People v. Garcia y Marcellana

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 250860. September 15, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.ROLANDO GARCIA y MARCELLANA AND ROMUALDO ALIPIO y BACUD, accused-appellants.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 15, 2021, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 250860 (People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rolando Garcia y Marcellana and Romualdo Alipio y Bacud, Accused-Appellants.) — On appeal 1 is the Decision 2 promulgated on 28 June 2019 by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11396, which affirmed the Decision 3 dated 29 December 2017 of Branch 75, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Olongapo City in Criminal Case Nos. (Crim. Case) 2016-1068 and (Crim. Case) 2016-1069.

The RTC found accused-appellants Rolando Garcia y Marcellana (Garcia) and Romualdo Alipio y Bacud (Alipio) (collectively, appellants) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 4 for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs. Appellants were sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Php500,000.00. The RTC also found Garcia guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 for illegal possession of dangerous drugs. He was sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment from 12 years and one day to 14 years and eight months and to pay a fine of Php300,000.00.

Antecedents

Appellants were charged with, and entered a plea of not guilty 5 to the violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 committed as follows:

That on or about the twenty-sixth (26th) day of June, 2016, in the City of Olongapo, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating together and mutually helping one another, not being lawfully authorized to sell any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell, deliver and give away to PO1 Orlando Guanzon, a police poseur buyer, one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet marked in evidence as "EXH A OG WJ" containing Sixty Five Hundredths (0.065) of a gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, otherwise known as "shabu," a dangerous drug, for and in consideration of Five Hundred Pesos (Php500.00), Philippine currency.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 6

Garcia was charged with, and entered a plea of not guilty 7 to violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 committed as follows:

That on or about the twenty-sixth (26th) day of June, 2016, in the City of Olongapo, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his effective possession and control six (6) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, or "shabu" having the following recorded weight and marked in evidence as:

 

B1 (Exh. "B" JA WJ)	= 0.052 gram
B2 (Exh. "B-l" JA WJ)	= 0.056 gram
B3 (Exh. "B-2" JA WJ)	= 0.068 gram
B4 (Exh. "B-3" JA WJ)	= 0.092 gram
B5 (Exh. "B-4" JA WJ)	= 0.059 gram
B6 (Exh. "B-5" JA WJ)	= 0.061 gram
TOTAL	= 0.388 gram

 

CONTRARY TO LAW. 8

After pre-trial, trial on the merits ensued. 9

The CA summarized the presentation of witnesses thus:

The prosecution presented three (3) witnesses, namely: PO2 Jose Aquino III, PO3 Wilmon Jaudian; and Police Senior Inspector Ma. Cecilia G. Tang. CAIHTE

The testimony of PO3 Wilmon Jaudian was dispensed with after the parties stipulated that: (1) he was the assigned investigator on the subject case; (2) he received one (1) plastic sachet of shabu subject of the buy-bust operation from PO1 Orlando Guanzon; (3) he also received the six (6) plastic sachets of shabu and the marked money; (5) he placed his initials "WJ" on the plastic sachets of shabu; (6) he conducted the physical inventory of the seized items and prepared the Inventory Receipt in the presence of a barangay kagawad and a media representative; (7) he then prepared a request for laboratory examination of the seized illegal drugs; and (8) he personally delivered seized illegal drugs to the crime laboratory.

The testimony of PSI Ma. Cecilia G. Tang was similarly dispensed with after the parties stipulated on the following: (1) she is a Forensic Chemist assigned at the Olongapo City PNP Crime Laboratory Office; (2) her office received the seized plastic sachets of shabu from PO3 Wilmon Jaudian; (3) she conducted a qualitative examination on the seized items; (4) the result of her examination was reflected in Chemistry Report No. D-275-2016; (5) after examination, she sealed each item with a masking tape and placed her initials "MCGT" therein; and (6) upon the request of the Prosecutor's Office, the crime laboratory turned over the custody of the seized illegal drugs to the Olongapo City Prosecutor's Office.

The version of the prosecution, through the testimonies of PO2 Orlando Guanzon and PO2 Jose Aquino III, may be summarized as follows:

Sometime in the 3rd week of June 2016, the Olongapo City Police Office, Police Station 3, received reports regarding the illegal drug trade activities of accused-appellant Rolando Garcia along 6th St., Brgy. Pag-asa, Olongapo City. In a surveillance operation, the said information was validated by the members of the Drug Enforcement Unit (DEU) of PS-3. On June 26, 2016, a buy-bust operation was planned to entrap appellant Garcia. Proper coordination was made with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Regional Office-3 upon which the latter sent Control Number 10004-062016-0428 authorizing the team to proceed with the buy-bust operation. Team Leader Police Chief Inspector Erwin Fabroquez conducted a briefing wherein PO1 Orlando Guanzon was designated as poseur-buyer while PO2 Jose Aquino III and PO2 Adrience Orca were to serve as back-up operatives. PO1 Guanzon was given a [Php]500.00 bill bearing serial number NV533231 to be used as buy-bust money. It was agreed that PO1 Guanzon would remove his [ball] cap once the drug deal was consummated.

At about 3:15 [p.m.] of the same day, the team was dispatched to the target area. PO1 Guanzon and the confidential informant waited near Mulawin bakery while the rest of the team strategically positioned themselves nearby. The confidential agent made arrangements with appellant Garcia via text messages regarding the purchase of shabu. After about thirty (30) minutes, appellant Garcia, accompanied by appellant Romualdo Alipio who was on the passenger seat, arrived in a jeepney with plate number CWR 672. As the confidential informant and PO1 Guanzon approached the jeepney, appellant Alipio instructed them to hop in. The confidential informant introduced PO1 Guanzon to appellants as the buyer of shabu. PO1 Guanzon asked, "Pre, okay ba yang gamit na binibigay mo?" upon which appellant Garcia replied, "Pre, okey itong gamit na to, subok na ng tropa yan." Appellant Garcia told PO1 Guanzon that he sells shabu for a minimum price of [Php]500.00 to which PO1 Guanzon signified his approval thereto. Appellant Garcia then pulled out from his pocket one (1) piece small transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance suspected to be shabu and handed it to PO1 Guanzon. In exchange, PO1 Guanzon gave the P500 bill marked money to appellant Alipio who reached out to him to receive the payment. Right there and then, PO1 Guanzon took off his [ball] cap to indicate to the team that the sale had already been consummated. In no time, the other members of the team arrived and assisted in apprehending appellants. PO2 Jose Aquino III frisked appellant Garcia and recovered from the latter six (6) pieces transparent plastic sachets of suspected shabu. PO2 Adriene Orca retrieved from appellant Alipio's possession the [Php]500.00 buy-bust money. Appellants and the confiscated pieces of evidence were thereafter brought to the police station for documentation and proper disposition. DETACa

At the police station, appellants, together with the seized items, were turned over to PO3 Wilmon Jaudian for investigation. PO1 Guanzon marked the plastic sachet subject of the sale transaction as "EXH A OG". PO2 Aquino, on the other hand, marked the six (6) plastic sachets confiscated from appellant Garcia as "EXH B JA", "EXH B-1 JA", "EXH B-2 JA", "EXH B-3 JA", "EXH B-4 JA", and "EXH B-5 JA". PO3 Jaudian also placed his initials "WJ" on all the plastic sachets that were turned over to him. PO3 Jaudian made a physical inventory which was witnessed by Brgy. Kagawad Edwin B. Valdez and Jeffrey B. Valdez of Brigada News FM, who both signed the Inventory Receipt & Chain of Custody. Photographs were likewise taken during the marking and inventory of the seized evidence. Thereafter, a Request for Laboratory Examination was prepared to determine the presence of any form of dangerous drugs in the seized illegal drugs. PO3 Jaudian personally delivered the letter-request and the seized items to the Olongapo City PNP Crime Laboratory which were received and recorded therein by SPO2 Pagud at 7:10 p.m. of [26 June 2016]. Later, the seized illegal drugs were turned over to PSI Maria Cecilia G. Tang who conducted a qualitative examination thereon.

In Chemistry Report No. D-275-2016 dated [26 June 2016], PSI Tang found that the plastic sachet subject of the sale marked as "EXH A OG WJ" weighing zero point zero six five (0.065) gram, was positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. The six (6) other plastic sachets with an aggregate weight of zero point three eighty-eight (0.388) gram recovered from the possession of appellant Garcia, also tested positive for shabu.

For the defense, appellant Garcia was presented as the lone witness.

Appellant Garcia denied the charges against him. At noontime of June 26, 2016, he, together with appellant Alipio, were in his passenger jeepney plying the Subic-Olongapo route. While they were parked on the roadside, two (2) male persons suddenly boarded the jeepney saying, "Mga Muslim kayo, mga Muslim kayo." Despite having answered in the negative, appellants were nevertheless handcuffed and brought to the police station. He insisted that he did not sell shabu to the police officers and the shabu items that were allegedly seized from him were planted. 10

Ruling of the RTC

The RTC found appellants guilty as charged. The dispositive portion of the RTC's Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered as follows:

1. In Criminal Case No. 2016-1068, the Court finds Rolando Garcia y Marcellana and Romualdo Alipio y Bacud GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Sec. 5, [RA] 9165 and sentences each of them to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of [Php]500,000.00 pluscost, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency;

2. In Criminal Case No. 2016-1069, the Court finds Rolando Garcia y Marcellana GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 11, [RA] 9165 and sentences him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months and to pay a fine of P300,000 plus cost, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency[.]

Both accused shall also suffer the accessory penalties under Section 35, R.A. 9165 and shall be credited in the service of their sentence with the full time during which they have undergone preventive imprisonment subject to the conditions imposed under Art. 29 of the Revised Penal Code as amended.

The shabu sachets and firearm with ammunition offered in evidence and marked Exhibits "F" to "F-6" are ordered confiscated in favor of the government and to be disposed of in accordance with law.

SO DECIDED.11

The RTC was satisfied that the prosecution ably established to a moral certainty the guilt of the two accused for the charges. The testimonies of police officers Guanzon and Aquino credibly described the buy-bust operation that resulted to the arrest of appellants. The RTC was convinced that the sale of dangerous drugs actually took place in the manner testified by Guanzon and Aquino, and that the shabu was bought from appellants. It upheld the buy-bust operation as a legitimate method of catching offenders. The prosecution established all the elements for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. 12

The RTC also ruled that the identity and integrity of the seized drugs were duly preserved. The prosecution showed that the prescribed procedure in Section 21 (1), Article II of RA 9165 was complied with, and there was an unbroken link in the chain of custody with respect to the confiscated items. The RTC rejected the defense of the accused that they were arrested for no apparent reason while they were on their passenger jeep, or that the drugs were planted as they failed to impute ill motive on the police officers. 13

Ruling of the CA

On appeal, the sole issue that the CA considered was whether the RTC correctly found appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of shabu. 14

The CA found that the prosecution has sufficiently proven beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants are guilty of the crimes charged. The RTC correctly gave full credence to the testimonies of the police officers after finding that their testimonies were not only candid and unwavering, but were also supported by the evidence on record. There was also no break in the chain of custody over the illegal drugs seized from appellants. There was compliance with the provisions of RA 9165 even if the seized items were marked only at the police station or the required witnesses were not present during the actual buy-bust but only during the inventory and taking of photographs. The CA also rejected appellants' defense of denial, which crumbled under the weight of the prosecution's positive identification, and affirmed the penalties imposed by the RTC. 15

The dispositive portion of the CA's Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated [29 December 2017] of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 75, Olongapo City is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.16

Issues

Accused-appellants manifested that they adopt their Appellants' Brief as their Supplemental Brief before this Court as it adequately discussed all the matters pertinent to their defense. 17

They raise two (2) errors: that the trial court erred in convicting both accused-appellants of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs and Garcia of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs because (1) the police officers failed to preserve the identity and integrity of the seized items, and (2) the police officers failed to comply with the post-seizure requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, as amended. 18

Ruling of the Court

The appeal is meritorious. We reverse the rulings of the RTC and of the CA. The police officers not only failed to preserve the identity and integrity of the seized items, they also failed to comply with the post-seizure requirements of the law.

A conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs as defined and penalized by Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 demands that the following elements be established: (1) identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and its consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. 19 On the other hand, for illegal possession of dangerous drugs as defined and penalized by Section 11, Article II of RA 9165, the prosecution must establish the following elements: (1) the accused was in possession of dangerous drugs; (2) such possession was not authorized by law; and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of dangerous drugs. 20 aDSIHc

People v. Kamad21 summarized the links that must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust operation, thus: 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 from the forensic chemist to the court.

Moreover, paragraphs 2.34 and 2.35 of the 2014 Revised Philippine National Police Manual on Anti-Illegal Drugs Operations and Investigations provide that "[p]hotographs of pieces of evidence must be taken immediately upon discovery of such, without moving or altering its original position including the process of recording the inventory and the weighing of illegal drugs in the presence of required witnesses, as stipulated in Section 21, Art. II, RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640" 22 and that "[t]he Seizing Officer must mark the evidence with his initials indicating therein the date, time and place where the evidence was found/recovered or seized."

For the first link, the police officers marked the alleged purchased sachet with "OG WJ" and the alleged confiscated sachets with "JA WJ." These markings did not include the date, time, and place where the items were seized. Moreover, the marking of the items as well as the taking of photographs were done at the police station, instead of immediately after arresting the accused-appellants. The prosecution made no explanation why they deviated from the procedural requirements. These already put to doubt the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti.

The prosecution also failed to prove both the second and third links, which involve the transfer of the seized items from the apprehending officer to the investigating officer, and then from the investigating officer to the forensic chemist. There is nothing on record which shows how the police officers preserved the identity and integrity of the alleged seized items in their possession.

The fourth link in the present case completely shattered the chain. The parties stipulated that the drug specimens were received by the office of Forensic Chemist Ma. Cecilia Tang. She examined the items and found them positive for shabu. She sealed the items with masking tape and placed her markings, then issued the corresponding Chemistry Report. She turned over the items to the prosecutor's office upon the latter's request. The prosecutor's office is not, nor has it ever been, a part of the custody of seized dangerous drugs. 23 The forensic chemist did not turn over the alleged seized items to the RTC. It was the prosecutor's office who took custody of the alleged seized items and this transfer was not recorded in the Chain of Custody Form. Neither did the names of the officials in the prosecutor's office appear in the form.

All told, the failure of the authorities 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. 24 Such presumption cannot arise in cases where the questioned official acts are patently irregular. 25

In addition to the defects in the chain of custody, the prosecution also failed to establish that the witnesses to the inventory-taking were near or at the place where the buy-bust operation was conducted. The witnesses were only at the police station for the inventory. There was also no explanation for non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, the law applicable at the time of the of n innocence. The accused deserves an acquittal in case of the prosecution's failure to discharge this burden. On the other hand, the accused receives a guilty verdict if the prosecution establishes proof beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution must rely on the strength of its own evidence and not on the weakness of the evidence of the defense. 26

For the defects in the chain of custody and for failing to provide a justification for the non-compliance with the presence of witnesses immediately after seizure, the facts submitted by the prosecution as established in both the RTC and CA Decisions cast reasonable doubt on the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti of the crime. Thus, accused-appellants' acquittal should issue on the ground of reasonable doubt.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is GRANTED. The 28 June 2019 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11396 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellants Rolando Garcia y Marcellana and Romualdo Alipio y Bacud are hereby ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. They are ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention unless they are confined for another lawful cause. Let entry of final judgment be issued immediately. ETHIDa

The Superintendent of the New Bilibid Prison in Muntinlupa City should be furnished copy of this Resolution for its immediate implementation. Said Superintendent is ORDERED to REPORT to this Court within five (5) days from receipt of Resolution of the action that they have taken.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 22-23. See Notice of Appeal, 26 July 2019.

2.Rollo, pp. 3-21. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia and concurred in by Associate Justices Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. and Gabriel T. Robeniol of the Tenth (10th) Division of the Court of Appeals, Manila.

3. CA rollo, pp. 43-51. Penned by Judge Raymond C. Viray.

4. 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.

5.Rollo, p. 6.

6. CA rollo, p. 43.

7.Rollo, p. 6.

8. CA rollo, p. 43.

9.Id. at 44.

10.Rollo, pp. 5-10. Boldface and italics in the original.

11. CA rollo, pp. 50-51.

12.Id. at 47.

13.Id. at 47-50.

14.Rollo, p. 13.

15.Id. at 13-20.

16.Id. at 20.

17.Rollo, pp. 29-33.

18. CA rollo, p. 22.

19. See People v. Dumlao, 584 Phil. 732 (2008), G.R. No. 181599, 20 August 2008 [Per J. Ynares-Santiago].

20. See People v. Tira, 474 Phil. 152 (2004), G.R. No. 139615, 28 May 2004 [Per J. Callejo, Sr.].

21. 624 Phil. 289 (2010), G.R. No. 174198, 19 January 2010 [Per J. Brion].

22. Entitled "AN ACT TO FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE ANTI-DRUG CAMPAIGN OF THE GOVERNMENT, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE SECTION 21 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE "COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002,"" approved on 15 July 2014.

23.People v. De Guzman, 825 Phil. 43 (2018), G.R. No. 219955, 05 February 2018 [Per J. Del Castillo].

24.People v. Suarez, 823 Phil. 779 (2018), G.R. 223141, 06 June 2018 [Per J. Del Castillo], citing People v. Bartolini, 791 Phil. 626, 635 (2016), G.R. No. 215192, 27 July 2016 [Per J. Carpio].

25.Id., citing People v. Kamad, supra at note 21.

26.People v. Bagano, G.R. No. 77777, 05 February 1990 [Per J. Bidin].

n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document.