People v. Hechanova y Villanueva

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 251628. June 21, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. GODOFREDO HECHANOVA y VILLANUEVA, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 21 June 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 251628 (People of the Philippines v. Godofredo Hechanova y Villanueva). — Before the Court is an ordinary appeal 1 filed by Godofredo Hechanova y Villanueva (Hechanova) assailing the Decision 2 dated October 8, 2019 of the Court of Appeals — Cagayan de Oro City (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01923-MIN. The CA Decision affirmed the Judgment 3 dated February 06, 2018 of the Regional Trial Court of Tangub City, Branch 16 (RTC) convicting Hechanova of the crimes of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, as defined and penalized under Sections 5 and 11, respectively, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165, as amended, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."

ANTECEDENTS

Hechanova was charged with the crimes of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under two separate Informations dated November 3, 2015:

[Crim. Case No. TC-2015-155]

That on or about 1st day of November, 2015 at about 5:30 o'clock in the afternoon, more or less, in the barangay Digson, municipality of Bonifacio, province of Misamis Occidental, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without permit or license from the appropriate government agency, did then and there knowingly, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously engage in illegal sale of two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, locally known as shabu, a dangerous drug with a total net weight of 0.0384 gram; (thereafter marked as LM-01 and LM-02); and two(2) rolled strips of aluminum foil (thereafter marked as LM-03 and LM-04) and hand over/deliver the aforementioned sachets of shabu and aluminum foils to police agent acting as poseur buyer for/in exchange of P300.00 consisting of three (3) P100.00 bills with serial numbers ZD627244, LJ269440[,] and DR737321.

CONTRARY TO LAW. (Emphases in the original.)

[Crim. Case No. TC-2015-156]

That on or about 1st day of November, 2015 at about 5:30 o'clock in the afternoon, more or less, in barangay Digson, municipality of Bonifacio, province of Misamis Occidental, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without permit or license from the appropriate government agency, did then and there knowingly, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and control: six (6) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, locally known as shabu, a dangerous drug with a total net weight of 0.1158 gram (thereafter marked as LM-05 through LM-010); six (6) rolled strips of aluminum foil (thereafter marked as LM-11 through LM-16) placed inside one (1) green/maroon coin purse (thereafter marked as LM17).

CONTRARY TO LAW. 4 (Emphases in the original; citation omitted.)

Arraigned, Hechanova pleaded not guilty. Pre-trial and trial ensued.

The prosecution, through its witnesses, established that Police Chief Inspector Lester Ceriales (PCI Ceriales) of the Philippine National Police Bonifacio Municipal Police Station, Misamis Occidental, received confidential information about Hechanova's rampant selling of drugs in Barangay Digson, Bonifacio, Misamis Occidental. 5 PCI Ceriales then called a briefing and instructed PO2 Joseph Lumayag (PO2 Lumayag) and PO1 Jay C. Magallanes (PO1 Magallanes) to conduct surveillance on Hechanova. 6

On November 1, 2015, at around 5:00 p.m., the police operatives planned the buy-bust operation against Hechanova. PO2 Lumayag was designated as the poseur-buyer and was given three (3) One Hundred Peso bills as buy-bust money. PO1 Magallanes was tasked to accompany him while the rest of the police officers were on the backup team. 7

Afterward, the buy-bust team went to Hechanova's house at Barangay Digson. PO2 Lumayag and PO1 Magallanes rode a motorcycle while the rest boarded a patrol car. When they arrived at Hechanova's house, PO2 Lumayag and PO1 Magallanes, clad in civilian clothes, called out Hechanova's name. When Hechanova approached them, PO2 Lumayag inquired whether he could purchase drugs and handed the P300.00 buy-bust money to him. In exchange, Hechanova gave him two (2) sachets of white crystalline substance and two (2) strips of aluminum foil. 8 Immediately thereafter, PO2 Lumayag and PO1 Magallanes informed Hechanova that they were police officers. They then arrested Hechanova and informed him of his constitutional rights. Subsequently, PO2 Lumayag frisked Hechanova and recovered from him the P300.00 buy-bust money, and a green and maroon-colored coin purse in his right and left pockets, respectively. 9 Upon opening the coin purse, they found six (6) sachets of suspected shabu and six (6) rolled strips of aluminum foil. 10

At the crime scene, PO2 Lumayag marked the two (2) sachets subject of the buy-bust operation using the initials "LM-01" and "LM-02," and the two strips of aluminum foil with "LM-03" and "LM-04" which stand for "Lumayag" and "Magallanes." 11 He also marked the 6 sachets of suspected shabu with "LM-05," "LM-06," "LM-07," "LM-08," "LM-09," and "LM-10." 12 Finally, he marked the (6) rolled strips of aluminum foil with "LM-11" to "LM-16" while the coin purse was marked with "LM-17." 13 PO2 Lumayag then prepared a Confiscation Receipt in the presence of Hechanova and Barangay Chairperson Emmanuel Cuizon, Barangay Kagawad Samson B. Chu, and media representative Miguel Origenes. 14 A picture of the seized items was also taken. 15

Afterward, Hechanova and the seized items were brought to the Bonifacio Police Station. PO2 Lumayag turned over the seized items to SPO2 Ferdinand Rodrigo who prepared the Affidavits and Laboratory Request. However, PO2 Lumayag placed the seized items inside a locker in the Bonifacio Police Station. 16 He kept custody of the seized items until he and PO1 Magallanes brought the items to Police Superintendent Aileen U. Bernido (P/Supt. Bernido) at the Provincial Crime Laboratory for Examination. 17

On November 2, 2015, P/Supt. Bernido received the items. 18 She conducted a qualitative examination and issued Chemistry Report No. D-303-2015MO with the following results: the two (2) sachets subject of the buy-bust operation marked as "LM-01" and "LM-02" with a total net weight of 0.0384 gram, gave positive results for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu; while the six (6) sachets also yielded positive for the presence of shabu. However, the strips of aluminum foil were found to be negative for the presence of shabu. 19

Subsequently, P/Supt. Bernido turned over the specimens to a certain Rose Gumicad in the Prosecution's Office. 20 P/Supt. Bernido testified that she was requested to submit the reports and specimens in advance to the prosecutor's office as she was unavailable on the scheduled date of hearing and that the specimens were to be identified by another witness. 21 P/Supt. Bernido identified the envelope she marked with her initials and "D-303-2015MO" as the same envelope containing the pieces of shabu she examined and submitted to the prosecutor's office. 22

On the other hand, Hechanova argued that he was framed-up. He claimed that at about 5:30 p.m. of November 1, 2015, he was sitting on the swing in the house of Mary Ann Barazon's (Barazon) sister at Purok 5, Barangay Digson, Bonifacio, when the police operatives arrived. Barazon, Hechanova's live-in partner, testified that she was beside Hechanova on the swing when the police authorities suddenly rushed in and handcuffed five (5) persons including Hechanova. Hechanova was ordered to drop on the ground while the police went inside the house. Afterward, the police ordered Hechanova to go to the kitchen to be interrogated. 23 Subsequently, Hechanova boarded the patrol car. 24 On the other hand, Sitti Aisha B. Tarungan, Hechanova's stepdaughter, was also called to testify. She narrated that she was inside the house and about two (2) meters from Hechanova when the Chief of Police approached Hechanova and placed his hand on his shoulder while the rest of the officers raided their house. They frisked and handcuffed Hechanova without finding any item. They brought the handcuffed Hechanova to the kitchen and was subsequently brought to the patrol car. 25

In its Decision dated February 6, 2018, the RTC convicted Hechanova of both crimes, to wit:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

a. CRIMINAL CASE NO. TC-2015-155

Finding accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt, as principal, of the crime of Violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as "The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," accused Godofredo Hechanova [y] Villanueva is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT, to pay a fine in the amount of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00), to suffer all the accessory penalties provided for by law and to pay the cost.

Pursuant to Section 21, no. (7) of Republic Act [sic] No. 9165, the subject two heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substances are hereby ordered turned over to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper disposition and destruction within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt of the same.

b. CRIMINAL CASE NO. TC-2015-156

Finding accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the crime of Illegal Possession of 0.1158 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug, defined and penalized under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as "The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," without any attendant mitigating or aggravating circumstance and applying the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, accused Godofredo Hechanova [y] Villanueva is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of indeterminate imprisonment which ranges from FOURTEEN (14) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY to SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS and FOUR (4) MONTHS, to pay a fine of THREE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P350,000.00) to suffer all the accessory penalties provided for by law and to pay the costs.

Pursuant to Section 21, no. (7) of Republic Act [sic] No. 9165, the subject six (6) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets, containing white crystalline substances, are hereby ordered turned over to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper disposition and destruction within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt of the same.

SO ORDERED. 26 (Emphases in the original.)

On appeal, the CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC. It noted that the testimonial and documentary evidence of the prosecution showed that the police officers properly preserved the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs and ruled as follows:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated 06 February 2018 of the Regional Trial Court, 10th Judicial Region, Branch 16, Tangub City, in Criminal Cases No. TC-2015-155 and No. TC-2015-156 is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED. 27

Hence, this appeal. Hechanova reiterates his arguments that the prosecution presented only one photograph of the alleged seized drugs; that there were no photos showing that the markings and inventory were done in the presence of the required witnesses; 28 that from PO1 Magallanes' testimony, the witnesses arrived only after the marking and inventory and were only made to sign the document; 29 that the evidence custodian was not called to testify; 30 that prior to its presentation in court, the drugs were temporarily handed over by the forensic chemist to a certain Rose Vivian Gumicad of the prosecution's office. 31

RULING

The appeal is meritorious.

Well-settled is the rule that an appeal opens the entire case for review and empowers the court to examine records, revise the judgment appealed from and impose the proper penalty. 32

For a successful prosecution for the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA No. 9165, the following must be proven: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. On the other hand, the elements of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11, Article II of RA No. 9165 are: (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. 33

Verily, in both sale and possession of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt that the corpus delicti, which is the dangerous drug itself, is the same object tested to be positive for dangerous drugs and presented in court. 34

In this case, the alleged illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs occurred as a result of the buy-bust operation conducted on November 1, 2015. Hence, RA No. 10640 35 applies:

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, conduct a physically inventory of the seized items 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 the 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. (Citation omitted.)

This is implemented by Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) 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[.]

Notably, these provisions embody the chain of custody rule. The prosecution must establish these four links: (1) the confiscation and marking of the specimen seized from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the turnover of the seized item by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) the investigating officer's turnover of the specimen to the forensic chemist for examination; and, (4) the submission of the item by the forensic chemist to the court. 36 Here, the records reveal a broken chain of custody.

The prosecution failed to establish the first link with certainty. The first link includes compliance with the marking, inventory, and photograph of the seized dangerous drugs in accordance with the law. 37 Here, there is doubt whether the police officers took photograph/s in the presence of the accused or his representative and the insulating witnesses. The prosecution offered in evidence a picture showing the alleged seized drugs 38 but the same was unauthenticated. In fact, the identity of the person who took the picture was not confirmed and neither PO2 Lumayag nor PO1 Magallanes testified that one of them took the picture. 39 Likewise, no additional photograph/s were offered in evidence showing that the marking and inventory were done in the presence of the accused and the required witnesses. 40 Yet, the prosecution offered no justification on the matter. It also failed to rebut or proffer any explanation regarding the procedural lapses.

The non-compliance with the taking of photographs in accordance with the requirements of the law is fatal to the prosecution's case. There is no way to ascertain that the marking and inventory were indeed conducted in the presence of Hechanova and the required witnesses. In People v. Macud, 41 the Court reiterated the duty of the apprehending team to physically inventory and photograph the dangerous drugs in the presence of the accused and the required witnesses. In People v. Pagaduan42 the Court acquitted the accused because no physical inventory and photograph of the seized items were taken in the presence of the accused or his counsel. Too, in People v. Garcia43 no photograph of the seized items was taken under the circumstances required by R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rules, so the accused was acquitted.

Moreover, we find that the fourth link was not sufficiently established. The last link involves the submission of the seized drugs by the forensic chemist to the court. 44 The forensic chemist should personally testify on the safekeeping of the drugs, or the stipulations made in lieu of the forensic chemist's testimony must state the precautions taken in safekeeping the seized items to preserve their integrity and evidentiary value until its submission to the court. 45

In this case, P/Supt. Bernido, the forensic chemist, testified that she turned over the drugs to a certain "Rose Vivian Gumicad" of the prosecution's office. P/Supt. Bernido explained that she was requested to submit the specimens and reports in advance to the Prosecutor's Office as she was unavailable on the scheduled date of hearing, and the specimens were to be identified by another witness. 46 The CA found this explanation acceptable because P/Supt. Bernido identified the envelope she marked with her initials as the same envelope where she placed the subject sachets of shabu and submitted to the Prosecution's Office. 47

We disagree with the CA.

In People v. De Guzman, 48 the Court emphatically ruled that the "City Prosecutor's Office is not, nor has it ever been, a part of the chain of custody of seized dangerous drugs. It has absolutely no business in taking custody of dangerous drugs before they are brought before the court." In People v. Suarez, 49 the Court acquitted the accused due to the lack of information as to the handling and safe-keeping of the said items from the time they were received by a certain Ligaya Lopez, the receiving clerk in the City Prosecutor's Office, up to the time they were presented in court.

Similarly, in this case, the chain of custody had been clearly broken due to the lack of testimony as to how the seized items were handled from the time the forensic chemist turned over the seized evidence to a certain "Rose Vivian Gumicad" until they were submitted in court. Notably, "Rose Vivian Gumicad" was neither identified nor her business or position in the prosecution's office ascertained. The prosecution could have presented her in court but they did not do so. In fact, even before the submission to the prosecutor's office, there was a dearth of evidence on how P/Supt. Bernido preserved the items after conducting the qualitative examination, i.e., whether she marked the items with her own initials or she personally deposited the drugs in the evidence room, or she turned them over to the crime laboratory's evidence custodian who was not also presented in court. These put into serious doubt the integrity of the items seized.

In People v. Obmiranis, 50 the Court acquitted the appellant due to flaws in the conduct of the post-seizure custody of the dangerous drugs and the failure of the key persons to testify on the whereabouts of the exhibit before it was offered in evidence in court. The same situation obtains here.

While the law enforcers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties, this presumption is merely disputable and cannot prevail over the constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent. 51 Consequently, when the performance of duty is tainted with irregularities, such presumption is effectively destroyed. 52 Considering the prosecution's failure to prove an unbroken chain of custody, Hechanova must be acquitted.

FOR THESE REASONS, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated October 8, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01923-MIN, affirming the conviction of accused-appellant Godofredo Hechanova y Villanueva of the offenses in Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended, is REVERSED.

Accused-appellant Godofredo Hechanova y Villanueva is ACQUITTED of the offenses charged and is ordered immediately RELEASED from custody unless he is being held for some other lawful cause.

The Superintendent of San Ramon Prison and Penal Farm, Zamboanga City is ORDERED to implement this Resolution and to inform this Court of the date of the actual release from confinement of the accused within five (5) days from receipt of copy of this Resolution.

SO ORDERED." (Lopez, J. Y., J., designated additional member per Special Order No. 2822 dated April 7, 2021.)

By authority of the Court:

TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court

By:

(SGD.) MA. CONSOLACION GAMINDE-CRUZADADeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 36-37.

2.Id. at p. 4-35. Penned by Associate Justice Lily V. Biton, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Evalyn M. Arellano-Morales and Florencio M. Mamauag, Jr.

3. CA rollo, pp. 56-78. Penned by Presiding Judge Sylvia A. Singidas-Machacon.

4.Rollo, pp. 5-6.

5.Id. at 6.

6.Id. at 6-7.

7.Id. at 7.

8.Id.

9.Id.

10.Id. at 8.

11.Id.

12.Id.

13.Id.

14.Id.

15.Id.

16. CA rollo, p. 60.

17.Id. at 60.

18.Id. at 62.

19.Rollo, p. 9.

20.Id. at 29.

21.Id.

22.Id.

23. CA rollo, p. 63.

24.Id. at 10.

25. CA rollo, p. 64.

26. CA rollo, pp. 76-78.

27.Rollo, p. 34.

28. CA rollo, p. 47.

29.Id. at 50.

30.Id. at 51.

31.Id.

32.People v. Comboy, 782 Phil. 187, 196 (2016).

33.People v. De Dios, G.R. No. 243664, January 22, 2020.

34.People v. Quijano, G.R. No. 247558, February 19, 2020; People v. Que, 824 Phil. 882, 893 (2018), citing People v. Morales, 630 Phil. 215, 228 (2010); People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 29 (2017).

35. Entitled "AN ACT TO FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE ANTI-DRUG CAMPAIGN OF THE GOVERNMENT, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE SECTION 21 OF [RA] 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, RA No. 10640 became effective on August 7, 2014.

36.People v. Bugtong, 826 Phil. 628, 638-639 (2018).

37.People v. Omamos, G.R. No. 223036, July 10, 2019.

38.Rollo, p. 8.

39. CA rollo, p. 49.

40.Id. at 48.

41. 822 Phil. 1016, 1031 (2017).

42. 641 Phil. 432, 443 (2010).

43. 599 Phil. 416, 428 (2009).

44.People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 237 (2015).

45.People v. Cabuhay, 836 Phil. 903, 918 (2018), citing People v. Pajarin, 654 Phil. 461, 466 (2011).

46.Rollo, p. 29.

47.Id. at 29.

48. 825 Phil. 43, 60 (2018).

49. 832 Phil. 799, 793 (2018).

50.People v. Obmiranis, 594 Phil. 561, 577 (2008).

51.People v. Cañete, 433 Phil. 781, 794 (2002); and Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 593 (2008).

52.People v. Dela Cruz, 589 Phil. 259, 272 (2008).