THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 237205. September 13, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. NORBERT JAVIER y RIGOROZA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 13, 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 237205(PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee v. NORBERT JAVIER Y RIGOROZA, accused-appellant). — The failure of the arresting officers to strictly comply with the chain of custody requirement casts doubt on the integrity of the illegal drugs seized. Absent proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the accused must be acquitted.
This resolves the appeal filed by Norbert Javier, questioning the Court of Appeals Decision 1 that affirmed the Regional Trial Court Decision. The Regional Trial Court convicted Javier of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The accusatory portion of the Information reads:
That on or about the 18th day of December, 2013 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused without being authorized by law, did then and there wil[l]fully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to PO1 ALDRIN ENGRACIA, who posed as buyer, one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet later marked NORI (BUYBUST) 12-18-13 containing METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE (Shabu) weighing 0.07 gram, which when subjected for laboratory examination gave POSITIVE result to the tests for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, and knowing the same to be such.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 2
Upon arraignment, Javier pleaded not guilty. Trial then ensued. 3
The prosecution presented Police Officer 2 Randulfo Hipolito, 4 Police Officer 2 Angelito Gagarin, and Police Officer 1 Aldrin Engracia from the Caloocan City Police Station and Police Chief Inspector Lourdeliza Cejes from the Northern Police District Crime Laboratory Office as its witnesses. CAIHTE
Police Officer 1 Engracia testified that before the date of the buy-bust operation, their chief instructed them to verify a text message about illegal drug activities performed by Javier in Heroes del 96, Caloocan City. After confirming the report and coordinating with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, the officers proceeded to Heroes del 96 at around 3:00 a.m. on December 18, 2013 to conduct the operation. Together with the informant, Police Officer 1 Engracia acted as the poseur-buyer. Meanwhile, the other officers acted as their back-up. 5
Upon reaching the location, the informant told Javier, "Nori, pakuha [raw]yung kumpare ko." Javier responded, "Ilan ba?" Police Officer 1 Engracia replied, "Lima lang," and gave Javier the marked P500.00-bill. Javier asked them to wait while he entered an alley. He returned with a small heat-sealed plastic sachet containing a white n crystalline substance. Police Officer 1 Engracia received the sachet and lifted his bull cap, the pre-arranged signal for the other officers to move in. Police Officer 2 Gagarin then arrested Javier and recovered the buy-bust money from him. Meanwhile, Police Officer 1 Engracia marked the plastic sachet with "Nori (Buybust) 12-18-13." The officers returned to the police station and took pictures of Javier and the confiscated evidence. Police Officer 1 Engracia turned over Javier and the evidence to Police Officer 2 Hipolito, the investigator on duty. 6
The parties dispensed with the testimony of Police Officer 2 Hipolito. Instead, they stipulated that he received Javier and the heat-sealed plastic sachet already marked and placed in another sachet marked as "Said Sou Evidence 12-18-13." He then conducted an inventory of the specimen and the buy-bust money. He also prepared the request for laboratory examination and brought the same with the specimen to the Northern Police District Crime Laboratory at around 9:30 a.m. 7
The parties also dispensed with the testimony of Police Chief Inspector Cejes. Instead, they stipulated that her office received the laboratory examination request from Police Officer 2 Hipolito. After recording the same, Senior Police Officer 3 Nelson Bugabuga, the duty desk officer, turned over the request and the specimen to Police Chief Inspector Cejes for examination. The contents of the sachet tested positive for shabu. Police Chief Inspector Cejes deposited the specimen with their evidence custodian, who kept it until the former brought the same to court. 8
The defense presented Javier as its only witness. He testified that at around 4:30 p.m. on December 18, 2013, he was watching over his daughter, who was then playing along Baltazar Interior. Suddenly, three armed individuals arrived and frisked him. They allegedly confiscated P100.00 from him. They then brought him to and detained him in the Sangandaan Police Station. The next day, police officers informed him that someone reported he was selling shabu, which he denied. Javier also claimed that the arresting officers demanded P50,000.00 for his release. However, he could not provide the said amount. 9
The Regional Trial Court found Javier guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. 10 It lent credence to the narration of events proffered by the prosecution. 11 It also found that Javier's defense of denial and alibi was not sufficient to rebut the prosecution's evidence. 12 It emphasized that there was no vacuum in the chain of custody, which would cast doubt on the identity and integrity of the illegal drugs. 13 The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding Accused NORBERT JAVIER y RIGOROZA alias "Nori" guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Violation of Section 5, Article II of [Republic Act No.] 9165, and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay the fine of Five hundred thousand pesos (Php500,000.00).
In this regard, the Jail Warden of Caloocan City Jail, Caloocan City is hereby directed to cause the immediate transfer of custody of the said accused to the [Director General of the] Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, and to forthwith submit a written report of [their] compliance (or reason for [noncompliance]) with this order within ten (10) days from receipt hereof.
The drugs subject matter hereof are hereby ordered confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government and the Branch Clerk of Court of this Sala is hereby directed to turn over the said specimen to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for their immediate destruction in accordance with law.
SO ORDERED. 14
On June 2, 2016, Javier filed his notice of appeal. 15 The Regional Trial Court gave due course to the notice of appeal and forwarded the records of the case to the Court of Appeals. 16
The Court of Appeals affirmed the Regional Trial Court Decision. 17 It found that there was sufficient compliance with the chain of custody requirements. 18
The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is hereby DISMISSED. The appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 19
On October 18, 2017, Javier filed his Notice of Appeal. 20 The Court of Appeals gave due course to the appeal and forwarded the records of the case to this Court. 21
Accused-appellant submitted a Manifestation 22 on July 4, 2018, indicating he would no longer file a supplemental brief as all relevant issues had already been discussed in his Appellant's Brief. On the same day, plaintiff-appellee People of the Philippines also filed a Manifestation 23 that it would no longer file a supplemental brief and was adopting its Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee before the Court of Appeals. DETACa
In his Appellant's Brief, 24 accused-appellant posits that the buy-bust team violated the chain of custody requirement under Section 21 (1) of Republic Act No. 9165. 25 He maintains that he must be acquitted as the inventory and the taking of photographs of the evidence were conducted at a place other than the place of arrest. He also asserts that these steps were done without the presence of the required witnesses. 26
Meanwhile, plaintiff-appellee argues in its Appellee's Brief 27 that the failure of the buy-bust team to strictly comply with the rule on chain of custody does not prevent this Court from applying the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty. 28 It asserts that noncompliance, under justifiable grounds, does not render the seizure void, provided the integrity and evidentiary value of the items are preserved. 29
The sole issue for this Court's resolution is whether or not the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of accused-appellant Norbert Javier y Rigoroza for the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
We acquit accused-appellant.
The records show that the arresting officers failed to comply with the mandatory requirements for the custody of illegal drugs as provided under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. This failure casts reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused-appellant as it puts the integrity of the corpus delicti in question. 30
For the conviction of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs to prosper, the prosecution must prove the following elements, namely, "(a) the identities of the buyer, seller, object, and consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it." 31
People v. Suan32 emphasizes that the identity of the dangerous drug seized from the accused must be proven beyond reasonable doubt:
In prosecutions involving narcotics, the narcotic substance itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Of paramount importance therefore in these cases is that the identity of the dangerous drugs be likewise established beyond reasonable doubt. 33
Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 provides for the chain of custody rule in drug cases. Since the sale in question occurred on December 18, 2013, the provision, as originally enacted, 34 is applicable:
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 [Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency] 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[.]
Under the law, the marking, physical inventory, and taking of photograph of the illegal drugs must be done "immediately after" their seizure. 35People v. Sultan36 explains that "immediately after" means that the procedure must be conducted at the place of arrest:
Section 21 mandates the conduct of inventory and taking of photographs "immediately after seizure and confiscation," which means that these must be done at the place of the arrest. Que explained:
What is critical in drug cases is not the bare conduct of inventory, marking, and photographing. Instead, it is the certainty that the items allegedly taken from the accused retain their integrity, even as they make their way from the accused to an officer effecting the seizure, to an investigating officer, to a forensic chemist, and ultimately, to courts where they are introduced as evidence . . .
Section 21 (1)'s requirements are designed to make the first and second links foolproof. Conducting the inventory and photographing immediately after seizure, exactly where the seizure was done, or at a location as practicably close to it, minimizes, if not eliminates, room for adulteration or the planting of evidence. 37 (Emphasis supplied)
In the event of a warrantless seizure, Reyes v. Court of Appeals38 explains that "the physical inventory and [taking of photographs] of the seized articles should be conducted, if practicable, at the place of seizure." This gives rise to the duty on the part of police officers to provide justifiable reason in case of failure to observe the same, such as where the accused attempts to resist arrest or escape. 39
Here, while Police Officer 1 Engracia performed the marking at the place of seizure, he and Policer Officer 2 Hipolito inventoried and took photographs in the police station. 40 The records are bereft of any showing that the police officers offered justifications in doing so. The prosecution also failed to offer any explanation for this procedural lapse. aDSIHc
Section 21 (1) of Republic Act No. 9165 also requires the presence of four persons during the physical inventory and taking of photographs of the seized items. These required witnesses are (a) the accused or the person/s from whom such items were seized, or their representative or counsel; (b) a representative from the media; (c) a representative from the Department of Justice; and (d) any elected public official. The law requires the presence of these witnesses at the time and place of the arrest and seizure.
People v. Corral41 discusses the significance of the presence of all the required witnesses:
The law further requires that the said 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 [Republic Act No.] 9165 by [Republic Act No.] 10640, 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. The law requires the presence of these witnesses primarily "to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence." 42 (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted)
In this case, none of the required witnesses were present during the seizure of the illegal drug. They were also absent during the marking, inventory, and taking of photographs of the seized items. The prosecution offered no explanation for this lapse.
Without the witnesses, the integrity of the evidence is jeopardized due to the possibility of planting or switching of the illegal drugs. There is no assurance from an impartial witness that the illegal drugs were seized from the accused and that the same illegal drugs were presented in court.
In People v. Tomawis, 43 we held that:
[t]he presence of the witnesses from the [Department of Justice], 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 [Department of Justice] 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 [Republic Act No.] 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.
The presence of the three witnesses must be secured not only during the inventory but more importantly at the time of the warrantless arrest. It is at this point in which the presence of the three witnesses is most needed, as it is their presence at the time of seizure and confiscation that would belie any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drug. If the buy-bust operation is legitimately conducted, the presence of the insulating witnesses would also controvert the usual defense of frame-up as the witnesses would be able to testify that the buy-bust operation and inventory of the seized drugs were done in their presence in accordance with Section 21 of [Republic Act No.] 9165.
The practice of police operatives of not bringing to the intended place of arrest the three witnesses, when they could easily do so — and "calling them in" to the place of inventory to witness the inventory and photographing of the drugs only after the buy-bust operation has already been finished — does not achieve the purpose of the law in having these witnesses prevent or insulate against the planting of drugs.
To restate, the presence of the three witnesses at the time of seizure and confiscation of the drugs must be secured and complied with at the time of the warrantless arrest; such that they are required to be at or near the intended place of the arrest so that they can be ready to witness the inventory and photographing of the seized and confiscated drugs "immediately after seizure and confiscation." 44 (Emphases supplied; citations omitted)
We are aware of exceptional circumstances where noncompliance with the strict rules on chain of custody may be allowed. However, "[t]he justifiable ground for [noncompliance] must be proven as fact. The court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist." 45 The prosecution must discharge the burden of "(1) proving their compliance with Section 21, [Republic Act No.] 9165, and (2) providing a sufficient explanation in case of [noncompliance]." 46
People v. Lim47 further specifies that the prosecution must allege and prove that the attendance of the required witnesses was not acquired due to valid reasons, namely:
(1) their attendance was impossible because the place of arrest was a remote area; (2) their safety during the inventory and photograph of the seized drugs was threatened by an immediate retaliatory action of the accused or any person/s acting for and in his/her behalf; (3) the elected official themselves were involved in the punishable acts sought to be apprehended; (4) earnest efforts to secure the presence of a [Department of Justice] or media representative and an elected public official within the period required under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code prove futile through no fault of the arresting officers, who face the threat of being charged with arbitrary detention; or (5) time constraints and urgency of the anti-drug operations, which often rely on tips of confidential assets, prevented the law enforcers from obtaining the presence of the required witnesses even before the offenders could escape. 48
Here, the prosecution failed to allege and prove any of the above reasons to fall within the exception to the rule on chain of custody. ETHIDa
In People v. Holgado, 49 this Court also ruled that the custody of dangerous drugs in minuscule quantities demands a more exacting compliance with the rule on chain of custody as "[t]hese can be readily planted and tampered." In that case, the illegal drugs only weighed 0.05 gram and were considered to be minuscule in quantity. In the present case, the dangerous drugs are similarly minuscule, weighing at 0.07 gram. Hence, strict compliance with the chain of custody should be observed.
Finally, the Court of Appeals erred in relying on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by police officers. This presumption cannot overcome the blatant disregard of established procedures required in the chain of custody.
In People v. Kamad, 50 this Court held that:
[t]he presumption [of regularity in the performance of official duty] applies when nothing in the record suggests that the law enforcers deviated from the standard conduct of official duty required by law; where the official act is irregular on its face, the presumption cannot arise. In light of the flagrant lapses we noted, the lower courts were obviously wrong when they relied on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty. 51 (Citation omitted)
Therefore, the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody of the illegal drugs seized. It did not also provide any justification for this noncompliance. These lapses compromised the evidentiary value of the illegal drug and puts the very existence of the corpus delicti into question. For failure to prove this essential element of the offense beyond reasonable doubt, we must acquit the accused-appellant.
WHEREFORE, the September 28, 2017 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08312 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Norbert Javier y Rigoroza is ACQUITTED of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs and is ordered RELEASED from confinement, unless he is being held for some other legal grounds.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections for immediate implementation. The Director General is directed to report the action he has taken to this Court within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution. For their information, copies shall also be furnished to the Police General of the Philippine National Police and the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency.
The Regional Trial Court is directed to turn over the sachets of shabu subject of this case to the Dangerous Drugs Board for destruction in accordance with law.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-13. The September 28, 2017 Decision docketed as CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08312 was penned by Associate Justice Romeo F. Barza and concurred in by Associate Justices Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez and Pablito A. Perez of the Special Sixteenth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
2.Id. at 3.
3.Id.
4. Also referred to as Police Officer 3 Hipolito in other parts of the rollo.
5.Rollo, p. 5.
6.Id. at 5-6.
7.Id. at 4.
8.Id. at 3-4.
9.Id. at 6.
10. CA rollo, pp. 19-30. The May 20, 2016 Decision docketed as Crim. Case No. 91206 was penned by Judge Victoriano B. Cabanos of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 127.
11.Id. at 28.
12.Id. at 29.
13.Id.
14.Id. at 30.
15.Id. at 31.
16.Id. at 32.
17.Rollo, p. 12.
18.Id. at 10-11.
19.Id. at 12.
20.Id. at 14-15.
21.Id. at 17.
22.Id. at 21-22.
23.Id. at 25-27.
24. CA rollo, pp. 43-61.
25.Id. at 51.
26.Id. at 51-54.
27.Id. at 87-107.
28.Id. at 93.
29.Id. at 95.
30.People v. Jaafar, 803 Phil. 582, 595 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
31.People v. Goco, 797 Phil. 433, 442 (2016) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, First Division].
32.People v. Suan, 627 Phil. 174 (2010) [Per J. Del Castillo, Second Division].
33.Id. at 188.
34. The amendments introduced by Republic Act No. 10640 became effective on July 23, 2014.
35. Republic Act No. 9165, sec. 21 (1).
36. G.R. No. 225210, August 7, 2019, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65518> [Per J. Leonen, Third Division], citing People v. Que, 824 Phil. 882, 909 (2018) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
37.Id.
38. 686 Phil. 137, 150 (2012) [Per J. Bersamin, First Division], citing People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214 (2008) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
39.People v. Sipin, 833 Phil. 67, 92 (2018) [Per J. Peralta, Second Division].
40.Rollo, pp. 4-5.
41.People v. Corral, G.R. No. 233883, January 7, 2019 <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64885> [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division].
42.Id.
43. 830 Phil. 385 (2018) [Per J. Caguioa, Second Division].
44.Id. at 408-409.
45.People v. De Guzman, 630 Phil. 637, 649 (2010) [Per J. Nachura, Third Division].
46.People v. Guerrero, G.R. No. 228881, February 6, 2019 <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65082> [Per J. Caguioa, Second Division].
47. G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64400> [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].
48.Id.
49.People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78, 100 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
50. 624 Phil. 289 (2010) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
51.Id. at 311.
n Note from the Publisher: Written as "while" in the official document.