SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 251742. October 13, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.LYLE INFANTE y LOPEZ, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 13 October 2021 which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 251742 (People of the Philippines v. Lyle Infante y Lopez). — On appeal is the Decision 1 dated June 21, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02722 which affirmed the Decision 2 dated September 6, 2017 of Branch 52, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Bacolod City in Criminal Case No. 09-32576 finding Lyle Infante y Lopez (accused-appellant) guilty of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. 3
The Facts
Accused-appellant was charged before the RTC with violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 in an Information that reads:
That on or about the 18th day of July, 2009, in the City of Bacolod, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the herein accused, not being authorized by law to sell, administer, dispose, deliver, transport or distribute any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to a poseur-buyer one (1) brick of marijuana fruiting tops weighing 19.54 grams, a dangerous drug, in exchange for marked money consisting of one (1) P500.00 peso bill with Serial No. VG708926, in violation of the aforementioned law.
ACT CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
When arraigned, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty. 5
Trial ensued. 6
The prosecution established that on July 18, 2009, acting on a tip from a confidential informant that accused-appellant was selling marijuana, operatives of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Negros Occidental Provincial Office conducted a buy-bust operation against accused-appellant at his house near Ciocon Street, Barangay 26, Bacolod City. In the course of the operation, the operatives recovered one brick of dried marijuana wrapped in a piece of paper from accused-appellant. After the sale was consummated, a person shouted, "Raid!" Information Officer 2 Aline B. Cimafranca (IO2 Cimafranca), the poseur-buyer, then saw accused-appellant pull a long knife from his waist. Accused-appellant started attacking IO2 Cimafranca and hit the latter's shirt. IO2 Cimafranca ran and tried to hide. When Information Officer 1 Novemar Pinanonang (IO1 Pinanonang), the back-up agent, saw that IO2 Cimafranca was in danger, he ran after accused-appellant. IO1 Pinanonang shot accused-appellant to neutralize him. He eventually got hold of accused-appellant, arrested him, and seized the knife from his possession. 7
Subsequently, the PDEA buy-bust team brought accused-appellant to a nearby hospital for treatment. Thereafter, they proceeded to the Bacolod City Police Station. At the police station, the seized items were marked, inventoried, and photographed in the presence of barangay official Antonio Arroz and media representative Rox Estrella. 8
Thereafter, the PDEA brought the seized drug item to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory. After examination, the seized item tested positive for marijuana, a dangerous drug. 9
In his defense, accused-appellant denied the charge against him. Accused-appellant asserted that in the afternoon of July 18, 2009, he was having coffee at the coffee shop of Rutchel Honrado at 16th Ciocon Road, Barangay 26, Bacolod City when a vehicle arrived. Armed men alighted from the vehicle, approached accused-appellant, and pointed their guns at him. Accused-appellant ran inside the house of the Honrado family, the owner of the coffee shop. As accused-appellant was climbing up the stairs of the house, he was shot by one of the armed men. The armed men then brought accused-appellant to the hospital for treatment. 10
Ruling of the RTC
In the Decision 11 dated September 6, 2017, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00.
Ruling of the CA
In the assailed Decision 12 dated June 21, 2019, the CA affirmed accused-appellant's conviction. The CA found that the prosecution was able to establish all the elements of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs and that the chain of custody rule was complied with. 13
Issue
The issue for the Court's resolution is whether the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt accused-appellant's guilt for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165.
Our Ruling
The appeal is meritorious.
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. 14
To successfully prosecute the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, not only must the prosecution establish the above elements, but it is equally essential that the identity of the dangerous drug be established with moral certainty. 15 Thus, the prosecution must be able to account for each link of the chain of custody from the moment the drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as evidence of the crime. 16 As part of the chain of custody procedure, the law requires, inter alia, that the marking, physical inventory, and photography of the seized items be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation. 17
The law further requires that the inventory and photography 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, 18 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. 19
Generally, there must be strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure. 20 However, in cases where strict compliance with the procedure on the chain of custody is not possible, the seizure and custody of the seized items will not be rendered void if the prosecution satisfactorily proves that there is justifiable ground for the deviation, and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. 21 With respect to the witness requirement, non-compliance 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. 22
The offense was committed prior to the amendment to RA 9165. However, the operatives here deviated from the applicable three-witness requirement without providing a justifiable explanation for this lapse.
Records show that the inventory of the seized item was witnessed only by barangay official Antonio Arroz and media representative Rox Estrella. There was no representative from the DOJ. Notably, there was no statement that genuine and sufficient efforts were exerted to secure the presence of a representative from the DOJ. The prosecution did not even bother to explain the failure to comply with the witness requirement under RA 9165.
These unjustified procedural lapses committed by the arresting agents tainted the seized drug's integrity and evidentiary value.
In People v. Miranda, 23 the Court pronounced that:
[A]s the requirements are clearly set forth in the law, then the State retains the positive duty to account for any lapses in the chain of custody of the drugs/items seized from the accused, regardless of whether or not the defense raises the same in the proceedings a quo; otherwise, it risks the possibility of having a conviction overturned on grounds that go into the evidence's integrity and evidentiary value, albeit the same are raised only for the first time on appeal, or even not raised, become apparent upon further review. 24
In view of the foregoing, the Court holds that the integrity and evidentiary value of the drug allegedly seized from accused-appellant, which constitute the corpus delicti of the crime charged, have been compromised. Hence, his conviction must be overturned.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated June 21, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02722 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Lyle Infante y Lopez is ACQUITTED of the crime charged.
The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City is ORDERED to: (a) cause the immediate release of Lyle Infante y Lopez, unless he 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.
SO ORDERED." (PERLAS-BERNABE, S.A.J., on official leave; HERNANDO, J., designated as Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2846 dated October 6, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Id. at 5-15; penned by Associate Justice Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap with Associate Justices Edgardo L. De Los Santos (now a retired member of the Court) and Pamela Ann Abella Maxino, concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 26-36; penned by Executive Judge Raymond Joseph G. Javier.
3.Id. at 36.
4.Rollo, p. 6.
5.Id.
6. CA rollo, p. 27.
7.Id. at 28-29.
8.Id. at 29.
9.Rollo, p. 12.
10. CA rollo, p. 30.
11.Id. at 26-36.
12.Rollo, pp. 5-15.
13.Id. at 14.
14.People v. Crispo, 828 Phil. 416, 429 (2018).
15.People v. Santos, G.R. No. 243627, November 27, 2019.
16. See 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).
17. See People v. Gabunada, G.R. No. 242827, September 9, 2019.
18. 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.
19.People v. Gabunada, supra.
20.People v. Sendad, G.R. No. 242025, November 20, 2019.
21. See People v. Almorfe, 631 Phil. 51, 59 (2010).
22.People v. Gabunada, supra.
23.People v. Miranda, 824 Phil. 1042, 1059 (2018).
24.Id.