FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 249183. December 7, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.RONNIE JUAN y PULLAN A.K.A. "PAHO", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedDecember 7, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 249183 (People of the Philippines v. Ronnie Juan y Pullan a.k.a. "Paho"). — Before this Court, is an appeal 1 filed by accused-appellant Ronnie Juan y Pullan a.k.a. "Paho" (Juan) seeking the reversal of the Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) promulgated on June 27, 2019. In its Decision, the CA affirmed the Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 35 of Iloilo City, dated October 13, 2017, convicting Juan for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. No. 9165) or The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00.
The Antecedents
The facts, as culled from the CA Decision are as follows:
On August 19, 2016, Juan was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, before the RTC of Iloilo City. The Information 4 states:
That on or about August 18, 2016, in the City of Iloilo, Philippines, [and] within the jurisdiction of this Court, accused, without any justifiable motive, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, criminally and knowingly sell, distribute and deliver to IO1 Candelaria Campañero, poseur buyer, one (1) piece small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.0644 gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug in consideration of Five Hundred Pesos (Php500.00) without the authority to sell and distribute the same; that the buy bust money consisting of five (5) pieces One Hundred Peso (Php100.00) bills including the subscribed one (1) piece of One Hundred Peso (Php100.00) bill with Serial No. EJ311238 were recovered from the accused upon his consequent arrest.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
When arraigned of the charge, Juan entered a plea of not guilty. 6 Thereafter, trial ensued.
The prosecution presented as evidence the testimonies of IO1 Candelaria Campañero (IO1 Campañero), Assistant Chemist Stanley Bernard Val Flores (Flores), SOIII Gerald Sanguenza (SO3 Sanguenza), Agent Marlon Binwag (Binwag), non-drug evidence custodian Divine Grace Guacin (Guacin), and Jennelyn Cusay (Cusay). SDAaTC
On August 17, 2016, IO1 Campañero received a report from a confidential agent that Juan was engaged in selling dangerous drugs. They went to Barangay CC EL-98, Jaro, Iloilo City at around 9:00 o'clock of the same day to verify the information. Upon arrival thereat, she saw Juan and noticed that there were several individuals approaching and talking to him. She also noticed that there was something being exchanged but was not sure what it was. 7
On August 18, 2016, after she reported her observation to her team leader, a buy-bust team was organized. IO1 Campañero was designated as the poseur-buyer and was given buy-bust money worth five hundred pesos (P500.00). The team conducted the buy-bust operation at around 4:30 in the afternoon of the same day at Barangay CC EL-98, Jaro, Iloilo City. 8
Upon arrival at the area, IO1 Campañero walked together with the confidential agent towards the area where Juan was, while the rest of the team stationed themselves nearby. The confidential informant then introduced IO1 Campañero to Juan. The latter in turn told IO1 Campañero that only one item is left because he just remitted his earnings to his source. Juan then gave one small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing shabu to IO1 Campañero, who subsequently handed the buy-bust money as payment. 9
After the exchange of shabu and the buy-bust money, IO1 Campañero placed the shabu inside her bag and made the pre-arranged signal by transferring her sling bag from her left shoulder to the right. Thereafter, her back up SO3 Sanguenza arrived. IO1 Campañero immediately introduced herself as an agent of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) and grabbed the hand of Juan when the latter tried to resist the arrest.
IO1 Campañero conducted a body search on Juan after the arrest and recovered from him a cellular phone and the buy-bust money. She marked the buy-bust money as "RPJ-I" and placed masking tape on it. She testified that it was the same buy-bust money used during the buy-bust operation because they conducted an inventory thereafter. They brought the accused to the PDEA Regional Office VI together with the buy-bust money, the shabu and the other recovered items. She marked the recovered items and conducted an inventory as shown in the Certificate of Inventory issued, which was signed by the media representative, Jorge Cabrera (Cabrera), and the Barangay Kagawad, Regino Pasaje (Pasaje), as witnesses. After the inventory, she submitted the specimen to the PDEA Laboratory Office for examination. The specimen was received by their chemist, Stanley Val Flores. The specimen turned over for examination showed that it was positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. 10
The defense presented as evidence the testimonies of Juan and of Alberto Guanzon, another trisikad driver in the same terminal. The evidence for the defense showed that on August 18, 2016, at around 3:00 in the afternoon, Juan was outside a carenderia at Brgy. CC EL-98, Jaro Iloilo City. While he was standing, a Crosswind vehicle arrived. A PDEA agent alighted from the vehicle and searched him but nothing was recovered. He was then told to go with them. Juan asked the agent why he was being held but the agent pointed a gun at him and threatened to shoot him. While inside the vehicle, they searched him again and asked him where his items were, to which he responded that he had no items with him. He was then brought to the PDEA office and one of the agents told him that he would be their accomplishment. 11
In the PDEA office, he saw a kagawad and a media representative. He also saw shabu and marked money on the table. The agents asked him to admit that he owns the items in the table but he refused. He, thereafter, was imprisoned for a month. 12
In his testimony, Guanzon stated that Juan was searched by two men wearing masks and he was held at gunpoint by one of them. Guanzon testified that he saw Juan, being forcibly dragged towards the vehicle. 13
On October 13, 2017, the RTC rendered its Decision 14 convicting Juan for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused RONNIE JUAN y PULLAN alias "PAHO" GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for Violation of Section 5 of Republic Act 9165. The Court hereby sentences him to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).
The accused shall be credited with the preventive imprisonment he had undergone pursuant to the conditions set forth under Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code as amended.
The drugs subject of the case is declared confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government to be dealt with in accordance with law.
SO ORDERED.15
On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC Decision, holding as follows:
In fine, the testimony of the accused-appellant is not clear and convincing to overturn the finding of the trial court. In the case of People of the Philippines v. Patricio Rayon Sr., evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court; it had the unique opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor, conduct and attitude, especially under cross-examination. Its assessment is entitled to respect unless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of the case.
WHEREFORE, the October 13, 2017 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 35, Iloilo City in Criminal Case No. 16-78514 convicting accused-appellant Ronnie Juan y Pullan alias "Paho" of [a] Violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 or the Dangerous Drugs Act is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.16
The CA was convinced that the prosecution was able to prove the existence of shabu as the object of the consideration in the buy-bust operation. It found that there was no break or gap in the chain of custody of the plastic sachet of shabu, considering that the inventory was witnessed and signed by the media representative and barangay official in the presence of the Juan in compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. The CA thus found that the evidentiary value of the plastic sachet of shabu, which is the corpus delicti in the case, has been duly preserved. 17
Hence, the instant appeal. acEHCD
The CA thereafter forwarded the records of the case to this Court on August 22, 2019. 18 Afterwards, the prosecution filed a Manifestation in Lieu of a Supplemental Brief 19 on February 10, 2020, adopting all the claims and arguments in its Appellant's Brief. The defense filed a similar Manifestation 20 on February 20, 2020.
Issue
The sole issue in this case is whether the CA erred in affirming the conviction of accused-appellant.
Our Ruling
We find merit in this appeal.
R.A. No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, as amended, prohibits the sale of dangerous drugs and provides the penalties for violations thereof:
SECTION 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.
Jurisprudence provides that the following elements must be proven beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction of the above violation: (1) proof that the transaction took place; and (2) presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence. 21 The existence of the dangerous drugs is a condition sine qua non for conviction for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, it being the very corpus delicti of the crimes. 22 Indispensable to proving the corpus delicti in drugs cases is the chain of custody that must be established by the prosecution.
The Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) defines the chain of custody in the following manner:
b. "Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition[.] 23
We note that accused-appellant was arrested in the year 2016, thus, this case is governed by R.A. No. 10640, which amended R.A. No. 9165. In order to preserve the chain of custody of evidence in drugs cases, Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, spells out the mandatory procedural safeguards in a buy-bust operation as follows:
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 dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items 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, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media 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, finally, That noncompliance of 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 and custody over said items.
As such, R.A. No. 10640 now only requires two witnesses to be present during the physical inventory and photographing of the seized items: (1) an elected public official; and (2) either a representative from the National Prosecution Service or the media. 24
In this case, the prosecution has complied with the required witnesses during the conduct of inventory under R.A. No. 10640 with the presence of a media representative, Cabrera, and a Barangay Kagawad, Pasaje. 25 As for the place for the conduct of an inventory, the law does not require the arresting officers to conduct the inventory solely in the place of arrest. Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, expressly allows the inventory to be conducted either in the place of arrest or the nearest office of the apprehending team, whichever is practicable. In this case, the conduct of the inventory by the prosecution at the PDEA Regional Office VI is considered sufficient under the law. SDHTEC
The conduct of marking, however, must be done by the arresting officers at the place of arrest and in the presence of the accused in order to preserve the chain of custody. In this case, the prosecution admits their failure to mark the seized drugs at the place of arrest and immediately after the confiscation. Given this, the chain of custody over the alleged seized illegal drugs cannot be established.
This Court has previously explained that the chain of custody is divided into four (4) links:
[F]irst, 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 by the forensic chemist to the court. 26
Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link. It is vital that the seized contraband are immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. 27 The marking of the evidence 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 proceedings, obviating switching, "planting," or contamination of evidence. 28
The chain of custody rule requires that the marking of the seized contraband be done (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator, and (2) immediately upon confiscation. 29
In this case, it is clear that the seized items were not marked in the presence of accused-appellant. IO1 Candelaria admitted in her testimony that she and the buy-bust team failed to conduct the marking at the place of the arrest, to wit:
Cross-Examination of IO1 Candelaria Campañero, by Atty. Dela Cruz
Q: You mentioned that the accused allegedly handed to you one (1) elongated heat-sealed plastic sachet, is that correct?
A: Yes ma'am.
Q: And, you placed it inside your bag?
A: Yes ma'am.
Q: And in that bag, it is where you also placed the buy-bust money that you used in the alleged buying of shabu, is that correct?
A: Yes ma'am.
Q: And, you mentioned that after you arrested the accused, you immediately placed the marking at the PDEA, is that correct?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: You are trying to say, Ms. Witness, that you did not conduct the markings and inventory at CC EL-98, Jaro, Iloilo City, is that correct?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: Am I correct to say that you made the marking on the elongated heat-sealed plastic sachet at the scene of the buy-bust operation, is that correct?
A: We were not able to make markings there because the place is so crowded, ma'am.
Q: But there was also no threat to your lives during that time, is that correct?
A: Yes ma'am.
Q: And, am I correct to say that it is your standard operating procedure that you have to immediately mark the items that you have recovered after you apprehended the accused?
A: Yes ma'am.
Q: And yet, in this case, you failed to do that, is that correct?
A: Yes ma'am.
Q: You also conducted the inventory of the items recovered at the PDEA office only, is that correct?
A: Yes ma'am.
Q: And, you also have not recovered any deadly weapon from the accused, is that correct?
A: Yes ma'am.
Q: And, that you have failed to do the markings at the scene of the buy-bust operation, is that correct?
A: Yes ma'am. 30
Considering IO1 Candelaria's failure to immediately mark the items recovered from the accused-appellant after his arrest, there was clearly a prolonged period of time when the seized item was unaccounted for, creating doubt on the integrity of the drugs presented in court as evidence. It is likewise clear from the testimony that there was no reasonable explanation for the officers' failure to mark the evidence immediately after the confiscation and at the place of the arrest, which they admit was already in their standard operating procedure. Evidently, there was no threat to their lives and no deadly weapons were recovered. AScHCD
This glaring procedural lapse was confirmed during the testimony of SO3 Sanguenza, thus:
Cross Examination of SO3 Gerald Sanguenza by Atty. Dela Cruz:
Q: You mentioned a while ago that you were present when IO1 Compañero marked the items. Where did she mark the items, Mr. Witness, the one sachet of shabu?
A: In our office, ma'am.
Q: But is it not, Mr. Witness that in your affidavit you mentioned that only the non-drugs (sic) pieces of evidence were the ones that were marked in the office of PDEA? I am inviting your attention to answer to question no. 29 of your affidavit. Can you read the question and answer there?
Witness:
"Where did IO1 Compañero mark the sachet of shabu that she bought from @PAHO (sic) and the non-pieces of evidence she recovered from him?"
Atty. Dela Cruz:
What was your answer?
A: She marked them in the office of PDEA Regional Office VI because the area was a public place and it was very crowded.
Q: So, all the items you recovered from the accused were marked in the office of PDEA Regional Office VI.
A: Yes, ma'am.31
This Court has already ruled that the prosecution is required to show that the marking was done in the presence of the accused to assure the identity and integrity of the drugs, and that it was properly preserved. 32
Given that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody at the very first link, the rest of the chain is already put to question and the integrity of the sachet of shabu allegedly seized is thereby compromised. From the moment the sachet was placed in IO1 Candelaria's bag, unmarked, up to the time the alleged seized drugs traveled to the PDEA Regional Office, there was no safeguard adopted against the possible switching, planting, or contamination of evidence, which is precisely what the law seeks to curtail. Failure to establish the proper procedures in marking, a vital part of the chain, is equivalent to the failure of the prosecution to establish the corpus delicti of the crime charged against the accused-appellant.
This Court has been consistent in stating that for cases involving the sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must establish with unwavering exactitude that the dangerous drug presented in court as evidence against the accused is the same as that seized from him in the first place. 33 Considering that a buy-bust operation is usually done covertly and in secrecy such that the only ones present during the transaction itself are the poseur-buyer and seller, the procedural safeguards in R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, become essential to establish the identity of the illegal drug with moral certainty. 34
This is especially true in this case where the dangerous drugs involved are of miniscule volume. As stated by this Court in the case of People v. Holgado: 35
While the miniscule amount of narcotics seized is by itself not a ground for acquittal, this circumstance underscores the need for more exacting compliance with Section 21. In Mallillin v. People, this court said that "the likelihood of tampering, loss or mistake with respect to an exhibit is greatest when the exhibit is small and is one that has physical characteristics fungible in nature and similar in form to substances familiar to people in their daily lives." 36
In the case of Lescano v. People, 37 this Court held that the miniscule amount of narcotics supposedly seized amplifies the doubts on their integrity. What was involved in that case was a single sachet of 1.4 grams of plant material alleged to have been marijuana. In the same case, this Court cited People v. Dela Cruz where it deemed that the seizure of seven (7) sachets supposedly containing 0.1405 gram of shabu lent itself to dubiety. 38
This case involves a singular sachet of shabu that is even less in volume, weighing 0.0644 gram. As jurisprudence has established, Courts must employ heightened scrutiny, consistent with the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt, in evaluating cases involving miniscule amounts of drugs as these can be readily planted and tampered. 39
It is for these reasons that we find doubt on the integrity and evidentiary nature of the seized illegal drugs and find the appeal meritorious. AcICHD
Finally, We would like to reiterate the proper interplay between the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties vis-à-vis the presumption of innocence afforded to the accused. The prosecution, in their Appellee's Brief, asserts that "in the absence of any ill motive on their part, the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duty stands except when there is proof to the contrary." 40
It bears emphasizing that in drugs cases, more stringent standards must be used for the presumption of regularity to apply. 41 The presumption should arise only when there is a showing that the apprehending officer/buy-bust team followed the requirements of Section 21, or when the saving clause may be properly applied. Gaps in the chain of custody, such as in this case, cannot be filled in by the mere invocation of the presumption of regularity. 42
Judicial reliance on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty despite the lapses in the procedures undertaken by the agents of the law is fundamentally unsound because the lapses themselves are affirmative proofs of irregularity. 43 In People v. Enriquez, 44 this Court held:
x x x [A]ny divergence from the prescribed procedure must be justified and should not affect the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated contraband. Absent any of the said conditions, the non-compliance is an irregularity, a red flag, that casts reasonable doubt on the identity of the corpus delicti. 45
With the irregularities committed by the authorities in this case, the constitutional presumption of innocence must prevail. 46
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated June 27, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CR-HC No. 02843 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Ronnie Juan y Pullan a.k.a. "Paho" is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged on the ground of reasonable doubt.
The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is hereby ORDERED to IMMEDIATELY RELEASE accused-appellant Ronnie Juan y Pullan a.k.a. "Paho" from custody, unless he is being detained for some other lawful cause.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections for immediate implementation. The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to REPORT the action he has taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution. Copies shall also be furnished to the Police General of the Philippine National Police and the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for their information.
Let an entry of judgment be issued.
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. CA rollo, pp. 108-109.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap with Associate Justices Emily R. Aliño-Geluz and Dorothy P. Montejo-Gonzaga, concurring; id. at 99-107.
3. Penned by Presiding Judge Daniel Antonio Gerardo S. Amular; records, pp. 99-113.
4.Id. at 99.
5.Id.
6. Records, p. 47.
7.Rollo, p. 5.
8.Id.
9.Id.
10.Id. at 6.
11.Id.
12.Id. at 7.
13. TSN, October 3, 2017, pp. 3-6.
14. Records, pp. 99-113.
15.Id. at 113.
16. CA rollo, pp. 106-107.
17.Id. at 105-106.
18.Rollo, p. 20.
19.Id. at 23.
20.Id. at 29-31.
21.People v. Magat, 588 Phil. 395, 402 (2008).
22.Id.
23. DDB Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, Section 1 (b).
24.People v. Maganon, G.R. No. 234040, June 26, 2019, citing People v. Lim, G.R. No. 231989, November 13, 2018 and People v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 236304, November 5, 2018.
25. Records, pp. 20; 77-78.
26.People v. Villalon, Jr., G.R. No. 249412 (2021), citing Dela Riva v. People, 769 Phil. 872 (2015).
27.People v. Goyenoche, G.R. No. 243985 (2020), citing People v. Mantalaba, 669 Phil. 461, 478 (2011).
28.Id.
29.Id.
30. TSN, December 13, 2016, pp. 34-36. (Emphasis supplied).
31. TSN, February 14, 2017, pp. 18-19. (Emphasis supplied).
32.People v. Goyenoche, supra note 25.
33.People v. Yepes, 784 Phil. 113, 124 (2016).
34. See People v. Cabrellos, G.R. No. 229826, July 30, 2018.
35. 741 Phil. 78 (2014).
36.Id. at 99. (Emphasis supplied).
37. 778 Phil. 460 (2016).
38.Id. at 478-479.
39.People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78, 100 (2014).
40. CA rollo, p. 87.
41.People v. Tomawis, 830 Phil. 385, 419 (2018).
42.Id. at 419-420.
43.Id. at 420.
44. 718 Phil. 352 (2013).
45.Id. at 366. (Emphasis supplied).
46.People v. Tomawis, supra note 41 at 420.