FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 230551. June 30, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. JAYSON FRANCO y ROMERO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 30, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 230551 (People of the Philippines v. Jayson Franco y Romero).
This appeal 1 seeks to reverse and set aside the September 27, 2016 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07232. The CA affirmed the January 5, 2015 Joint Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 127 (RTC), in Criminal Case Nos. 87397 and 87399, finding Jayson Franco y Romero (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, as amended by R.A. No. 10640.
Antecedents
In an Amended Information dated February 20, 2012, accused-appellant was charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, to wit:
Criminal Case No. 87397
That on or about the 16th day of December, 2011 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law and without corresponding license or prescription therefor, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to PO1 JEROME PASCUAL, who posed as buyer, SIX (6) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing dried marijuana fruiting tops weighing 0.86 gram, 0.64 gram, 0.67 gram, 0.63 gram, 0.69 gram, & 0.67 gram, which when subjected for laboratory examination gave POSITIVE result to the tests for marijuana, a dangerous drug, and knowing the same to be such. 4
In a separate Information dated December 19, 2011, accused-appellant was charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Sec. 11, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, which reads:
Criminal Case No. 87399
That on or about the 16th day of December, 2011 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law, did then and there, [willfully,] unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control dried MARIJUANA fruiting tops wrapped in an old newspaper with markings "JAYSON FRANCO (RECOVERED) DATED 12-16-11" and weighing 11.19 grams, which when subjected for laboratory examination gave POSITIVE result to the tests for Marijuana, a dangerous drug, knowing the same to be such and in gross violation of the above-cited law. 5
During his arraignment on February 24, 2012, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued. Version of the Prosecution.
The prosecution presented as witnesses Police Officer I Jerome Pascual (PO1 Pascual), Senior Police Officer I Arnel Victoriano (SPO1 Victoriano), Police Chief Inspector Stella S. Garciano (PCI Garciano), 6 and Police Officer II Randulfo Hipolito (PO2 Hipolito).
On December 16, 2011, the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs of the Caloocan City Police, through PO1 Pascual, received a tip from a regular informant that a certain Jayson Franco alias "Putol," who was later identified as herein accused-appellant, was selling prohibited drugs along Magtanggol Street, Caloocan City. Acting on the information, SPO1 Victoriano coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency and the police officers conducted a briefing for a possible buy-bust operation against accused-appellant. PO1 Pascual was designated as the poseur-buyer and was given a P100.00-bill, with serial number DV360174, as buy-bust money. 7
At around 1:30 o'clock in the afternoon, the buy-bust team proceeded to the target area and conducted a test-buy operation. PO1 Pascual and the informant walked along Magtanggol Street until the latter pointed to accused-appellant and identified him as alias "Putol." As they approached accused-appellant, the informant told him "tol pakuha tong kasama ko." PO1 Pascual gave accused-appellant a P20.00-bill which the latter accepted. Thereafter, accused-appellant gave PO1 Pascual a plastic sachet containing marijuana. PO1 Pascual and the informant left and returned to the vehicle, where PO1 Pascual marked the sachet with "JAYSON FRANCO (TEST BUY) 12-16-11." PO1 Pascual kept the marked sachet in his pocket and the buy-bust team conducted a second briefing for the conduct of the actual buy-bust operation. 8
After the briefing, PO1 Pascual went back to transact with accused-appellant alone. PO1 Pascual told accused-appellant "tol pa-iskor ulit" to which the latter replied "ilan?" PO1 Pascual answered "piso lang" and handed accused-appellant the P100.00 buy-bust money. Accused-appellant received the money with his left hand, drew from his right pocket five (5) plastic sachets of marijuana, and gave the sachets to PO1 Pascual. Upon receiving the sachets of marijuana, PO1 Pascual secured them in his pocket and touched his nape to signal the consummation of the drug transaction. 9
SPO1 Victoriano rushed to the crime scene and restrained accused-appellant. PO1 Pascual frisked accused-appellant and recovered the buy-bust money from his left hand and marijuana leaves wrapped in a newspaper from his left pocket. He immediately marked the confiscated sachets with "JAYSON FRANCO RECOVERED 12-16-11." He then took out from his pocket the sachets he bought from accused-appellant and collectively marked them with "JAYSON FRANCO BUY-BUST 12-16-11." 10
Thereafter, the buy-bust team proceeded to the barangay hall where PO1 Pascual took photographs of the seized drugs in the presence of Barangay Kagawad John Ray Nadurata (Kagawad Nadurata). PO1 Pascual maintained possession of the seized drugs while in the barangay hall and in transit to the police station. At the police station, PO1 Pascual conducted the inventory in the presence of Kagawad Nadurata and PO2 Hipolito, and turned over the confiscated sachets to the latter thereafter. 11 PO2 Hipolito conducted the investigation and prepared the following documents: Booking and Information Sheet, Chain of Custody of Evidence, Inventory, Evidence Acknowledgment Receipt, and Sworn Statement of the arresting officers. 12 Thereafter, PO2 Hipolito and PO1 Pascual went to the Northern Police District Crime Laboratory Office and turned over the sachets to one Police Officer I Pataweg (PO1 Pataweg). 13 PCI Garciano received the seized drugs from PO1 Pataweg and conducted a forensic examination thereon. In her Physical Science Report No. D-338-11, 14 PCI Garciano reported that the contents of the sachets were positive for marijuana. 15
Version of the Defense
The defense presented accused-appellant as its sole witness. He denied the charges against him and testified that, on December 16, 2011, at around 9:00 o'clock in the evening, he went outside with his child for some fresh air. After a while, four (4) men in civilian attire approached him. He recognized one of the men as SPO1 Victoriano, who told his companions, while pointing at accused-appellant, that the latter was the one who bumped his father's vehicle back in 2010. Accused-appellant admitted SPO1 Victoriano's accusation and explained that he was unable to pay for the damage due to fear, as SPO1 Victoriano's father poked a gun at him at that time and told him "not to show his face for good." 16
Afterwards, the men asked accused-appellant why he was half-naked, to which the latter answered that they had no electricity at home. The men also asked accused-appellant about his chest tattoo, and began frisking him. Recovering nothing, SPO1 Victoriano and the other men forcibly took him, which caused his child to run towards their house out of fear. He was boarded on to a service vehicle where he was asked if he had money. Accused-appellant answered negatively and was brought to the Sangandaan Police Headquarters of the Caloocan City. The following day, the men took accused-appellant to the barangay hall where he was shown several plastic sachets that allegedly belonged to him. Accused-appellant denied owning the plastic sachets or that he had knowledge of where the sachets came from. 17
The RTC Ruling
In its January 5, 2015 Joint Decision, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in this wise:
In Criminal Case No. 87397, the Court finds Accused Jayson Franco y Romero GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and a Fine of Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00).
In Criminal Case No. 87399, the Court also finds Accused Jayson Franco y Romero GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of indeterminate imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as the minimum to seventeen (17) years and eight (8) months as the maximum, and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00).
With the judgment of conviction, the Jail Warden of Caloocan City Jail, Caloocan City, Metro Manila, is hereby directed to cause the immediate transfer of custody of the said accused to the New Bilibid Prison, Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for the service of his sentence, and for the said Jail Warden to forthwith submit a written report of his compliance or reason for non-compliance herewith, within ten (10) days from receipt hereof.
The drug subject matter of these cases are hereby ordered confiscated in favor of the government. In this regard, the Branch Clerk of Court of this Sala is hereby directed to turn over said specimen to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for their immediate destruction in accordance with law.
SO ORDERED. 18
The RTC ruled that the respective elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs were duly established by the prosecution. PO1 Pascual positively identified accused-appellant as the person who sold him marijuana, and that he also found in accused-appellant's possession marijuana leaves wrapped in newspaper. Later on PCI Garciano reported that the contents of the sachets turned over to her by PO2 Hipolito and PO1 Pascual tested positive for marijuana after conducting a forensic examination thereon.
The RTC also found that the police officers complied with the chain of custody rule. PO1 Pascual immediately marked the seized items at the crime scene and personally turned over the marked sachets to PO2 Hipolito for investigation. PO1 Pascual was also present when PO2 Hipolito turned over the marked sachets to the crime laboratory for forensic examination. The RTC noted the absence of proof of ill motive on the part of the police officers thereby affirming the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties.
Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed to the CA.
The CA Ruling
In its September 27, 2016 Decision, the CA affirmed the conviction of accused-appellant for the crimes charged. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed Joint Decision dated January 5, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City (Branch 127), finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, in Criminal Case No. 87397 and Section 11, Article II, also of Republic Act No. 9165, in Criminal Case No. 87399, are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.19
The CA upheld the finding of the RTC that all the elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, and an unbroken chain of custody, were established by the prosecution through PO1 Pascual's testimony. The CA found accused-appellant's imputation of ill motive against SPO1 Victoriano unsubstantiated as there was failure to present any evidence to support the same. As to the issue on the illegality of his arrest, the CA held that there was overwhelming evidence that accused-appellant was caught inflagrante delicto selling illegal marijuana which validated his arrest. The CA noted that the absence of a representative from the DOJ and the media was not fatal to the prosecution's case. As to the inconsistency on the details stated in the evidence acknowledgment receipt and the chain of custody of evidence prepared by PO2 Hipolito, the CA ruled the same to be inconsequential since the defense failed to prove that the seized evidence had been tampered with. As such, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized evidence were preserved.
Hence, this appeal.
Assignment of Errors
We restate the following errors identified by accused-appellant in his Appellant's Brief, viz.:
I.
THE COURT AQUO GRAVELY ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT'S TESTIMONY;
II.
THE COURT AQUO GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT'S WARRANTLESS ARREST AS ILLEGAL;
III.
THE COURT AQUO GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT APPLYING THE "FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE" DOCTRINE WITH RESPECT TO THE ALLEGEDLY CONFISCATED DRIED MARIJUANA LEAVES;
IV.
THE COURT AQUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY DESPITE THE POLICE OFFICERS' NONCOMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 21 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165 AND ITS IMPLEMENTING RULES; [and]
V.
THE COURT AQUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY DESPITE THE BROKEN CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF THE ALLEGEDLY CONFISCATED DRIED MARIJUANA LEAVES. 20
In its June 19, 2017 Resolution, 21 this Court required the parties to submit their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desired. The appellee, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), averred in its Manifestation (Re: Supplemental Brief) 22 dated August 1, 2017, that it would no longer file a supplemental brief as it had adequately addressed in its Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee 23 the issues and arguments by accused-appellant. Accused-appellant, on the other hand, filed his Compliance (with Sincerest Apologies) 24 dated November 18, 2019, and attached thereto his Supplemental Brief 25 dated November 18, 2019.
In his Brief for the Accused-Appellant 26 dated September 28, 2015, accused-appellant argued that his arrest was ill-motivated due to an altercation he had with SPO1 Victoriano's father back in 2010. He denied that he had committed an unlawful act at the time of his arrest, which made the arrest illegal and the seized evidence inadmissible. Accused-appellant also opined that the buy-bust team failed to comply with Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 by failing to conduct the inventory at the place of arrest and to secure representatives from the media and the DOJ during the inventory. The testimony of the forensic chemist also lacked the degree of care she observed in preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized evidence while it was in her custody. Lastly, there was an inconsistency with respect to the evidence acknowledgment receipt and with the chain of custody of evidence. According to accused-appellant, the evidence acknowledgment receipt showed a direct turnover by PO1 Pascual of the confiscated items to PO2 Hipolito, while the chain of custody of evidence showed that a certain Police Officer III Valderama, Jr. received the items from PO1 Pascual and turned over the same to PO2 Hipolito.
Accused-appellant reiterated in his supplemental brief the improper conduct of inventory by the police officers. Accused-appellant faulted the police officers for failing to inventory the seized items at the crime scene or even at the barangay hall where photographs were taken in the presence of Kagawad Nadurata.
The appellee, on the other hand, countered that the prosecution successfully proved the elements of the crimes charged and that accused-appellant's arrest was legal, having been done inflagrante delicto. Nonetheless, the appellee contended that accused-appellant could no longer question the legality of his arrest as he had failed to interpose his objections thereto before his arraignment. Appellee also claimed that the police officers substantially complied with Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165. It alleged that the inventory was done at the barangay hall in the presence of Kagawad Nadurata. Moreover, contrary to accused-appellant's claim, PCI Garciano was able to describe how and from whom she received the seized items and the precautions she took to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the seized items. As to the discrepancies, the appellee submits that these do not pertain to the elements of the crime and are therefore inconsequential to the credibility of the witnesses.
The Court's Ruling
The appeal has merit. There are lapses in the custody and handling of the confiscated evidence which raise doubts on the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized illegal drugs.
In both illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the dangerous drug seized from the accused constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense. As such, the burden of the prosecution weighs heavily on the proof of the identity and integrity of the seized drugs. 27 It is thus of utmost importance that the integrity and identity of the seized drugs be shown to have been duly preserved. The chain of custody rule performs this function as it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. 28
The links that the prosecution must establish in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation are: 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 by the forensic chemist to the court. 29
In this case, a careful review of the records reveals vital gaps in the first and fourth links in the chain of custody.
Particularly, the buy-bust team failed to strictly comply with Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by RA. No. 10640, which is part of the first link in the chain of custody procedure. Since the crime in this case was committed on December 16, 2011, and the amendment under R.A. No. 10640 was approved only on July 15, 2014, the procedure under Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 shall apply.
Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 provides:
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(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[.]
xxx xxx xxx
The implementing rules and regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165 more specifically provides for the manner by which the apprehending team should handle the confiscated drugs, to wit:
SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(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 noncompliance 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[.]
xxx xxx xxx
To emphasize, the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 mandatorily requires the presence of four individuals: (1) the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel; (2) a representative from the media; (3) a representative from the DOJ; (4) and any elected public official.
Here, it is unclear from PO1 Pascual's testimony whether accused-appellant himself or his representative witnessed the conduct of the inventory. During his direct examination, PO1 Pascual testified that the inventory was done at the police station in the presence only of Kagawad Nadurata, which violates the strict mandate of Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165:
Q: Mr. Witness, from the barangay what did you do specifically at the barangay?
A: At the barangay we secured witness to the evidence recovered from accused, ma'am.
Q: Who were the witnesses you were able to secure?
A: The Barangay Chairman, ma'am.
Q: What is the name?
A: Nadurata, ma'am.
Q: So, John Ray Nadurata, the Barangay Chairman of Bgy. 28?
A: Maybe he is a Barangay Kagawad, ma'am.
Q: But you are sure he is a barangay official?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: And when you asked him to witness the evidence recovered from the accused did you bring him to your office?
A: Yes, ma'am and also to sign the inventory. 30
The Inventory of Seized Evidence 31 does not show any signature or marking that signifies the accused-appellant's presence during the conduct of the inventory. The identity of the seized evidence is therefore doubtful since it cannot be established with moral certainty that the confiscated sachets presented during trial even came from accused-appellant himself or, at the very least, if he witnessed the inventory conducted by the police officers of the sachets of marijuana that he was accused of selling and possessing. In Tumabini v. People: 32
Here, Congress enacted Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 to ensure the identity and integrity of the seized drugs and to prevent tampering thereof. As stated in People v. Acub, in all prosecutions for violations of R.A. No. 9165, the corpus delicti is the dangerous drug itself. Its existence is essential to a judgment of conviction. Hence, the identity of the dangerous drug must be clearly established. Narcotic substances are not readily identifiable. To determine their composition and nature, they must undergo scientific testing and analysis. Narcotic substances are also highly susceptible to alteration, tampering, or contamination. It is imperative, therefore, that the drugs allegedly seized from the accused are the very same objects tested in the laboratory and offered in court as evidence. The chain of custody, as a method of authentication, ensures that unnecessary doubts involving the identity of seized drugs are removed. 33
The perceived absence of the accused himself during the inventory creates a persistent doubt on the identity of the seized illegal drugs, since it is impossible to determine if the drug marked by PO1 Pascual was the same drug confiscated from accused-appellant. In People v. Redondo: 34
The immediate marking in the presence of the accused is crucial and indispensable because succeeding handlers of the seized illegal drugs will use that marking as reference. It thereby forestalls switching, planting or contamination of evidence by separating the seized items from other materials, from the time of their confiscation until the case is terminated. In other words, it ensures that the illegal drug confiscated from the accused is the same as the substance presented in evidence during trial to prove his or her guilt. (emphasis supplied)
Glaring also is the absence of representatives from the media and the DOJ during the inventory of the confiscated items, contrary to the strict requirements under Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165. The Court has repeatedly held that the presence of the witnesses from the DOJ or National Prosecution Service, the media, and the public elective office is not a meaningless requirement that the police officers or apprehending team may or may not choose to comply with. It is important in the procedure regarding the custody and disposition of seized illegal drugs in order to avoid the evils of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence which engenders lingering doubts as to the integrity of the alleged corpus delicti. 35
Concededly, the absence of the required witnesses does not per se render the confiscated items inadmissible. In People v. Crispo, 36 this Court held that, as long as evidence of any justifiable reason or genuine and sufficient effort to secure the required witnesses is adduced, the seized evidence is admissible. The saving clause in Sec. 21 of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 allows a deviation from its mandatory requirements as long as the existence of justifiable grounds allowed such departure from the rule and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. 37
In this case, nothing in the records shows any effort by the buy-bust team to secure the attendance of a representative from the media and the DOJ. The lack of compliance by the buy-bust team with the provisions of R.A. No. 9165 was not even acknowledged and explained by the prosecution during trial. Hence, the saving clause under Sec. 21 of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 cannot apply for lack of basis of the buy-bust team's deviation from the strict requirements of said provision. The prosecution thus failed to establish with moral certainty the first link in the chain of custody.
Interestingly, the suspect named in the Inventory of Seized Evidence, 38 from whom the sachets marked as "JAYSON FRANCO (TEST BUY) DATED 12-16-11," "JAYSON FRANCO (BUY-BUST) DATED 12-16-11," and "JAYSON FRANCO (RECOVERED) DATED 12-16-11," was not herein accused-appellant, but a certain Paul John Seralbo y Cabugol alias "Piton." This creates more doubt as to the identity of the illegal drugs allegedly seized from accused-appellant.
Anent the issue raised by accused-appellant on the second link of the chain of custody, specifically the inconsistency in the evidence acknowledgment receipt and the chain of custody of evidence, the Court notes that the defense already admitted that there was indeed a direct turnover by PO1 Pascual to PO2 Hipolito. 39 We have ruled that judicial admissions are conclusive upon the party making it and may not be contradicted in the absence of prior showing that the admission was made through palpable mistake or that no admission was, in fact, made, which were not shown in this case. 40 Accused-appellant cannot therefore go back on the concession he had made with respect to the custody and handling of the seized evidence from PO1 Pascual to PO2 Hipolito.
Next, the prosecution failed to show compliance with the fourth link in the chain of custody. In People v. Ubungen, 41 the Court held that the stipulation on the forensic chemist's testimony must include the precautionary steps required in preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. Hence, it must be shown that: (1) the forensic chemist received the seized item as marked, properly sealed, and intact; (2) he resealed it after examination of the content; and (3) he placed his own marking on the same to ensure that it could not be tampered with pending trial. 42
Here, the parties simply stipulated that PCI Garciano received the specimen, conducted an examination thereon, prepared a report on the results, and gave the remaining specimen to the evidence custodian after placing her markings thereon. 43 Evidently, the stipulation lacked details on the condition of the seized evidence when she received it — if it was marked and sealed — and if she herself resealed the remaining specimen of the seized evidence after conducting the forensic examination. As there was no testimony regarding the management, storage, and preservation of the seized illegal drugs after PCI Garciano's examination, the fourth link in the chain of custody could not also be deemed established with moral certainty.
Due to the prosecution's failure to demonstrate a strict compliance with the mandatory requirements of Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, there is reasonable doubt that the substance seized from accused-appellant was the same one offered in evidence. The foregoing lapses committed by the police officers and the prosecution warrants the acquittal of accused-appellant, as it is crucial in the prosecution of crimes involving dangerous drugs to establish every link in the chain of custody to prove the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized illegal drug.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated September 27, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07232, which affirmed the Joint Decision dated January 5, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 127, in Criminal Case Nos. 87397 and 87399, finding accused-appellant Jayson Franco y Romero GUILTY of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Jayson Franco y Romero is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Let Entry of Judgment be issued IMMEDIATELY.
The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City is ORDERED to IMMEDIATELY RELEASE accused-appellant from detention, unless he is being lawfully held in custody for any other reason, and to INFORM this Court of his action hereon within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 18-19.
2.Id. at 2-17; penned by Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr. (retired Member of this Court) with Associate Justices Stephen C. Cruz and Ramon Paul L. Hernando (now a Member of this Court), concurring.
3. CA rollo, pp. 42-58; penned by Judge Victoriano B. Cabanos.
4.Rollo, p. 3.
5.Id.
6. During the witness' direct testimony, she stated her name to be Stella S. Garciano (TSN dated May 10, 2012, p. 4). She admitted, however, that she is also the one named Stella Ebuen in the Referral Slip offered in evidence by the prosecution (TSN dated May 10, 2012, p. 9).
7.Rollo, p. 4.
8.Id.
9.Id.
10.Id. at 4-5.
11.Id. at 5.
12. CA rollo, p. 46.
13. TSN dated May 10, 2012, p. 5; records, p. 17.
14. Records, p. 8.
15.Rollo, p. 5.
16.Id.
17.Id. at 5-6.
18. CA rollo, p. 58.
19.Rollo, p. 17.
20.Id. at 6-7.
21.Id. at 24-25.
22.Id. at 31-32.
23. CA rollo, pp. 73-101.
24.Rollo, pp. 39-42.
25.Id. at 46-52.
26. CA rollo, pp. 24-40.
27.People v. Ku, G.R. No. 211248, October 14, 2020 (Notice).
28.People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 29 (2017).
29.People v. Sipin, 833 Phil. 67, 81 (2018).
30. TSN dated September 19, 2013, p. 27.
31. Records, p. 12.
32. G.R. No. 224495, February 19, 2020.
33.Id.
34. G.R. No. 245488, September 16, 2020 (Notice).
35.People v. Visperas, G.R. No. 231010, June 26, 2019.
36. 828 Phil. 416 (2018).
37.People v. Claude, G.R. No. 219852, April 3, 2019.
38. Records, p. 12.
39. TSN dated June 14, 2012, p. 3.
40.Silot, Jr. v. De la Rosa, 567 Phil. 505, 510-511 (2008).
41. 836 Phil. 888 (2018).
42.Id. at 901.
43. TSN dated May 10, 2012, p. 10.