People v. Hermosura y De Guzman

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 252552. June 23, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.RICHARD HERMOSURA y DE GUZMAN ALIAS "PEDRO", accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 23, 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 252552 (People of the Philippines v. Richard Hermosura y De Guzman alias "Pedro"). — The case stemmed from two Informations filed against Richard Hermosura y De Guzman (accused-appellant) charging him with violation of Sections 5 and 15 of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," the accusatory portion thereof reads:

Criminal Case No. 3650-C

That on or about the 14th day of December 2015, in the Municipality of Sta. Lucia, Province of Ilocos Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously sell and deliver to PO1 Louis Valdez, who acted as poseur-buyer, one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or "shabu," weighing zero point one two two nine (0.1229) gram which was subsequently marked as LV-1-12-14-15, knowing it to be a dangerous drug, without authority of law to sell, in violation of the above cited provision of law.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 1

Criminal Case No. 3651-C

That on or about the 14th day of December 2015, in the Municipality of Sta. Lucia, Province of Ilocos Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being lawfully authorized to prepare, administer or otherwise use any prohibited drug, and having been arrested and found positive for use of Methamphetamine and THC-metabolites after a confirmatory test, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and knowingly consume, administer, ingest, or induce into his body Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or "shabu," a dangerous drug, in violation of the said law.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 2

When arraigned, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges. Thereafter, trial ensued. 3

According to the prosecution, around 6:00 p.m., a confidential·informant (CI) went to the PNP Station at Sta. Lucia, Ilocos Sur where PO1 Sander Claveria (PO1 Claveria) and PO1 Louis Valdez (PO1 Valdez) were on duty. The CI tipped them of the drug peddling activities of a certain Pedro who was later known to be accused-appellant. Upon receipt of the information, PO1 Valdez immediately informed their Officer-in-Charge Police Superintendent Ramil R. Mendioro (PSI Mendioro) who formed a buy-bust team. 4

A briefing was conducted with the members of the team wherein PO1 Valdez was designated as the poseur-buyer, PO1·Claveria as the immediate back up and the others as perimeter security. It was also agreed that PO1 Valdez will scratch the back of his head as a signal that the sale has been consummated. He was handed a genuine P500.00-bill, which he marked with his initials "LV" at the BSP logo to serve as the buy-bust money. 5

Thereafter, the team proceeded to the target area. PO1 Valdez was with the CI on board a single motorcycle while the rest of the team boarded a four-wheel vehicle. The CI and accused-appellant, through text messages, agreed to meet at the back of Sta. Lucia Academy in Barangay Barangobong, Sta. Lucia, Ilocos Sur. Upon arriving thereat, PO1 Valdez and the CI approached accused-appellant who was already standing at the target area while the other team members positioned themselves 300 meters away from them. 6

The CI immediately spoke in Ilocano language saying "balor man ti lima gasut brod" (worth 500 only brod). Then, accused-appellant took out a small matchbox, opened it and handed to PO1 Valdez a one piece heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance from the matchbox while PO1 Valdez simultaneously gave to accused-appellant the P500.00-bill. After the transaction, PO1 Valdez scratched the back of his head as a pre-arranged signal to his colleagues that the sale has been consummated. Thereafter, the team members immediately ran to the target area. Upon seeing the police, accused-appellant tried to run and escape but he was captured by PO1 Claveria. The apprehending officers were able to confiscate from him the P500.00-bill and the empty matchbox. 7

The police officers took photographs of the evidence at the scene however, due to the darkness in the area, they decided to continue the marking and inventory of the seized evidence at the police station which was just one kilometer away from the place of apprehension. PO1 Valdez turned over the seized evidence to the investigator, SPO2 Jenson Refuerzo (SPO2 Refuerzo). Upon arriving at the station, SPO2 Refuerzo returned the seized evidence to PO1 Valdez for marking and inventory. PO1 Valdez marked the heat-sealed plastic sachet with "LV-1-12-14-15" and his signature. The marking and inventory was witnessed by Barangay Captain Love Joy Stephen Lazo (Brgy. Capt. Lazo) and media representative Haidee Frances N. Reotutar (Reotutar) as evidenced by the Certificate of Inventory. 8

Thereafter, PO1 Valdez brought the evidence to the PNP Crime Laboratory at Bulag, Bantay, Ilocos Sur which was received by PO3 Lerwin G. Quitevis (PO3 Quitevis) who in turn, gave it to Police Senior Inspector Roanaline B. Baligod (PSI Baligod) for examination. Likewise, a urine sample was collected from accused-appellant which was also submitted for examination. 9

PSI Baligod issued Chemistry Report No. D-286-2015-IS 10 finding that the specimen containing 0.1229 gram of white crystalline substance submitted to her for examination yielded positive for the presence of methamphethamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. She also issued Chemistry Report No. DT-141-2015-IS 11 finding that the urine sample of accused-appellant yielded positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride but negative for the presence of THC-metabolites, after conducting screening and confirmatory tests.

The prosecution presented in court PO1 Valdez who narrated the events during the buy-bust operation and the procedures taken after seizue of the illegal drug. 12 The testimony of the forensic chemist, PSI Baligod, was dispensed with after the parties stipulated the existence and due execution of Chemistry Report No. DT-141-2015-IS and No. D-286-2015-IS, that the evidence marked with "LV-1-12-14-15" was received by PO3 Quitevis, that PSI Baligod examined the evidence marked with "LV-1-12-14-15," and that accused-appellant was subjected to a urine drug test. Likewise, the testimony of the investigator, SPO2 Refuerzo, was dispensed with after the parties stipulated the existence and due execution of the police blotter and pictures taken during the marking and inventory, that SPO2 Refuerzo was the one who prepared the police blotter and the one who took the abovementioned pictures, and that he was the one who called the elected public official and media representative. Lastly, PO3 Rodel Marzan's (PO3 Marzan) testimony was dispensed with after the parties stipulated that he did not have any participation during the buy-bust operation but he was present during the briefing and after the buy-bust. 13

On the other hand, the defense presented accused-appellant as its lone witness. According to accused-appellant, he was at home cooking dinner on the night of December 14, 2015 as it was his birthday. His friend, Sancho Jueco (Jueco), came by his house and invited him out to drink to which he agreed. They went out aboard Jueco's motorcycle and stopped by near Sta. Lucia Academy where they will meet another friend of Jueco. Accused-appellant was waiting on the motorcycle while Jueco was on the phone calling someone. Suddenly, a four-wheel vehicle stopped in front of them and several men alighted therefrom including PO1 Valdez and PO3 Marzan. They handcuffed accused-appellant and when he asked what his fault was, he was told that he was selling shabu. He denied the accusations against him but they did not listen to him. Then, barangay officials arrived at the scene and pictures were taken. Accused-appellant avers that PO1 Valdez planted the plastic sachet and empty matchbox because these items were not his. PO1 Valdez put these items on the road and took pictures of it. 14

Thereafter, he was brought to the police station where he was interviewed asking him about the alleged shabu seized from him which he vehemently denies. He was then brought to Bulag where his urine sample was taken and he was asked to sign something. 15

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

In a Decision 16 dated October 25, 2017, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 15 of R.A. 9165, the dispositive portion thereof reads:

WHEREFORE, accused Richard Hermosura y De Guzman is CONVICTED for violation of Section 5 (paragraph 1) of Article II of Republic Act 9165 and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Life Imprisonment and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) Pesos and to undergo rehabilitation for six (6) months minimum to one (1) year maximum in a government center for violating Section 15 of Article II of the same law.

The dangerous drug subject matter of Crim. Case No. 3650-C for violation of Sec. 5 of R.A. No. 9165 is ordered confiscated and forfeited in favour of the government to be disposed in accordance with the provisions of Section 21 of the same Act.

With costs de oficio.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 (Emphasis and italics in the original)

The RTC found that the narration of the transaction and arrest made by PO1 Valdez was candid and straightforward. His testimony was able to establish the elements of the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The RTC ruled that testimonies of prosecution witnesses are generally given weight and credence, particularly that of police officers, because they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner unless there is evidence to the contrary. In this case, the RTC found that there were no irregularities in the buy-bust operation. Likewise, it ruled that bare denials of accused-appellant cannot prevail over the positive identification made by the prosecution witnesses. 18

Moreover, the chain of custody was duly established. The prosecution evidence showed that the seized drug was initially with PO1 Valdez who turned it over to the investigator and then returned to him at the police station for marking and inventory. Thereafter, PO1 Valdez personally turned over the same item to the PNP Crime Laboratory. The seized evidence was then examined by PSI Baligod as evidenced by the Chemistry Report No. D-286-2015-IS. Likewise, the parties stipulated that the substance presented before the court was the same substance submitted in the crime laboratory for examination. Thus, there were no gaps in the chain of custody. 19

Lastly, the RTC convicted accused-appellant guilty of violating Section 15 of R.A. 9165 for having been found positive for Methamphetamine after a confirmatory test conducted. The taking of his urine sample was found to be proper and not a fruit of the poisonous tree since his warrantless arrest was valid. 20

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

In a Decision 21 dated June 20, 2019, the CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC convicting accused-appellant, viz.:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated 25 October 2017 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, Candon City, Ilocos Sur is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.22 (Emphasis in the original)

The CA ruled that accused-appellant's arguments, that it was the CI who arranged the transaction but such person was not presented as a witness and that there was no negotiation with respect to the object and consideration of the sale, do not and cannot absolve him of his criminal culpability. The CA concluded that the prosecution was able to prove the consummation of the selling transaction, the element required to secure a conviction under Section 5 of R.A. 9165. 23

Further, the prosecution duly established that the illegal drug seized from accused-appellant during the buy-bust operation was the very same illegal drug presented in court. The four links in the chain of custody was sufficiently accounted for by the prosecution. The CA considered as a justifiable ground the explanation provided by the apprehending officers that the area was getting dark that is why they had to transfer to the police station for the marking and inventory. Moreover, it did not give credence to accused-appellant's defense of denial and frame-up for his failure to support it with strong and convincing evidence. 24

With respect to his conviction for violation of Section 15 of R.A. 9165, the CA sustained it ruling that all the elements of the said crime have been proven beyond reasonable doubt. The CA ruled that the practice of collecting urine samples from persons charged of a drug offense is not self-incriminating. In this case, accused-appellant was lawfully arrested without warrant because he was caught in flagrante delicto. He was then subjected to a drug test, and the result of which turned out to be positive. 25

Aggrieved, accused-appellant filed an appeal. 26

In a Manifestation (in Lieu of Supplemental Brief) 27 dated December 15, 2020, the People, through the Office of the Solicitor General, manifested that it will no longer file a supplemental brief having thoroughly discussed its arguments in the Appellee's Brief 28 dated March 12, 2019. Likewise, in a Manifestation (in Lieu of Supplemental Brief) 29 dated October 22, 2020, accused-appellant, through the Public Attorney's Office, manifested that he will no longer file a supplemental brief and adopts the arguments raised in its Appellant's Brief 30 dated November 9, 2018.

Accused-appellant argues that the testimony of PO1 Valdez with respect to the agreement on the object and consideration of the sale was purely hearsay. If their version of story is true, PO1 Valdez did not know the negotiation between the CI and accused-appellant since the prosecution did not present the testimony of the CI or the cellular phone containing the text messages between them. Further, PO1 Valdez's testimony was not corroborated by any other prosecution witnesses. 31

Further, the chain of custody was not duly established by the prosecution. The seized illegal drug was not marked from the time of seizure until it was brought to the police station. SPO2 Refuerzo, who had initial custody of the confiscated item, was not presented to testify on the manner of handling the evidence. Likewise, the deviation from the procedure laid out in Section 21 of R.A. 9165 that the marking, inventory and photograph taking of the seized evidence must be done immediately upon seizure was not excused by a justifiable ground. The witnesses to the inventory were also not presented in court to show that indeed, there was no planting or fabrication of evidence. 32

Lastly, accused-appellant argues that he cannot be convicted of Section 15 of R.A. 9165 because he was not caught in flagrante delicto of using any illegal drug. His urine examination result is a fruit of the poisonous tree as it was obtained by virtue of his illegal warrantless arrest. The presumption of regularity of the performance of official duties raised by the prosecution cannot prevail over his constitutional presumption of innocence. 33

Issue

The issue in this case is whether accused-appellant has been proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 15 of R.A. 9165.

Ruling of the Court

The appeal is meritorious.

Prefatorily, it has been jurisprudentially established that in criminal cases, an appeal throws the entire case wide open for review and the reviewing tribunal can correct errors, though unassigned in the appealed judgment, or even reverse the trial court's decision based on grounds other than those that the parties raised as errors. 34

To be convicted of Section 5 of R.A. 9165, the following elements must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, to wit: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and its consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is important is that the sale transaction of drugs actually took place and that the object of the transaction is properly presented as evidence in court and is shown to be the same drugs seized from the accused. 35

Section 21 (1), Article II of R.A. 9165, as amended by R.A. 10640, outlines the procedure in seizure, custody, and handling of the seized illegal drugs the arresting officers must follow in conducting a buy-bust operation, to wit:

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical 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 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, 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. (Emphasis supplied)

The Court, in People v. Tomawis, 36 summarized the following requirements mandated under Section 21 of R.A. 9165, as amended, to wit:

1. The initial custody requirements must be done immediately after seizure or confiscation;

2. The physical inventory and photographing must be done in the presence of:

a. the accused or his representative or counsel;

b. a representative from the media; [OR]

c. a representative from the DOJ; and

d. any elected public official.

3. The conduct of the physical inventory and photograph shall be done at the:

a. place where the search warrant is served; or

b. at the nearest police station; or

c. nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizure. 37

Jurisprudence has established that a more exacting compliance with the requirements is called for when the amount of the seized narcotics is miniscule. 38 While We recognize that strict compliance thereto may not always be possible, it is of utmost importance that the prosecution explain the reason behind the procedural lapses. We have ruled that for the saving clause under Section 21 to apply, the following elements must be present: (1) the existence of justifiable grounds to allow departure from the rule on strict compliance; and (2) the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team. If these two elements are present, the seizure and custody over the confiscated items shall not be rendered void and invalid.

Upon review of the records, the Court rules that the prosecution failed to comply with the procedures laid out in Section 21 of R.A. 9165, which cast doubt on the identity and integrity of the seized drugs.

To establish the sale of the illegal drugs, the prosecution presented PO1 Valdez, who was the poseur-buyer during the buy-bust operation. He testified during direct examination that the CI told accused-appellant that they were buying drugs. Accused-appellant told them that he has the drugs with him and thereafter, handed a one heat-sealed plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance to PO1 Valdez. He admitted that the CI no longer introduced him to accused-appellant and that they already had an agreement as to the quantity of the drugs to be bought through text messages. However, PO1 Valdez admitted that he did not see these text messages between the CI and accused-appellant. 39

The Court is not convinced with PO1 Valdez's narration of the sale. First, it is highly unlikely that accused-appellant will hand to him the illegal drugs without the former knowing who he is. The CI never introduced PO1 Valdez to accused-appellant. Second, PO1 Valdez did not have personal knowledge with respect to the agreement made between the CI and accused-appellant. If they were preparing the buy-bust operation properly, PO1 Valdez must have apprised himself of the conversation the CI had with accused-appellant, such as the time and place of transaction, quantity of the drugs to be bought, and the manner of consummating the sale which is very crucial information. However, PO1 Valdez merely relied on the CI, which to this Court's mind, is contrary to the proper performance of official duty required of police officers. These instances belie the claim that there was a valid illegal sale of dangerous drugs that occurred between PO1 Valdez and accused-appellant.

Assuming arguendo that there was a valid sale, there were irregularities committed in the conduct of the buy-bust operation and the custody of the seized evidence. In his testimony, PO1 Valdez admitted that the marking and inventory was made at the police station, and not at the place of apprehension because the place was already getting dark. 40 Likewise, he admitted, during cross-examination, that he turned over the evidence to SPO2 Refuerzo at the time of confiscation, without the marking, until it was returned to him at the police station for the marking and inventory. He stated that SPO2 Refuerzo followed the buy-bust team at the target area to conduct the investigation therein. 41 Further, as culled from the records, the prosecution failed to present SPO2 Refuerzo, media representative Reotutar and Brgy. Capt. Lazo to testify before the court on their participation in the marking and inventory of the seized evidence.

These facts establish that the apprehending officers utterly failed to comply with the procedures laid out in Section 21 of R.A. 9165.

Marking of the seized drugs immediately upon seizure and confiscation ensures that there is no planting, switching or changing of the evidence. In this case, there was no immediate marking of the seized illegal drugs. As pointed out by the defense, PO1 Valdez offered contradicting statements with respect to the marking of the evidence. In their Joint-Affidavit, 42 PO1 Valdez stated that he marked the pieces of evidence at the place of arrest. However, during trial, he admitted that the marking and inventory was done at the police station, to wit:

Q When the media representative and the barangay captain were already at the scene, what happened?

A Because it was getting dark at that time they decided that we are going to continue the inventory and marking at the police station, sir.

xxx xxx xxx

Q Upon arrival at the police station, what happened?

A We conducted the picture taking of the items not yet marked, sir.

Q After taking pictures of the items, what happened next?

A I marked them then after that, we took pictures again, sir. 43

There was also improper turnover of evidence when PO1 Valdez handed the confiscated shabu to SPO2 Refuerzo, even without the marking, and then SPO2 Refuerzo returned it to PO1 Valdez at the police station for marking and inventory. Such act is in contravention of the procedure required under the law.

Likewise, PO1 Valdez testified that the witnesses were only called after the arrest of accused-appellant and the seizure of the illegal drug, to wit:

Q After that, what happened next?

A We called a representative from the media and we also called the barangay officials, sir.

Q Who in particular called the media representative and the barangay officials?

A The investigators, who came after us, sir. 44

This is contrary to the Court's pronouncement in Tomawis. 45 In that case, the Court held that the presence of the [three] witnesses must be secured not only during the inventory but more importantly at the time of the warrantless arrest. The Court explained:

It is at this point in which the presence of the two [three] witnesses is most needed, as it is their presence at the time of seizure and confiscation that would belie any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drug. If the buy-bust operation is legitimately conducted, the presence of the insulating witnesses would also controvert the usual defense of frameup as the witnesses would be able to testify that the buy-bust operation and inventory of the seized drugs were done in their presence in accordance with Section 21 of RA 9165. 46

The police officers failed to explain why the witnesses were only called after the arrest of accused-appellant. They had the opportunity to call the witnesses prior to the conduct of the buy-bust operation to require their presence therein, which the police failed to do. It bears emphasis that the presence of the required witnesses at the time of the apprehension and inventory is mandatory, and that the law imposes the said requirement because their presence serves an essential purpose, that is to protect against the possibility of planting, contamination or loss of the seized drugs.

Aside from the noncompliance with Section 21 of R.A. 9165, the prosecution also failed to establish that there were no gaps in the chain of custody of the seized evidence. Under the chain of custody rule, there are four links that must be duly proved. First is the seizure and marking of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized from the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover from the investigating officer to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.

To duly establish the identity and integrity of the seized drugs, the chain of custody rule requires "testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into 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." 47

As mentioned above, PO1 Valdez failed to mark the seized evidence immediately after the arrest and seizure. The justification they provided, that it was already getting dark, does not absolve them of the procedural lapse they committed. It is not considered as a justifiable ground to excuse the apprehending officers' deviation from the proper procedure. Further, the improper turnover of the evidence from PO1 Valdez to SPO2 Refuerzo and back to PO1 Valdez again, without the proper markings on the confiscated illegal drugs, evidently opens the evidence to the possibility of planting, switching, modification or alteration. The prosecution did not even offer the testimony of SPO2 Refuerzo to testify on how he handled the seized evidence from the time that it was in his custody until he turned over the same to PO1 Valdez. Thus, the prosecution failed to duly establish the first and second links in the chain of custody.

Further, although the testimony of PSI Baligod was dispensed with after the parties agreed to stipulations, the Court finds the same to be insufficient to establish the third link in the chain of custody. The stipulations do not include how PSI Baligod handled the seized item from the time she took custody of it, the precautions taken to maintain its integrity and evidentiary value and the state and condition of the evidence from the time it was received until it was turned over to the court. The parties only stipulated the existence and due execution of Chemistry Report No. DT-141-2015-IS and No. D-286-2015-IS, that the evidence marked with "LV-1-12-14-15" was received by PO3 Quitevis, that PSI Baligod examined the evidence marked with "LV-1-12-14-15," and that accused-appellant was subjected to a urine drug test.

Lastly, the prosecution argues that the fourth link was established because the parties stipulated that the specimen examined by PSI Baligod was the same specimen submitted before the trial court. However, We rule that such argument is not sufficient to establish the fourth link in the chain of custody. As mentioned above, PSI Baligod did not testify on the condition of the seized evidence from the time it was in her possession until she turns it over to the court for presentation. There was no testimony on where the evidence was kept, who kept custody of it, and what safeguards were implemented to ensure that no other people had access to it. Hence, the prosecution likewise failed to establish the fourth link in the chain of custody of the evidence.

Having doubts on the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized illegal drug, which is the corpus delicti of the offense, the acquittal of accused-appellant must follow. In this case, the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proving accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5 of R.A. 9165. Hence, the Court is bound to uphold his acquittal therefrom.

With accused-appellant's acquittal in relation to the charge of violation of Section 5 of R.A. 9165, it follows that he should likewise be acquitted with respect to the charge of violation of Section 15 of R.A. 9165.

Accused-appellant was subjected to a drug test as a result of his apprehension. However, his apprehension was made by the police officers in violation of Section 21 of R.A. 9165, hence it is rendered invalid. The exclusionary rule tells that any evidence obtained in violation of the accused's constitutional right against warrantless search and seizures and warrantless arrests, the same shall be inadmissible in court. Thus, the prosecution cannot use the results of his drug test for these are considered as 'fruits of the poisonous tree.' Similarly, in the case of People v. Fatallo, 48 the Court has ruled that the illegal arrest of Fatallo rendered the drug test conducted on him as illegal, for being the indirect result of such arrest. The Court therein held:

Applied in the present case, since the apprehension of Fatallo by the police officers was illegal for non-compliance with the procedure provided by Section 21, R.A. 9165, it therefore follows that the drug test conducted on him was likewise illegal for it is an indirect result of his arrest. Otherwise stated, if Fatallo was not arrested in the first place, he would not have been subjected to a drug test because Section 38 refers to "any person apprehended or arrested for violating the provisions of this Act," As Fatallo was not proved to have violated any of the provisions of R.A. 9165, then the drug test conducted on him has no leg to stand on. Fatallo's acquittal for the charge of violating Section 15, R.A. 9165 must necessarily follow. 49 (Emphasis and underscoring removed)

Hence, the Court holds that accused-appellant is acquitted from the charge of violation of Section 15 of R.A. 9165 since the result of the drug test conducted on him is a fruit of the poisonous tree which renders the same inadmissible as evidence.

The prosecution carries the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt before a conviction can be sustained. The burden must be discharged by the prosecution on the strength of its own evidence, not on the weakness of that for the defense. Proof beyond reasonable doubt requires moral certainty as to their guilt. And when there is even an iota of doubt on the guilt of the accused, his constitutional right to be presumed innocent is upheld.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated June 20, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 10430 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Richard Hermosura y De Guzman is ACQUITTED of the charges of violation of Sections 5 and 15, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. Accordingly, he is ORDERED to be IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from custody unless he is being lawfully held for another offense.

Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. The said Director General is DIRECTED to report to this Court the action taken, within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, p. 4.

2.Id. at 5.

3.Id.

4.Id.

5.Id.; records [Crim. Case No. 3650-C], p. 20.

6.Rollo, p. 5.

7.Id. at 5-6.

8.Id. at 5-6; records [Crim. Case No. 3650-C], p. 8.

9. CA rollo, pp. 67-68.

10. Records [Crim. Case No. 3650-C], p. 86.

11.Id. at 87.

12. TSN dated April 25, 2016, pp. 4-40.

13. TSN dated November 17, 2016, pp. 2-11.

14. TSN dated September 14, 2017, pp. 4-9.

15.Id. at 9-11.

16. Penned by Acting Presiding Gina Juan-Chan; CA rollo, pp. 67-74.

17.Id. at 74.

18.Id. at 69-71.

19.Id. at 71.

20.Id. at 72-73.

21. Penned by Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao and Maria Filomena D. Singh; rollo, pp. 3-15.

22.Id. at 14.

23.Id. at 9-10.

24.Id. at 10-13.

25.Id. at 13-14.

26.Id. at 16.

27.Id. at 31.

28. CA rollo, pp. 91-110.

29.Rollo, p. 25.

30. CA rollo, pp. 44-63.

31.Id. at 51-54.

32.Id. at 55-61.

33.Id. at 62-63.

34.Ramos v. People, 803 Phil. 775, 783 (2017).

35.People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 29 (2017).

36. 830 Phil. 385 (2018).

37.Id. at 403.

38.People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78, 99 (2014).

39. TSN dated April 25, 2016, pp. 8-10.

40.Id. at 13-14.

41.Id. at 38-39.

42. Records [Crim. Case No. 3650-C], pp. 4-5.

43. TSN dated April 25, 2016, pp. 13-14.

44.Id. at 12-13.

45.People v. Tomawis, supra note 36.

46.People v. Tomawis, supra note 36 at 409.

47.Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 587 (2008).

48. G.R. No. 218805, November 7, 2018.

49.Id.