FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 238114. September 16, 2020.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, accused-appellee, vs. EMMANUEL GUINOO y VILLAMOR, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated September 16, 2020 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 238114 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EMMANUEL GUINOO y VILLAMOR
Appellant Emmanuel Guinoo y Villamor faults the Court of Appeals for affirming the trial court's verdict of conviction against him for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165), otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Appellant argues that the prosecution did not comply with Section 21 of RA 9165. Notably, there is doubt on whether the marking of the confiscated plastic sachet of shabu was done in appellant's presence. More, the inventory and photographing of the seized items were not done at the place of arrest. There was no justification for the procedural deviations in this case. 1
We acquit.
Appellant was charged with illegal sale of 0.1766 gram of shabu allegedly committed on June 5, 2012. The governing law, therefore, is RA 9165, prior to its amendment in 2014. 2
In cases involving violations of RA 9165, the drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense. The prosecution must, therefore, establish that the drugs seized from the accused were the same substance eventually presented in court. 3
To ensure the integrity of the seized drug item, the prosecution must account for each link in its chain of custody: first, the seizure and marking 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. 4
We focus on the first and fourth links.
The first link refers to seizure and marking which should be immediately done at the place of arrest and seizure. It includes the physical inventory and taking of photographs of the seized items in the presence of the accused and third-party witnesses. This link has been repeatedly breached by the apprehending officers.
First. The marking of the seized item was done without the presence of appellant and any of the required witnesses under RA 9165.
Section 21 of RA 9165 5 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations 6 prescribe the standard in preserving the corpus delicti in illegal drug cases. This makes up the chain of custody rule. The conduct of physical inventory, which includes the marking of the items by the seizing police officers 7 and photographing of the seized items, must be done immediately after seizure and confiscation 8 and in the presence of the accused or his/her representative or counsel and the required insulating witnesses i.e., a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official, 9 to ensure that they are the same items which enter the chain of custody. 10
People v. Martinez11 decrees that consistency with the "chain of custody" rule requires that the "marking" of the seized items should be done in the presence of the apprehended violator immediately upon confiscation in order to ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence. This step initiates the process of protecting innocent persons from dubious and fabricated searches, and of protecting the apprehending officers as well from harassment suits based on planting of evidence and on allegations of robbery or theft.
Here, SO2 Eugene P. Salomon (SO2 Salomon) testified that he marked the seized sachet of shabu while appellant was inside their office vehicle which he claimed was about a meter away. 12 IO1 Jose Ramon Miguel L. Zaraspe IV (IO1 Zaraspe), on the other hand, testified that he was with appellant at that time and their vehicle was parked five (5) meters away from where SO2 Salomon did the marking. 13 This being the case, the marking here was in fact not done in the presence of appellant. Surely, appellant could not have witnessed the actual marking as he was then inside the police car.
In People v. Escaran, 14 the Court stressed that the presence of the insulating witnesses from the DOJ, media, and public elective office at the time of apprehension is mandatory. Their presence during the seizure, marking, inventory and photograph of the dangerous drugs is necessary in order to prevent the evils of switching, planting or contamination of the corpus delicti and belie any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drug. Non-compliance with the requirement is, thus, fatal to the prosecution's case. 15
Here, not one of the required insulating witnesses was present during the apprehension, seizure, and marking of the illegal drugs and no explanation was offered for this omission. SO2 Salomon testified that it was only after they arrived at the PDEA office when his teammate called in the barangay kagawad and representatives from the DOJ and the media to witness the inventory and photographing of the seized items. This simply shows that the required witnesses themselves had no personal knowledge of the supposed sale and subsequent apprehension, search, seizure, and marking.
People v. Castillo16 decrees that having third-party witnesses present only during the subsequent physical inventory and photographing renders the whole requirement of their presence futile. For it reduces them to passive automatons, utilized merely to lend hollow legitimacy by belatedly affixing signatures on final inventory documents despite lacking authentic knowledge on the items confronting them.
Second. The phrase "immediately after seizure and confiscation" in RA 9165 and its implementing rules and regulations means that the law intended the physical inventory and photographing of the drugs to be made immediately after or at the place of apprehension. The inventory and photographing may be done at the nearest police station or the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team only when the same is not practicable. 17
Here, the inventory was conducted neither at the place of arrest nor the nearest police station, but at the PDEA office. SO2 Salomon simply said they decided to do the inventory at the PDEA office because a crowd had started gathering at the situs criminis. Standing alone, however, such bare allegation should be rejected. For it hardly qualifies as sufficient justification for not complying with the requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165.
In People v. Dumanjug, 18 the Court rejected the buy-bust team's argument that it failed to conduct the marking, inventory, and photography of the seized drug immediately at the place of arrest because a crowd of two hundred (200) on-lookers had gathered in the area.
The fourth link pertains to the turnover and submission of the seized items from the forensic chemist to the court.
In People v. Ubungen, 19 the Court emphasized that stipulation on the testimony of a forensic chemist should cover the management, storage, and preservation of the seized drugs. It should be stipulated that the forensic chemist would have testified that he took the precautionary steps required in order to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item, thus: (1) the forensic chemist received the seized article 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 pending trial.
Here, the parties' stipulation to dispense with the testimony of the forensic chemist did not contain the vital pieces of information required in Ubungen. The parties merely stipulated on PSI Joel P. Signar's (PSI Signar) expertise and qualifications, delivery, submission and receipt of the specimens for laboratory examination and the results thereof. Absent any testimony on the management, storage, and preservation of the illegal drug allegedly seized after its qualitative examination, the fourth link in the chain of custody could not be reasonably established here. 20
In light of the foregoing considerations, the chain of custody here was breached several times over. Verily, it cannot be said that the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti, including its evidentiary value were deemed preserved. A verdict of acquittal is indubitably in order.
Indeed, RA 9165 contains a saving clause allowing liberality whenever there are compelling reasons to otherwise warrant deviation from the established procedures so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. The Court, however, cannot apply such liberality in this case as there is no occasion for the proviso "as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved," to even come into play.
Here, the prosecution did not offer any explanation for the absence of appellant and the required insulating witnesses during the marking of the seized dangerous drug. The reason for not conducting the inventory at the situs criminis — gathering of a crowd in the area, is insufficient to render the saving clause applicable.
Where there was non-compliance with the requirements set forth in Section 21 of RA 9165, as in this case, there can be no presumption that the official duties have been regularly performed by the police officers. 21 The presumption of regularity cannot preponderate over the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. 22 Since the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody, appellant's acquittal must perforce follow.
ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is GRANTED and the Decision dated December 15, 2017 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01475-MIN, REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
EMMANUEL GUINOO y VILLAMOR is ACQUITTED of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165). The Court DIRECTS the Superintendent of the Davao Prison and Penal Farm, B.E. Dujali, Davao del Norte to cause his immediate release from custody unless he is being held for some other lawful cause, and to submit his report on the action taken within five (5) days from notice.
Let the corresponding entry of final judgment be immediately issued.
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. 41-48.
2.People v. Bumanglag, G.R. No. 22884, August 19, 2019.
3.People v. Burdeos, G.R. No. 218434, July 17, 2019; People v. Barte, 806 Phil. 533, 542 (2017).
4.People v. Dela Torre, G.R. No. 225789, July 29, 2019.
5. 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. (Emphasis added)
6. Section 21. x x x (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. (Emphasis added)
7.People v. Lumaya, 827 Phil. 473, 489 (2018); People v. Salvador, 726 Phil. 389, 404-405 (2014).
8.See People v. Alfredo Doctolero, Jr., G.R. No. 243940, August 20, 2019.
9.People v. Rosales, G.R. No. 233656, October 2, 2019.
10.People v. Ramirez, 823 Phil. 1215, 1225 (2018) citing People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214, 241 (2008).
11. 652 Phil. 347, 377 (2010).
12. TSN dated December 5, 2013, p. 14.
13. TSN dated August 5, 2014, p. 7.
14. G.R. No. 212170, June 19, 2019.
15.People v. Caray y Emmanuel, G.R. No. 245391, September 11, 2019.
16. G.R. No. 238339, August 7, 2019.
17.People v. Tanes, G.R. No. 240596, April 3, 2019.
18. G.R. No. 235468, July 1, 2019.
19. G.R. No. 225497, July 23, 2018.
20.People v. Ubungen, id.
21.People v. Balibay, 742 Phil. 746, 757 (2014).
22.Largo v. People, G.R. No. 201293, June 19, 2019.