SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 240226. March 4, 2020.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MAGDALENA IGNACIO y CAZEÑAS, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated04 March 2020which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 240226 (People of the Philippines vs. Magdalena Ignacio y Cazeñas). — On appeal is the February 28, 2017 Decision 1 and June 20, 2017 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 38271, which affirmed the ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Criminal Case No. C-89885. 3
Magdalena Ignacio y Cazeñas (Magdalena) was charged with Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, 4 otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002." The amended Information reads:
That on or about the 30th day of April 2013 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila[,] and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have in her possession, custody[,] and control Eight (8) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets each containing METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE [SHABU] later marked "DAID-2-30-04-13" weighing 5.46 grams, "DAID-3-30-04-13" weighing 0.13 grams, "DAID-4-30-04-13" weighing 0.22 grams, "DAID-5-30-04-13" weighing 0.16 grams, "DAID-6-30-4-13" weighing 0.20 grams, "DAID-7-30-4-13" weighing 0.15 grams, "DAID-8-30-04-13" weighing 0.20 grams, "DAID-9-30-04-13" weighing 0.14 grams, which when subjected for laboratory examination gave POSITIVE result to the tests for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in gross violation of the above-cited law. HTcADC
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
During her arraignment, she pleaded not guilty with the assistance of counsel de officio. Among other things, the following stipulations were agreed upon by the parties: (a) the identity of Magdalena as the accused; and (b) the jurisdiction of the Court over the person and the offense. 6 Thereafter, pre-trial was terminated and trial on the merits ensued. 7
The prosecution presented four (4) witnesses, namely: Police Chief Inspector Lourdeliza Cejes (P/Chief Insp. Cejes), Senior Police Officer Fidel Cabinta (SPO1 Cabinta), Police Officer 1 Cherry Signap (PO1 Signap), and Police Officer II Noel Bollosa (PO2 Bollosa). 8
PO2 Bollosa testified that on April 30, 2013, he was an operative assigned at District Anti-Illegal Drugs-Special Operations Task Group (DAID-SOTG), Larangay, Caloocan City. At around 10:00 a.m., he was asked by the Chief of the District Special Operations Unit (DSOU) to assist in serving a warrant of arrest against one Michael Ignacio, alias "Michael Bulag," in Caloocan City. 9
Together with the team of the DSOU, PO2 Bollosa went to the Target area. He was assigned to provide perimeter security and back-up, while the DSOU operatives serve the warrant in the house of Michael Ignacio. While PO2 Bollosa was in position outside the house, he saw a woman hurriedly coming out of the door. She was holding a partially unzipped coin purse. PO2 Bollosa saw that inside the coin purse, there were heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing crystalline substances. This prompted PO2 Bollosa to hold the woman because he suspected the contents of her purse to be shabu. He examined the plastic sachet, and upon confirming that it contains shabu, PO2 Bollosa arrested the woman, apprised her of her rights and informed her of her criminal offense. 10
After hearing that a gunshot was fired, PO2 Bollosa and his colleague, PO1 Signap, brought the woman along with them to their service vehicle parked 100 meters from the target area. The woman was later identified as the accused Magdalena, allegedly the wife of the target individual, Michael Ignacio. PO2 Bollosa summoned the presence of SPO1 Cabinta, as well as a media representative named Ka Maeng Santos. PO2 Bollosa then proceeded with the marking of the seized evidence. The coin purse was marked as "DAID-1-30-4-13," while the sachets were marked in succession as "DAID-2-30-4-13" to "DAID-9-30-4-13." 11
They also prepared an inventory, after which, PO2 Bollosa turned over the custody of Magdalena and the seized items to SPO1 Cabinta. The seized evidence were placed inside a plastic bag marked with "RECOVERED EVIDENCE." 12
Afterwards, they went back to the DAID-SOGT office, where SPO1 Cabinta proceeded with the investigation. He prepared the sworn statements of PO2 Bollosa and PO1 Signap, the Turn Over of Arrested Suspect, Turn Over of Confiscated/Seized Evidence, and the Chain of Custody Form. 13 SPO1 Cabinta also prepared the request for laboratory examination. 14
SPO1 Cabinta delivered the request, together with the seized items, to a certain PO1 Pataueg. In turn, PO1 Pataueg gave the request and seized items to the Philippine National Police (PNP), Northern Police District Crime Laboratory Office, Valenzuela Satellite Office, McArthur Highway, Valenzuela City. These were received by P/Chief Insp. Cejes, the forensic chemist on duty at that time. 15
According to P/Chief Insp. Cejes, she prepared an inventory and made her own markings on all of the received evidence. The dangerous drugs were subjected to qualitative laboratory examination, which yielded a positive result for shabu. She gave a copy of the report to SPO1 Cabinta, and turned over the specimen and other documents to the evidence custodian. She retrieved the same items from the evidence custodian prior to attending the scheduled hearing before the trial court. 16
On the part of the defense, Magdalena testified at around 9:00 a.m. of April 30, 2013, she was awakened by a noise coming from the door of their house. All of a sudden, six (6) men, wearing civilian clothes and with their faces covered, kicked the door open and entered their house. The men were also carrying guns, which they pointed at her husband, asking if he was Michael Ignacio. Without waiting for a reply, they fired a shot at her husband. At that point, two (2) other men in civilian clothes, but this time, with their faces uncovered, came inside their house and carried her outside. They took her to a vehicle and asked her to keep quiet. The men introduced themselves as policemen, took out plastic sachets inside their bag, and took photos. She was taken to their office for detention, where later she found out that her husband died. 17
In a Decision dated December 11, 2015, 18 the RTC of Caloocan City found Magdalena guilty of illegal possession of dangerous drugs:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the prosecution having proved the guilt of the accused Ma. Magdalena Ignacio beyond reasonable doubt, she is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of Twenty (20) years and one (1) day to life imprisonment and a fine of Four Hundred Thousand Pesos (P400,000.00) in accordance with Section 11 sub-section 2 of Art. II, R.A. 9165 otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. aScITE
The drugs subject of this case is hereby ordered confiscated in favor of the government to be dealt with in accordance with law.
SO ORDERED. 19
The RTC found that Magdalena failed to present clear and convincing evidence of the police officers' failure to properly perform their duty, or that they were inspired by ill-motive to falsely testify against her. Furthermore, the trial court ruled that the police officers are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner. 20
Aggrieved, Magdalena filed a notice of appeal, which the trial court gave due course in its Order dated December 22, 2015. 21
After the filing of the parties respective appeal briefs, the CA issued its Decision 22 dated February 28, 2017, affirming the ruling of the RTC, thus:
WHEREFORE, the premises considered, the assailed Decision dated December 11, 2015, of the RTC, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 127, Caloocan, in Criminal Case No. C-89885 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 23
The CA held that the prosecution was able to prove the existence of all the essential elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. It also found that the prosecution successfully established an unbroken chain of custody over the seized dangerous drugs, despite the absence of representatives from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the barangay. The failure of the police officers to immediately mark the seized evidence at the scene of the arrest was considered justified since they heard gunshots during the arrest. 24
Magdalena sought a reconsideration 25 of the CA's decision. However, finding no persuasive grounds or substantial bases to reconsider, the CA denied the motion in its Resolution dated June 20, 2017: 26
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration filed by accused-appellant Magdalena Ignacio is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision promulgated on February 28, 2017 stands unreconsidered.
SO ORDERED. 27
Unsatisfied with the ruling of the CA, Magdalena filed an appeal before the Court. She raises the same issues in her appellant's brief with the CA — that the police officers grossly disregarded the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. In particular, Magdalena points out that there were no representatives from the DOJ or the barangay, the inventory was not conducted in her presence, and there is a broken link between the delivery of the specimen from the investigator to file forensic chemist. She therefore argues that there was a broken chain of custody, and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were not clearly established. 28
The Court resolves to grant the petition.
To convict an accused of illegal possession of a prohibited drug under Section 11, paragraph 2 (3), Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the following elements must be established: (1) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug. 29 The dangerous drugs seized from the accused constitutes the corpus delicti of the case, the identity and integrity of which should be duly established.
In this regard, Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165 lays down the procedure for the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized, or surrendered dangerous drugs, viz.: 30
Section 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, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending 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; HEITAD
xxx xxx xxx 31
Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165 intends to protect the integrity of the evidence the moment it is seized from the accused, until such time that it is presented in court. This is otherwise referred to as the "chain of custody," or the "duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs x x x from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction." 32
For this purpose, the Court has defined the following links in the chain of custody, which the prosecution must establish, to wit: (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. 33
As regards the first link, the Court often emphasizes the importance of immediately marking the seized dangerous drugs. The act of marking separates the evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence, and functions as a mechanism for avoiding the switching, planting or contamination of evidence. It serves as the primary reference point for all succeeding custodians of the dangerous drugs. 34 Verily, jurisprudence requires the apprehending officers to immediately mark the seized items upon its confiscation, or at the "earliest reasonably available opportunity." 35
The law likewise requires the apprehending officers to immediately conduct a physical inventory and to photograph the seized items in the presence of the following: (a) the accused or the person from whom the items were confiscated, or his representative or counsel, (b) a representative from the media; (c) a representative from the DOJ; and (d) any elected public official. 36 They should also sign the inventory and be given a copy thereof. As this Court judiciously explained in People v. Mendoza: 37
Based on the foregoing statutory rules, the manner and timing of the marking of the seized drugs or related items are crucial in proving the chain of custody. Certainly, the marking after seizure by the arresting officer, being the starting Point in the custodial link, should be made immediately upon the seizure, or, if that is not possible, as close to the time and place of the seizure as practicable under the obtaining circumstances. This stricture is essential because the succeeding handlers of the contraband would use the markings as their reference to the seizure. The marking further serves to separate the marked seized drugs from all other evidence from the time of seizure from the accused until the drugs are disposed of upon the termination of the criminal proceedings. The deliberate taking of these identifying steps is statutorily aimed at obviating switching, "planting" or contamination of the evidence. Indeed, the preservation of the chain of custody vis-à-vis the contraband ensures the integrity of the evidence incriminating the accused, and relates to the element of relevancy as one of the requisites for the admissibility of the evidence. 38 (Emphasis supplied)
In this case, the apprehending officers took Magdalena to their service vehicle, purportedly in order to properly mark the dangerous drugs confiscated from her. While the vehicle was parked near the place of her arrest, the arresting officers performed the marking and inventory without the presence of the required witnesses under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. Only a media representative and another police officer was there to witness the marking and inventory at that time. The prosecution did not justify the absence of the other witnesses; neither did the prosecution show that earnest efforts were made to secure the presence of these witnesses.
The Court repeatedly stresses that "[t]he prosecution bears the burden of proving a valid cause for non-compliance" 39 with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. At the very least, the prosecution must show a genuine attempt to comply with the law. Here, the arresting officers were about to serve a warrant of arrest when they chanced upon Magdalena carrying the subject dangerous drugs in her coin purse. Preparations and briefings were surely made prior to the operation, during which time, the police officers should have coordinated with the required witnesses in order to secure their presence in the event that dangerous drugs are found during the course of serving the arrest warrant. Lacking any justification or excuse on the part of the apprehending officers, the integrity of the seized items is compromised.
More importantly, the prosecution failed to identify the person who delivered the request to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination, which is the third link in the chain of custody. According to P/Chief Insp. Cejes, the request for laboratory examination, as well as the confiscated items, were supposedly delivered by a certain PO1 Pataueg. However, the request was prepared by SPO1 Cabinta, and he did not identify the person to whom he endorsed the request with the specimen samples. Thus, the identity of the persons who transferred the seized items from the investigator, SPO1 Cabinta, to the forensic chemist, P/Chief Insp. Cejes, remains unclear. This is another evident gap in the chain of custody, covering the period prior to the delivery of the seized dangerous drugs to the forensic chemist.
It is true that officers carry the presumption of regularly performing their duty. Nonetheless, the presumption only applies when there is nothing to suggest that the police officers deviated from the standard conduct of official duty required by law. 40 It does not apply when the record and the evidence clearly show the failure of the arresting officers to comply with the mandatory language of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. The Court's ruling in Mallillin v. People41 is instructive in this regard:
Given the foregoing deviations of police officer Esternon from the standard and normal procedure in the implementation of the warrant and in taking post-seizure custody of the evidence, the blind reliance by the trial court and the Court of Appeals on the presumption of regularity in the conduct of police duty is manifestly misplaced. The presumption of regularity is merely just that — a mere presumption disputable by contrary proof and which when challenged by the evidence cannot be regarded as binding truth. Suffice it to say that this presumption cannot preponderate over the presumption of innocence that prevails if not overthrown by proof beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case the lack of conclusive identification of the illegal drugs allegedly seized from petitioner, coupled with the irregularity in the manner by which the same were placed under police custody before offered in court, strongly militates a finding of guilt. 42 (Citations omitted and emphasis supplied)
Evidently, the presumption is not a blanket cure for the lapses and deficiencies on the part of the arresting officers. Likewise, this presumption cannot overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence accorded the accused. The Court emphasizes that Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 is a matter of substantive law, and cannot be ignored as a simple procedural technicality. 43
The Court does not lose sight of the fact that faithful adherence to the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 may not always be possible. Nonetheless, non-compliance with the statutory requirements remains the exception, rather than the rule. It is incumbent upon the prosecution to provide a satisfactory explanation and prove this as a fact, in order for the exception to apply. 44 Needless to state, it is not the function of this Court to presume and surmise the possible reasons for the arresting officers' failure to comply with the requirements of the law. There being no adequate justification in this case, the Court is constrained to exonerate Magdalena of the charges against her.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated February 28, 2017 rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 38271 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. TIADCc
Accused Magdalena Ignacio y Cazeñas is ACQUITTED based on reasonable doubt.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to: (a) cause the immediate release of the accused, unless she is being lawfully held for another cause; and (b) inform this Court of the date of her release, or the reason for her continued confinement as the case may be, within five (5) days role notice.
Copies of this Decision must be furnished to the Director General of the Philippine National Police and the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for their information."Inting, J., no part; Zalameda, J., designated additional Member per Raffle dated February 26, 2020.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon A. Cruz and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (now a member of this Court; id. at 2-22.
2. CA rollo, pp. 205-206.
3.Id. at 17-34.
4. AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425. OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES (Approved: June 7, 2002).
5.Rollo, pp. 2-3.
6. CA rollo, p. 20.
7.Rollo, p. 3.
8.Id.
9. CA rollo, p. 21.
10.Id. at 21-22.
11.Id. at 22.
12.Id.
13.Id.
14.Id. at 21.
15.Id. at 19.
16.Id. at 19-20.
17.Id. at 27-28.
18.Id. al 17-34.
19.Id. at 34.
20.Id. at 30-34.
21.Id. at 36.
22.Rollo, pp. 2-22.
23.Id. at 21.
24.Id. at 15-20.
25. CA rollo, pp. 189-196.
26.Id. at 205-206.
27.Id. at 206.
28.Id. at 62-70.
29.Sy v. People, 671 Phil. 164, 180 (2011).
30.See Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA No. 9165, Section 21 (a): See also PDEA Guidelines on the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Section 21 of RA No. 9165 as Amended by RA No. 10610 (May 28. 2015).
31. This has been amended by RA No. 10640, 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" to read:
xxx xxx xxx
(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 warrant less 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."
32. Dangerous Drugs Board, Regulation No. 1, series of 2002, Guidelines on the Custody and Disposition of Seized Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, and Laboratory Equipment, Section 1 (b) (Approved: October 18, 2002).
33.People v. Santos, G.R. No. 223142, January 17, 2018, 852 SCRA 23, 45-46, citing People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78, 94-95 (2014), further citing People v. Nandi, 639 Phil. 134, 144-145 (2010).
34.People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 31 (2017), citing People v. Coreche, 612 Phil. 1238, 1244 (2009), further citing People v. Gonzales, 708 Phil. 121, 130-131 (2013).
35.People v. Sabdula, 733 Phil. 85, 96 (2014).
36.See supra note 31.
37. 736 Phil. 749 (2014).
38.Id. at 761.
39.People v. Lim, G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018, citing People v. Sipin, G.R. No. 224290, June 11, 2018, 866 SCRA 73, 98.
40.People v. Dela Cruz, 744 Phil. 816, 828-830 (2014), citing Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576 (2008).
41. 576 Phil. 576 (2008).
42.Id. at 593.
43.People v. Geronimo, 817 Phil. 1163, 1178 (2017), People v. Ceralde, 815 Phil. 711, 723 (2017).
44.People v. Ahmad, G.R. No. 228955, March 14, 2018, 859 SCRA 334, 349.