People v. Huab y Magpayo

SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 206058. April 27, 2022.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs.RAFAEL MACALINO y TOLENTINO AND EMILY HUAB y MAGPAYO, accused,

EMILY HUAB y MAGPAYO, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Special First Division, issued a Resolutiondated April 27, 2022which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 206058(People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. Rafael Macalino y Tolentino and Emily Huab y Magpayo, Accused; Emily Huab y Magpayo, Accused-Appellant).

After taking a second look on the case, the Court finds the Motion for Reconsideration 1 filed by Emily Huab y Magpayo (accused-appellant) against the March 13, 2019 Resolution 2 of the Court, which affirmed the August 30, 2012 Decision 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05111, meritorious.

Antecedents

A buy-bust operation was conducted against accused Rafael Macalino y Tolentino (Macalino) and herein accused-appellant based on a confidential information and after a three-day surveillance verifying that Macalino and accused-appellant were selling shabu. Thus, an information was filed against both accused for violation of Section 5, paragraph 1, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165. Each of them was likewise separately charged with Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Sec. 11, par. 2 (3), Art. II of R.A. No. 9165. 4

Both pleaded not guilty. After trial on the merits, the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City, Branch 73 (RTC), rendered a judgment finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, while acquitting her of the offense of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The dispositive portion of the judgment reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused Emily Huab y Magpayo, in Criminal Case No. 03-26162, is hereby found GUILTY of violating Section 5, paragraph 1, Article II of R.A. 9165 or for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs and is hereby sentenced to the penalty prescribed by law which is [reclusion perpetua] and to pay civil indemnity of P50,000.00 in moral damages and P50,000.00 in exemplary [damages]. She is however ACQUITTED in Criminal Case No. 03-26163 for failure of the prosecution to establish her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The confiscated specimens of shabu is ordered to be destroyed and disposed of in the manner prescribed by law.

SO ORDERED. 5

Aggrieved, accused-appellant filed an appeal before the CA arguing that the prosecution failed to overthrow the constitutional presumption of innocence in her favor. 6

The CA rendered a Decision on August 30, 2012 affirming with modification the decision of the RTC. The dispositive portion thereof reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated 08 February 2011 of the Regional Trial Court, Fourth Judicial Region, Branch 73, Antipolo City, in Criminal Case No. 03-26162 finding accused-appellant Emily Huab y Magpayo guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that she is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment, and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php500,000.00). The damages awarded by the RTC is hereby DELETED.

SO ORDERED. 7

Still aggrieved, accused-appellant sought relief before the Court and emphasized the alleged failure of the prosecution to maintain an unbroken chain of custody. 8

In the March 13, 2019 Resolution, the Court dismissed the appeal for failure of accused-appellant to prove that the courts aquo overlooked or misapplied facts and circumstances of the case. 9 Hence, the present motion for reconsideration maintaining that the courts aquo had overlooked or misapplied material facts and circumstances which effectively undermined the credibility of the prosecution's evidence, as well as its weight and probative value. 10

Accused-appellant emphasized that the prosecution failed to comply with Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165. The apprehending team did not prepare an inventory and did not take photographs of the seized items. The marking of such items was done at the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency office, but without the presence of insulating witnesses. 11 The prosecution did not offer any ground or valid reason that would justify the noncompliance with the procedures under Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165. 12

Further, accused-appellant averred that the identity of the recovered items was highly questionable due to the prosecution's failure to establish the evidence's chain of custody. 13 Accused-appellant argued that when the circumstances obtained in a case are capable of two or more inferences, such as in the instant case, one of which is consistent with the presumption of innocence while the other is compatible with guilt, the presumption of innocence must prevail and the court must acquit. 14

Ruling of the Court

The motion for reconsideration is meritorious.

In a plethora of cases, the Court has consistently emphasized on the importance of establishing an unbroken chain of custody in drug-related cases. The prosecution must not only establish the elements of the offense, but must also establish the identity, integrity, and evidentiary weight of the corpus delicti beyond reasonable doubt. The chain of custody carries out this purpose "as it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed." 15

The chain of custody is comprised of four links, which include: 1) the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; 2) the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; 3) the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and 4) the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.

Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link. It is vital that the seized contraband be immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference.16 It will help distinguish the marked evidence from all others of similar nature.

In the present case, testimonial evidence showed that not only did the apprehending team fail to mark the seized items immediately after seizure, but the marking was done in the absence of the insulating witnesses required by law. The apprehending team did not also make the necessary inventory and photographing of the seized items. These are steps intended by law as safeguard measures against the possibility of switching, planting, or contaminating the corpus delicti.

Further, the prosecution did not provide any reason or justification for its deviation from the marking requirements of the law. The prosecution cannot, therefore, seek refuge under the saving clause of Sec. 21 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 which states that noncompliance with the requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of custody over said items.

In People v. Del Rosario, 17 the Court held that the procedure enshrined in Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 is a matter of substantive law and cannot be brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality; or worse, ignored as an impediment to the conviction of illegal drug suspects. 18

Absent faithful compliance with Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 which is primarily intended to, first, preserve the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items in drugs cases, and second, to safeguard accused persons from unfounded and unjust convictions, an acquittal becomes the proper recourse. 19

As a final note, it bears emphasis that the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty cannot overcome the stronger presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. Otherwise, a mere rule of evidence will defeat the constitutionally enshrined right to be presumed innocent. 20

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is GRANTED. The March 13, 2019 Resolution of the Court, which affirmed the August 30, 2012 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05111, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Emily Huab y Magpayo is ACQUITTED of the crime charged based on reasonable doubt.

The Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for Women, Mandaluyong City, is ORDERED to IMMEDIATELY RELEASE accused-appellant from detention, unless she is being lawfully held in custody for any other reason, and to INFORM the Court of the action taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.

Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.

SO ORDERED." Gaerlan, J., on official leave.

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 70-82.

2.Id. at 65-69.

3. CA rollo, pp. 115-141; penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo, with Associate Justices Franchito N. Diamante and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela, concurring.

4.Id. at 116-118.

5.Rollo, p. 3.

6. CA rollo, p. 121.

7.Rollo,p. 4.

8.Id. at 31-32.

9.Id. at 66.

10.Id. at 71.

11.Id. at 73.

12.Id. at 74.

13.Id.

14.Id. at 78.

15.People v. Sagana, 815 Phil. 356, 368 (2017).

16.People v. Omamos, G.R. No. 223036, July 10, 2019, 908 SCRA 367, 379.

17. G.R. No. 235658, June 22, 2020.

18.Id.

19.Tolentino v. People, G.R. No. 227217, February 12, 2020.

20.People v. Ordiz, G.R. No. 206767, September 11, 2019, 919 SCRA 149, 176.