People v. Guinto y Laserna

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 243591. September 16, 2020.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.GLENN GUINTO y LASERNA, CORAZON FERRER y MILLARO, HENRY NARITO y ALMONDIA, KEN BAYANI y SAMPANG, AND RONNEL GETAPE y CANDIDATO, accused,

GLENN GUINTO y LASERNA, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 16 September 2020which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 243591 (People of the Philippines v. Glenn Guinto y Laserna, Corazon Ferrer y Millaro, Henry Narito y Almondia, Ken Bayani y Sampang, and Ronnel Getape y Candidato, accused; Glenn Guinto y Laserna, accused-appellant). — Before the Court is an ordinary Appeal of the Decision 1 dated June 13, 2018 rendered by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09563 which affirmed with modification the Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Calamba City, Laguna, Branch 34, finding accused-appellant Glenn Guinto y Laserna (appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs and violation of Section 28 (a) of RA 10591, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act," for Illegal Possession of Firearm.

The Facts

Appellant was charged with violation of Sections 11 and 12, Article II of RA 9165 for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs and Drug Paraphernalia, respectively; and violation of Section 28 (b) and (g) of RA 10591, 3 while the other accused, Corazon Ferrer y Millaro (Ferrer), Henry Narito y Almondia (Narito), Ken Bayani y Sampang (Bayani), and Ronnel Getape y Candidato (Getape) were charged with Section 15, Article II of RA 9165 for Use of Dangerous Drugs. However, appellant was acquitted of Section 12, Article II of RA 9165 and Section 28 (g) of RA 10591 before the RTC based on reasonable doubt and thus, such cases are no longer subject of the appeal before the Court.

The Information for Criminal Case No. 26460-2016-C(C) for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs is as follows:

That on or about April 12, 2016 at (sic) Calamba City, Laguna and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously possess quantities of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, approximately weighing 22.22 gram/s, in violation of the aforementioned law.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 4

Meanwhile, the accusatory portion of the Information for Criminal Case No. 26461-2016-C(C) for Illegal Possession of Firearm is as follows:

That on or about April 12, 2016 at (sic) Calamba City, Laguna and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have in his possession, custody, and control, one (1) unit of Caliber .38 Revolver with serial number 55650, one (1) unit Caliber .22 pistol, and one (1) unit Caliber .38 Revolver without serial number, without any license to possess or permit to carry the same issued by competent authority, in violation of law.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 5

Upon arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges against him. 6

Version of the Prosecution

On April 12, 2016, operatives of the Calamba City Police Station implemented a Warrant of Arrest against appellant for the crime of Carnapping. 7 In the course of his apprehension, a police team which included prosecution witnesses Police Officer 3 Anastacio Motas, Jr. 8 (PO3 Motas) and Police Officer 2 Allen Llorente (PO2 Llorente), found him in possession of illegal drugs and a .38 caliber weapon with serial number 55650 tucked in his waist.

According to PO3 Motas, appellant's identity was made known to them by a confidential informant. When they spotted appellant, they did not immediately arrest him but followed him to his residence. After appellant entered his home, PO3 Motas and PO2 Llorente peeped through a window and saw the other accused in the act of having a pot session. Thus, they immediately entered the house and introduced themselves as police officers. Both PO3 Motas and PO2 Llorente arrested appellant while the latter got hold of a firearm tucked in appellant's waist. Thereafter, PO3 Motas conducted a preventive search on the body of appellant and recovered seven (7) plastic sachets of suspected shabu from his pocket. Likewise spotted inside the house laid on a table were several drug paraphernalia, two guns, and ammunition. 9

PO3 Motas marked all the items seized inside appellant's residence in the presence of appellant, the other accused, PO2 Llorente, barangay officials, and members of the Highway Patrol Group, who accompanied the police officers in their operation. He prepared a handwritten inventory 10 which was signed by Barangay Councilor Ronaldo Santos and Barangay Public Safety Officer Investigator R.C. Mangeron. Photographs 11 were taken throughout depicting the conduct of the inventory to the signing by the representatives. After the arrest, appellant and the other accused were brought to the police station for further inventory and investigation. At the police station, PO3 Motas prepared a Receipt of Physical Inventory, 12 Request for Drug Test, 13 and Request for Laboratory Examination. 14 For the recovered firearms, a Request for Firearms Verification was transmitted to the Firearms and Explosives Office which in turn, issued an Initial Firearm Holder's Verification Report 15 certifying that appellant was not a registered firearm holder. PO3 Motas asserted that he was in possession of the seized items which he placed in a box from the time he took custody during appellant's arrest, during the investigation at the police station and until it was brought to the Crime Laboratory. PO2 Llorente, 16 who acted as PO3 Motas's back up security, corroborated the latter's testimony.

Chemistry Report No. D-780-16, 17 prepared by Forensic Chemist Dr. Lalaine Ong Rodrigo (Dr. Rodrigo), yielded positive results for the presence of shabu in all the specimens submitted to the Crime Laboratory. The Initial Laboratory Report 18 also revealed positive results for the presence of shabu in the urine sample of appellant and the other accused.

Version of the Appellant

Appellant raised the defenses of denial and frame-up. 19 According to him, he and Narito were at a jeepney terminal acting as barkers when they were arrested on April 12, 2016. A group of 15 armed men in civilian clothes arrived and forced them to lie face down while they were handcuffed. There were other persons in the area who were also arrested, but whose identities he did not know. After their arrest, the armed men pulled out a table and brought out firearms and illegal drugs which they placed on the table. Thereafter, they were brought to the municipal hall where they were incarcerated. It was only during their incarceration that appellant learned that the armed men were actually police officers and that firearms, ammunition, and illegal drugs were allegedly found in his home. Appellant was unaware that there was a standing Warrant of Arrest issued against him, claiming that it was not even showed to him at the time of his arrest. He denied that he was arrested at his house, claiming he was a resident of Brgy. Real, Calamba City while he was arrested at Brgy. Crossing, Calamba City. 20

Narito confirmed that he was with appellant when they were arrested at the jeepney terminal. While he and appellant were talking, two men arrived and suddenly ordered them to lie face down. Thereafter, they were instructed to proceed to the bridge along Crossing, Brgy. Uno. At the bridge, there was a table with illegal drugs on it. They were then brought to the municipal hall and incarcerated. He vehemently denied the accusations against him, claiming that he was not even informed of the charge against him. 21

Finally, Getape claimed that he just came out of his brother's house in Brgy. Crossing, Calamba City where he slept over for the night when eight (8) armed men arrived and poked a gun at him, instructing him to lie face down. Aside from Narito, he did not know the other accused. He and the other accused were brought to the house of Ferrer, where firearms and other illegal items were placed on a table. These items came from one of the companions of the police whose face was concealed with a bonnet. Thereafter, they were brought to the municipal hall where they were incarcerated. He denied the charge of violation of Section 15, Article II of RA 9165 against him. 22

RTC Ruling

On June 15, 2017, the RTC rendered a Decision finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Possession of Drugs and violation of Section 28 (a) of RA 10591, which was necessarily included in the charge of Section 28 (b) of RA 10591. In so ruling, the RTC gave credence to the unrebutted testimonies of the arresting police officers which it characterized as candid, straightforward and credible when they narrated that: 23 (a) appellant was arrested by virtue of a Warrant of Arrest for Carnapping issued against him, during which time, a .38 caliber revolver was recovered from his waist; and (b) during the preventive search conducted on appellant following his arrest, he was found in possession of seven (7) plastic sachets of suspected shabu with an aggregate weight of 22.22 grams. The RTC likewise ruled that the chain of custody of the seized drugs was established by the prosecution, there being no gaps in its custody. 24

Moreover, appellant was acquitted of Illegal Possession of Drug Paraphernalia as penalized under Section 12, Article II of RA 9165 and violation of Section 28 (e) of RA 10591 due to reasonable doubt since the prosecution failed to establish that he either owned or possessed the drug paraphernalia, and the other firearms and ammunition. 25

CA Ruling

On June 13, 2018, the CA rendered a Decision sustaining appellant's conviction for both crimes but modified the penalty for violation of Section 28 (a) of RA 10591 in accordance with the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The CA found no cogent reason to disturb the findings and conclusions of the lower court. With regard to the Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, the CA determined that the totality of the evidence established appellant's culpability and that the chain of custody was unbroken. Likewise, the CA held that absent a showing that there was bad faith or ill will on the part of the arresting officers or proof that the evidence had been tampered with, the presumption that police officers properly handled the exhibits and discharged their duties prevailed. As regards the Illegal Possession of Firearm, the appellate court ruled that the Initial Firearm's Holder Verification Report was sufficient in establishing that appellant was not licensed to possess a firearm. 26

Both parties filed their respective Manifestations to the effect that they are adopting the arguments in their Briefs. 27

The Issues

I. Whether appellant possessed a license or permit to possess a firearm.

II. Whether the chain of custody of the seized drugs were complied with.

The Court's Ruling

The appeal is partly meritorious.

At issue in this instant appeal is the corpus delicti of the crimes charged against appellant. The term corpus delicti refers to the body or substance of the crime and, in its primary sense, refers to the fact that the crime has been actually committed. 28 For the crime of Illegal Possession of Firearms, the corpus delicti is an accused's lack of license or permit to possess or carry the firearm, as possession itself is not prohibited by law. 29 Meanwhile in narcotics cases, the dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction. 30

As will be further discussed below, the Court sustains appellant's conviction for Illegal Possession of Firearms under Section 28 (a) of RA 10591 but finds it proper to acquit him of the crime of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, there being gaps in the chain of custody which undermine the identity and integrity of the seized shabu.

Appellant was not licensed to possess

The essential elements in the prosecution for the crime of Illegal Possession of Firearms are: (a) the existence of subject firearm; and (b) the fact that the accused who possessed or owned the same does not have the corresponding license for it. 31 In this case, while appellant concedes that the prosecution was able to establish the existence of the .38 caliber revolver, 32 he claims that the prosecution failed to prove that he was not licensed to possess the same.

The Court disagrees.

In a catena of cases, 33 it has been held that either the testimony of a representative of, or a certification from a representative of the Philippine National Police-Firearms and Explosives Office (PNP-FEO) attesting that a person is not a licensee of any firearm would suffice to prove the second element of Illegal Possession of Firearms. The Initial Firearm Holder's Verification Report obtained from the PNP-FEO sufficiently established that appellant was not licensed to possess a firearm. A cursory reading of the document, which partakes the nature of a certification, states in no uncertain terms that appellant "is not a licensed/registered firearm holder of any kind of caliber, per verification from Records of this Office." 34 Anent the purported non-compliance with Department of Justice (DOJ) Circular No. 067, 35 the Court agrees with the appellate court's determination that non-compliance with this Circular will not exonerate an accused. 36 For reference, DOJ Circular No. 067 requires that: (1) the recovered firearm was physically inventoried, checked, and accounted for; (2) pictures and the stencil of the subject firearm are submitted by the duly authorized personnel of the PNP Crime Laboratory and attached to the record of the case; (3) the recovered firearm is fully safeguarded by the law enforcer and the chain of custody is properly recorded; (4) the recovered firearm be properly deposited by the police investigator with the police evidence custodian; and (5) the PNP Officials submit an affidavit of undertaking, stating, among others, that he/she shall take the obligation of presenting the subject firearm when the prosecutor or the judge deems it necessary. The Court finds that this Circular laying down this post-seizure procedure was simply intended to set guidelines for the efficient disposition of cases involving RA 10591, non-compliance of which will not automatically exculpate an accused from liability.

It bears pointing out that historically, the Court has applied the "chain of custody" rule as a mode of authenticating illegal drug substances in order to determine its admissibility, however, such rule has not yet been extended to other substances or objects, 37 such as a firearm. This is because a firearm is a unique object and could readily be identifiable by a distinguishable mark such as a serial number in contrast to non-unique objects such as narcotic substances, chemicals and the like, that present an inherent problem with fungibility. 38 Even assuming arguendo that the chain of custody rule applies to dispel supposed doubts as to the firearm's identity as the very same one obtained from appellant, the Court is satisfied that the .38 caliber revolver submitted into evidence is the very same firearm tucked in appellant's waist. As found by the CA:

In the course of the implementation of the warrant of arrest against accused-appellant, prosecution witness PO2 Llorente was able to recover a caliber .38 revolver which was then tucked in the waist of accused-appellant. This established the intent on the part of the accused-appellant to possesses the said firearm. PO3 Motas also testified that it was PO2 Llorente who immediately recovered the said firearm from accused-appellant. Said firearm was marked by PO3 Motas as 'GLG-AMM-014' with serial number 55650 which was later presented in court. During their testimony before the trial court, PO3 Motas and PO2 Llorente identified said caliber .38 revolver, as the same firearm recovered from accused-appellant. 39

Aside from being photographed, marked as "GLG-AMM-14," and included in the inventory prepared by PO3 Motas, the subject firearm also had a serial number which further confirms to the Court that this was the same firearm seized from appellant at the time of his apprehension.

The prosecution failed to establish an

An appeal in criminal cases opens the entire case for review and it is the duty of the reviewing tribunal to correct, cite, and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned. 40 The appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and renders such court competent to examine records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law. 41 Additionally, the rule that the trial court's findings of fact, especially when affirmed by the CA, are entitled to great weight, however, does not apply where facts of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied in a case under appeal, 42 as in this case.

In every prosecution of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must establish the following elements by proof beyond reasonable doubt: (a) the accused was in possession of an item or object identified as a prohibited drug; (b) such possession was not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. 43 However equally imperative is the task of ensuring that identity of the dangerous drug is established with moral certainty, considering that the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime. Establishing the corpus delicti in a crime involving dangerous drugs calls for the preservation and establishment of the chain of custody:

In drug-related criminal prosecutions, chain of custody specifically refers to the documented various movements and custody of the subjects of the offense be they seized drugs, controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs, and equipment for their production — from the moment of seizure or confiscation to the time of receipt in the forensic laboratory, to their safekeeping until their presentation in court as evidence and their eventual destruction. The documentation includes the inventory, the identity of the person or persons who held temporary custody thereof, the date and time when any transfer of custody was made in the course of safekeeping until presentation in court as evidence, and disposition. 44

Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 outlines the procedure which the police officers must follow when handling the seized drugs in order to preserve their integrity and evidentiary value. This statutory requirement provides, among others, that the apprehending team shall immediately after seizure and confiscation physically inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused, or the person from whom such items were seized, or his representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. Notably, this provision was amended in 2014 by RA 10640, 45 which is the applicable law at the time of the commission of the crime charged against appellant. The difference between the requirements in RA 9165 and RA 10640 is the requirement of having representatives of the media or the DOJ instead of previously requiring the presence of both to witness the inventory process; and the relaxation of the rule regarding the certification of the forensic laboratory examiner. In addition to the foregoing, the Court, in People v. Kamad, 46 delineated the four (4) links that must likewise be established by the prosecution:

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.

After a judicious study of the case, the Court finds that all four links were not established by the prosecution.

As regards the first link, the prosecution presented PO3 Motas who testified that he immediately marked the seized items at appellant's residence with the latter's initials, prepared the handwritten inventory in the presence of two (2) barangay representatives and took photographs. However, appellant argues that the chain of custody was broken, considering that representatives from the DOJ and the media were not present during the conduct of the inventory and taking of photographs. 47

Appellant's argument is well-taken.

In contrast to the conclusion of the CA, 48 the Court finds that the fact that the arresting officers' initial objective was to implement a Warrant of Arrest for Carnapping and the discovery of illegal drugs in appellant's possession was unexpected but does not constitute a justifiable ground to excuse the absence of these representatives. The law is emphatic that the presence of these insulating witnesses is mandatory and thus, any deviation therefrom must be detailed by the prosecution and proven as a fact, because the Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist. 49 In addition, the earnest efforts undertaken to secure the attendance of these witnesses must be shown. Jurisprudence has held that the mere statement of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses, is unacceptable as a justifiable ground for non-compliance. 50 In this case, there was no evidence that there was any attempt by the arresting officers to secure the presence of the representative from the DOJ or the media. Rather, it appears that the prosecution relied on the presumption of regularity of duty, the absence of any ill-motive on the part of the arresting officers, and the accidental discovery of the illegal drugs as badges of truth. Needless to state, this falls short of the stringent requirements laid down by law and for this reason, the first link of the chain was not demonstrated.

With regard to the second link, the Court notes that while the lower courts unite in their finding that PO3 Motas never relinquished custody of the seized drugs; reference to his testimony reveals otherwise. On direct examination, PO3 Motas testified that he was in possession of the seized items from the time of their initial seizure up to the time they were brought to the Crime Laboratory. Both the RTC 51 and the CA 52 stated that the seized items were merely shown to the investigator at the police station; however, on cross-examination, PO3 Motas testified that the seized items were actually given to the investigator, to wit:

ATTY. CRUZ

Q. After inventory, who handled the evidence?

A. Me sir.

Q. How about the guns?

A. Me also sir.

Q. Where did you put it?

A. Inside a box sir.

Q. And where did you bring the box?

A. At the Crime Laboratory Office sir.

Q. From the crime scene, you directly go (sic) to the Crime Laboratory Office?

A. No sir. To the Police Station first before going to the Crime Lab sir.

Q. And you gave that box to the Investigator?

A. Yes sir. 53

It is clear from PO3 Motas' testimony that he relinquished possession of the box containing the seized items to an unidentified police investigator. While reference to Request for Drug Test and Request for Laboratory Examination indicates as its signatory a certain Police Senior Inspector Marlon Mescuso Calonge from the Intelligence Section, the Court is nonetheless left to speculate as to the identity of this investigating officer because he was never identified by PO3 Motas in his testimony. The identities of the officers who had custody of the illegal drugs, even for momentary periods, are open to question.

As regards the third link, even assuming arguendo that PO3 Motas never relinquished custody of the seized shabu and thus transported the same to the crime laboratory, 54 noticeably absent in his testimony is the identity of the person who received the seized shabu at the crime laboratory. The only pieces of evidence representing the third link in the chain consisted of the letter-requests for laboratory examination and for drug test.

Similarly, there is a dearth of evidence, testimonial or otherwise pertaining to the fourth link of the chain of custody, i.e., turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court. In People v. Plaza, 55 the Court stated in no uncertain terms that there is a break in the fourth link of the chain of custody where there is absence of evidence to show how the seized drug was handled, stored, and safeguarded pending its presentation in court. In this case, the stipulations during the preliminary conference on Dr. Rodrigo's testimony were essentially confined to her examination of the samples which she found positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride and which she reduced into writing in her Chemistry Report. In fact, the stipulations by the prosecution and the defense on her testimony were limited to the examination of the seized drugs, thus:

3. n  The specimens examined by Forensic Chemist Lalaine Ong Rodrigo were allegedly submitted by police officers;

4. The specimens were examined and analyzed by said Forensic Chemist;

5. The due execution and authenticity of the Chemistry Report;

6. The specimens were brought to the Crime Laboratory for examination;

7. There is a request dated April 12, 2016; and

8. The specimens accompanying the written request were examined and found positive for the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride with qualification that said specimens were not taken from the accused. 56

Even a painstaking review of the records and transcripts yields no results as to the identity of the person/s who had custody of the seized sachets of shabu before it was presented to the court as evidence. Notably Section 6, paragraph 8 of the Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 2, Series of 2003 requires laboratory personnel to document the chain of custody each time a specimen is handled or transferred until the specimen is disposed; it also requires the identification of the individuals participating in the chain. The records are silent regarding compliance with this regulation.

In People v. Mola, 57 the Court explained the dilemma caused when the testimony of the forensic chemist lacks details as to the chain of custody, stating:

Moreover, in dispensing with the testimony of the forensic chemist, it is evident that the prosecution failed to show another link in the chain of custody. Since her testimony was limited to the result of the examination she conducted and not on the source of the substance, PS/Insp. Malojo Todeño failed to certify that the chemical substance presented for laboratory examination and tested positive for shabu was the very same substance recovered from Mola. The turnover and submission of the marked illegal drugs seized from the forensic chemist to the court was also not established. Neither was there any evidence to indicate how the sachet of shabu was handled during and after the laboratory examination and on the identity of the person/s who had custody of the item before it was presented to the court as evidence. Without the testimonies or stipulations stating the details on when and how the seized sachet of shabu was brought from the crime laboratory to the court, as well as the specifics on who actually delivered and received the same from the crime laboratory to the court, it cannot be ascertained whether the seized item presented in evidence was the same one confiscated from Mola upon his arrest. This gap in the chain of custody creates doubt as to whether the corpus delicti of the crime had been properly preserved. (Underscoring supplied)

This is not to state that the testimony of a forensic chemist cannot be dispensed with. In People v. Pajarin, 58 the Court explained that in case the parties dispense with the testimony of the forensic chemist, 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) that the forensic chemist received the seized article as marked, properly sealed and intact; (2) that he resealed it after examination of the content; and (3) that he placed his own marking on the same to ensure that it could not be tampered pending trial. These however were not present in the case. As seen above, the prosecution and defense even stipulated that the specimens examined were "allegedly submitted by police officers" to the crime laboratory for examination. For reasons unknown to this Court, the prosecution made no efforts to address this, considering that as earlier pointed out, PO3 Motas failed to identify the person who received the seized shabu in the crime laboratory. Here, the saving clause in RA 10640, which was reproduced from RA 9165, fails to remedy the arresting officers' lapses and save the prosecution's case. It must be stressed that the saving clause applies only where the prosecution recognized the procedural lapses, and thereafter cited justifiable grounds. 59 Failure to follow the procedure mandated under RA 9165, as amended, and its Implementing Rules and Regulations must be adequately explained. Unfortunately, the prosecution simply glossed over the above discussed lapses.

It could be that appellant was really in possession of shabu when the arresting officers implemented a Warrant of Arrest against him for another crime, but considering the doubts engendered by the procedural lapses committed, the Court has no recourse but to give him the benefit thereof. Though the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty is of course available, it has to be remembered that the presumption of innocence of a person accused of committing a crime prevails over the presumption of regularity of the performance of official duty. 60 The Court must be convinced that there was no room for the dangerous drug to be replaced by or contaminated with other pieces of evidence for other cases. In this case, there were lapses in all four (4) links in the chain of custody, creating a reasonable doubt on whether the shabu seized from appellant was the same shabu that was brought to the crime laboratory for chemical analysis, and eventually offered in court as evidence. With the corpus delicti of the crime of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs not having been proven beyond reasonable doubt, the acquittal of appellant becomes the proper recourse.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Decision dated June 13, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09563 is MODIFIED insofar as appellant Glenn Guinto y Laserna is hereby ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 n in Criminal Case No. 26460-2016-C(C).

SO ORDERED." (Baltazar-Padilla, J., on leave.)

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo, with Associate Justices Samuel H. Gaerlan (now a Member of the Court) and Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob, concurring; rollo, pp. 2-31.

2. Penned by Presiding Judge Maria Florencia B. Formes-Baculo; CA rollo, pp. 52-68.

3.Id. at 36.

4.Id.

5.Id.

6.Id. at 37.

7. Warrant of Arrest issued by Judge Glenda R. Mendoza-Ramos of the RTC of Calamba City, Branch 36, in Criminal Case No. 26273-2016-C; see records, Vol. I, p. 10.

8. TSN, January 18, 2017, pp. 1-34.

9. CA rollo, pp. 39-40.

10. Records, Vol. I, p. 8.

11.Id. at 19-22.

12.Id. at 15.

13.Id. at 11-12.

14.Id. at 13-14.

15.Id. at 24.

16. TSN, January 18, 2017, pp. 35-39.

17. Records, Vol. I, p. 25.

18.Id. at 26.

19. TSN, March 23, 2017, pp. 1-11.

20.Rollo, pp. 9-11.

21. TSN, March 30, 2017, pp. 1-7.

22. TSN, May 18, 2017, pp. 1-10.

23. CA rollo, p. 63.

24.Id. at 64.

25.Id. at 67.

26.Rollo, pp. 11-29.

27.Id. at 39-41; 44-46.

28.People v. Olarte, G.R. No. 233209, March 11, 2019.

29.Id.

30.People v. Abdulah, G.R. No. 243941, March 11, 2020.

31.People v. Olarte, supra note 28.

32.Rollo, p. 43.

33.People v. Go, 406 Phil. 804, 812-813 (2001); Del Rosario v. People, 410 Phil. 642, 652 (2001); People v. Lazaro, 375 Phil. 811, 883-890 (1999).

34. Records, Vol. I, p. 24.

35. Additional Guidelines in the Disposition of Inquest Cases Involving Violations of Presidential Decree No. 186, as amended by RA 8294.

36. CA rollo, p. 140.

37.People v. Olarte, supra note 28.

38.Id.

39. CA rollo, p. 138.

40.People v. Miranda, 824 Phil. 1042, 1050 (2018); citing People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 224 (2015).

41.Id.

42.People v. Villarta, 828 Phil. 259, 275 (2018).

43.People v. Hilario, 823 Phil. 528, 588-589 (2018).

44.Lapi v. People, G.R. No. 210731, February 13, 2019.

45. 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 July 15, 2014.

46. 624 Phil. 289, 304 (2010).

47. CA rollo, p. 44.

48.Id. at 28.

49.People v. Dela Victoria, 829 Phil. 675, 685 (2018), citing People v. Guzman, 630 Phil. 637, 649 (2010).

50.People v. Miranda, G.R. No. 218126, July 10, 2019; People v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 213760, July 1, 2019; People v. Lim, G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018.

51. CA rollo, p. 64.

52.Id. at 136.

53. TSN, January 18, 2017, pp. 33-34.

54.Id. at 19.

55. G.R. No. 235467, August 20, 2018.

56. Records, Vol. II, pp. 46-48.

57. 830 Phil. 364, 380-381 (2018).

58. See 654 Phil. 461, 464-466 (2011).

59. See People v. Hementiza, 807 Phil. 1017, 1038 (2017).

60.People v. Plaza, supra note 55.

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

n Note from the Publisher: Written as "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2000" in the official document.