SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 240543. September 16, 2020.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. JOEY JAVIER y JIMENEZ, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Special First Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 16, 2020which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 240543 (People of the Philippines v. Joey Javier y Jimenez). — This resolves the Motion for Reconsideration 1 filed by Joey Javier y Jimenez (accused-appellant) against this Court's Resolution 2 dated July 3, 2019 which dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Decision 3 dated January 16, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08623 convicting accused-appellant of violation of Section 5 and Section 11 (2) (3), Article II of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9165.
Facts of the Case
Accused-appellant was charged with violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 in two separate Informations:
Criminal Case No. 21024-2013-C(For Violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165)
That on or about 6:00 p.m. of 10 August 2013 at Brgy. Paciano, Calamba City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without any authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously possess the quantities of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, otherwise known as "shabu," a dangerous drug, having a total weight of 0.05 gram, in violation of the aforementioned law. 4
Criminal Case No. 21025-2013-C(For Violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165)
That on or about 6:00 p.m. of 10 August 2013 at Brgy. Paciano, Calamba City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without any authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to a poseur buyer the quantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, weighing 0.02 gram/s. 5
Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges. Consolidated trial on the merits ensued. 6
The prosecution presented the testimony of PO1 Richard Cruz (PO1 Cruz). Accused-appellant was the lone witness for the defense. 7
PO1 Cruz testified that on August 10, 2013, a buy-bust operation was conducted against accused-appellant. The operation was triggered by an information relayed by a confidential informant (CI) to P/Insp. Errol Malabanan Perez (P/Insp. Perez) that appellant, a barrio mate of P/Insp. Perez, was selling illegal drugs at Purok 6, Barangay Paciano, Calamba City, Laguna. P/Insp. Perez then directed PO3 Bathan to coordinate with Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). After PDEA cleared the operation, a briefing was conducted where PO1 Cruz was designated as the poseur-buyer and he was given three P100.00 bills as marked money. At around 6:00 p.m., PO1 Cruz, with the CI and the other members of the buy-bust team, proceeded to the target area. When they arrived thereat, accused-appellant was in front of his house fixing a motorcycle. The CI introduced PO1 Cruz to accused-appellant as a buyer of shabu. Accused-appellant asked PO1 Cruz the worth of shabu that he intends to buy, and the latter answered P300.00 worth. Thereafter, accused-appellant retrieved one plastic sachet containing suspected shabu from his pocket and handed the same to PO I Cruz in exchange for the marked money. Following the exchange, PO1 Cruz immediately arrested accused-appellant. Upon arrival of the other members of the buy-bust team, accused-appellant was bodily frisked by PO1 Cruz, yielding two more plastic sachets. PO1 Cruz put the plastic sachet he bought from accused-appellant in his right pocket while he placed the other two plastic sachets in his left pocket. Due to the commotion caused by the members of accused-appellant's family and their neighbors, the buy bust team was compelled to bring appellant and the seized items to the barangay hall where they filed a blotter report. When accused-appellant's family followed at the barangay hall and continued to create a commotion, the buy-bust team brought appellant to the Calamba Police Station. 8
At the police station, the confiscated plastic sachets and the marked money were photographed and presented to the members of the media. The PNP operatives prepared an inventory of said items and wrote a letter-request for laboratory examination. PO1 Cruz marked the plastic sachets as "JJJ," "JJJ-BB," and "JJJ-1," identifying specimen "JJJ-BB" as the subject of the sale, and "JJJ" and "JJJ-1" as the items he recovered in possession of accused-appellant. 9 The items were inventoried and photographed in the presence of Ronald De Leon, a representative of the media. 10 The police operatives then returned to the barangay hall in order for a barangay official to sign the inventory. PO1 Cruz brought the specimen to the Regional Crime Laboratory where they were received by PO1 Redruco and examined by Forensic Chemist Donna Villa P. Huelgas (F/C Huelgas). The qualitative examination confirmed that the white crystalline substance contained in the sachets was methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. 11
The prosecution and the defense entered into the following stipulations/admissions, 12 including the contents of the testimony of the Forensic Chemist, F/C Huelgas: (1) the qualification of F/C Huelgas as an expert witness; (2) the existence and due execution of the letter request dated August 10, 2013 with the subject specimen(s) enclosed thereto which was/were delivered and received by the crime laboratory; (3) that the letter request was duly received by the Regional Crime Laboratory as evidenced by the stamped receipt and was delivered by PO1 Cruz with qualification as to how and when PO1 Cruz delivered the specimen; (4) attached to said letter request are three pieces small transparent heat-sealed plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance known as shabu marked as "JJJ-BB," "JJJ," and "JJJ-1;" (5) that pursuant to the letter request, F/C Huelgas conducted a qualitative examination of the specimen(s) enclosed in said letter and that the result of the examination was reduced into writing in Chemistry Report No. D-569-13; (6) that the specimen enclosed in the letter request was the same specimen examined by F/C Huelgas; (7) the existence and due execution of Chemistry Report No. D-569-13; and (8) that F/C Huelgas has no personal knowledge that the specimen subject of her examination was taken/seized from accused-appellant. 13
Accused-appellant denied the charge claiming that the evidence against him was merely planted by the police. He testified that on August 10, 2013, at around 6:00 p.m., he was outside his house at Purok 6, Barangay Paciano, Calamba City, Laguna, watching his neighbor Nestor Villanueva while the latter was cleaning his motorcycle. Suddenly, a vehicle parked in front of him and four armed men alighted. Two of the armed men approached accused-appellant, handcuffed him, and boarded him onto their vehicle. Inside the vehicle, they asked accused-appellant where the money was. Accused-appellant told them he had no money. The men kicked the different parts of his body. They brought appellant to the police station where they covered him with wet clothes. The armed men then punched and kicked him until he heard a female voice who told the men to stop. 14
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
On August 24, 2016, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Calamba City, Branch 37, found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. 9165. The dispositive portion of the Judgment 15 reads:
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, in Criminal Case No. 21024-2013-C, the Court finds accused, JOEY JAVIER y JIMENEZ, GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of violation of Section 11, paragraph 2(3), Article II of Republic Act 9165. He is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY, as minimum, to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS, as maximum, and to PAY A FINE of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P300,000.00) PESOS.
In Criminal Case No. 21025-2013-C, the Court likewise finds accused, JOEY JAVIER y JIMENEZ, GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act 9165. The accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to PAY A FINE of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P500,000.00) PESOS.
The Branch Clerk of Court is hereby ordered to tum-over the methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) subject of this case for proper disposition and destruction.
SO ORDERED.16
The RTC gave credence to the prosecution witness, a police officer, who is presumed to have performed his duties in a regular manner. The defense failed to show any ill-motive on the part of the police operatives to impute such a serious crime that would put in jeopardy the life and liberty of accused-appellant. 17 The RTC further ruled that the prosecution successfully established the presence of all the elements of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs. 18 The prosecution also proved the unbroken chain of custody of the confiscated items starting from the time the illegal drugs were handed to PO1 Cruz, as poseur-buyer, as well as his recovery of the two other plastic sachets during the preventive search. The seized items were marked and delivered by PO1 Cruz to the crime laboratory and the same specimen were examined by F/C Huelgas. Given that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved, the failure to strictly observe the procedures under Section 21 of R.A. 9165 is not fatal to the prosecution's case. 19
Accused-appellant filed an appeal before the CA.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
The CA affirmed the conviction of accused-appellant in its Decision 20 dated January 16, 2018. The CA held that the failure of the police officers to mark the three plastic sachets at the place of arrest does not render the confiscated items inadmissible in evidence as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. 21 Also, the CA found no merit in appellant's contention that the prosecution violated the chain of custody rule. 22 It further noted that accused-appellant's denial cannot prevail over the positive testimony of PO1 Cruz. Accused-appellant also failed to substantiate his allegation of frame up. Thus, the presumption that government officials have performed their duties in a regular and proper manner stands. 23
Accused-appellant filed an ordinary appeal before Us.
On July 3, 2019, this Court issued the assailed Resolution 24 dismissing accused-appellant's appeal and affirming his conviction for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. 9165. This Court held that accused-appellant failed to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding his conviction. This Court adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the CA in its Decision dated January 16, 2018.
Hence, the present Motion for Reconsideration filed by accused-appellant. 25
Arguments Raised in this Motion
Accused-appellant reiterates that the police operatives failed to comply with Section 21 (1), Article II of R.A. 9165. The prosecution failed to explain why the police operatives failed to secure the presence of an elected public official and a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ) at the time of the inventory. While Rolando Narvaez, a barangay official, signed the Receipt of Physical Inventory, PO1 Cruz admitted that he had to return to the barangay hall to ask Narvaez to sign the said document. Clearly, the said public official was not present when the said inventory was conducted at the police station. 26 Further, accused-appellant averred that the testimony of PO1 Cruz should have been placed under strict scrutiny considering that, in this case, he was the poseur-buyer, the arresting officer, the searching officer, the officer who conducted the inventory, the one who took photographs, and the custodian of the seized item. It was a one-man operation of PO1 Cruz. None of the other alleged five officers involved in the buy bust operation were presented to corroborate the testimony of PO1 Cruz. This necessitates the testimony of the CI who accompanied PO1 Cruz and allegedly introduced the latter as a buyer of shabu to accused-appellant.
Ruling of the Court
The motion is granted.
After a judicious re-examination of the records of the case, this Court acquits appellant on reasonable doubt.
Foremost, the Court holds that the testimony of the confidential informant (CI) is not necessary. The Court has long established that the presentation of an informant is not a requisite for the prosecution of drug cases. The testimony of the CI is not indispensable, since it would be merely corroborative of and cumulative with that of the poseur-buyer who was presented in court, and who testified on the facts and circumstances of the sale of the prohibited drug. 27 In this case, the fact of sale of the dangerous drug was established by the direct testimony of PO1 Cruz who actively took part in the transaction, being the poseur-buyer thereof, and who seized other plastic sachets of suspected shabu from accused-appellant. Contrary to accused-appellant's assertion that it was a one-man operation of PO1 Cruz, the findings of fact of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, show that PO1 Cruz was accompanied by other police officers at the time of the operation. The buy-bust team was composed of PO3 Perez, Police Officers Colinares, Castillo, Gargallano, Requinto and Opulencia. 28
Nonetheless, the police operatives failed to prove the unbroken chain of custody of the dangerous drug. The buy-bust team failed to comply with the requirement of Section 21 of R.A. 9165 regarding the presence of three witnesses who should be physically present at the time of the conduct of the physical inventory of the seized items.
In drug cases, the dangerous drug itself is the very corpus delicti of the violation of the law. Consequently, compliance with the rule on chain of custody over the seized illegal drugs is crucial in any prosecution that follows a buy-bust operation. The rule is imperative, as it is essential that the prohibited drug recovered from the suspect is the very same substance offered in court as exhibit; and that the identity of said drug is established with the same unwavering exactitude as that requisite to make a finding of guilt. 29
To ensure an unbroken chain of custody, Section 21(1) of R.A. 9165, the law that applies at the time of the commission of the crime, specifies:
(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.
Supplementing the above-quoted provision, Section 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. 9165 provides:
(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[.]
Thus, under Section 21 of R.A. 9165, after seizure and confiscation of the drugs, the apprehending team is required to immediately conduct a physical inventory and the photograph-taking of the same in the presence of: (1) the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel; (2) a representative from the media, and (3) the DOJ; and (4) any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. 30
While the IRR allows alternative places for the conduct of the inventory and photographing of the seized drugs, the requirement of having the three required witnesses to be physically present at the time or near the place of apprehension is not dispensed with. 31 It bears emphasis that the presence of the required witnesses at the time of the apprehension and inventory is mandatory, and that the law imposes the said requirement because their presence serves an essential purpose. 32 As held in People v. Tomawis: 33
The presence of the witnesses from the DOJ, media, and from public elective office is necessary to protect against the possibility of planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drug. Using the language of the Court in People v. Mendoza, without the insulating presence of the representative from the media or the DOJ and any elected public official during the seizure and marking of the drugs, the evils of switching, "planting" or contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-busts conducted under the regime of RA 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) again reared their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the subject sachet that was evidence of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused. 34 (Citations omitted; emphasis in the original)
In this case, it was shown that the marking, physical inventory, and photographing of the seized items were done in the police station because of the commotion caused by appellant's family and their neighbors. The Receipt of Physical Inventory 35 shows that it was only signed by two witnesses: (1) a representative from the media, Ronald L. De Leon of the Calamba Press Corps; and (2) an elected public official, Rolando Narvaez. 36 The absence of a representative from the DOJ during the inventory and photograph-taking of the seized items was not justifiably explained by the prosecution. A review of the Transcript of Stenographic Notes does not yield any testimony from PO1 Cruz as to the reason why there was no representative from the DOJ. Neither was there any testimony to show that any attempt was made to secure the presence of said required witness.
In addition, We agree with the observation made by accused-appellant that Rolando Narvaez, the public official, was not physically present at the time of the inventory. As admitted by PO1 Cruz, after the inventory and request for laboratory examination were prepared, they went back to the barangay hall in order for the barangay official to sign in the inventory. 37 This shows that Narvaez was not present when the inventory was conducted at the police station. Hence, there was only one witness of the required three witnesses who was present at the time of the inventory of the seized items.
Compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 ensures the integrity of the seized items. Non-compliance with them tarnishes the credibility of the corpus delicti around which prosecutions under R.A. 9165 revolve. Consequently, they also tarnish the very claim that an offense against R.A. 9165 was committed. 38
The last paragraph of Section 21 (a) contains a saving proviso to the effect 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." However, in order for the saving proviso to apply, the prosecution must first recognize and explain the lapse or lapses in procedure committed by the arresting lawmen. 39 That did not happen in this case because the prosecution neither recognized nor explained the lapses.
Further, this Court notes that the quantity of the shabu seized from accused-appellant is so minuscule. The shabu subject of the sale weighs 0.02 gram, while the shabu recovered in accused-appellant's possession weighs a total of 0.05 gram. While the minuscule amount of narcotics seized is by itself not a ground for acquittal, this circumstance underscores the need for more exacting compliance with Section 21. 40 The Court reiterates its previous rulings that buy-bust teams should be more meticulous in complying with Section 21 of R.A. 9165 to preserve the integrity of the seized shabu most especially where the weight of the seized item is a minuscule amount that can be easily planted and tampered with. 41
Also, it is to be noted that the parties' entered into stipulations/admissions, including the contents of the testimony, of forensic chemist (F/C) Huelgas. Hence, her testimony was dispensed with. However, the Court observes the lack of stipulations which are required for the proper and effective dispensation of the testimony of the forensic chemist. The Court ruled that in case of stipulation by the parties to dispense with the attendance and testimony of the forensic chemist, it should be stipulated that the forensic chemist would have testified that he had taken the precautionary steps required to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item, thus: (1) that the forensic chemist received the seized article as marked, properly sealed, and intact; (2) that he resealed it after examination of the content; and (3) that he placed his own marking on the same to ensure that it could not be tampered with pending trial. 42
To re-state, the following are the stipulations 43 by the parties to dispense with the testimony of F/C Huelgas:
(1) The qualification of F/C Huelgas as an expert witness; (2) The existence and due execution of the letter request dated August 10, 2013 with the subject specimen(s) enclosed thereto which was/were delivered and received by the crime laboratory; (3) That said letter request was duly received by the Regional Crime Laboratory as evidenced by the stamped receipt and was delivered by PO1 Cruz with qualification as to how and when PO1 Cruz delivered the specimen; (4) That attached to said letter request are three (3) pieces small transparent heat sealed plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance known as shabu marked as "JJJ-BB", "JJJ" and "JJJ-1"; (5) That pursuant to said letter request, F/C Huelgas conducted a qualitative examination of the specimen(s) enclosed in said letter and that the result of the examination was reduced into writing in Chemistry Report No. D-569-13; (6) That the specimen enclosed in the letter request was the same specimen examined by F/C Huelgas; (7) The existence and due execution of Chemistry Report No. D-569-13; and (8) That F/C Huelgas has no personal knowledge that the specimen subject of her examination was taken/seized from appellant.
Here, the above stipulations did not contain the required vital pieces of information. There is no stipulation that F/C Huelgas took the precautionary steps post-qualitative examination of the specimen. F/C Huelgas should have testified or stipulated precisely on the manner she preserved the specimen. To be exact, the prosecution failed to provide the following important details in order to establish the links to preserve the identity and integrity of the seized illegal drug: (a) the place where the specimen was kept after the qualitative examination; (b) the possibility of other people having access to the specimen; and (c) the complete details on handling of the specimen from the time it came to the possession of F/C Huelgas and after it left her possession. Absent any testimony regarding the management, storage, and preservation of the illegal drug seized after its qualitative examination, it could not be reasonably established that the identity and integrity of the seized item was preserved.
When the identity of the corpus delicti is jeopardized by noncompliance with Section 21, critical elements of the offense of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs remain wanting. It follows then, that this non-compliance justifies an accused's acquittal. 44
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED. The Resolution dated July 3, 2019 of the Court is hereby SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Joey Javier y Jimenez is ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to cause the IMMEDIATE RELEASE of Joey Javier y Jimenez, unless the latter is being lawfully held for another cause, and to inform the Court of the date of his release or reason for his continued confinement within five (5) days from notice.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
by:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 34-40
2.Id. at 32-33.
3. Penned by Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Danton Q. Bueser and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (now a Member of this Court); id. at 2-14.
4.Id. at 2-3.
5.Id. at 3.
6.Id.
7.Id.
8. TSN dated April 29, 2015, pp. 3-7.
9.Id. at 9-11.
10. CA rollo, p. 84.
11.Id. at 84-85.
12. Records (21025-13-C), pp. 42-43.
13.Id.
14.Rollo, p. 5.
15. CA rollo, pp. 55-68.
16.Id. at 67.
17.Id. at 59.
18.Id. at 59-60.
19.Id. at 65.
20.Supra note 3.
21.Rollo, pp. 10-11.
22.Id. at 11.
23.Id. at 12.
24.Supra note 2.
25.Supra note 1.
26.Rollo, p. 35.
27.People v. Lagos, 705 Phil. 570, 581 (2013).
28. Records (21024-13-C), p. 7.
29.People v. Tanes, G.R. No. 240596, April 3, 2019.
30.People v. Oliva, G.R. No. 234156, January 7, 2019.
31.People v. De Leon, G.R. No. 214472, November 28, 2018.
32.People v. Claudel, G.R. No. 219852, April 3, 2019.
33. 830 Phil. 385 (2018).
34.Id. at 408-409.
35. Records (21024-13-C), p. 11.
36.Id.
37. TSN dated April 29, 2015, p. 8.
38.People v. Que, 824 Phil. 882, 896 (2018).
39.People v. Zakaria, 699 Phil. 367, 382 (2012).
40.People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78, 99 (2014).
41.People v. Plaza, G.R. No. 235467, August 20, 2018.
42.People v. Kasan, G.R. No. 238334, July 3, 2019.
43.Supra note 12.
44.People v. Que, supra note 38 at 898.