SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 248054. July 28, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.FATIMA IMAM y SAMAD, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated28 July 2021 which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 248054 (People of the Philippines v. Fatima Imam y Samad). — This is an Appeal 1 assailing the Decision 2 dated January 10, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09557 which affirmed the Decision 3 dated June 21, 2017 of Branch 103, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Quezon City finding Fatima Imam y Samad (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165. 4
Accused-appellant was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 in the following Information: 5
That on or about 5th day of May 2016 in Quezon City, Philippines, said accused, without lawful authority did then and there willfully and unlawfully sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport or act as broker in said transaction, a dangerous drugs, to wit: one (1) heat sealed transparent plastic sachets containing four point four one (4.41) grams of white crystalline substance containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law. 6
When arraigned on June 21, 2016, accused-appellant entered a plea of not guilty to the offense charged. After the termination of the pre-trial, trial on the merits ensued. 7
Version of the Prosecution
The prosecution alleged that a confidential informant went to the office of the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs-Special Operation Task Group (SAID-SOTG) at the Batasan Police Station on May 5, 2016 and informed Police Officer II Glen Corpuz (PO2 Corpuz) and his group that he knew where to buy shabu. 8 Thus, the SAID-SOTG planned a buy-bust operation wherein PO2 Corpuz was designated as the poseur-buyer. 9
At around 6:30 p.m., the team proceeded with the confidential informant to Ever Gotesco Mall along Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City to meet accused-appellant. The confidential informant introduced PO2 Corpuz to accused-appellant as the buyer of P6,500.00 worth of "tamok" (shabu). After accused-appellant handed PO2 Corpuz the sachet, the latter gave her the marked money. Upon the pre-arranged signal of throwing a cigarette, the other police officers rushed to the transaction scene to arrest accused-appellant. Police Officer I Jeremy Oliver Felix (PO1 Felix) recovered the buy-bust money from accused-appellant, while PO2 Corpuz kept the seized item. 10
The team then brought accused-appellant and the seized item to the police station. 11 There, the team marked, photographed, and inventoried the seized item in the presence of accused-appellant and media representative, Jun Mestica from Remate. The police investigator called the representatives from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the barangay but not one of them arrived. After documentation, PO2 Corpuz and PO1 Felix brought the seized item to the crime laboratory. After the laboratory examination, the seized item tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, also known as shabu. 12
Version of the Defense
Accused-appellant vehemently denied the accusations against her. She asserted that on the day of the alleged incident, she was at Mercury Drugstore in Quiapo to buy milk when she was suddenly accosted by four male persons; the four then boarded her inside a vehicle. At around 9:30 p.m., they arrived at the police station. There, her cell phone rang — it was a call from her husband. One of the police officers took her cellphone, answered the call, and instructed accused-appellant's husband to proceed to the police station. When accused-appellant's husband arrived, he learned that accused-appellant was being accused of selling drugs. The police demanded money from them in exchange for accused-appellant's freedom. But the police officers filed the instant case when accused-appellant and her husband failed to produce the money. 13
Ruling of the RTC
On June 21, 2017, the RTC rendered a Decision 14 the fallo of which reads:
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court finds the accused, Fatima Imam y Samad, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the charge for violation of Sec. 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and sentences her to suffer LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
SO ORDERED. 15
The RTC ruled that the prosecution proved all the elements of the illegal sale of shabu. The RTC gave credence to the testimony of PO2 Corpuz over the testimonies of the defense witnesses. 16
Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed to the CA.
Ruling of the CA
On January 10, 2019, the CA denied accused-appellant's appeal. The CA found no reason to depart from the ruling of the RTC. Accordingly, the CA disposed of the case as follows: CAIHTE
ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is DISMISSED, and the Decision dated June 21, 2017, [is] AFFIRMED, with modification, ordering the immediate forfeiture and destruction of the seized drug.
SO ORDERED. 17
Hence, the appeal.
Issue
The issue before the Court is whether the CA erred in affirming accused-appellant's conviction for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs.
Our Ruling
The Court grants the appeal.
The elements of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 are: (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. 18 Not only must the prosecution establish the above elements, but it is also equally essential that the identity of the dangerous drug be established with moral certainty 19 considering that the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus delicti of the offense. 20
Thus, the prosecution must be able to account for each link in the chain of custody from the moment the drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as evidence of the crime. 21 As part of the chain of custody procedure, the law requires, inter alia, that the marking, physical inventory, and photographing of the seized items be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation. 22
The law further requires that the inventory and photographing be done in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: (a) if prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640 23 — a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official; or (b) if after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640 — an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media. 24
In cases where strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure is not possible, the seizure and custody of the seized items will not be rendered void if the prosecution satisfactorily proves that there is a justifiable ground for the deviation, and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. 25 Further, non-compliance with the witness requirement may be permitted if the prosecution proves that the apprehending officers exerted genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of the required witnesses, albeit the latter failed to appear. 26
After a review of the records of the case, the Court finds that the prosecution utterly failed to prove the corpus delicti of the offense charged as it failed to demonstrate that the police officers observed the requirements mandated by Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. The crime charged was purportedly committed on May 5, 2016 when RA 9165 was already amended by RA 10640. Thus, the two-witness rule applies.
In the case, there was a deviation from the witness requirement under RA 9165. It appears that only a representative from the media witnessed the inventory. The inventory of seized items was signed by PO2 Corpuz, PO1 Felix, Ronalito Estayo, and a representative from the media Jun Mestica. 27 The other required witness, i.e., an elected public official, was not present to witness the inventory of the seized items. Furthermore, the rule requires that the inventory sheet must be signed by the accused or his/her representative along with the two required witnesses. 28 Here, neither accused-appellant nor her representative signed the confiscation receipt/inventory sheet. 29
The allegation that there was an attempt to contact the barangay was nothing more than "a mere general conclusion that is bereft of any discernible detail regarding the steps and efforts the police officers had undertaken." 30 Nothing in the records shows that the prosecution or the police officers provided justification for the non-compliance with the two-witness rule. Further still, the records do not show that the prosecution offered a plausible explanation as to why there was no elected public official present. Neither was it proven that the police officers exerted genuine and sufficient efforts to secure his/her presence. This deviation was completely left unjustified by the prosecution.
The Court has highlighted the need to ensure the integrity of the seized drugs in the chain of custody when only a minuscule amount of drugs had been allegedly seized from the accused. 31
Considering that the marking and inventory of the allegedly seized drugs were highly questionable, there is no assurance that the sachet of shabu tested in the laboratory and presented in court was the same sachet of dangerous drug allegedly confiscated from accused-appellant. Evidently, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized sachet of shabu have not been preserved.
In fine, reasonable doubt exists in the present case. Because the quantum of proof required for the conviction of accused-appellant for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 has not been met, her acquittal is therefore in order.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated January 10, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09557 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Fatima Imam y Samad is hereby ACQUITTED.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ORDERED to: (a) cause the immediate release of Fatima Imam y Samad, unless she is being held in custody for any other lawful reason; and (b) inform the Court of the action taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately. aScITE
SO ORDERED." (ROSARIO, J., designated as Additional Member).
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. CA rollo, pp. 10-11.
2.Rollo, pp. 3-26; penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier (now a member of the Supreme Court) with Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Maria Christine Azcarraga-Jacob, concurring.
3. CA rollo, pp. 43-52; rendered by Assisting Presiding Judge Maria Luisa Lesle G. Gonzales-Betic.
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. Records, pp. 1-2.
6.Id.
7.Rollo, p. 4.
8. CA rollo, p. 43.
9.Id. at 43.
10.Rollo, pp. 43-44.
11.Id. at 8.
12. CA rollo, pp. 43-44.
13.Rollo, pp. 10-11.
14.Id. at 43-54.
15.Id. at 54.
16.Id. at 48-49
17.Rollo, pp. 24-25.
18.People v. Crispo, 828 Phil. 416, 429 (2018).
19.People v. Santos, G.R. No. 243627, November 27, 2019.
20.People v. Viterbo, 739 Phil. 593, 601 (2014).
21.People v. Año, 828 Phil. 439, 448 (2018). See also People v. Viterbo, 739 Phil. 593, 601 (2014) and People v. Alagarme, 754 Phil. 449, 459-460 (2015).
22.People v. Gabunada, G.R. No. 242827, September 9, 2019.
23. Entitled "An Act to Further Strengthen the Anti-Drug Campaign of the Government, Amending for the Purpose Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, Otherwise Known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," approved on July 15, 2014, and became effective on August 7, 2014.
24.People v. Gabunada, supra note 22.
25. See People v. Almorfe, 631 Phil. 51, 60 (2010).
26.People v. Gabunada, supra note 22.
27. Records, p. 10.
28. Section 1. Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," is hereby amended to read as follows:
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, 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 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.
xxx xxx xxx.
29. Records, p. 10.
30.People v. Libre, G.R. No. 235980, August 20, 2018.
31.People v. Del Mundo, 818 Phil. 575, 591 (2017).