People v. Java y Cuadra

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 238450. September 29, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. CHARINA JAVA y CUADRA, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated29 September 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 238450 (People of the Philippines v. Charina Java y Cuadra). — This is an Appeal 1 from the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision 2 dated December 21, 2017 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01863 which affirmed the Decision 3 dated April 30, 2014 of Branch 52, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Bacolod City finding Charina Java y Cuadra (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." 4

Accused-appellant was charged in an Information as follows:

Criminal Case No. 09-32996:

That on or about the 11th day of December, 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, trade, [administer], dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drugs, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver, give away to a [poseur-buyer] in a buy-bust operation [o]ne (1) [s]elf-sealing transparent plastic sachet containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, also known as shabu, a dangerous drug, with a weight of 0.01 gram, in exchange of marked money of [o]ne (1) Five Hundred Peso (P500.00) bill bearing Serial No. DX316769, in violation of the aforementioned law.

Act contrary to law. 5

When arraigned, accused-appellant entered a plea of not guilty to the charge. 6

Trial on the merits ensued. 7

Version of the Prosecution

The prosecution established that in the morning of December 11, 2009, Intelligence Officer 3 Cirilo Baluma (IO3 Baluma), Commanding Officer of Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Negros Occidental Provincial Office VI, received a tip from a confidential informant (CI) that accused-appellant received "new stocks of shabu" from her suppliers. IO3 Baluma then organized a team for a buy-bust operation. The team members included him, Intelligence Officer 1 Theonette G. Solar (IO1 Solar), Senior Officer 2 Elmer T. Ebona (SO2 Ebona), and other PDEA agents. The team then conducted a pre-operation briefing in which IO1 Solar was designated as the poseur-buyer with SO2 Ebona as her backup. 8

At around 10:30 a.m., the buy-bust operation commenced. IO1 Solar and the CI rode a pedicab. They alighted at the arc where the Barangay 22 signage was located. The rest of the team positioned themselves along Mabini Street near accused-appellant's residence. 9

As IO1 Solar and the CI headed towards the house of accused-appellant, they saw accused-appellant at the nearby sari-sari store. The CI approached accused-appellant and introduced IO1 Solar as his cousin who was interested in buying shabu. Accused-appellant told them to follow her to her house ("Sulod lang sa balay namon"). IO1 Solar and the CI opted to remain outside the house, near the front door. When accused-appellant came back, she handed IO1 Solar a small plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. In exchange, IO1 Solar gave accused-appellant the P500 bill with serial number DX316769 10 marked with the initials "GS." 11

When accused-appellant received the marked money, IO1 Solar removed her cap as the pre-arranged signal. IO1 Solar then introduced herself as a PDEA agent. SO2 Ebona immediately arrived at the scene. Accused-appellant panicked and attempted to flee, but the other PDEA agents arrived and restrained her. The buy-bust team escorted accused-appellant to her house. IO1 Solar frisked accused-appellant and found in the pocket of her short pants the marked money and another P500 bill. SO2 Ebona recited to accused-appellant her constitutional rights. Thereafter, the buy-bust team called for civilian witnesses to witness the conduct of the inventory of the seized items. 12

While waiting for the witnesses, IO1 Solar put the marking "CCJ" corresponding to Charina Cuadra Java, accused-appellant's name, on the small plastic sachet she bought from her. After 10 minutes, two barangay kagawads and Rox Estrella, a media representative, arrived. 13

While they were still inside the house of accused-appellant, IO1 Solar prepared the Certificate of Inventory 14 of the seized items in the presence of accused-appellant and the three civilian witnesses. IO3 Baluma took photographs of the conduct of the inventory. Thereafter, the buy-bust team brought accused-appellant to Police Station 1 located near the plaza. There, the police officers prepared the police blotter report of the incident and detained accused-appellant. 15

The buy-bust team then proceeded to their safe house to prepare the request for laboratory examination. IO1 Solar remained in custody of the seized items. At around 2:50 p.m., IO1 Solar delivered the request together with the confiscated small plastic sachet with the marking "CCJ" to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory of Bacolod City. 16

Police Chief Inspector Paul Jerome S. Puentespina (PCI Puentespina), Forensic Chemical Officer of the PNP Crime Laboratory of Negros Occidental, testified that on December 11, 2009, he received the letter request and the marked specimen for laboratory examination. They were delivered by IO1 Solar and handed to him by Police Officer 2 Magbanua (PO2 Magbanua). PCI Puentespina conducted the required examination, the results of which he reduced into writing in Chemistry Report No. D-146-2009. 17

Version of the Defense

Accused-appellant testified that she was a resident of the informal settlers' area in Purok Mahigumaon, Brgy. 22, Bacolod City along Rizal Street. On December 11, 2009, at around 11:00 a.m., accused-appellant went to the house of her neighbor Roberto Fernandez so that she could have her P500 bill changed at the sari-sari store. While waiting inside the store, accused-appellant noticed a commotion. Accused-appellant stood still and to her surprise, a person wearing maong pants and a white t-shirt suddenly held her. About the same time, several persons wearing green shirts came and told accused-appellant not to move. The father of accused-appellant immediately came to her rescue and attempted to free her, but the persons pointed their guns to accused-appellant and threatened her that they will also take her father. A woman in a green shirt searched accused-appellant, looked into her pockets and bra, and took her P500 bill and P9 worth of coins. 18

The persons ordered accused-appellant to sit down and placed her money on top of a table. Thereafter, one of the persons placed a P500 bill and a small sachet on top of the table and returned the P9 coins to accused-appellant. Meanwhile, Kagawad Charlie Chavez and the other witnesses arrived. Accused-appellant denied that she was selling illegal drugs. However, the police officers merely told accused-appellant to face the charges. 19

The Ruling of the RTC

On April 30, 2014, the RTC rendered its Decision 20 as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered, as follows:

(a) Finding [a]ccused-[d]efendant CHARINA JAVA Y CUADRA @ "BIGUE" GUILTY, beyond reasonable doubt, of the [sic] violation of Section 5, Article II, Comprehensive Dangerous Drug[s] Act of 2002. She is therefore convicted of the crime charged in the Information dated December 12, 2009. Accused-[d]efendant Java is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00);

(b) The dangerous drug subject matter of this case (Exhibit "C'') is hereby confiscated in favor of the government pursuant to Section 20, R.A. No. 9165 and ordered to be turned-over to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), Regional Office Six (6) for destruction;

(c) The Jail Warden of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology, Women's Dormitory, Barangay Handumanan, Bacolod City is hereby ORDERED to IMMEDIATELY TRANSFER [a]ccused-[d]efendant CHARINA JAVA Y CUADRA to the Correctional Institution for Women, Bureau of Corrections, Mandaluyong City, Metro Manila, for the service of her sentence pursuant to OCA Circular No. 40-2013; and

(d) No pronouncement as to cost.

SO ORDERED. 21

The RTC held that the prosecution substantiated the required quantum of proof to establish the guilt of accused-appellant for illegal sale of dangerous drugs on December 11, 2009. The RTC gave weight to the testimony of prosecution witness IO1 Solar, who positively and categorically identified accused-appellant as the seller of shabu. 22

The Ruling of the CA

In the Decision 23 dated December 21, 2017, the CA affirmed the RTC Decision. The CA disposed of the case as follows:

WHEREFORE, the Judgment dated April 30, 2014 rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 52, Bacolod City in Criminal Case No. 09-32996, convicting accused-appellant Charina Java y Cuadra of [v]iolation of Section 5 of Article II of R.A. 9165[,] as amended[,] or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act[,] is AFFIRMED.

With costs against the accused-appellant.

SO ORDERED. 24

Hence, the Appeal 25 before the Court.

The Issue

The issue before the Court is whether the CA erred in affirming accused-appellant's conviction for violation of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs.

Our Ruling

The Court grants the appeal.

The elements necessary in every prosecution of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs are: (1) identities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. 26

Moreover, for a successful prosecution of the offense, not only must the prosecution establish the above elements, it is equally essential that the identity of the dangerous drug be established with moral certainty considering that the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus delicti of the offense. 27

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. 28 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 of the same. 29

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, 30 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 either the National Prosecution Service or the media. 31

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 justifiable ground for the deviation and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. 32 Furthermore, 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. 33

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 violation charged was purportedly committed on December 11, 2009 when RA 9165 was not yet amended by RA 10640. Thus, the three-witness rule applies.

In the case, it appears that no representative from the DOJ witnessed the inventory. The Certificate of Inventory 34 of the seized items was signed by IO1 Solar and SO2 Ebona, Barangay Kagawads Severo M. Henares, Jr., and Charlie Chavezo, and media representative Rox Estrella.

Furthermore, the rule requires that the inventory sheet must be signed by the accused or his/her representative along with the three required witnesses. Here, neither accused-appellant nor her representative signed the confiscation receipt/inventory sheet. 35

Nothing in the records would show that the prosecution or the arresting officers provided justification for the non-compliance with the three-witness rule. Further still, the records do not show that the prosecution offered a plausible explanation as to why there was no representative from the DOJ. Neither was it proven that the arresting officers exerted genuine and sufficient efforts to secure her presence. Such a deviation was completely left unjustified by the prosecution.

The Court cannot merely gloss over the glaring lapses committed by the arresting officers especially when the shabu allegedly seized from accused-appellant is only 0.01 gram. 36 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. 37

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. While the law enforcers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties, this presumption cannot prevail over the constitutional right of accused-appellant to be presumed innocent and it cannot by itself constitute proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This presumption of regularity remains just like a presumption disputable by contrary proof and which when challenged by evidence cannot be regarded as binding truth. 38

The prosecution's sweeping guarantees as to the identity and integrity of seized drugs will not secure a conviction. 39 In drug cases, conviction cannot be sustained if there is a persistent doubt about the identity of the drug. The identity of the prohibited drug must be established with moral certainty. Apart from showing that the elements of illegal sale are present, the fact that the substance illegally sold or possessed in the first place is the same substance offered in court as exhibit must likewise be established with the same degree of certitude as that needed to sustain a guilty verdict. 40

The Court holds that the evidence on record and the circumstances obtaining here do not support a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Because the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized sachet of shabu were never preserved, the corpus delicti was not adequately proven.

In fine, reasonable doubt does exist in the present case. Because the quantum of proof required for the conviction of accused-appellant of the violation charged was not met, her acquittal is therefore in order.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated December 21, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01863 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Charina Java y Cuadra is hereby ACQUITTED of the offense charged.

The Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for Women, Mandaluyong City, is ORDERED to: (a) cause the immediate release of Charina Java y Cuadra, 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.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. CA rollo, pp. 153-155.

2.Id. at 134-147; penned by Associate Justice Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap with Associate Justices Edgardo L. Delos Santos (now a retired member of the Court) and Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig, concurring.

3.Id. at 80-91; penned by Presiding Judge Raymond Joseph G. Javier.

4.Id. at 90.

5. Records, p. 1.

6.Id. at 32.

7. CA rollo, p. 80.

8.Id. at 106.

9.Id.

10. Erroneously referred to as "DX6316769" in some parts of the rollo.

11. CA rollo, p. 107. See also Rollo, p. 7.

12. CA rollo, p. 107.

13.Id.

14. Records, p. 13.

15. CA rollo, pp. 107-108.

16.Id. at 108.

17.Id.

18.Id. at 66.

19.Id.

20.Id. at 80-91.

21.Id. at 90.

22.Id. at 86-87.

23.Id. at 134-147.

24.Id. at 146.

25.Id. at 153-155.

26.People v. Roble, 663 Phil. 147, 157 (2011).

27.People v. Santos, G.R. No. 243627, November 27, 2019.

28.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).

29.People v. Gabunada, G.R. No. 242827, September 9, 2019.

30. 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 which took effect on August 7, 2014.

31.People v. Gabunada, supra note 29.

32.People v. Almorfe, 631 Phil. 51, 60 (2010).

33.People v. Gabunada, supra note 29.

34. Records, p. 13.

35.Id.

36. See Chemistry Report No. D-146-2009, id. at 11.

37.People v. Del Mundo, 818 Phil. 575, 588 (2017).

38.People v. Cantalejo, 604 Phil. 658, 668-669 (2009).

39.People v Saunar, 816 Phil. 482, 495 (2017), citing People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78 (2014).

40.People v. Lorenzo, 633 Phil. 393, 403 (2010).