SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 244834. June 21, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.ARNULFO GALANG y BAYANI, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 21 June 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 244834 (People of the Philippines v. Arnulfo Galang y Bayani). — The conviction of Arnulfo Galang y Bayani for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs is the subject of review in this appeal assailing the Court of Appeals' Decision 1 dated September 27, 2018 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 09653, which affirmed the findings of the Regional Trial Court.
We acquit.
A successful prosecution for the sale of illegal drugs requires more than the perfunctory presentation of evidence establishing each element of the crime. It is imperative to prove with moral certainty that the intrinsic worth of the pieces of evidence, especially the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti, has been preserved. Evidence must show beyond reasonable doubt that the illegal drug presented in court is the same illegal drug actually seized from the accused. The rationale behind this stringent requirement is the unique characteristic of the illegal drug that renders it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and usually open to tampering, alteration, or substitution either by accident, or by deliberate act, especially when seized in small quantity. 2
In this regard, the law provides procedural safeguards to remove any doubt on the identity and integrity of the seized drug. The procedure is known as the chain of custody rule. Chain of custody is '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.' 3
Section 21, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165, otherwise known as the 'Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,' outlines the post-seizure procedure for the custody and disposition of seized drugs. In this case, the alleged crime was committed on July 17, 2016, or after the enactment of the amendatory law. Hence, RA No. 10640, 4 shall apply, viz.:
SEC. 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, x x x so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs, x x x shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physically inventory of the seized items 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, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media 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, finally, That noncompliance of 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 and custody over said items.
xxx xxx xxx
This is implemented by Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA No. 9165 which states:
SEC. 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, x x x so confiscated, 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 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[.]
Accordingly, the prosecution must satisfactorily establish the movement and custody of the seized drug through the following links: first, the confiscation and marking of the specimen seized from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the seized item by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the investigating officer's turnover of the specimen to the forensic chemist for examination; and fourth, the submission of the item by the forensic chemist to the court. 5 Here, records reveal several irregularities in the chain of custody.
Pertinent in this case is the first link in the chain of custody, or the seizure and marking of the seized drug. 6 'Marking' means the placing by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initials and signature on the seized items. 7 Notably, RA No. 9165, as amended by RA No. 10640, is silent on when, or where marking should be done. 8 In the oft-cited case of People v. Sanchez, 9 we emphasized that marking is the first and most crucial step in the custodial link as it initiates the process of protecting innocent persons from dubious and concocted searches, and of protecting as well the law enforcement officers from harassment suits grounded upon allegations of evidence planting. 10 Proper marking serves to separate one evidence from the other, making each of them distinct to prevent switching, planting, or contaminating. Hence, it is vital that the seized item be immediately marked upon confiscation in the presence of the violator because the succeeding handlers of the specimen will use the markings as reference. 11
Here, it is undisputed that the apprehending officers did not mark the seized sachet at the place of arrest. They admittedly opted to conduct the initial custody requirements at the barangay hall because it was 'too dark.' 12 This explanation is a flimsy excuse. The team had the opportunity to foresee and prepare for the exigencies of the buy-bust operation, which by its nature is a planned activity. The police knew fully well that the operation will be conducted during nighttime and should have anticipated their needs. In People v. Musor, 13 the police officers explained that they could not mark the drugs at the place of arrest because it was dark. The Court did not sustain this excuse and ruled that it was not a sufficient reason for the buy-bust team to deviate from the chain of custody rule. As in this case, we find no justifiable explanation for the apprehending officers' failure to mark the sachet of marijuana immediately upon its confiscation and before transport.
We stress that the marking of the seized item must be made immediately after the arrest. Only, if there are justifiable reasons may it be done at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending team. 14 In People v. Ameril, 15 citing People v. Coreche, 16 we ruled that the authorities' failure to immediately mark the seized drugs raises reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti, and suffices to rebut the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties. 17 In fact, even before the enactment and effectivity of RA No. 10640, the Court has been consistent in holding that failure to mark the drugs immediately after they were seized from the accused casts doubts on the prosecution evidence, warranting acquittal on reasonable doubts. 18
Moreover, none of the required insulating witnesses were present either at the place of apprehension, or at the barangay hall. The presence of the insulating witnesses is an indispensable requirement to ensure the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug. 19 In People v. Lim, 20 we explained that in case the presence of any or all the insulating witnesses was not obtained, the prosecution must allege and prove, not only the reasons for their absence, but also the fact that earnest efforts were made to secure their attendance. 21 Here, the inventory and photography of the seized item was witnessed by a barangay deputy officer who is not one of the mandatory witnesses specifically identified by Section 21, RA No. 10640, i.e., an elected public official, and a representative from the National Prosecution Service, or the media. Evidently, there was no attempt on the part of the apprehending officers to comply with the law and its implementing rules. The prosecution failed to provide any justification showing that the integrity of the evidence had all along been preserved.
The fourth link in the chain is likewise tainted with infirmity. The records do not reflect the manner of handling the specimen after the forensic chemist completed her examination, and before the drug was presented in court. The forensic chemist did not testify on the details regarding the turnover of the drug to the court, nor did the prosecution propose a stipulation of facts on the substance of her testimony. Verily, the dearth of evidence on the management, storage and preservation of the drug after qualitative examination is another fatal defect in an already broken chain of custody. In sum, the prosecution did not disclose the identities of (a) the person who had custody of the specimen after it was examined by the forensic chemist, (b) the person who received the drug for safekeeping pending its presentation in court, and (c) the person who submitted the drug to the trial court. The prosecution failed to establish the continuous custody of the dangerous drug from the time it was confiscated until it was offered in evidence. 22
It must be stressed that while the law enforcers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties, this presumption cannot prevail over the constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent, and it cannot by itself constitute proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of regularity is disputable and cannot be regarded as binding truth. 23 Indeed, when the performance of duty is tainted with irregularities, such presumption is effectively destroyed. 24
We reiterate that the provisions of Section 21, Article II of RA No. 9165 embody the constitutional aim to prevent the imprisonment of an innocent man. However, the Court cannot tolerate the lax approach of law enforcers in handling the very corpusdelicti of the crime. Hence, Arnulfo Galang y Bayani must be acquitted.
FOR THESE REASONS, the appeal is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals' Decision dated September 27, 2018 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 09653 is REVERSED. Arnulfo Galang y Bayani is ACQUITTED in Criminal Case No. R-QZN-16-07611-CR, 25 and is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless he is being lawfully held for another cause.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City for immediate implementation. The Director is directed to report to this Court the action taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED." (Lopez, J.Y., J., designated additional member per Special Order No. 2822 dated April 7, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MA. CONSOLACION GAMINDE-CRUZADADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-17. Penned by Associate Justice Stephen C. Cruz, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles and Rafael Antonio M. Santos.
2.People v. Nuarin, 764 Phil. 550, 557 (2015).
3. Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002; People v. Omamos, G.R. No. 223036, July 10, 2019.
4. Entitled "AN ACT TO FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE ANTI-DRUG CAMPAIGN OF THE GOVERNMENT, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE SECTION 21 OF [RA] NO. 9165, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE 'COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002,'" approved on July 15, 2014, states that it shall "take effect fifteen (15) days after its complete publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation." Verily, a copy of the law was published on July 23, 2014 in the respective issues of The Philippine Star (Vol. XXVIII, No. 359, Philippine Star Metro section, p. 21) and the Manila Bulletin (Vol. 499, No. 23, World News section, p. 6); hence, RA No. 10640 became effective on August 7, 2014.
5.People v. Bugtong, 806 Phil. 628, 638-639 (2018).
6.People v. Hementiza, 807 Phil. 1017, 1030 (2017), citing People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 231 (2015).
7.People v. Nuarin, supra note 2.
8.People v. Ramirez, 823 Phil. 1215, 1225 (2018). Note, however, that the ''AMENDED TO THE GUIDELINES ON THE IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS (IRR) OF SECTION 21 OF Republic Act NO. 9165 AS AMENDED BY RA NO. 10640," Section 1 (A.1.3) states that "[i]n warrantless seizures, the marking, x x x of the seized items in the presence of the violator shall be done immediately at the place where the drugs were seized or at the nearest police station or nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable." (Emphasis supplied.)
xxx xxx xxx
9. 590 Phil. 214 (2008).
10.Id. at 241.
11.People v. Omamos, supra note 3; People v. Ramirez, 823 Phil. 1215, 1225 (2018); and People v. Nuarin, supra note 2, at 557-558.
12.Rollo, p. 15.
13. G.R. No. 231843, November 7, 2018.
14.People v. Suarez, G.R. No. 249990, July 8, 2020.
15. 799 Phil. 484 (2016).
16. 612 Phil. 1238 (2009).
17.Id. at 1245.
18.People v. Coreche, supra note 16, at 1245-1246, citing People v. Laxa, 414 Phil. 156 (2001), in which marijuana specimens were marked only at the police station; and People v. Casimiro, 432 Phil. 966 (2002), involving marijuana bricks belatedly marked at the police headquarters.
19.People v. Flores, G.R. No. 241261, July 29, 2019; People v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 233535, July 1, 2019; and People v. Maralit, 838 Phil. 191, 209 (2018).
20. G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018.
21.Id.; People v. Ramos, 826 Phil. 981, 996 (2018); see also People v. Umipang, 686 Phil. 1024, 1052-1053 (2012).
22. See People v. Plaza, G.R. No. 235467, August 20, 2018; People v. Veedor, 834 Phil. 88, 104-105 (2018); People v. Mola, 830 Phil. 364, 380-381 (2018); and People v. De Guzman, 825 Phil. 43, 57 (2018).
23.Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 593 (2008); People v. Cañete, 433 Phil. 781, 794 (2002).
24.People v. Dela Cruz, 589 Phil. 259, 272 (2008).
25. See CA rollo, pp. 74-88, Decision dated June 29, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 228, penned by Presiding Judge Mitushealla R. Manzanero-Casiño.