FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 252334. July 6, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. WILLIAM FISHER y OGEHENES, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 6, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 252334 (People of the Philippines,Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Fisher y Ogehenes,Accused-Appellant). — This is an appeal seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision 1 dated 27 September 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11441. The appellate court affirmed the Decision 2 dated 14 March 2018 issued by Branch 77, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Quezon City, in Crim. Case No. R-QZN-16-14613-CR, convicting accused-appellant William Fisher y Ogehenes (accused-appellant) for Violation of Section 5, Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165).
Antecedents
Accused-appellant was charged with Violation of Section 5, Article II, of RA 9165 in an Information, the accusatory portion of which reads:
That on or about the 4th day of December 2016 in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, without lawful authority, did, then and there[,] willfully, [sic] unlawfully sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport or act as broker in the said transaction, one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet zero point zero two (0.02) gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug in violation of the said law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 3
On 16 January 2017, accused-appellant was arraigned and pleaded not guilty to the charge. 4 During pre-trial, the parties stipulated on the testimonies of SPO1 Marlon Tan (SPO1 Tan), the investigating officer, and Police Chief Inspector Bernardo R. Roque (PCI Roque), the forensic chemist. 5 Trial on the merits ensued thereafter.
Version of the Prosecution
In the early morning of 04 December 2016, a confidential informant (CI) reported to the Galas Police Station that accused-appellant was spotted selling shabu along Lopez Jaena Street, Barangay Doña Aurora, Quezon City. Thereupon, the station leaders set up an entrapment operation against accused-appellant. 6
PO1 Jayson Tingbawen (PO1 Tingbawen), the designated poseur-buyer, together with the CI and the rest of the buy-bust team, proceeded to the target area at around 10:00 A.M. After an hour, PO1 Tingbawen and the CI saw accused-appellant and approached him. 7 The CI introduced PO1 Tingbawen to accused-appellant as "Onyo," a friend who wanted to purchase shabu. Before long, a sale took place between PO1 Tingbawen and accused-appellant. 8 After the exchange, PO1 Tingbawen executed the pre-arranged signal, prompting the other police officers to approach and arrest accused-appellant. Incidental to the arrest, PO1 Jerold Villanueva (PO1 Villanueva) conducted a body search and recovered from accused-appellant's left hand, three (3) more small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. 9
PO1 Tingbawen marked the plastic sachet subject of the sale at the place of arrest with the initials "JT WF 12-04-16." 10 However, as PO1 Villanueva was about to mark the other seized items, accused-appellant's family came and created a commotion as they tried to pry him away from the police officers. Consequently, the buy-bust team decided to proceed to the nearby barangay hall. 11 Thereat, PO1 Villanueva marked the seized items, subject of possession, with "JV WF-1 12-04-16," "JV WF-2 12-04-16," and "JV WF-3 12-04-16." The police officers also conducted the inventory and taking of photograph in the presence of accused-appellant, a barangay kagawad and a media representative. Accused-appellant, however, refused to sign the inventory receipt. 12
Thereafter, the police officers proceeded to Galas Police Station 11, Quezon City, and turned over accused-appellant, along with the seized items, to their investigating officer, SPO1 Tan, who then prepared the requests for laboratory examination. 13 Next, SPO1 Tan returned the items to PO1 Tingbawen and PO1 Villanueva, and they then delivered the same to PCI Roque for laboratory examination. PCI Roque's Chemistry Report No. D-2180-16 revealed that the specimens were positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu. 14 Subsequently, PCI Roque placed the items in a bigger transparent plastic sachet sealed with masking tapes and put his markings thereon. He turned over the items to the evidence custodian, PO1 Junia Tuccad (PO1 Tuccad). He retrieved the items later from PO1 Tuccad and presented them as evidence in court. 15
Version of the Defense
Accused-appellant maintained his innocence and claimed that on 03 December 2016, while on his way to a friend's birthday party, he was abducted by unknown men. 16 They brought him to the police station for verification, but he was no longer allowed to leave, thereafter.
Mercy Fisher, accused-appellant's mother, corroborated his son's account, as she, her daughter, and son-in-law were allegedly present when accused-appellant was taken away by the strangers. 17
Ruling of the RTC
On 14 March 2018, the RTC rendered its judgment, finding accused-appellant guilty as charged. The dispositive portion of its Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, Above premises considered, the court HOLDS and FINDS Accused WILLIAM FISHER y OGEHENES, GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT for violation of Section 5, Republic Act 9165, for selling and trading, without authority of law, 0.02 gram of Methamphetamine hydrochloride. He is hereby sentenced to suffer lifetime imprisonment, and to pay the FINE of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php500,000.00).
The Branch Clerk of Court is directed to immediately to [sic] turn over to the Chief of PDEA Crime Laboratory, the subject drugs to be disposed of in strict conformity with the provisions of R.A. 9165 and its implementing rules and regulations on the matter.
Issue mittimus Order.
SO ORDERED.18
The RTC held that based on the evidence, the prosecution proved that accused-appellant was caught red-handed selling shabu during a legitimate buy-bust operation. Furthermore, the police officers sufficiently explained why the inventory was not conducted at the place of arrest. 19 Likewise, the RTC did not give due credence to accused-appellant's denial, being unsupported by any other credible evidence to disprove the version of the prosecution. 20 Neither did the trial court give any due weight to the testimony of accused-appellant's mother considering that a mother would naturally be inclined to testify in favor of her child. 21 The trial court took against accused-appellant his failure to impute any ill-motive on the part of the police officers. 22
Ruling of the CA
On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC's decision as it agreed that the prosecution was able to prove accused-appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, as it duly established the elements of the offense charged, as well as the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti. 23 The CA brushed aside any deviation committed by the prosecution on the basis of the saving mechanism under the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Section 21, RA 9165, and now encapsulated in Republic Act No. 10640 (RA 10640), the amendatory law of RA 9165. 24 It also applied the presumption of regularity in favor of the police officers. 25
Ruling of the Court
The appeal is granted.
In drug cases, the dangerous drug itself is the very corpus delicti of the violation of the law. Consequently, compliance with the rule on chain of custody over the seized illegal drugs is crucial in any prosecution that follows a buy-bust operation. The rule is imperative, as it is essential that the prohibited drug recovered from the suspect is the very same substance offered in court as exhibit; and that the identity of said drug is established with the same unwavering exactitude as that requisite to make a finding of guilt. 26 Failing to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti renders the evidence for the State insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and, hence, warrants an acquittal. 27
The chain of custody rule is set forth under Section 21 of Article II of RA 9165, its IRR, and RA 10640, the amendatory law of RA 9165. These laws require, inter alia, that the marking, physical inventory, and photography of the seized items be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation of the same. The law further requires that the said inventory and photography 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 certain required witnesses, namely: (a) if prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, a representative from the media AND the DOJ, and any elected public official; or (b) if after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service OR the media. The law requires the presence of these witnesses primarily "to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence." 28
The CA correctly pointed out that since the incident allegedly transpired on 04 December 2016, RA 10640 applies. Hence, only two (2) witnesses are now required. Despite that, the rule remains the same that the marking, inventory and taking of photographs must be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation at the place of apprehension. It is only when the same is not practicable that they may be done at the nearest police station or the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team. Moreover, the required witnesses should already be physically present at the time of the conduct of the inventory of the seized items which, again, must be immediately done at the place of seizure and confiscation. 29
In the instant case, the prosecution's witnesses claimed that the marking of the specimen, subject of the sale, was marked at the place of arrest, but the inventory and photographing took place at the nearby barangay hall. It is clear from the law, however, that inventory and photographing of the seized drug specimen can only be done at: (1) the place of seizure; (2) the nearest police station; or (3) the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable. 30 This is a restrictive list which clearly does not include a barangay hall as an allowable alternative place contemplated under the outlined procedure. 31 Thus, in People v. Ilagan, 32 the Court held that even if photographs were taken at the barangay hall, the same is considered a deviation of the rules because the law clearly contemplates the photographing to be done at the place of apprehension, unless a justifiable reason to do it in some other place has been established.
As gleaned from the facts, the police officers claimed that they proceeded to the barangay hall because of the fracas caused by accused-appellant's family. Ordinarily, though, a commotion hardly qualifies as sufficient justification for not complying with the requirement as to the conduct of the inventory and photographing at the place of seizure. As buy-bust operations are planned, the team could have easily ensured that the conduct of the inventory and photographing would cause minimal disruption to the area. 33 Also, armed police officers could easily contain any commotion and proceed with the immediate inventory of the seized item so as to comply with the law. 34
Even for the nonce that this Court may consider the commotion claimed by the police officers as a justifiable reason for that particular deviation, it is nevertheless apt to mention that, as aptly emphasized by accused-appellant in his appeal brief, PO1 Tingbawen admitted during his cross-examination that the media representative and the elected public official were not present during the apprehension and seizure of the illegal drug. What is more, these two (2) witnesses were not immediately available at the barangay hall. The barangay kagawad was merely called in and arrived only after about 5 to 10 minutes later. 35 The same is true with the media representative who arrived at the barangay hall long after the inventory had taken place. 36
These, for sure, are clear violations of the mandated procedures under the law. And while it may be conceded that procedural lapses of the police officers do not per se render the confiscated items inadmissible in evidence, and neither do they ipso facto negate a conviction, the Court has nevertheless clarified that failure to comply with the procedure found in both Section 21, RA 9165 and RA 10640 is excusable only if the following requisites obtain: (1) that there exist "justifiable grounds"; and (2) that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team. 37 Thus, once lapses in procedure are shown, the prosecution must recognize such and accordingly justify the same in order to warrant the application of the saving clause. Stated differently, in order not to render void the seizure and custody over the evidence obtained, the burden is therefore on the prosecution to establish the following: (i) that such non-compliance was based on justifiable grounds, and (ii) that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item were properly preserved. 38
In this case, however, the apprehending officers not only failed to recognize the lapses but also failed to explain their failure to follow the mandated procedure. Instead, they tried to cover it up through the completely different and conflicting account of PO1 Villanueva who claimed that the two (2) required witnesses were physically present at the barangay hall throughout the conduct of the inventory. 39 These conflicting testimonies of the police officers do not establish compliance with the law, but, in fact, only heightens the doubt as to the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti.
Notably, even the RTC and the CA nonchalantly disregarded these vital facts which, if properly considered, could very well be a sufficient basis for the acquittal of accused-appellant. To be sure, the failure to comply with the witness rule jeopardizes the trustworthiness of corpus delicti, breaks the chain of custody and, by result, puts the guilt of the accused in doubt. 40 Indeed, as the Court has emphasized time and again, the presence of third-party witnesses during seizure and marking ensures that whatever items are subsequently inventoried, photographed, examined, and presented in court are the same substances that were initially obtained from the accused. 41 Thus, in People v. Castillo, 42 the Court emphatically declared that having the witnesses present only during the subsequent physical inventory and photographing renders the whole requirement of their presence futile as their presence at a very late stage reduces them to passive automatons, utilized merely to lend hollow legitimacy by belatedly affixing signatures on final inventory documents despite lacking authentic knowledge on the items confronting them. They become rubber stamps, oblivious to how the dangers sought to be avoided by their presence may have already transpired.
All things considered, the Court holds that the unacknowledged and unjustified lapses in the chain of custody created doubt as to the identity and integrity of the seized drug. There being no justifiable reason for the police officers' non-compliance with the same, petitioner's acquittal is thus in order. 43
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated 27 September 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11441 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Accordingly, accused-appellant William Fisher y Ogehenes is ACQUITTED of the offense charged against him for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless he is detained for any other lawful cause.
The Director of the 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.
Let an entry of final judgment be issued immediately.
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. 03-19; penned by Associate Justice Louis P. Acosta, and concurred in by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela.
2.CA rollo, pp. 48-54; penned by Presiding Judge Ferdinand C. Baylon.
3.Rollo, p. 06.
4.Id.
5.CA rollo, p. 31.
6.Rollo, p. 04.
7.CA rollo, p. 33.
8.Rollo, p. 04.
9.Id. at 04-05.
10.CA rollo, p. 33.
11.Rollo, p. 05.
12.Id.
13.Id. at 14.
14.Id. at 05-06.
15.Id. at 14.
16.CA rollo, p. 34.
17.Id.
18.Rollo, p. 07 and CA rollo, p. 54.
19.CA rollo, pp. 50-52.
20.Id. at 53.
21.Id. at 51.
22.Id.
23.Rollo, pp. 08-15.
24.Id. at 15-17.
25.Id. at 17-18.
26.People v. Tanes, G.R. No. 240596, 03 April 2019 [Per J. Caguioa].
27. See People v. Año, G.R. No. 230070, 14 March 2018 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe].
28. See Aranas v. People, G.R. No. 242315, 03 July 2019 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe].
29. See People v. Espejo, G.R. No. 240914, 13 March 2019 [Per J. Caguioa].
30. See People v. Abueva, G.R. No. 243633, 15 July 2020 [Per J. Reyes, Jr.].
31. See People v. Primo, G.R. No. 238837 (Notice), 07 September 2020.
32. See G.R. No. 227021, 05 December 2018 [Per J. Caguioa].
33. See People v. Sood, G.R. No. 227394 , 06 June 2018 [Per J. Caguioa].
34. See People v. Cornel, G.R. No. 229047, 16 April 2018 [Per C.J. Peralta].
35.CA rollo, p. 40, citing TSN, 05 September 2017, pp. 14-15.
36.Id. at 40-41.
37. See People v. Cañete, G.R. No. 242018, 03 July 2019 [Per J. Caguioa].
38.Id.
39.CA rollo, p. 41, citing TSN, 07 December 2017, p. 07.
40. See Tañamor v. People, G.R. No. 228132, 11 March 2020 [Per J. Caguioa].
41. See People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 238339, 07 August 2019 [Per J. Leonen].
42. G.R. No. 238339, 07 August 2019 [Per J. Leonen].
43. See People v. Año, G.R. No. 230070, 14 March 2018 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe].