THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 248417. October 7, 2020.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.EDUARDO JEMINO y OQUIANA ALIAS "BEBOT JIMENO", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 7, 2020, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 248417(People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eduardo Jemino y Oquiana alias "Bebot Jimeno," Accused-Appellant). — This is an appeal 1 by certiorari seeking to reverse and set aside the 29 November 2018 Decision 2 promulgated by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02461, which affirmed the 11 January 2017 Decision 3 of Branch 47, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bacolod City, in Criminal Case No. 14-38777, finding Eduardo Jemino y Oquiana alias Bebot Jimeno (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165. 4
Antecedents
Accused-appellant was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of RA No. 9165, in an Information, the accusatory portion of which reads:
That, on or about the 12th day of March 2014, 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, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver, give away to a police poseur buyer, PO2 Ivan D. Inoperio, in a buy-bust operation, one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu weighing 0.027 gram, a dangerous drug, in exchange for a price of Three Hundred (P300.00) Pesos for which the police used one (1) P200 bill with Serial No. MB511854 and one (1) P100 bill with Serial No. VQ427340 as marked money, in violation of the aforementioned law.
Act contrary to law. 5
An Information was likewise filed against him for violation of Section 11, RA 9165. Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges against him. After termination of pre-trial, trial on the merits ensued. 6
Version of the Prosecution
On 12 March 2014, the City Anti-illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Group (CAIDSOTG) received information that one alias Bebot Jemino, later identified as the accused-appellant, was engaged in illegal drug trade activities on San Juan Street, Bacolod City. On the basis thereof, a team was formed to conduct a buy-bust operation against accused-appellant. Thereafter, the team proceeded to the target area. Upon arrival, the confidential informant (CI) and PO2 Ivan Inoperio (PO2 Inoperio), the poseur buyer, approached accused-appellant. The CI introduced PO2 Inoperio as a buyer of P300.00 worth of shabu. After demanding and getting the payment from PO2 Inoperio, accused-appellant handed a sachet with suspected shabu in exchange. 7 TIADCc
PO2 Inoperio arrested accused-appellant and recovered from the latter the buy-bust money. Afterwards, they proceeded to accused-appellant's house and were able to recover additional sachets with suspected shabu and other drug paraphernalia. Thereat, PO2 Inoperio marked the sachet subject of sale and the other seized items. An inventory and taking of photographs of the seized items followed suit, in the presence of a barangay kagawad, a representative from the media, and accused-appellant. Later, the team proceeded to their office for documentary purposes after which, PO2 Inoperio brought the seized items to the crime laboratory. Upon examination, the seized drugs tested positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride. 8
Version of the Defense
Accused-appellant denied the charges of illegal sale and illegal possession against him. According to him, in the afternoon of 12 March 2014, while he was on board his motorcycle waiting at the side of a road, a vehicle stopped in front of him and several persons in civilian attire alighted. He recognized them as police officers as they were armed. Thereafter, he was searched and was handcuffed. He was brought to his house first before they proceeded to the police station, where he was subsequently detained. 9
Ruling of the RTC
On 11 January 2017, the RTC rendered its Decision, 10 acquitting accused-appellant of illegal possession of dangerous drugs but convicting him of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, thus:
WHEREFORE, finding accused Eduardo Jemino y Oquiana GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act 9165 (Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs) in Criminal Case 14-38777, judgment is hereby rendered sentencing him to suffer Life Imprisonment, and to pay a fine of Php500,000.00 in Criminal Case No. 14-38777. He is also to bear the accessory penalty provided by law. Costs against accused.
xxx xxx xxx.
SO ORDERED.11
The RTC held that the prosecution was able to prove through testimonial, documentary and object evidence the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs against accused-appellant. 12 Further, it held that the prosecution was able to clearly establish the necessary links in the chain of custody of the specimen subject of sale, from seizure, delivery to the crime laboratory, until it was presented in court as proof of the corpus delicti. 13
Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed to the CA.
Ruling of the CA
In its 29 November 2018 Decision, 14 the CA affirmed accused-appellant's conviction. The dispositive portion of said decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated January 11, 2017 rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 47, Bacolod City in Criminal Case No. 14-38777 convicting accused-appellant Eduardo Jemino y Oquiana alias "Bebot Jimeno" of Violation of Section 5 of Article II of R.A. 9165 or the Dangerous Drugs Act is AFFIRMED.
Costs against the accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED.15
The CA held that accused-appellant was caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu to the police poseur-buyer. It likewise held that the chain of custody requirement over the sachet of shabu was complied with, from the time accused-appellant delivered it to the poseur-buyer, until it was brought to the court as evidence. It disregarded accused-appellant's defense of denial which was unsubstantiated. 16
Hence, this appeal.
Issue
The sole issue in this case is whether the CA correctly affirmed accused-appellant's conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II, of RA No. 9165.
Ruling of the Court
The appeal is granted.
In securing a conviction for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must prove: (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. 17 It is essential that the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited drug, the corpus delicti, as evidence. 18
The corpus delicti is the seized drug itself. It is therefore incumbent upon the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the drug confiscated from the accused is the same drug presented in court as evidence. Corollary thereto, Section 21 of RA No. 9165, the applicable law at the time of the commission of the alleged offense, 19 outlines the procedure which the police officers must strictly follow to preserve the integrity of the confiscated drugs and/or paraphernalia used as evidence, thus: (1) the seized items be inventoried and photographed immediately after seizure or confiscation; (2) the physical inventory and photographing must be done in the presence of (a) the accused or his/her representative or counsel, (b) an elected public official, (c) a representative from the media, and (d) a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), all of whom shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy of the same; and (3) the seized drugs must be turned over to a forensic laboratory within twenty-four (24) hours from confiscation for examination. 20 AIDSTE
The prosecution must likewise establish the chain of custody of the dangerous drugs to ensure its integrity, i.e., first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court. 21 Any break or disruption in the links would cast doubt in the identity and integrity of the seized item. 22
Here, the prosecution failed to show the police officers' strict compliance with the established safeguards in Section 21 creating substantial gaps in the chain of custody.
The shabu subject of sale was not
PO2 Inoperio marked the sachet with shabu, subject of sale, only after they recovered additional shabu and other drug paraphernalia from accused-appellant's house. Considering the minuscule amount of the shabu sold (0.027 gram), the possibility of switching with the other seized shabu is not implausible. The Court has often stressed that the immediate marking of the seized evidence is crucial as it serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of criminal proceeding, obviating switching, planting or contamination of evidence. 23
There was no representative from the
It was also established that only the barangay kagawad and a media representative were present to witness the conduct of the inventory and taking of photographs of the seized items. 24 The prosecution failed to explain the absence of the representative from the DOJ, nor was there any showing that the police officers exerted earnest efforts to secure the presence of the said witness, despite the fact that the buy bust operation was planned.
To emphasize, the presence of the witnesses required by law is essential. This rule is vital to insulate the apprehension and incrimination proceeding from any taint of irregularity. The insulating presence of such witnesses would preserve an unbroken chain of custody. 25
The apprehending officer kept the
PO2 Inoperio testified that he was in sole custody of the seized items from its seizure until he delivered the same to the crime laboratory. 26 In People v. Bancola, 27 it was held that the apprehending officer's act of keeping the seized evidence until its transfer to the forensic chemist and his failure to transfer the seized evidence to the investigating officer are considered breaks in the chain of custody.
There was no testimony as to how the
Only the chemistry report was presented in court, 28 with only the fact that the forensic chemical officer has no personal knowledge as to the recovery and marking of the subject specimens, stipulated upon. 29 Verily, there was no testimony as to the handling and precautions undertaken when the seized items were delivered, and the precautions undertaken to ensure its integrity before they were presented in court. In the absence of testimony regarding the management, storage and preservation of the illegal drugs seized after its qualitative examination, the 4th link in the chain of custody could not be reasonably established. 30
Clearly, the unjustified noncompliance with Section 21 creates a substantial gap in the chain of custody and casts doubt on the identity of the corpus delicti. Consequently, it created reasonable doubt as to the guilt of accused-appellant, warranting his acquittal.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The 29 November 2018 Decision promulgated by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02461, finding accused-appellant EDUARDO JEMINO y OQUIANA alias "BEBOT JIMENO" guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of RA No. 9165, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. He is hereby ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt. He is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention unless he is being confined for some other lawful cause. AaCTcI
The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to IMPLEMENT this Resolution and to report to this Court the action taken hereon within five (5) days from receipt.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) RUMAR D. PASIONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 17-19. See Notice of Appeal.
2.Id. at 5-16; penned by Associate Justice Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap with Associates Justice Louis P. Acosta and Emily R. Aliño-Geluz, concurring.
3. CA rollo, pp. 39-53; penned by Judge Therese Blanche A. Bolunia.
4. Comprehensive Dangerous Act of 2002.
5. CA rollo, p. 39.
6.Id. at 40.
7.Id. at 40-41.
8.Id. at 42-43.
9.Rollo, p. 8.
10. CA rollo, pp. 39-53.
11.Id. at 52-53.
12.Id. at 50.
13.Id. at 49.
14.Rollo, pp. 5-16.
15.Id. at 15.
16.Id. at 12 to 13, 15.
17.See People v. Crispo, G.R. No. 230065, 14 March 2018.
18.See People v. Amaro, G.R. No. 207517, 1 June 2016.
19. The Information alleged that accused-appellant committed the offense on 12 March 2014, thus, the earlier version of Sec. 21 of RA No. 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations shall apply, i.e., prior to its amendment by Republic Act No. 10640 (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) which was approved on 15 July 2014 and became effective on 7 August 2014 or 15 days after its publication on 23 July 2014.
20.People v. Espejo, G.R. No. 240914, 13 March 2019.
21.People v. Nandi, G.R. No. 188905, 13 July 2010.
22.See People v. De Dios, G.R. No. 243664, 22 January 2020.
23.See People v. Coreche, G.R. No. 182528, 14 August 2009.
24. CA rollo, pp. 42-43.
25.See People v. Macud, G.R. No. 219175, 14 December 2017.
26. CA rollo, p. 43.
27. G.R. No. 237802, 18 March 2019.
28. CA rollo, p. 46.
29.Id. at 40.
30.See People v. Ubungen, G.R. No. 225497, 23 July 2018.