be tampered pending trial. AIDSTE
The said stipulations are wanting in this case.
Here, the parties' stipulation to dispense with the testimony of Forensic Chemist Bombasi did not contain the vital pieces of information required in the above cases. The stipulation only covers the fact that the seized items were brought to the crime laboratory for examination and the seized items gave positive result for the presence of shabu. They should have added in the stipulation that the forensic chemist would have testified that she took the precautionary steps required in order to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. Since the forensic chemist was not presented in court, the court could not determine on how she received, handled, examined and preserved the integrity of the dangerous drug from the time she received the subject items until it left her custody.
Likewise, there is no evidence that would show on who turned over the dangerous drug for the purpose of presenting it to the court as evidence. In People v. Alboka, 34 the prosecution's failure to show who brought the seized items before the trial court was considered a serious breach of the chain-of-custody rule.
Indeed, the repeated breach of the chain-of-custody rule here had cast serious uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti.
We have clarified, though, that a perfect chain of custody may be impossible to obtain at all times because of varying field conditions. 35 In fact, the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 offers a saving clause allowing leniency whenever justifiable grounds exist which warrant deviation from the established protocol so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.
Here, the prosecution did not even attempt to justify the markings of the evidence in the absence of the accused or his representative, why the inventory and photograph of the seized items was conducted at the police station and not at the place of the arrest, the absence of the media representative during the inventory of the seized items and its non-presentation of the police investigator, the unnamed receiving clerk at the laboratory examination and the forensic chemist to show how they received, handled and preserved the integrity of the seized items. In fine, the condition for the saving clause to become operational was not complied with.
Consequently, the plurality of the breaches of procedure committed by the police officers, unacknowledged and unexplained by the State, militates against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt against the accused, as the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti had been compromised. Perforce, Exconde must be acquitted and released from restraint.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated September 28, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07821 which affirmed the April 29, 2015 Joint Decision of the Regional Trial Court of San Pablo City is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Appellant Rolando Exconde y Brinas is hereby ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless he is confined for any other lawful cause.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City is ORDERED to implement this Resolution and inform the Court of the date of the actual release from confinement of the appellant within five (5) working days from receipt hereof.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
* Also referred to as "Rolando Esconde" in some parts of the records.
1. Penned by Associate Justice Victoria Isabel A. Paredes, with Associate Justices Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla and Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob, concurring; rollo, pp. 3-13;
2. CA rollo, pp. 73-87.
3.Id. at 73-74.
4.Id. at 74.
5.Id.
6. TSN, December 4, 2014, pp. 2-3.
7.Id. at 4.
8.Id. at 5.
9. Also referred to as "PO2 Ronald Murallos" in some parts of the records.
10. TSN, December 4, 2014, pp. 5-8.
11. RTC Joint Decision, CA rollo, p. 75.
12. TSN, February 12, 2015.
13. TSN, May 28, 2015.
14. CA rollo, pp. 84-85.
15.Id. at 86-87.
16.Rollo, pp. 12-13.
17.People v. Larrañaga, 502 Phil. 231, 240 (2005).
18.People v. Cabrellos, G.R. No. 229826, July 30, 2018.
19. 612 Phil. 1165, 1175 (2009).
20. 784 Phil. 679, 687 (2016).
21. 624 Phil. 289, 304 (2010).
22. 717 Phil. 117, 127 (2013).
23. 806 Phil. 21 (2017).
24. G.R. No. 218253, June 20, 2018.
25. G.R. No. 222563, July 23, 2018.
26. G.R. No. 219175, December 14, 2017, 849 SCRA 294.
27. TSN, December 4, 2014, p. 7.
28.Id. at 9.
29.People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 235 (2015).
30. 700 Phil. 452 (2012).
31.Supra note 28.
32. G.R. No. 225497, July 23, 2018.
33. G.R. No. 225590, July 23, 2018.
34. G.R. No. 212195, February 21, 2018, 856 SCRA 252.
35.People v. Abetong, 735 Phil. 476, 485 (2014).