SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 248207. February 23, 2022.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. JOSEPHINE ISIP y CANO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 23 February 2022which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 248207(People of the Philippines v. Josephine Isip y Cano). — On appeal 1 is the April 4, 2019 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 09324, which affirmed the March 24, 2017 Decision 3 of the Regional 'Trial Court (RTC) of Laoag City, Branch 13, in Criminal Case No. 16047-13, finding accused-appellant Josephine Isip y Cano (Isip) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165, 4 otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
Antecedents:
The Information 5 dated July 14, 2014 charging Isip with violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 alleged:
That on or about 3:15 in the afternoon of July 11, 2014 at Brgy. Lydia, Municipality of Marcos, province of Ilocos Norte, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and knowingly sell two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing 0.0334 gram & 0.0400 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride commonly known as "shabu," a dangerous drug, with a street value of Five Hundred Pesos (P500.00) to a policeman of the PNP Marcos, Ilocos Norte acting as a poseur-buyer, without any authority or license from the appropriate government agency to do so.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 6
Upon arraignment, Isip pleaded not guilty to the offense charged. 7 Trial on the merits thereafter ensued.
Version of the Prosecution:
Police Officer (PO) 1 Ronnie Ullero (PO1 Ullero) narrated that on July 11, 2004 at around 1:45 p.m., a confidential informant (CI) reported to the Chief of Police of Marcos Municipal Police Station, Police Senior Inspector (PSI) Arnel Taba-og (PSI Taba-og), regarding Isip's illegal drug trade at Brgy. Lydia, Marcos, Ilocos Norte. 8 Upon learning such information, PSI Taba-og ordered the conduct of a bust operation. 9 PO1 Ullero was designated as the poseur buyer. Thereafter, PSI Taba-og gave PO1 Ullero a P500.00-bill as buy-bust money, consisting of four P100.00-bills and two P50.00-bills. 10 On the other hand Police Inspector (PI) Leoni to Ancheta (PI Ancheta) and Police Officer 3 Warden Valencia (PO3 Valencia) were designated as arresting officers and PO3 Belen Baoit (PO3 Baoit) as a searching officer. 11 PO1 Jimon Sansano (PO1 Sansano) and PO3 Julie Balderas (PO3 Balderas) were tasked to standby at the police station. 12
The buy-bust team consisting of PSI Taba-og, PI Ancheta, PO1 Ullero, PO3 Baoit, and PO3 Valencia proceeded to the target area. 13 Upon arrival, the CI contacted Isip through her cellphone while the rest of the team stayed inside their van and waited for the subject to arrive. 14 At around 3:15 p.m., Isip, who was carrying her child, arrived and approached the passenger's side of the van. 15 Thereafter, PO1 Ullero, who was at the front passenger's seat, slightly rolled down the window. 16 Isip handed a plastic sachet containing two small plastic sachets of white crystalline substance to PO1 Ullero, who in turn gave her the P500.00 buy-bust money. 17 Immediately thereafter, PI Ancheta and PO3 Valencia alighted from the van and arrested Isip. 18 PO3 Baoit likewise also got off the van, frisked Isip, and recovered from her the P500.00 buy-bust money and a glass tooter. 19 HEITAD
At the place of arrest, PO1 Ullero marked the confiscated items, namely, the plastic sachets he bought from Isip, the buy-bust money, and glass tooter with his initials "RDU1", "RDU2", and "RDU3," respectively. 20 Thereafter, PO1 Ullero conducted the inventory in the presence of Isip, Barangay Chairman Michaelson Tamayo (Brgy. Chairman Tamayo), and Sangguniang Bayan member Sherwin Tamayo (SB Tamayo) of Brgy. Lydia Marcos, Ilocos Norte. 21 Photographs during the marking and inventory were taken by PO1 Jimon Sansano. 22
The operatives subsequently brought Isip to the police station. 23 While at the police station, PO1 Ullero wrapped the two transparent heat-sealed plastic sachets containing shabu with a plain coupon bond and brought them, together with the tooter and the letter-requests for laboratory examination, to the Crime Laboratory Office. 24
Police Inspector Amiely Ann Luis Navarro (PI Navarro) conducted a qualitative examination on the seized items. 25 Chemistry Report No. D-153-2014-IN 26 stated that the seized items tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
Version of the Defense:
Isip proffered a different account of the incident and professed denial and frame up as defenses. She testified that on July 11, 2014 at around 9:00 a.m., she was at Brgy. Lydia, Marcos, Ilocos Norte paying her loan at a lending company office. 27 Thereafter, when she got home, her mother told her that Sherwin Tamayo (Sherwin), and one Desiree Yumol (Dimples), also known to her as "Ate Dimples" carne looking for her. 28 Isip narrated that she became acquainted with Sherwin during the time when she was working at a bar. 29 On the other hand, Isip came to know Dimples because the latter recruited her to work in Ilocos Norte. 30
Later that morning, Dimples and Sherwin went to the house of Isip. When Isip asked them what is it that they wanted, Dimples handed Isip a small, folded-up piece of tissue paper and told her not to ask anything. 31 Sherwin, on the other hand, told her to take care of what Dimples had just given her and that they will return for it after lunch. 32 Isip asserted that Dimples and Sherwin should immediately take back the folded-up tissue paper they gave her, but Sherwin refused. 33 Right after their conversation, Dimples asked Isip to accompany her to the former's house because a package from Hawaii had just arrived and she will give something to Isip. 34 At around 11:00 a.m., Isip, together with her one-year old child, went along with Dimples. 35
Upon arrival at Dimples' house, Dimples took back the folded-up tissue paper that she earlier gave Isip, and then Dimples went back inside her house. 36 Thereafter, Dimples gave back the folded-up tissue paper to Isip. Isip, on the other hand, asked Dimples about its contents and the reason why she is giving it back. Dimples told her to just give the folded-up tissue paper to Sherwin. Right after their conversation, Isip rode a jeepney and went home. Suddenly, Isip alighted from the jeepney and decided to just walk. 37
While Isip was walking, she heard the honking of a vehicle from behind her. Isip looked back and saw a blue Starex van, which she knew belonged to Sherwin, tailing her. 38 The vehicle stopped and she saw that Sherwin was the driver. The driver's window rolled down a bit, following which Sherwin gestured for Isip to move to the other side of the vehicle. 39 Isip moved to the front passenger door of the van and its window rolled clown to make an opening of about four to five inches. 40 Through the half-opened window, Isip noticed that Sherwin switched seats with a police officer. 41 She likewise noticed that at least five people were on board of the said Starex van. Thereafter, Sherwin asked Isip about the folded-up tissue paper he previously gave her.
Isip in turn opened up the folded-up piece of tissue paper and she discovered two small plastic sachets. 42 Isip handed the whole thing to Sherwin, who in turn gave her P540.00 consisting of two P200.00-bills, one P100.00-bill, and two P20.00-bills. 43 As Isip was thanking Sherwin for the money she received, the door to the middle part of the van suddenly slid open and the police officers alighted and arrested her. 44 She was forced to board the police mobile where a certain police officer named Ma'am Baoit talked to her along with police officer named Taba-og. 45 The police officers convinced Isip to tell the truth and cooperate with the police officers. 46
When they arrived at the police station, Isip met a certain Teddy Rosqueta (Rosqueta) in a room, along with police officer Tabaog. 47 Rosqueta and Tabaog convinced Isip to help them find out who the real owner of the tissue paper was. Isip did not respond which prompted Rosqueta to pull out a gun. 48 Thereafter, Rosqueta called up Dimples. When Dimples picked up, Rosqueta handed over the phone to Isip and instructed the latter to tell Dimples that Sherwin is buying shabu worth P1,000.00. 49 Thereafter, Isip, accompanied by a police officer, went to the house of Dimples where the transaction will transpire. Upon arriving at the house of Dimples, they went inside the latter's house. Dimples then asked for the payment and so Isip handed the former a P1,000.00-bill, which Rosqueta had provided. 50 Dimples went to her room, and then returned to Isip with some folded-up tissue paper that contained the shabu. 51 Thereafter, police officers carrying assault rifles suddenly surrounded the Pajero van, which was the vehicle used by Isip when they had exited the house of Dimples. 52 Isip was then arrested for selling shabu and, thereafter, brought to the police station. 53 ATICcS
On July 14, 2014, Isip escaped. She narrated that she was able to board a tricycle to Dingras, and went to the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) District Office. When Isip arrived at the PAO's Office, she pretended to be a sister of a fugitive and asked for advice from the PAO lawyer and the latter advised that her sister must surrender to the authorities. 54 As Isip was confident of her innocence, she returned to the Municipality of Marcos. However, while wandering around Marcos, someone saw her and reported her presence to the police. Isip was then recaptured and brought hack to police station. 55
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:
The RTC, in its Decision 56 dated March 24, 2017, found Isip guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged. The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Josephine Isip y Cano GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of shabu as punished under Section 5, Art. II of RA 9165 and is accordingly sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of P500,000.00.
The shabu subject hereof is confiscated for proper disposition as the law prescribes.
PROMULGATED in open court x x x. 57
The RTC ruled that the prosecution was able to establish all the elements of the offense. It further ruled that the requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165 have likewise been complied with by the arresting officers.
Furthermore, with regard to the defenses of denial and frame-up proffered by Isip, the RTC held that the same cannot be accorded probative weight especially so when taken in the light of the superior positive evidence of the prosecution that Isip illegally sold the two plastic sachets of shabu, which was corroborated by a video clip taken during the conduct of the illicit transaction that transpired on July 11, 2014.
Aggrieved, Isip appealed 58 her conviction before the CA.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
In its assailed Decision, 59 the CA affirmed the RTC's Decision finding Isip guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. The prosecution adduced evidence that duly established all the elements of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs. Moreover, the RTC's findings that the prosecution cogently established each link in the chain of custody over the shabu, from the time it was seized from Isip up to the time it was presented during the trial as proof of the corpus delicti, are borne out by the records.
The CA likewise rejected the defenses of denial and frame-up of Isip as the same cannot overcome the positive declarations of the police officers who were not shown to have been actuated by ill will or false motive in arresting Isip.
Finally, the CA ruled that the penalty imposed by the trial court was proper.
Thus, the dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED for want of merit.
The Decision dated March 24, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court of Laoag City, Branch 13, in Criminal Case No. 16047-13 is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED. 60
Hence, the instant appeal. 61
Issue
Whether or not the CA erred in finding Isip guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165.
Our Ruling
The appeal is meritorious.
In the prosecution of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, it is the dangerous drug itself that forms part of the corpus delicti of the offense. Thus, the integrity of the corpus delicti must be established with moral certainty through an unbroken chain of custody. 62
In this case, Isip contends that the procedures laid down in Section 21 of RA 9165 were not strictly complied with, which consequently compromised the integrity of the evidence presented against her. TIADCc
Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 outlines the procedure which the apprehending team must comply with in handling the seized drugs in order to ensure that the integrity and evidentiary value of the same are preserved. The pertinent portions of the said section read:
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 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;
xxx xxx xxx
In addition, Section 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 expressly provides:
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:
(a) The apprehending officer/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: 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, further, that non-compliance with 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 of and custody over said items;
xxx xxx xxx
While the fact of the marking and inventory of the seized items were established by the attached Receipt/Inventory of Property/ies Seized, 63 it was not shown that the dangerous drugs were inventoried and photographed in the presence of a representative of the media and a representative of the Department of Justice (DOJ). Moreover, no acknowledgment or explanation was offered by the prosecution to justify such procedural lapse. Thus, it is apparent that the buy-bust team utterly failed to comply with the chain of custody rule. To stress, the buy-bust team had enough time and opportunity to bring with them said witnesses since, after all, such requirement can easily be complied with considering that the buy-bust operation is, by its nature, a planned activity. 64
Both the RTC and CA believed that the failure of the apprehending team to secure the presence of the required witnesses in the conduct of the inventory was sufficiently justified since the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved.
The Court disagrees.
Section 21 (a) of the IRR of RA 9165 expressly provides that the non-compliance with the requirements, under justifiable grounds, shall not render void and invalid the seizures of and custody over the items seized, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team.
However, the omissions above noted clearly indicate that the prosecution failed to not only acknowledge but also provide a credible explanation justifying the non-compliance with the mandatory requirement set under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. At the very least, the prosecution should have advanced evidence that genuine and sufficient efforts were exerted by the apprehending officers to secure the presence of the required witnesses. It is well-settled that the procedure in Section 21, Article II of RA 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. 65 In People v. Tulod y Cuarte, 66 We enunciated that:
Indeed, the presence of the insulating witnesses during inventory is vital. In the absence of these persons, the possibility of switching, planting, or contamination of the evidence negates the credibility of the seized drug and other confiscated items. Non-compliance with the requirement is, therefore, fatal to the prosecution's case.
Although the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 offers a saving clause allowing leniency whenever there are justifiable grounds to deviate from established protocol so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved, the prosecution offered no such explanation here. In fine, the condition sine qua non for the saving clause to become operational was not complied with. For the same reason, the proviso "so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved," too, will not come into play. Absent any acceptable explanation for the deviation from the procedural requirements of the chain of custody rule, the corpus delicti cannot be deemed preserved. 67
In view of such unwarranted departure from the procedure set forth in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, as well as its IRR, the Court is therefore constrained to conclude that the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti have been compromised, which, consequently, warrants Isip's acquittal.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The assailed April 4, 2019 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 09324 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Josephine Isip y Cano is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. She is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless she is confined for any other lawful cause. AIDSTE
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Superintendent, Correctional Institution for Women, Mandaluyong City, for immediate implementation. Furthermore, the Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for Women is DIRECTED to report to this Court the action he/she has taken within five days from receipt of this Resolution.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 20-22.
2.Id. at pp. 3-19. Penned by Associate Justice Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob and concurred in by Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (now a Member of the Court).
3. CA rollo, pp. 48-66. Penned by Presiding Judge Philip G. Salvador.
4. Entitled "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. at 1.
7.Id. at 102.
8. TSN, October 30, 2014, pp. 5-8.
9.Id.
10.Id. at 10-11.
11.Id. at 8-9.
12.Id. at 9.
13.Id. at 11-12.
14.Id. at 12.
15.Id. at 24.
16.Id.
17.Id. at 12-14.
18.Id. at 14.
19.Id. at 17.
20.Id.
21.Id. at 17-18.
22.Id. at 23.
23.Id. at 27.
24.Id. at 28-30.
25. Records, p. 32.
26.Id.
27. TSN, November 19, 2015, p. 4.
28.Id. at 4-5.
29.Id. at 5.
30.Id. at 6.
31.Id. at 7-9.
32.Id. at 9-10.
33.Id. at 10.
34.Id.
35.Id. at 11.
36.Id. at 12.
37.Id. at 13-14.
38.Id. at 14-15.
39.Id. at 15.
40.Id.
41.Id. at 16.
42.Id. at 18.
43.Id. at 19-20.
44.Id. at 20-21.
45.Id. at 27.
46.Id.
47.Id. at 28.
48.Id. at 29.
49.Id. at 30.
50.Id. at 31.
51.Id.
52.Id. at 32.
53.Id. at 33.
54.Id. at 36.
55.Id. at 37.
56. CA rollo, pp. 48-66.
57.Id. at 66.
58.Id. at 10.
59.Rollo, pp. 3-19.
60.Id. at 18.
61.Id. at 20-22.
62.Pinga v. People, G.R. No. 245368, June 21, 2021.
63. Records, p. 17.
64. See People v. Tomawis, 830 Phil. 385, 405 (2018).
65.People v. Jugo, 824 Phil. 743, 756 (2018).
66. G.R. No. 227993, September 25, 2019.
67.Id.