ADVERTISEMENT
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 247003. November 15, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. PAROK GUMAN, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 15 November 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 247003 (People of the Philippines v. Parok Guman). — On appeal 1 is the February 1, 2019 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01643-MIN partially affirming the January 25, 2017 Joint Decision 3 of Branch 22 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Kabacan, Cotabato, in Criminal Case Nos. 10-47 and 10-48.
The RTC found accused-appellant Parok Guman (Guman) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 4 and Illegal Possession of Explosives 5 under Section 1, second paragraph of Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1866, 6 as amended by RA 8294 7 and RA 9516. 8
Version of the prosecution:
On March 25, 2010, Senior Police Officer (SPO) 1 Edward Clarete (SPO1 Clarete) and his team conducted a buy-bust operation after their superior, Police Chief Inspector (PCI) Sofronio Cornelio, Jr. (PCI Cornelio), received a tip from an asset about illegal drug activities in Purok Chrislam, Kabacan. 9 The team subsequently coordinated the operation with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). 10 SPO1 Clarete was assigned as the poseur-buyer while SPO1 Ric Laoagan (SPO1 Laoagan) acted as his immediate back up. PSI Ismael Mama as well as other members of the Philippine National Police and the Philippine Army, served as additional back-up. 11 SPO1 Clarete marked a P500.00 bill 12 with his initials, "ETC." 13
The entrapment team reached the target area at around 6 p.m. At that time, the team members did not have any specific subject for the entrapment operation and were merely searching for prospective sellers of illegal drugs. 14 Thereafter, a man, later identified as Guman, approached SPO1 Clarete and asked if he wanted to buy shabu. SPO1 Clarete showed the marked money to Guman and replied that he wanted to buy shabu worth P500.00. Guman gave three pieces of heat-sealed sachets of suspected shabu to SPO1 Clarete. Instead of giving the marked money to Guman, SPO1 Clarete immediately arrested the former. After a body search on Guman, the police officers retrieved a fragmentation grenade from his pocket. Meanwhile, SPO1 Clarete kept the sachets of suspected shabu in his pocket. Additionally, he held possession of the unmarked fragmentation grenade. 15 The police officers brought Guman to the police station where SPO1 Clarete turned over the sachets and the fragmentation grenade to PCI Cornelio. 16
On March 26, 2010, at around 5 p.m., the provincial crime laboratory in Kidapawan City received a request for laboratory examination 17 dated March 25, 2010 18 of the three sachets of shabu with markings "PG-1 to PG-3." SPO1 Moises Abril (SPO1 Abril) received the request and the three sachets from a certain PO2 19 Lagutang. SPO1 Abril transported the items to their office in General Santos City and turned it over to PSI Lily Grace Ladeo (PSI Ladeo), who then conducted the examination. Afterwards, the request and the specimens were returned to SPO1 Abril together with chemistry report No. PC-D-009-2010. 20 The results confirmed that the contents of all three sachets tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. 21 PSI Ladeo testified that the sachets presented in court are the same ones she examined because she identified the control numbers that she wrote on the items. 22
The prosecution submitted a certification 23 dated April 29, 2010 indicating that based on the available records in the office of the Firearms and Explosives Division in Camp Crame, Quezon City, Guman has not been issued any permit or license to possess the grenade.
During his testimony, 24 SPO1 Clarete recalled that he confiscated the grenade from Guman and admitted that he did not mark the grenade before handing it over to PCI Cornelio at the police station. 25 In any case, SPO1 Clarete described the hand grenade as "parang brown na abuhin." 26 With regard to the sachets of shabu, he claimed that he can identify them through their physical appearance even without any markings. 27 Yet, he denied knowing who placed the marking "PG-1" on one of the sachets. 28
On cross-examination, SPO1 Clarete asserted that the safety pin was still intact when he confiscated the grenade from Guman. He added that the grenade had no serial number. 29
However, upon further inquiry, SPO1 Clarete claimed that the grenade was marked "PG" for "Parok Guman" by police investigator PO3 Randyl Aguba (PO3 Aguba). SPO1 Clarete admitted that he did not see PO3 Aguba mark the grenade but it was supposedly the standard operating procedure for the investigator to mark the seized item. 30
The prosecution adopted the affidavit of apprehension 31 as SPO1 Laoagan's direct examination. 32 On cross-examination, SPO1 Laoagan confirmed that the grenade was not marked and that it was turned over to another police officer. 33
SPO1 Abril, the evidence custodian of the crime laboratory, testified that be received the request for laboratory examination along with the three sachets of suspected shabu from PO2 Lagutang. 34 Thereafter, he brought the items to their office in General Santos City for examination by PSI Ladeo. 35 PSI Ladeo then returned the sachets to PO2 Lagutang together with the results. 36
PCI Cornelio testified that Guman was arrested while the police officers were patrolling the area. 37 He averred that after SPO1 Clarete surrendered the grenade to him, he subsequently turned it over to PO2 Lagutang. 38 Upon clarification, PCI Cornelio asserted that after receipt of the grenade from SPO1 Clarete, he did not mark the item but instead turned it over to PO3 Aguda. 39 In any case, PCI Cornelio confirmed that PO3 Aguda marked the top of the grenade with "PG-1" and the base with "PG" in Guman's presence. 40
Also, PCI Cornelio narrated that Guman has no the permit to carry the grenade. 41 Regarding the illegal drugs, PCI Cornelio could not recall if SPO1 Clarete surrendered to him the sachets of shabu. 42
SPO3 Joseph Dasian Ones (SPO3 Ones), an expert witness from the explosive ordnance division, described the confiscated explosive as a "live" MK2 fragmentation hand grenade complete with a safety lever and pin. 43 He stated that the grenade was not homemade but likely from military supply. 44
Version of the defense:
Guman alleged that on March 25, 2010, he was talking to his friends at the basketball court in Purok Chrislam when SPO1 Clarete, whom he did not know at the time, summoned him. To his surprise, he was arrested and made to board a police mobile. He resisted and shouted but his efforts were futile. He was subsequently detained in the police station. Later that night, the police officers blindfolded Guman and mauled him, and forced him to admit possession of shabu and a grenade. However, he did not acceded to their demands. Guman claimed that he sustained injuries and lost his upper front teeth when the police officers forced him to eat something hard. 45
Guman confirmed that he did not file a case against the police officers in spite of what they did to him. 46 Also, he insisted that the police officers were not able to recover anything from him and that he was not informed that he was being arrested for violation of RA 9165. 47 He admitted that prior to the incident, he did not have any quarrel with SPO1 Clarete or SPO1 Laoagan. 48 He denied that the police confiscated sachets of shabu and a hand grenade from him. 49
Pastruden Tutina Gemandan (Gemandan), a friend of Guman, testified that he knew SPO1 Clarete and SPO1 Laoagan as police officers who frequented the Chrislam area. 50 He asserted that SPO1 Clarete was wearing police uniform when he summoned Guman. 51 Gemandan likewise alleged that soldiers accompanied the police officers. 52 He averred that when Guman approached SPO1 Clarete after being summoned, the police officer immediately frisked Guman and boarded him inside the police vehicle. 53 Guman resisted but to no avail. 54
On cross-examination, Gemandan stated that he did not see SPO1 Clarete search the person of Guman before boarding him in the police car. 55 Gemandan asserted that if Guman kept a grenade, then a bulge should have been visible on the pocket of Guman's pants. 56 Moreover, he averred that he volunteered to testify in favor of Guman because the latter's parents asked him to do so. 57 He confirmed, too, that Guman was a "tambay" but that he was not in a position to say if Guman sold drugs. 58
Mon Saligan (Saligan), another friend and neighbor of Guman, also volunteered to testify for Guman. 59 Saligan stated that prior to the incident, Guman accompanied his mother in selling vegetables in the market. 60 He confirmed that SPO1 Clarete, a police officer who frequently patrolled the area, summoned Guman on the day of the incident. 61 Additionally, he averred that SPO1 Clarete searched Guman before the arrest, but the police officer found nothing. 62 Saligan stated that Guman was wearing a sando and maong pants. 63 He did not notice anything bulging in Guman's pants' pocket. 64
On cross-examination, Saligan confirmed that dangerous drugs proliferated in Purok Chrislam. 65 However, he averred that he did not see SPO1 Clarete recover a hand grenade from Guman. 66
On March 29, 2010, two Informations were filed charging Guman with violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 and PD 1866 as amended by RA 8294 and 9516, the accusatory portions of which read:
Criminal Case No. 10-47 (RA 9165):
That on or about March 25, 2010, in the Municipality of Kabacan, Province of Cotabato, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell, dispose and give away to another, for the sum of Five Hundred Pesos (P500.00) with serial no. FV 275463 three (3) small sachets of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, commonly known as 'shabu' weighing zero point zero seven (0.07) grams, * more or less, which is a dangerous drug.
* Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document.
CONTRARY TO LAW.67
Criminal Case No. 10-48 (PD 1866 as amended by RA 8294 and 9516):
That on or about March 25, 2010, in the Municipality of Kabacan, Province of Cotabato, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and knowingly, carry, one (1) piece of fragmentation hand grenade, which is an explosive, capable of producing destruction [and/or] injury or death to persons, accused knowing fully well of the said explosive's existence and its explosive character without legal authority or permit to carry the same from the proper authority.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 68
During his arraignment, Guman entered plea of "not guilty" 69 on both charges.
During trial, the parties stipulated on the following: 1) that the testimony of SPO1 Laoagan is corroborative to the testimony of SPO1 Clarete; 2) the existence of the three small sachets of shabu; and 3) the existence of the hand grenade. 70
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:
In its Joint Decision 71 dated January 25, 2017, the RTC ruled that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Guman sold three small sachets of shabu to SPO1 Clarete in a buy-bust operation. 72 The trial court found that SPO1 Clarete seized one fragmentation hand grenade from Guman during a search on the latter's person after the arrest. 73 Guman had no permit to possess the grenade as evidenced by a certification dated April 29, 2010 issued by the chief of the firearms and explosives division. Thus, the elements of Illegal Possession of Explosives under PD 1866 were proven. 74 Also, Guman was not able to show that the police officers had ill intentions towards him. 75 The dispositive portion of the RTC's Joint Decision reads:
WHEREFORE:
1. In Criminal Case No. 10-47 for Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the court finds accused, Parok Guman a.k.a. Parok Totina Guman guilty beyond reasonable doubt of selling 0.0039 gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or commonly known as shabu in Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and hereby imposes upon him the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php500,000.00) with the accessory penalties under Section 35 of said R.A. 9165.
2. In Criminal Case No. 10-48, the court finds accused, Parok Guman a.k.a. Parok Totina Guman guilty beyond reasonable doubt of carrying or possessing one (1) piece of fragmentation hand grenade, which is an explosive, capable of producing destruction [and/or] injury or death to persons in Violation of Section 1 (2nd paragraph) of Presidential Decree No. 1866 as amended by Republic Act No. 8494 [8294] and Republic Act No. 9516 and hereby imposes upon him the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua.
Further, the sachets of shabu subject of Criminal Case No. 10-47 weighing 0.0039 gram, a dangerous drug as well as the fragmentation hand grenade subject of Criminal Case No. 10-48, respectively, are ordered confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government and to be disposed of in accordance with law.
SO ORDERED. 76
Aggrieved, Guman appealed 77 to the CA assigning this sole error:
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED NOTWITHSTANDING THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. 78
Guman argued that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses regarding the existence of the buy-bust operation were unbelievable. 79 He pointed out that while SPO1 Clarete alleged that there was a buy-bust operation, PCI Cornelio claimed that the arrest was made during a routine police patrol. Moreover, SPO1 Clarete admitted to supplying wrong information in his affidavit when he stated during his testimony that no members of the Philippine Anny served as back-up. 80
Guman maintained that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody. 81 He averred that the police officers did not conduct an inventory or took photographs in his presence or the required witnesses as mandated by RA 9165. In addition, they did not justify their noncompliance with the chain of custody rule. 82 Guman asserted that SPO1 Clarete admitted that he did not place any markings on the sachets of shabu and that the only way he can identify these was by looking at the physical appearance. 83
Guman added that the fragmentation grenade was not marked properly. 84 Moreover, SPO1 Clarete turned over the grenade 85 to PCI Cornelio, his immediate supervisor, and not to the investigator of the case. Thereafter, PCI Cornelio turned it over to PO2 Lagutang, who did not take the stand. 86 Guman emphasized that the narration of the prosecution witnesses did not specify who had possession of the confiscated items from the time of the supposed seizure until these were presented in court. 87
Guman insisted that in view of the illegality of his arrest, the subsequent search on his person was illegal, and the confiscated items inadmissible in evidence. 88 His failure to object to the irregularity of his arrest before his arraignment affects only the jurisdiction of the court over his person 89 but not the admissibility of the evidence.
On the other hand, the People, through the Office of the Solicitor General, contended that Guman's guilt for both crimes was proven beyond reasonable doubt. 90 The People averred that the RTC correctly gave credence to the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, since the supposed inconsistencies in their testimonies did not pertain to material facts or the essential elements of the crimes. 91 Moreover, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized shabu92 and fragmentation grenade 93 were preserved. Guman did not question the police officer's reasons for not complying with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. 94 Also, the People claimed that after SPO1 Clarete surrendered the grenade to PCI Cornelio, the latter turned it over to PO3 Aguba. PO3 Aguba then marked it in the presence of PCI Cornelio. Thereafter, SPO3 Ones identified the explosive in court. 95
Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
The CA, in its assailed February 1, 2019 Decision, 96 overturned Guman's conviction for the Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs in view of the law enforcers' noncompliance with the chain of custody. 97 The appellate court held that the seized items should have been immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. Yet, in this case, SPO1 Clarete did not mark and handle the confiscated contrabands accordingly. Additionally, none of the prosecution witnesses categorically identified the person who made the markings or confirm that the marking was made in Guman's presence. 98
Moreover, the CA found it unbelievable for SPO1 Clarete to be able to identify the sachets presented in court without any distinguishing mark. Hence, the appellate court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the proper handling and custody of the confiscated drugs from the moment of seizure until these were presented in court. Consequently, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items have been compromised. 99
Nevertheless, the CA affirmed Guman's guilt for Illegal Possession of Explosives. 100 Since Guman was validly arrested following a legitimate buy-bust operation, the police officers had the authority to search his person even without a search warrant. As such, the grenade recovered from him is admissible in evidence. 101
The CA also found that the prosecution established the elements of Illegal Possession of Explosives, as Guman was caught in possession of the grenade without any authority to do so. 102 The certification issued by the chief of explosives stated that based on available records, Guman had no permit or license to possess the grenade. Mere possession of the grenade is prima facie evidence that Guman was aware of the danger posed by his act, specifically that it can cause injury or harm to any person. 103
The appellate court did not find merit in Guman's uncorroborated denial. The marking of the grenade was well-detailed by the prosecution witnesses. After confiscation of the explosive from Guman, SPO1 Clarete surrendered the grenade to PCI Cornelio. In turn PCI Cornelio turned it over to PO2 Lagutang, who marked the same. The marking on the grenade was identified in court. Furthermore, Guman did not establish that the police officers harbored ill motive to falsely testify against him. Hence, the presumption of regularity in the performance of duties of the authorities must prevail. 104
The dispositive portion of the appellate court's Decision states:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is PARTLY GRANTED. The January 25, 2017 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, 12th Judicial Region, Branch 22, Kabacan, Cotabato, in Criminal Case No. 10-48, finding Parok Guman guilty for illegal possession of explosive is AFFIRMED. The RTC Decision in Criminal Case No. 10-47 for illegal sale of shabu is, however, REVERSED for reasonable doubt.
SO ORDERED. 105
Discontented, Guman filed a partial appeal 106 before this Court assailing his conviction for Illegal Possession of Explosives.
Guman insists that the CA erred when it affirmed his conviction for Illegal Possession of Explosives especially when the validity of the buy-bust operation is doubtful. He reiterates that the testimonies of SPO1 Clarete and PCI Cornelio are irreconcilable, 107 and that based on the latter's testimony, there was no buy-bust operation but a routine police patrol in the area, 108 Also, SPO1 Clarete stated the PCI Cornelio organized the buy-bust operation yet this was never mentioned by PCI Cornelio in his testimony. Guman asserts that "[f]or Clarete, the police arrested Guman because he allegedly sold shabu, and the grenade was only recovered after the body search. But for Cornelio, the very reason why Guman was arrested was his alleged possession of a hand grenade, and he was arrested when the police officers mere on patrol." 109
Moreover, Guman avers that SPO1 Clarete admitted that no member of the Philippine Army was present during the arrest, contrary to his statements in his affidavit. 110 Hence, Guman's arrest was illegal and the evidence supposedly recovered from him are inadmissible. 111
Guman adds that there is doubt as to the chain of custody of the grenade. SPO1 Clarete admitted that he did not mark the grenade. This was corroborated by SPO1 Laoagan. Similarly, there is doubt regarding the turnover of the grenade from SPO1 Clarete to PCI Cornelio. 112 SPO1 Laoagan testified that he did not see the marking in the hand grenade and only assumed that it was PO3 Aguda who made the markings. SPO1 Clarete had no knowledge of the grenade's condition after he surrendered it to PCI Cornelio. 113 Also, while SPO1 Laoagan stated that the marking was ''PG," PCI Cornelio said it was ''PG-1." Significantly, PO3 Aguda who supposedly marked the explosive according to PCI Cornelio, did not took the stand. 114
Issue
Thus, the remaining issue is whether or not Guman is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the Illegal Possession of Explosives.
Our Ruling
The partial appeal has merit.
At the outset, it must be stressed that the subject of the present appeal is Guman's conviction for Illegal Possession of Explosives, since the CA already acquitted him of the charge of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs based on reasonable doubt.
All the same, the Court notes that Guman failed to question the illegality of his arrest before he entered his plea. 115 In fact, he actively participated during the trial and presented his evidence. Thus, he is estopped from questioning the legality of his arrest. 116 Consequently, the items obtained after his arrest are admissible for any purpose during the proceedings. 117
Before ruling on the alleged liability of Guman for Illegal Possession of the hand grenade, it is important to note that, as held by the CA, a buy-bust operation took place on the day of the arrest. The testimonies of the police officers, notwithstanding the inconsistencies and the numerous deviations from the mandated procedure, showed that SPO1 Clarete and SPO1 Laoagan conducted an entrapment operation even without a specific target in mind. In their joint affidavit of arrest, SPO1 Clarete and SPO1 Laoagan narrated the circumstances surrounding the arrest and prior coordination with the PDEA. Furthermore, the prosecution submitted proof of the marked money. Withal, Guman's arrest pursuant to the buy-bust operation, followed by a search on his person that purportedly revealed his possession of the grenade, should be deemed as a valid search incidental to a lawful arrest. 118
To stress, Guman, who was allegedly caught in possession of a hand grenade, was charged with a violation of Section 1, second paragraph of PD 1866, as amended by RA 8294 and RA 9516, to wit:
Unlawful Manufacture, Sales, Acquisition, Disposition, Importation or Possession of an Explosive or Incendiary Device. — The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon any person who shall willfully and unlawfully manufacture, assemble, deal in, acquire, dispose, import or possess any explosive or incendiary device, with knowledge of its existence and its explosive or incendiary character, where the explosive or incendiary device is capable of producing destructive effect on contiguous objects or causing injury or death to any person, including but not limited to, hand grenade(s), rifle grenade(s), 'pillbox bomb,' 'molotov cocktail bomb,' fire bomb,' and other similar explosive and incendiary devices. (Underscoring supplied).
According to jurisprudence, "[t]he essential elements in the prosecution for the crime of Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunitions are: (1) the existence of the subject firearm; and (2) the fact that the accused who possessed or owned the same does not have the corresponding license for it." 119
According to the prosecution, SPO1 Clarete retrieved a hand grenade from Guman's pants' pocket. Guman admitted that he had no permit to possess the grenade. Additionally, the certification from the firearms and explosives division stated that Guman did not have the license to carry the explosive. Thus, it appears that both the elements of the crime are present in this case.
However, the chain of custody in handling the confiscated illegal explosive is another matter. Particularly, the links should be accounted for. Thence, this Court should carefully ascertain if the fragmentation hand grenade that was presented before the trial court is the same one purportedly seized from Guman.
In the case at bench, SPO1 Clarete, after the supposed seizure of the hand grenade, did not even bother to mark the same, just as he failed to mark the sachets of suspected shabu. Afterwards, SPO1 Clarete simply surrendered the hand grenade to PCI Cornelio, their supervisor at the time, even if PCI Cornelio was not the assigned investigator of the case. Subsequently, PCI Cornelio supposedly turned it over to the investigator, PO3 Aguda. However, PCI Cornelio, in his testimony, also mentioned a certain PO2 Lagutang. Indeed, the involvement of a few police officers who did not testify raises doubt regarding the personalities who handled the grenade after it left the hands of SPO1 Clarete and PCI Cornelio. Both PO3 Aguda and PO2 Lagutang did not even execute any affidavit to explain how the explosive was handled and stored. Simply put, their unexplained involvement is suspect.
Additionally, nobody testified as regards the exact condition of the hand grenade from seizure until presentation in court. There is absolutely no testimony regarding the precautions taken, or lack thereof, employed by the police officers or evidence custodians in ensuring that the grenade would be preserved as much as possible, especially considering that it was not promptly turned over to the experts on explosives.
Evidently, these findings point to the failure of the prosecution to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the grenade allegedly seized from Guman. Hence, there is serious doubt on the identify of the corpus delicti of the crime charged. People v. Velasco120 instructs:
Jurisprudence explains that the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. This would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it was offered in evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. 121
Similarly, jurisprudence dictates that in the prosecution of a violation of PD 1866, '"[r]eceipts for seized items are mandatory on the part of apprehending and seizing police officers.'" 122 Unfortunately, the police officers miserably failed to comply with this requirement. This started from the moment SPO1 Clarete failed to immediately mark the grenade after the alleged seizure from Guman. The gross negligence of the authorities cannot be tolerated.
In fine, the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti was compromised. The inconsistencies in the testimonies of SPO1 Clarete, SPO1 Laoagan, and PCI Cornelio on material points utterly discredited the prosecution's claims. Worse, PO3 Aguba and PO2 Lagutang, who supposedly handled the explosive, did not testify. Withal, there is no way for this Court to verify if the links in the chain of custody remained unbroken. In light of these, the presumption that the authorities regularly performed their duties cannot stand due to the discrepancies in the police officers' testimonies, 123 not only as to the identity of the sachets of shabu but also for the allegedly confiscated hand grenade. The police officers' "unexplained procedural lapses are definitive proof of irregularity. And any taint of irregularity affects the whole performance, making the presumption unavailable." 124
The quantum of proof required in criminal cases is proof beyond reasonable doubt. 125 If the prosecution's proof falls below this standard, the acquittal of accused-appellant is warranted. "The constitutional presumption of innocence requires the courts to take a more than casual consideration of every circumstance or doubt favoring the innocence of the accused. 126 If there is doubt, that doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused in order to give flesh and bones to this constitutionally-protected right." 127 The Constitutional precept of presumption of innocence must prevail when there is reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, even if his innocence may not have been established. 128
In view of the foregoing discussion, although the elements of Illegal Possession of Explosives were present, the glaring lapses of the police officers jeopardized the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated item. The sloppy police work cannot possibly lead to a conviction. The prosecution did not establish Guman's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Since the chain of custody was broken that resulted in the questionable integrity and evidentiary value of the seized grenade, the Court is also constrained to reverse the conviction of accused-appellant Guman for Illegal Possession of Explosives based on reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, the partial appeal is GRANTED. The assailed February 1, 2019 Decision rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01643-MIN, insofar as accused-appellant Parok Guman's conviction for Section 1, second paragraph of Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended by Republic Act Nos. 8294 and 9516 is concerned, is REVERSED andSET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Parok Guman is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless he is confined for any other lawful cause.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director General, Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. Furthermore, the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to report to this Court the action he has taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED." (S.A.J. Perlas Bernabe, on official leave; J. Hernando, Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2855 dated November 10, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 32-33.
2.Id. at 4-31. Penned by Associate Justice Loida S. Posadas-Kahulugan and concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo A. Camello and Tita Marilyn Payoyo-Villordon.
3. CA rollo, pp. 32-51. Penned by Presiding Judge Laureano T. Alzate.
4. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Approved January 23, 2002.
5. PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1866, as amended by REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8294 AND REPUBLIC ACT 9516.
6. "CODIFYING THE LAWS ON ILLEGAL/UNLAWFUL POSSESSION, MANUFACTURE, DEALING IN ACQUISITION OR DISPOSITION, OF FIREARMS, AMMUNITION OR EXPLOSIVES OR INSTRUMENTS USED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF FIREARMS, AMMUNITION OR EXPLOSIVES, AND IMPOSING STIFFER PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN VIOLATIONS THEREOF AND FOR RELEVANT PURPOSES." Approved June 29, 1983.
7. AN ACT AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1866, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "CODIFYING THE LAWS ON ILLEGAL/UNLAWFUL POSSESSION, MANUFACTURE, DEALING IN, ACQUISITION OR DISPOSITION OF FIREARMS, AMMUNITION OR EXPLOSIVES OR INSTRUMENTS USED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF FIREARMS, AMMUNITION OR EXPLOSIVES, AND IMPOSING STIFFER PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN VIOLATIONS THEREOF, AND FOR RELEVANT PURPOSES." Approved June 6, 1997.
8. AN ACT FURTHER AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1866, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "CODIFYING THE LAWS ON ILLEGAL/UNLAWFUL POSSESSION, MANUFACTURE, DEALING IN, ACQUISITION OR DISPOSITION OF FIREARMS, AMMUNITION OR EXPLOSIVES OR INSTRUMENTS USED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF FIREARMS, AMMUNITION OR EXPLOSIVES, AND IMPOSING STIFFER PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN VIOLATIONS THEREOF, AND FOR OTHER RELEVANT PURPOSES." Approved December 22, 2008.
9.Rollo, p. 6.
10. CA rollo, p. 16; records, pp. 6, 9. According to the Affidavit of Apprehension accomplished by SPO1 Clarete and SPO1 Laoagan, they coordinated with PDEA, Cotabato Province evidenced by Pre-Operation No. 12-NC-032510-035 dated March 25, 2010, 1805H.
11. CA rollo, p. 16; records, p. 6.
12. Records, p. 7.
13.Rollo, p. 6.
14.Id.
15.Id. at 6-7.
16.Id. at 7.
17. Records, p. 8.
18. Received by the Provincial Crime Laboratory of Kidapawan City, Cotabato on March 26, 2010, 1700H; delivered by PO2 Lagutang and received by SPO1 Abril.
19. Either PO2 or PO3 according to the records.
20. Folder of Exhibits, Exhibit "D."
21.Rollo, p. 9.
22.Id.; TSN, July 27, 2011, pp. 4-5.
23. Folder of Exhibits, Exhibit "G;" issued by Police Senior Superintendent Alexander C. Ignacio, Chief of the Explosives Management Branch.
24. TSN, August 26, 2010, pp. 4-19.
25.Id. at 18-20.
26.Id. at 22.
27. TSN, May 22, 2012, pp. 4-6.
28.Id. at 6.
29. TSN, August 26, 2010, p. 28.
30. TSN, March 29, 2011, pp. 3-4.
31. Records, p. 6.
32.Id. at 51.
33. TSN, March 29, 2011, pp. 10-11.
34. TSN, May 10, 2011, p. 4.
35.Id. at 9-10.
36.Id. at 10.
37. TSN, October 20, 2011, pp. 4-5.
38.Id. at 5.
39.Id. at 7.
40.Id. at 8-9, 11 and 12.
41.Id. at 8.
42.Id. at 6.
43.Rollo, p. 9; TSN, January 26, 2012, pp. 3-6.
44. TSN, January 26, 2012, pp. 6-7.
45.Rollo, pp. 11-12; TSN, June 26, 2014, pp. 3-11, 13-15; October 6, 2015, p. 3.
46. TSN, June 26, 2014, p. 12.
47. TSN, October 6, 2015, p. 4.
48.Id. at 4-5.
49.Id. at 5-6.
50. TSN, June 5, 2013, p. 4.
51.Id. at 5-6.
52.Id. at 7-8.
53.Id. at 12.
54.Id. at 13.
55.Id. at 17.
56.Id. at 19.
57.Id. at 20.
58.Id. at 21.
59. TSN, August 28, 2013, p. 10.
60.Id. at 5.
61.Id. at 5-6.
62.Id. at 9.
63.Id. at 10.
64.Id. at 11.
65.Id. at 14-15.
66.Id. at 15.
67. Records, p. 3.
68.Id. at 4.
69.Id. at 19.
70.Id. at 36.
71. CA rollo, pp. 32-51.
72.Id. at 38.
73.Id. at 46-47.
74.Id. at 48-49.
75.Id. at 48.
76.Id. at 50-51.
77.Id. at 8-9.
78.Id. at 14.
79.Id. at 18.
80.Id. at 19-20.
81.Id. at 20-21.
82.Id. at 21.
83.Id. at 23.
84.Id. at 26.
85. PCI Cornelio did not confirm that he also received the sachets of shabu.
86. CA rollo, p. 24.
87.Id. at 25-26.
88.Id. at 27-28.
89.Id. at 27.
90.Id. at 78-79.
91.Id. at 79-80.
92.Id. at 81.
93.Id. at 85.
94.Id. at 84.
95.Id. at 85.
96.Rollo, pp. 4-31.
97.Id. at 17.
98.Id. at 20-23.
99.Id. at 25.
100.Id.
101.Id. at 26-27.
102.Id. at 27-28.
103.Id. at 28.
104.Id. at 29.
105.Id. at 30.
106.Id. at 32-33, 35.
107.Id. at 50.
108.Id. at 52.
109.Id.
110.Id.
111.Id. at 53.
112.Id.
113.Id. at 54.
114.Id.
115.People v. Solomon, G.R. No. 246579 (Notice), February 19, 2020, citing Veridiano v. People, 810 Phil. 642, 654 (2017).
116.Id., citing Padilla v. Court of Appeals, 336 Phil. 383, 400-401 (1997).
117.People v. Olarte, G.R. No. 233209, March 11, 2019, citing Comerciante v. People, 764 Phil. 627, 633-634 (2015).
118.People v. Solomon, supra.
119.Id.
120.People v. Velasco, G.R. No. 231787, August 19, 2019.
121.Id., citing People v. Punzalan, 773 Phil. 72, 90-91 (2015).
122.Id., citing People v. Bansil, 364 Phil. 22, 32 (1999).
123.Id.
124.People v. Jatulan, G.R. No. 240754 (Notice), January 12, 2021, citing People v. Madria, G.R. No. 233207, August 20, 2018.
125. RULES OF COURT, Rule 133 § 2.
126.Tan v. People, G.R. No. 232611 (Resolution), April 26, 2021, citing People v. Abdula, G.R. No. 212192, November 21, 2018.
127.Id.
128.People v. Velasco, supra note 120, citing Mendoza v. People, G.R. No. 234196, November 21, 2018.