SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 221440. April 25, 2022.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.ADELAIDA FAT y OMEGA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated25 April 2022which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 221440 (People of the Philippines v. Adelaida Fat y Omega). — Challenged in this appeal 1 is the July 22, 2015 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01763, which affirmed the September 6, 2013 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 57, Cebu City which found accused-appellant Adelaida Fat y Omega (Fat) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, 4 otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
The Antecedents
Fat was charged before the RTC with a violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 in Criminal Case No. CBU-86018. The Information reads:
That on or about 22nd of April 2009, at about 5:52 o'clock in the afternoon, in the City of Cebu, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, with deliberate intent, did then and there sell, deliver or give away to a poseur buyer one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance weighing 0.02 [gram] locally known as "SHABU" which after laboratory examination gave positive result for the presence of METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE, a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
Upon arraignment, Fat pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. 6 Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
Version of the Prosecution
At about 2:00 p.m. of April 22, 2009, Intelligence Agent 5 (IA5) George B. Cansancio (IA5 Cansancio), Chief Intelligence and Investigation Division of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), received a text message from a confidential informant that Fat was allegedly selling shabu at Cabantan St., Barrio Luz, Cebu City. Thus, a buy-bust operation was organized against Fat. The buy-bust team was composed of IA5 Cansancio as the team leader; Intelligence Officer 1 (IO1) Jonar Cuayzon (IO1 Cuayzon) as poseur buyer; IO1 Kristian Ione Sesante (IO1 Sesante), and IO1 Paul Villegas as back-ups; and the confidential informant. IO1 Cuayzon was provided with two pieces of P100.00 bills as buy-bust money. 6
At about 5:52 p.m. of the same day, the buy-bust team, on board a vehicle, went to the target area. Upon arrival, IO1 Cuayzon and the confidential informant disembarked from the vehicle and walked towards Fat, who was outside her house at that time. The confidential informant greeted Fat and introduced her to IO1 Cuayzon. Fat asked IO1 Cuayzon how much shabu the latter wanted to purchase, to which the latter replied worth P200.00. Fat told them to wait while she went upstairs. When she returned, Fat asked for the money, which was then handed to her by IO1 Cuayzon. In exchange, Fat gave IO1 Cuayzon one heat-sealed plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance. 7
After the transaction, IO1 Cuayzon executed the pre-arranged signal. The back-up team arrived and assisted in the arrest. Fat was told to open her palms and empty her pockets. After frisking Fat, IO1 Villegas recovered from her the buy-bust money, while IO1 Sesante apprised Fat of her constitutional rights in a dialect known to her. 8
Thereafter, the team returned to the PDEA office. IO1 Cuayzon had custody of the seized plastic sachet which he marked with "BB-AOF 4/22/09," and signed at the PDEA office. The arresting officers conducted an inventory of the confiscated items in the presence of Fat, barangay official Vicente Quintana, Sr., and media representative Virgilio Salde, Jr. Photographs of the inventory and seized items were also taken. 9
At about 1:35 p.m. of April 23, 2009, IO1 Cuayzon delivered the seized item to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory for examination. PO2 Domael of the PNP Crime Laboratory received the letter request and the seized plastic sachet with marking "BB-AOF 4/22/09" and signature from IO1 Cuayzon. Police Inspector Rendielyn Sahagun (PI Sahagun) conducted the examination on the seized plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance, which yielded positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, as per Chemistry Report No. D-418-2009. 10
Version of the Defense
On April 22, 2009, Fat was in her house with her live-in partner, Eduardo Fat, Sr. (Eduardo, Sr.). When she opened their door intending to call out their children who were watching TV in their neighbor's house, she was met by PDEA agents outside. They introduced themselves as police officers, and told Fat not to move while they searched the house. They did not recover any dangerous drugs, but they asked Fat to go with them to their office because they allegedly bought shabu from her. Fat denied selling shabu to the PDEA officers as she was not in the house during the day. After three days of being detained, she was taken out of the detention cell so the PDEA agents could take pictures of her with the shabu and money on top of a table. 11
Fat claimed that the PDEA agents arrested her because she reprimanded her neighbors, Tote Puesca (Tote) 7 and a certain Gabby, 8 to stop selling shabu. She admitted that she was previously arrested and pleaded guilty for violation of Section 12 of RA 9165. 12
Eduardo, Sr. corroborated Fat's defense that when the latter opened the door to call their children, there were police officers waiting outside their house. The police officers immediately entered their house, pointed their guns at them, and ordered them to go out. Eduardo, Sr. complied and waited outside without bothering to ask why. On the other hand, Fat stayed inside the house with the police officers for almost an hour. Afterwards, the police officers, together with Fat, who was already handcuffed, went out. 13
Eduardo, Sr. declared that Fat did errands for Toti and Dabi like buying food and going to the market. Toti and Dabi would go to their house in the morning, and went home in the afternoon in Mambaling. He denied that he and Fat had an altercation with Toti and Dabi. He did not know whether Fat's errands for Toti and Dabi involved illegal drugs. However, he began to doubt Fat's errands, and warned her not to do any more errands for Toti and Dabi. 14
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
The RTC convicted Fat of violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. 15 The dispositive portion of which reads: SDAaTC
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court finds accused ADELAIDA FAT y OMEGA guilty beyond reasonable doubt, for Violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00.
The packet of shabu is forfeited in favor of the government for proper disposal.
SO ORDERED. 16
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
The CA denied Fat's appeal and affirmed the RTC's conviction for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. 17 The fallo of the CA Decision provides:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED and the September 6, 2013 Judgment rendered by the Regional Trial Court Branch 57, Cebu City is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 18 [THIS REFERS TO ANOTHER CASE?]
The appellate court ruled that the PDEA agents complied with the procedural safeguards under Section 21 of RA 9165. It accorded weight on the testimonies of IO1 Cuayzon and IA5 Cansancio that the identity and integrity of evidentiary value of the seized items were duly preserved. The prosecution has substantially complied with the procedural rules, and that the mere denial of Fat cannot overcome the presumption of regularity of performance of the PDEA agents.
Issues
Both Fat and appellee adopted their respective briefs filed before the appellate court. 19 The sole issue raised for consideration of this Court is:
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HER GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. 20
Our Ruling
After due consideration, We resolve to reverse and set aside the judgment of conviction of Fat based on reasonable doubt due to the prosecution's failure 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 confiscated items from Fat.
A perusal of the records shows that the PDEA agents committed a fatal lapse in handling the items seized from Fat at the time of confiscation, until their presentation before the court without offering any justifiable explanation. Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of RA 9165 requires that:
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 x x x.
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. 21 It is of utmost importance in the prosecution of illegal sale 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 of 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: 22
[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 the 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. 23 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Nonetheless, Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) offers some flexibility in complying with the express requirements under paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, thus: acEHCD
(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 preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
The above saving clause, however, applies only when the prosecution recognized the procedural lapses, explained the cited justifiable grounds, and established that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized had been preserved. 25 In the present case, the prosecution failed to offer any explanation as to the absence of the Department of Justice (DOJ) personnel during the conduct of inventory, and taking of photograph of Fat and the confiscated items. The prosecution did not explain why only the elected barangay official and media representative were present during the physical inventory and taking of photographs of Fat and the seized items. Clearly, the PDEA agents failed to strictly comply with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 and its IRR, and to offer any valid justification for its non-compliance.
In People v. Umipang, 26 We held that the prosecution must show that earnest efforts were employed in contacting the required witnesses under the law. Mere statements that the representatives are not available without any explanation on whether serious attempts were employed to look for witnesses given the circumstances will not suffice, and are 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 given circumstance. 27
Ostensibly, approximate compliance does not suffice; there must be actual compliance with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 and its IRR. 28 The failure to do so is tantamount to a failure to establish the corpus delicti which is a crucial element of the crime charged. 29 In a prosecution for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under RA 9165, the State carries the heavy burden of proving not only the elements of the offense, but also the integrity of the corpus delicti. 30 Failure in such would render the evidence for the State insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 31 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, nor ignored as an impediment to the conviction of illegal drug suspects. 32 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 irregularity committed by the PDEA agents in their compliance with RA 9165 and its IRR, without offering any justifiable grounds for non-compliance thereof.
Granting that the PDEA agents committed a procedural lapse in this case without any valid justification, the prosecution must necessarily prove 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, which it failed to do so in the case at bar.
Section 1 (b) of the Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) Resolution No. 1, Series of 2002, 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.
To prove an unbroken chain of custody, the testimony about every link in the chain, 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. 33 Hence, the following links must be established: 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.
A perusal of the records of the case shows that the prosecution failed to establish that the seized items presented were the very same specimen seized from Fat.
(a) The first and second links in the chain of custody
As per IO1 Cuayzon, he and IO1 Villegas confiscated one plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance and two P100 bills from Fat. However, instead of immediately marking the seized plastic sachet at the place of arrest, he waited until their return to the PDEA office before placing the marks "BB-AOF 4/22/09" and his signature on the seized sachet. A review of the testimony of IO1 Cuayzon shows: SDHTEC
Q What markings did you make on the one plastic pack of white crystalline substance?
A It is the initial "BB AOF" with 4/22/09 and my signature.
Q Where did you mark this one plastic pack of white crystalline substance at the place where the accused was arrested or at the office?
A I marked it at the office. 34 (Emphasis supplied.)
On cross-examination, IO1 Cuayzon explained that he did not mark the seized item immediately at the place of arrest because IA5 Cansancio ordered them to leave the area and mark the items in the office, to wit:
Q And were you able to mark the shabu bought from the accused?
A No, ma'am.
Q Why not?
A Because when I was about to mark it, I received an order from our team leader to withdraw from the area and do the markings, inventory and take photographs in the office, ma'am.
Q So, the markings, the inventory and the photographs were done in the office?
A Yes, ma'am.
Q Who was in custody of the recovered item?
A The subject of sale which I received from the subject, I was in custody of it, ma'am, from the time it was confiscated until the marking and photograph of this in the office until submission to the forensic.
Q So, you were the one who marked the item?
A Yes, ma'am. 35 (Emphasis supplied.)
IA5 Cansancio testified that he decided to make the marking, inventory and photography in the PDEA office because Fat's husband, children, and neighbors started to gather around them, to wit:
Q Now you said that the accused was apprised of her violation and rights. After it was done, what transpired next?
A I decided to make inventory and photographs in our office.
Q Why did you make that, Mr. witness?
A Because the place of incident is near the residence of the accused and her husband was present, her children and neighbors also started to gather around us.
Q What were those persons trying to do which lead you to decide to pull out from the area?
A They might rescue the accused and I just told them and invited them if ever they had questions they will go to the office. 36 (Emphasis supplied.)
Clearly, the marking of the seized plastic sachet was not done immediately at the place of arrest but in the PDEA office. In People v. Salonga, 37 We emphasized the importance of marking, thus:
Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link, thus, it is vital that the seized contrabands are immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. The marking of the evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of the criminal proceedings, obviating switching, planting, or contamination of evidence. 38
While it is true that Section 21 of RA 9165 did not specifically limit the marking of the seized item at the place of arrest, the records, however, show that the prosecution failed to give any justifiable and credible explanation why the plastic sachet allegedly recovered from Fat was not immediately marked upon confiscation. The only explanation given was that the place of arrest was near the residence of Fat, and that the latter's husband, children and neighbors were starting to gather around the place of arrest.
This justification, however, does not persuade as it was never substantiated or corroborated by evidence. IO1 Cuayzon even testified that he was about to mark the seized plastic sachet at the place of arrest when IA5 Cansancio ordered them to leave the area and go back to the office. Even IA5 Cansancio did not specifically declare that the people who were gathering around them were trying to impede the arrest. In fact, he acted merely on the presumption that they might rescue Fat. The arresting officers did not elaborate on how the gathering of these people imperiled their safety and security. On the contrary, IA5 Cansancio even invited these people to their office in case they have questions regarding Fat's arrest.
(b) The third and fourth links in the chain of custody
As to the turn over of the seized item to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination, IO1 Cuayzon testified that he had custody of the seized plastic sachet from the time of its confiscation until its turnover to PO2 Domael of the PNP Crime Laboratory on April 23, 2009.
Sections 3 and 6, paragraph 8 of 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 a certain PO2 Domael received the seized item from IO1 Cuayzon. Thereafter, it was examined by the forensic chemist PI Sahagun who conducted an examination of the seized item which yielded a positive result for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
However, the prosecution failed to establish the manner on how the seized item was handled before it came into the possession of PI Sahagun. It must be recalled that the trial court dispensed with the testimony of PI Sahagun in view of the stipulations entered into by the parties. 39 In case the testimony of the forensic chemist is dispensed with, it should be stipulated that he or she took precautionary measures 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. 40
The prosecution failed to show how the seized item was handled after its turnover by IO1 Cuayzon to PO2 Domael of the laboratory office, and how PI Sahagun came into the possession of the seized item with markings "BB-AOF 4/22/09" and signature. Also, the stipulations failed to state that PI Sahagun resealed the seized item after the examination thereof. Further, no testimonial or documentary evidence was presented to show how PI Sahagun kept the seized item while in her custody after laboratory examination, until it was presented in court. The stipulations of the parties regarding PI Sahagun's testimony are replete of details regarding the safekeeping of the seized item to ensure that there was no change in the condition of the seized item, 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. 41
The totality of the substantial lapses committed by the PDEA agents 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 item seized from Fat until its presentation before the court, create a reasonable doubt that the seized item was the very same one offered in evidence. We cannot overemphasize the importance of the procedures laid down in RA 9165 and its IRR, and the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated illegal drugs through an unbroken chain of custody. The prosecution's considerable failure to comply with the said rules warrants the acquittal of Fat based on reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The July 22, 2015 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01763 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE for failure of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of Adelaida Fat y Omega. She is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged against her and ordered immediately RELEASED from custody, unless she is being held for some other lawful cause. AScHCD
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City for immediate implementation. The Director General is DIRECTED to inform the Court of the action he or she has taken hereon within five days of receipt of this Resolution.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED."(Perlas-Bernabe, S.A.J., on official leave; Hernando, J., Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2887 dated April 8, 2022)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. CA rollo, p. 88.
2.Id. at 74-83. Penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez (now a Member of this Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Pamela Ann Abella Maximo and Germano Francisco D. Legaspi.
3. Records, pp. 122-126. Penned by Presiding Judge Enriqueta Loquillano-Belarmino.
4. Entitled " n
5.Id. at 1.
6.Id. at 20.
6. TSN, September 15, 2010, pp. 4-6 & TSN, December 13, 2012, pp. 4-5.
7.Id. at 6-9.
8.Id. at 9-11.
9.Id. at 11-15.
10.Id. at 15-16 & Records, p. 108.
11. TSN, May 30, 2013, pp. 4-10.
7. Also spelled as Toti in some parts of the records.
8. Also referred to as Dabi in some parts of the records.
12. TSN, May 30, 2013, pp. 12-14.
13. TSN, June 20, 2013, pp. 4-8.
14.Id. at 15-19.
15. Records, pp. 122-126.
16.Id. at 125-126.
17. CA rollo, 74-83.
18.Id. at 82.
19.Rollo, pp. 23-27 and pp. 28-30.
20. CA rollo, p. 11.
21. See People v. Kamad, 624 Phil. 289, 301-302 (2010).
22. See People v. Balibay, 742 Phil. 746, 757-758 (2014), citing People v. Lim, 435 Phil. 640, 659-660 (2002).
23.People v. Lim, 435 Phil. 640, 659-660 (2002).
24. Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document. Missing Footnote Reference and Footnote Text.
25. See People v. Capuno, 655 Phil. 226, 240-241 (2011).
26. 686 Phil. 1024, 1052 (2012).
27. See People v. Cabrellos, 837 Phil. 428, 444 (2018), citing People v. Crispo, 828 Phil. 416, 436 (2018).
28. See People v. Saragena, 817 Phil. 117, 132 (2017), citing People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78, 94 (2014).
29.Id., citing Lescano v. People, 778 Phil. 460, 470 (2016).
30. See People v. Cabrellos, supra note 27, citing People v. Gamboa, 833 Phil. 1055, 1072 (2018), citing People v. Umipang, supra note 26 at 1039-1040.
31.Id.
32.Id., citing People v. Macapundag, 807 Phil. 234, 244 (2017); People v. Umipang, supra note 26 at 1038.
33. See People v. Capuno, supra note 25 at 241-242 (2011), citing People v. Obmiranis, 594 Phil. 561, 570-571 (2008).
34. TSN, September 15, 2010, p. 15.
35. TSN, September 15, 2011, pp. 12-13.
36. TSN, December 13, 2012, p. 17.
37. 717 Phil. 117 (2013).
38.Id. at 127.
39. Records, pp. 17-18.
40. See People v. Ubungen, 836 Phil. 888, 901 (2018), citing People v. Pajarin, 654 Phil. 461, 466 (2011).
41.Id.
n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document.