SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 246582. July 14, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.JESSA GATDULA y LINTAG, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated14 July 2021which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 246582 (People of the Philippines v. Jessa Gatdula y Lintag) — The conviction of accused-appellant Jessa Gatdula y Lintag for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs is the subject of review in this appeal assailing the Court of Appeals' Decision 1 dated April 24, 2018 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08947, 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, have 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, controlled chemicals, 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 identification and destruction.' 3
Section 21, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 4 outlines the post-seizure procedure for the custody and disposition of seized drugs. Notably, the alleged crime was committed on October 23, 2015, or after the enactment of the amendatory law. Hence, RA No. 10640 5 applies, 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, 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, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall be required to sign 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 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, 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 non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and 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
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. 6 Here, records reveal several gaps in the chain of custody.
Evident in this case is a breach in the third link or the transfer of the dangerous drug to the crime laboratory. Police Officer 1 Czarina Joyce G. Rivera (PO1 Rivera) testified that she and Police Officer 3 Carlo F. Zaragoza (PO3 Zaragoza) delivered the drug from Pilar Municipal Police Station to Bataan Provincial Crime Laboratory where it was received by Police Chief Inspector Vernon Rey Santiago (PCI Santiago) and one Police Officer 2 Carbonel. 7 However, PCI Santiago stipulated that he received the specimen from PO1 Rivera and a certain PO1 Oria. 8 The prosecution did not clarify the identity of the person who accompanied PO1 Rivera to the crime laboratory. The testimony of PO3 Zaragoza was dispensed with, but the prosecution proposed a stipulation of facts that lacked informative details on the third link. 9 In addition, there was no testimony as to how PO1 Rivera handled the seized drug while it was in her possession, i.e., whether she had sole custody of the drug until it was delivered to the crime laboratory, as well as the condition in which it was turned over to PCI Santiago. Despite the miniscule amount of 0.0800 gram of shabu supposedly taken from the accused, the threat of tampering, alteration or substitution of the corpus delicti remains.
In People v. Del Rosario, 10 two (2) police officers delivered the drugs to the crime laboratory, but no details were provided as to how, and at what point, the seized items were handled by the officers. Likewise, in People v. Bacud, 11 there was no stipulation on how the arresting officer preserved the drug in his custody before turning them over to the forensic chemist. As in this case, the prosecution failed to account for the manner by which the apprehending officers handled and preserved the drug from the police station to the crime laboratory.
Moreover, the fourth link in the chain is also tainted with infirmity. The records do not reflect the manner of handling the specimen after the forensic chemist completed his examination and before the drug was presented in court. We have ruled, in People v. Ubungen, 12 that in case of a stipulation by the parties to dispense with the attendance and testimony of the forensic chemist, it should be stipulated that the forensic chemist took precautionary steps to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, thus: (1) that the forensic chemist received the seized article as marked, properly sealed, and intact; (2) that he resealed it after examination of the contents; and (3) that he placed his own marking on the same to ensure that it could not be tampered pending trial. Here, while there was stipulation of facts on the testimony of PCI Santiago, it is silent on this particular link, to wit:
(1) the qualification, competence and expertise of PCI Santiago as Forensic Chemist; (2) that PCI Santiago examined the specimen subject matter of this case with markings 'CGR-1' as indicated in Chemistry Report No. D-410-2015 Bataan; (3) the existence, due execution and authenticity of Chemistry Report No. D-410-2015 Bataan; (4) that PCI Santiago can identify the specimen with markings 'CGR-1' as the same specimen he examined; (5) that the examination rendered positive result to the test for the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride; (6) that PO1 Czarina Joyce Rivera delivered the specimen with markings 'CGR-1' to the PNP Crime Lab as indicated in the stamped receipt appearing in the Laboratory Examination; (7) the existence, due execution and authenticity of the Request for Laboratory Examination; (8) that the PNP Crime Lab through PO2 Carbonel together with Vernon Rey Santiago received the specimen with marking 'CGR-1' from PO1 Oria. 13
Verily, the dearth of evidence on the management, storage, and preservation of the drugs 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 accompanied PO1 Rivera in transmitting the drug to the crime laboratory, (b) the person who had custody of the specimen after it was examined by PCI Santiago, (c) the person who received the drug for safekeeping pending its presentation in court, and (d) 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.
We stress, 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. 14 It is effectively destroyed when the performance of duty is tainted with irregularities. 15 Accordingly, accused-appellant Jessa Gatdula y Lintag must be acquitted.
FOR THESE REASONS, the appeal is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals' Decision dated April 24, 2018 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08947 is REVERSED. Jessa Gatdula y Lintag is ACQUITTED in Criminal Case No. 15270, and is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless she is being lawfully held for another cause.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for Women, Mandaluyong City for immediate implementation. The Superintendent is likewise ORDERED to REPORT to this Court the action taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
Let an 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:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. CA Rollo, pp. 90-102.
2.People v. Nuarin, 761 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 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 June 7, 2002.
5. Entitled "AN ACT TO FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE ANTI-DRUG CAMPAIGN OF THE GOVERNMENT, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE SECTION 21 OF [R.A.] 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, R.A. No. 10640 became effective on August 7, 2014.
6.People v. Bugtong, 806 Phil. 628, 638-639 (2018).
7. CA rollo, pp. 50, 56-57.
8.Rollo, p. 4. The prosecution stipulated "that the PNP Crime Lab through PO2 Carbonel together with Vernon Rey Santiago received the specimen with marking 'CGR-1' from PO1 Oria."
9.Id. at 6. The stipulation of facts of PO3 Zaragoza is reproduced as follows:
(1) that PO3 Zaragoza was the back-up police officer in this case; (2) that he would corroborate the testimony of PO1 Rivera; (3) that he could identify all the documents identified by PO1 Rivera; (4) that he could also identify the specimen subject matter of this case; and (5) that the Sinumpaang Salaysay of PO3 Zaragoza would constitute his direct testimony.
10. G.R. No. 235658, June 22, 2020.
11. G.R. No. 237977, August 19, 2019.
12. 836 Phil. 888 (2018).
13.Rollo, p. 4.
14.Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 593 (2008); People v. Cañete, 433 Phil. 781, 794 (2002).
15.People v. Dela Cruz, 589 Phil. 259, 272 (2008).