FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 250609. June 23, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NICANOR GALON y GALOTERA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 23, 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 250609 (People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nicanor Galon y Galotera, Accused-Appellant). — This is an appeal 1 seeking to set aside and reverse the Decision 2 dated 11 September 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 02868. The CA affirmed the Decision dated 27 November 2017 rendered by Branch 65, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Jordan, Guimaras, in Criminal Case No. 15-2079, finding Nicanor Galon y Galotera (appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 3 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Antecedents
Appellant was charged in two (2) separate Informations with Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, in violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165. The accusatory portions of the two (2) separate Information state:
Criminal Case No. 15-2079
That on or about the 29th day of January 2015, in the Municipality of Jordan, Province of Guimaras, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law to sell any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell, deliver and give away to another, 0.0304 gram of white crystalline substance contained in one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet, which was found positive to the test for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, also known as "shabu," in violation of the afore-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
Criminal Case No. 15-2028
That on or about the 29th day of January 2015, in the Municipality of Jordan, Province of Guimaras, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly possess and have in his custody three (3) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets of white crystalline substance having the following recorded net weights:
1) HGD-B (NG)= 0.0401 gram;
2) HGD-C (NG-1) = 0.0374 gram; and
3) HGD-D (NG-2) = 0.0245 gram.
having a total weight of 0.1020 gram, which were found positive to the tests for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, also known as "shabu," a dangerous drug, in violation of the afore-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
Version of the Prosecution
The Guimaras Police Provincial Office received a report from a confidential informant on 16 January 2015 that a pedicab driver known as "Niknik," who was later identified as appellant, was engaged in illegal drug trade. After a surveillance confirmed that appellant was peddling shabu, a buy-bust team (team) was formed composed of the members of the Provincial Anti-Illegal Drug Special Operation Task Group (PAID-SOTG) and the Jordan Police Station. On 29 January 2015, at around 9:45 a.m., Police Inspector Jeffrey Ferrer conducted a briefing, wherein PO2 Kepler Abrasosa (PO2 Abrasosa) was assigned as poseur-buyer, while PO2 Jesus Galleron (PO2 Galleron) would be his back up. At around 5:35 p.m., the team proceeded to the Barangay Rizal public market. 6 AaCTcI
As planned, the confidential asset and PO2 Abrasosa approached appellant. After PO2 Abrasosa was introduced as the buyer, appellant asked how much PO2 Abrasosa wanted to buy, to which the latter replied that it should be worth Php500.00. Appellant then handed a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance to the confidential informant, who then handed over the sachet to PO2 Abrasosa. In exchange, PO2 Abrasosa gave appellant five (5) pieces of Php100 bills. PO2 Abrasosa then removed his baseball cap to signal the team that the transaction has been consummated. PO2 Galleron and the other members of the team then approached appellant to arrest him. Appellant resisted arrest and placed his hand inside his pocket, causing several sachets of shabu to drop on the ground. Appellant's brother, Renante Galon, who was just nearby, picked up one of the sachets and fled the scene. Meanwhile, the team arrested appellant; PO2 Galleron frisked him which yielded the following items: (1) three (3) sachets of shabu that fell on the ground; (2) a "Dorco" blade; (3) a lighter; and (4) five (5) pieces of Php100 bills that appellant received during the transaction. PO2 Abrasosa placed the sachet of shabu he bought from appellant inside a ziplock while the other sachets of shabu recovered from appellant's possession were placed inside another ziplock. Since it was getting dark, the team brought appellant and the confiscated items to the barangay hall located about 20 meters from the place where the buy-bust operation was conducted. 7
At the barangay hall, PO2 Abrasosa marked and inventoried the items in the presence of Barangay Captain Remus Canon, DOJ Representative Agnes Gamuyao, and the other members of the buy-bust team. PO2 Roel De Leon took photographs during the inventory and marking of the items. Thereafter, appellant was brought to the police station for booking. PO2 Abrasosa then brought the sachets of shabu to the crime laboratory for qualitative examination, and Forensic Chemist, Police Senior Inspector Remand Donado, received the same. The laboratory examination of the sachets revealed that they contained methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. 8
Version of the Defense
Appellant denied the charges against him. He testified that on 29 January 2015, at around 5:35 p.m., he was cleaning his tricycle in front of the public market of Barangay Rizal. To his surprise, he was suddenly accosted by PO2 Galleron and PO2 Abrasosa, who placed his hands behind his back. Appellant asked them what his offense was but he received no reply. PO2 Galleron then tried to put his hand inside appellant's pocket but appellant resisted. Thereafter, a piece of plastic sachet with white substance fell from PO2 Galleron's hand. PO2 Galleron picked up the plastic sachets and put them inside his pocket. Appellant was then handcuffed and brought to the barangay hall. 9
Similarly, appellant denied ownership of the object which PO2 Galleron placed inside his pocket, as well as selling illegal drugs to the poseur-buyer. Appellant averred that PO2 Galleron and PO2 Abrasosa were protectors of an illegal gambling operator named Renante Espinosa. Appellant claimed to be a former "runner" of Renate Espinosa and that he used to deliver protection money to PO2 Galleron. 10
Appellant's brother, Vicente Galon, corroborated appellant's testimony. He testified that appellant was not involved in the illegal drug trade. 11
Ruling of the RTC
On 27 November 2017, the RTC rendered its Decision, finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, in violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, and sentenced him to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Php500,000.00. However, the RTC acquitted appellant of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs. 12
The RTC found that the prosecution was able to prove all the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, through the testimonies of PO2 Abrasosa and PO2 Galleron. The chemistry report confirmed that the sachet, which was subject of the sale, contained methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. The RTC gave no credence to appellant's denial, ruling that the defense failed to establish any improper motive on the part of PO2 Abrasosa and PO2 Galleron to falsely charge appellant of such grave offense. The RTC accorded more weight on the testimonies of the police officers than appellant's self-serving denial. 13
On the charge of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the RTC found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses unclear as to how or when the three (3) sachets of drugs were recovered from appellant. PO2 Galleron testified that the three (3) sachets were seized during the body search conducted on appellant at the barangay hall before the conduct of inventory. On the other hand, PO2 Abrasosa testified that the three (3) sachets fell from appellant's pocket when he was struggling to evade his arrest. The RTC ruled that the conflicting testimonies of PO2 Abrasosa and PO2 Galleron on the circumstances of the recovery of the sachets put in serious doubt the first element of the crime, which warrants the acquittal of appellant in Criminal Case No. 15-2080. 14
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
The CA affirmed appellant's conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, holding that the prosecution proved that appellant sold a sachet of shabu to the poseur-buyer, from whom he received Php500 as consideration of the sale. The CA found credible the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses who positively identified appellant as the person who sold one (1) sachet of shabu to PO2 Abrasosa. Appellant's imputation of improper motive on the members of the buy-bust team was uncorroborated and no evidence was presented to buttress his claim that PO2 Abrasosa and PO2 Galleron were protectors of a known illegal gambler. 15
Further, the CA held that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized sachet of shabu bought from appellant had been properly preserved in accordance with the requirements on the chain of custody as outlined in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. 16
Issue
The singular issue to be resolved is whether the CA erred in affirming appellant's conviction of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs. EcTCAD
Ruling of the Court
We grant the appeal.
To prosecute offenses involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the following elements must be proven: (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 the payment therefor. 17 Moreover, the identity of the dangerous drugs, which constitute the corpus delicti of the offense, must be established beyond reasonable doubt to ensure that the dangerous drug presented in court against the accused is the exact same drug retrieved from him during the buy-bust operation. 18 It is essential that the integrity and identity of the confiscated dangerous drugs, or the corpus delicti of the offense charged, be preserved in order to establish that the crime has actually been committed. 19 Failure to prove the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti will render the evidence for the State insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, which warrants the acquittal of the accused. 20
In this case, the marking, physical inventory and photographing of the seized items were all done at the barangay hall and not the place where the buy-bust operation was conducted. Although the immediate physical inventory and photograph of the confiscated items at the place of arrest may be excused when the safety and security of the apprehending officers and witnesses are under threat of immediate or extreme danger, 21 such is not the case here. The flimsy excuse proffered by the police officers that it was getting dark since it was already 5:35 p.m. is not a security threat that would justify not conducting the inventory and photographing immediately after the seizure and confiscation of the drugs. At the very least, the marking of the seized items should have been done immediately after the buy-bust operation to prevent switching, substitution, planting, or tampering of evidence.
The importance of marking the seized drugs at the place of arrest is highlighted in this case where there were allegedly two sets of drugs seized: one sachet of shabu which appellant allegedly sold to the poseur-buyer and other three sachets of shabu found in his possession after he was frisked. The conflicting testimonies of the prosecution witnesses on when the three sachets of shabu were recovered from appellant, which led to the dismissal of the case for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, further casts doubt on the identity and integrity of all the seized drugs. Moreover, as asserted by appellant, the prosecution witnesses had conflicting testimonies on who made the markings on the seized drugs. PO2 Abrasosa testified that he made the marking "BB-NG" on the sachet of shabu that was sold to him and the other three markings "NG", "NG-1", and "NG-2" on sachets of drugs recovered from appellant after he was frisked. 22 However, PO2 Galleron also testified that he was the one who marked the 3 sachets recovered from appellant and was quite adamant in stating that the markings on the 3 sachets were in his own handwriting. 23
In People v. Hementiza, 24 the Court explained the importance of immediately marking the seized items, thus:
Crucial in proving the chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or other related items immediately after they have been seized from the accused. "Marking" means the placing by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initials and signature on the items seized. Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link; hence, it is vital that the seized contraband be immediately marked because the 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, thus, preventing switching, planting or contamination of evidence. 25
In this case, the prosecution failed to justify why the marking of the seized drugs was done at the Barangay hall instead of the place of arrest. The conflicting testimonies of PO2 Abrasosa and PO2 Galleron on who marked the seized drugs further casts doubt on the integrity and identity of the evidence presented. HSAcaE
It bears emphasis that the amount of shabu allegedly sold by appellant weighs only 0.0304 gram, making such evidence more susceptible to tampering, alteration or substitution. Such minuscule quantity of drugs allegedly confiscated magnify the uncertainties as regards their integrity considering that these can readily be planted and tampered. 26 As held in People v. Sipin: 27
The prosecution bears the burden of proving a valid cause for non-compliance with the procedure laid down in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended. It has the positive duty to demonstrate observance thereto in such a way that during the trial proceedings, it must initiate in acknowledging and justifying any perceived deviations from the requirements of law. Its failure to follow the mandated procedure must be adequately explained, and must be proven as a fact in accordance with the rules on evidence. It should take note that the rules require that the apprehending officers do not simply mention a justifiable ground, but also clearly state this ground in their sworn affidavit, coupled with a statement on the steps they took to preserve the integrity of the seized items. Strict adherence to Section 21 is required where the quantity of illegal drugs seized is miniscule, since it is highly susceptible to planting, tampering or alteration of evidence. 28
The belated marking, inventory and photographing of the seized items, and the conflicting testimonies of the prosecution witnesses on who made the markings and when the other sachets of shabu were allegedly recovered from appellant, inevitably cast doubt on the identity, integrity and evidentiary value of the illegal drugs allegedly seized from appellant during the buy-bust operation. The Court finds that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the minuscule amount of 0.0304 gram of shabu presented as evidence in court was the exact same shabu allegedly sold by appellant to the poseur-buyer.
The Court also notes that the testimony of the forensic chemist lacks information on the condition of the seized items while in his custody, or the safety precautions undertaken on the safekeeping of the drugs. There was no testimonial or documentary evidence on how the forensic chemist kept the seized items while it was in his custody until they were presented in court. The absence of evidence on the precautions undertaken to ensure that there was no change in the condition of the seized items and that no opportunity for someone not in the chain of command to have possession thereof further casts doubt on the identity and evidentiary value of the seized items presented in court. 29
In view of the foregoing, it is only just for the Court to acquit appellant on account of the prosecution's failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated 11 September 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 02868, which affirmed the Decision dated 27 November 2017 rendered by Branch 65, Regional Trial Court of Jordan, Guimaras, in Criminal Case No. 15-2079, finding Nicanor Galon y Galotera guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, Nicanor Galon y Galotera is ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt, and is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless he is being lawfully held foranother cause. Let an entry of final judgment be issued immediately.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Superintendent of the New Bilibid Prison, Bureau of Corrections for immediate implementation. The said Superintendent is ORDERED to REPORT to this Court within five (5) working days from receipt of this Resolution the action he has taken.
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; see Notice of Appeal, 02 October 2019.
2.Rollo, pp. 5-17; penned by Associate Justice Emily R. Aliño-Geluz and concurred in by Associate Justices Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and Carlita B. Calpatura of the Twentieth (20th) Division, Court of Appeals, Cebu City.
3. 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 2002.
4.Records, pp. 1, 23.
5.Rollo, pp. 3, 25.
6.Id. at 7-8.
7.Id. at 8-9.
8.Id. at 9.
9.Id.
10.Id. at 9-10.
11.Id. at 10.
12.Id.
13.Id. at 10-11.
14.Id. at 11.
15.Id. at 13-14.
16.Id. at 14.
17.People v. Sagana, 815 Phil. 356, 367 (2017), G.R. No. 208471, 02 August 2017 [Per J. Leonen], citing People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 29 (2017), G.R. No. 208093, 20 February 2017 [Per J. Del Castillo].
18.See People v. Sali, G.R. No. 236596, 29 January 2020 [Per J. Peralta]; see also Edangalino v. People, G.R. No. 235110, 08 January 2020 [Per J. Peralta].
19.See People v. Suating, G.R. No. 220142, 29 January 2020 [Per J. Leonen].
20.See People v. Esguerra, G.R. No. 243986, 22 January 2020 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe].
21.See People v. Allingag, G.R. No. 233477, 30 July 2018 [Per J. Peralta]; see also People v. Sali, supra at note 18.
22. TSN, 02 August 2017, pp. 12-13, 25.
23. TSN, 01 February 2016, pp. 4-5, 16-17.
24. 807 Phil. 1017, G.R. No. 227398, 22 March 2017 [Per J. Mendoza].
25.Id. at 1030-1031, citing People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 238 (2015), G.R. No. 212196, 12 January 2015 [Per J. Mendoza].
26.People v. Sagana, 815 Phil. 356 (2017).
27. G.R. No. 224290, 11 June 2018 [Per J. Peralta].
28.Id.
29.See People v. Bangcola, G.R. No. 237802, 18 March 2019 [Per J. Gesmundo].