FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 251864. May 14, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.TONY FELIX y SIOCO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedMay 14, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 251864 (People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tony Felix y Sioco, Accused-Appellant.) — This appeal 1 seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision 2 promulgated on 19 February 2018 by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08976, which affirmed the Decision 3 dated 17 November 2016 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 68 of Camiling, Tarlac in Criminal Case Nos. 15-37 and 15-38, finding accused-appellant Tony Felix y Sioco (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 5 4 and 15, 5 Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, 6 otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
Antecedents
Accused-appellant was charged with violation of Sections 5 and 15, Article II of RA 9165, the accusatory portion of the two (2) separate Information read, thus:
Criminal Case No. 15-37
That on or about the 6th day of February 2015, at around 1:30 o'clock in the afternoon, in Barangay Caarosipan Palimbo, Municipality of Camiling, Province of Tarlac, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, trade and deliver one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance, known as "shabu," a dangerous drug, weighing 0.061 gram.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 7
Criminal Case No. 15-38
That on or about the 6th day of February 2015, at around 1:30 o'clock in the afternoon, in Barangay Caarosipan Palimbo, Municipality of Camiling, Province of Tarlac, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, without being authorized by law, use Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, known as shabu, a dangerous drug, and was found positive for methamphetamine after screening and confirmatory tests.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 8
Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges. After termination of the pre-trial, trial on the merits ensued. 9 ASEcHI
Version of the Prosecution
In the afternoon of 06 February 2015, the Camiling Tarlac police station received information from their confidential agent (agent) that accused-appellant was engaged in illegal drug trade activities at Barangay Caarosipan, Palimo, Camiling, Tarlac. On the basis of the said information, a team was formed to conduct a buy bust operation against accused-appellant, with PO3 Edgar Esteban (PO3 Esteban), 10 as the poseur-buyer and the rest of the team as backup/arresting officers. 11
The team proceeded to the area. Upon seeing accused-appellant walking towards the designated place of their transaction, 12 PO3 Esteban and the agent alighted from their vehicle and approached the former. The agent gave the marked money to accused-appellant and in exchange, the latter handed one (1) plastic sachet with suspected shabu. After the consummation of the transaction, accused-appellant ran, but after a brief chase, he was later caught and subsequently arrested by PO3 Mark Anthony Alviar (PO3 Alviar) 13 and PO2 Alexander Juan (PO2 Juan). During the body search, PO3 Alviar found the marked money in accused-appellant's possession. 14
Thereafter, PO3 Esteban immediately marked the seized items. He conducted the inventory after Barangay Captain Renato De Mayo (Brgy. Capt. De Mayo) and media representative Judy Briones arrived at the crime scene. Said witnesses signed the receipt of property seized together with accused-appellant. 15 Meanwhile, PO2 Juan took photographs of the seized items. 16
Accused-appellant was later brought to the police station for investigation and booking procedures. The police officers also prepared the requests for laboratory examination and drug test. PO3 Esteban was in possession of the seized items all the time from the place of apprehension until the time he turned it over to the Philippine National Police crime laboratory. Forensic chemist Police Senior Inspector Angelito Angel (PSI Angel) personally received the seized plastic sachet with suspected shabu from PO3 Esteban together with accused-appellant's urine sample. 17 Upon examination, the seized item as well as the urine sample from accused-appellant tested positive for shabu. 18 According to PSI Angel, a confirmatory test was made on the urine sample. 19 After conducting the examination, PSI Angel placed the subject plastic sachet in a small brown envelope, sealed it and likewise placed his initials thereon. He turned it over to the evidence custodian for safekeeping and thereafter retrieved the same before presenting it in court. 20
Version of the Defense
Accused-appellant claimed that at around 11:00 o'clock in the morning on 06 February 2015, he was on his way home when three (3) persons, whom he later identified as police officers. They asked him if he know a certain Tony Felix. When he answered in the affirmative, they immediately handcuffed and arrested him. PO3 Esteban then showed him a plastic sachet and money in the amount of Php1,000.00. After calling the barangay captain and pictures of them were taken, the police officers brought him to the police station for investigation and he was also subjected to urine test. He was detained after. 21
Ruling of the RTC
On 17 November 2016, the RTC rendered its Decision, convicting accused-appellant of the offenses charged, thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused Tony Felix y Sioco is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 (illegal sale of dangerous drug) and hereby sentences him to a penalty of life imprisonment and a FINE of Php500,000.00.
This court also finds same accused Tony Felix guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 15, Article II of RA 9165 (illegal use of dangerous drugs) and sentences him to undergo six (6) months drug rehabilitation in a reputable government drug rehabilitation center.
SO ORDERED. 22
In convicting accused-appellant, the RTC found that the prosecution has proved all the elements of illegal sale of shabu. Accused-appellant was positively identified by PO3 Esteban and PO3 Alviar as the same person who sold the plastic sachet with shabu for Php1,000.00. It accorded the police officers the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties, absent any odious intent on their part. Further, it held that the evidentiary value of the seized item was preserved as the prosecution was able to establish an unbroken chain of custody over the same. 23 It likewise held that the guilt of accused-appellant for the illegal use of shabu was established as the latter's urine sample also tested positive for shabu. 24
Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed to the CA.
Ruling of the CA
In its Decision dated 19 February 2018, the CA affirmed accused-appellant's conviction. The dispositive portion of the said Decision reads:
FOR THESE REASONS, the appealed Decision dated 17 November 2016 rendered by Branch 68 of the Regional Trial Court, Camiling, Tarlac in Criminal Case Nos. 15-37 and 15-38 is AFFIRMEDin toto.
SO ORDERED.25
The CA held that the prosecution was able to establish through testimonial, documentary and object evidence the elements of illegal sale of shabu. 26 It gave full faith and credence to the testimonies of the police officers and upholds the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duty. It disregarded accused-appellant's defense of denial and frame-up, there being no solid proof to support his claim. 27 The CA also held that accused-appellant's guilt for the illegal use of shabu was established through the urine sample taken from the latter. 28 It also held that the identity and integrity of the seized item was preserved and kept intact by the police officers, there being no irregularity that attended the chain of custody over it. 29
Hence, this appeal. ITAaHc
Issue
The sole issue in this case is whether the CA correctly affirmed accused-appellant's conviction for illegal sale and illegal use of dangerous drugs under Sections 5 and 15, Article II of RA 9165, respectively.
Ruling of the Court
The appeal is partly granted.
In every case for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must be able to establish the following essential elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and its payment. 30 What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence. The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer, and the receipt by the seller of themarked money successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction. 31
Sale or possession of dangerous drugs can never be proven without seizure and identification of the prohibited drug. In prosecutions involving narcotics, the narcotic substance itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction. 32 Therefore, it is essential that the identity and integrity of the seized drug be established with moral certainty. 33
As an integral part of the chain of custody rule, RA 9165 requires that the marking, physical inventory, and photography of the seized items be conducted immediately after the seizure and confiscation of the same. It was made compulsory that the physical inventory and photograph-taking be done in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as these required witnesses: (a) if prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640 34 on 07 August 2014, 35 "a representative from the media AND the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official"; or (b) if after said amendment, "an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service OR the media." 36 [Emphasis removed]
Moreover, to ensure the integrity of the seized drugs, the prosecution must likewise establish the chain of custody of the dangerous drugs, i.e., first, the seizure and marking 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 by the forensic chemist to the court. 37
In the present case, it appears that the buy bust team failed to comply with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 as amended by RA 10640, the applicable law at the time of the commission of the offense, as well as the chain of custody requirement.
PO3 Esteban marked the seized items after seizure and conducted the inventory only after the arrival of Brgy. Capt. De Mayo and media representative Judy Briones at the scene. 38 Clearly, the said witnesses were called in and arrived only after the buy-bust operation. In People v. Supat, 39 the Court held the presence of the mandatory witnesses must be secured not only during the inventory, but more importantly, at the time of the warrantless arrest. For it is at this point in which the presence of the mandatory witnesses is most needed, as it is their presence at the time of seizure and confiscation that would belie any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drug.
Next, there was no testimony as to the turn-over of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer. PO3 Esteban admitted that he was in possession of the plastic sachet of shabu bought from accused-appellant from the time of purchase until he brought the same to the crime laboratory. 40 In People v. Bancola, 41 it was held that the apprehending officer's act of keeping the seized evidence until its transfer to the forensic chemist and his failure to transfer the seized evidence to the investigating officer are considered breaks in the chain of custody.
As a rule, strict compliance with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, as amended, is mandatory. A deviation may be allowed only if the following requisites concur: (1) the existence of "justifiable grounds" allowing departure from the rule on strict compliance; and (2) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team. Thus, when there is a showing of lapses in the procedure, the prosecution must recognize such, and justify the same, in order to warrant the application of the saving mechanism. 42 Furthermore, in People v. De Guzman, 43 it was emphasized that the justifiable ground for non-compliance must be proven as a fact, because the courts cannot presume what these grounds are or whether they even exist.
In this case, however, the saving mechanism of Section 21 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165, as amended, cannot be applied because the police officers failed to offer any valid excuse for their deviation. Before courts may consider the seized drugs as evidence despite noncompliance with the legal requirements, justifiable grounds must be identified and proved. The prosecution must establish the steps taken to ensure that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. It has the positive duty to establish its reasons for the procedural lapses. 44 Moreso, in this case, considering the miniscule amount (0.061 gram) of shabu involved, this requires a more exacting compliance of the law.
Clearly, the procedural lapses committed by police officers, as well as the prosecution's failure to establish all the links in the chain of custody, created serious uncertainty over the identity of the seized drug. In effect, the prosecution failed to fully prove the elements of illegal sale of shabu, creating a reasonable doubt on accused-appellant's criminal liability, Consequently, accused-appellant's acquittal is warranted. CHTAIc
Upon the other hand, to secure a conviction for illegal use of dangerous drugs, there must be a prior conduct of an initial screening test and a subsequent confirmatory test both yielding positive results for illegal drug use. 45
In Criminal Case No. 15-38, the prosecution established accused-appellant's guilt for illegal use of shabu, through the documentary and testimonial evidence of PSI Angel, stating that after conducting both the screening and confirmatory tests, accused-appellant's urine sample tested positive for shabu. 46
WHEREFORE, the appeal is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision dated 19 February 2018 of the CA in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08976 is hereby MODIFIED as follows.
In Criminal Case No. 15-37 for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, accused-appellant TONY FELIX y SIOCO is ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt. He is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention unless he is being confined for some other lawful cause.
The Superintendent of the New Bilibid Prison, Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to IMPLEMENT this Resolution and to report to this Court the action taken hereon within five (5) days from receipt.
In Criminal Case No. 15-38 the conviction of accused-appellant TONY FELIX y SIOCO for violation of Section 15, Article II of RA 9165, sentencing him to undergo six (6) months drug rehabilitation in a reputable government drug rehabilitation center, is AFFIRMED.
It appearing that the Superintendent of the New Bilibid Prison, Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, failed to submit a confirmation of accused-appellant's confinement as required in the Resolution dated July 13, 2020, the said Superintendent is hereby required to: (a) to SHOW CAUSE why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt for such failure; and (b) to COMPLY with the Resolution dated July 13, 2020 by submitting the required confirmation of confinement, both within ten (10) days from notice hereof.
SO ORDERED." (Carandang, J., no part, due to her prior participation in the Court of Appeals; Delos Santos, J., designated additional Member per Raffle dated 08 June 2020.)
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. 24-25; see Notice of Appeal dated 16 March 2018.
2.Id. at 3-23; penned by Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybañez, concurred in by Associate Justices Rosmari D. Carandang (now a Member of this Court) and Pedro B. Corales of the Third (3rd) Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
3. CA rollo, pp. 40-47; penned by Presiding Judge Jose S. Vallo.
4. SECTION 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals.
5. SECTION 15. Use of Dangerous Drug.
6. Entitled "AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on 23 January 2020.
7.Rollo, p. 4.
8.Id.
9.Id. at 4-5.
10. Also referred to as PO2 Esteban in some parts of the records.
11.Rollo, pp. 5-6.
12. CA rollo, p. 41.
13. Also referred to as PO2 Alviar in some parts of the records.
14.Rollo, p. 6; CA rollo, p. 42.
15.Rollo, p. 79.
16.Supra at note 14.
17. CA rollo, p. 42.
18.Rollo, pp. 6-7.
19. CA rollo, p. 43.
20.Id.
21.Id. at 43.
22.Id. at 47.
23.Id. at 26.
24.Id. at 44-45.
25.Rollo, p. 22.
26.Id. at 12.
27.Id. at 14.
28.Id. at 17.
29.Id. at 21.
30.People v. Ygot, 790 Phil. 236, 240 (2016); G.R. No. 210715, 18 July 2016 [Per J. Perez].
31.People v. Guiara, 616 Phil. 290, 302 (2009); G.R. No. 186497, 17 September 2009 [Per J. Velasco, Jr.].
32.People v. Nacua, 702 Phil. 739, 751 (2013); G.R. No. 200165, 30 January 2013 [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro].
33.See People v. Yagao, G.R. No. 216725, 18 February 2019 [Per C.J. Bersamin].
34. Entitled "AN ACT TO FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE ANTI-DRUG CAMPAIGN OF THE GOVERNMENT, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 21 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002," approved on 15 July 2014.
35. See People v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 236304, 05 November 2018 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe].
36.People v. Bangalan, G.R. No. 232249, 03 September 2018 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe]; Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640.
37.People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 231 (2015); G.R. No. 212196, 12 January 2015 [Per J. Mendoza].
38.Rollo, pp. 6-7.
39. G.R. No. 217027, 06 June 2018 [Per J. Caguioa].
40.Rollo, pp. 6-7.
41. G.R. No. 237802, 18 March 2019 [Per C.J. Gesmundo, then Associate Justice].
42.Dizon v. People, G.R. No. 239399, 25 March 2021 [Per J. Caguioa].
43. 630 Phil. 637, 649 (2010); G.R. No. 186498, 26 March 2010 [Per J. Nachura].
44.People v. Ternida, G.R. No. 212626, 03 June 2019 [Per J. Leonen].
45. See People v. Lopez, G.R. No. 247974, 13 July 2020 [Per J. Caguioa].
46. CA rollo, p. 43.