SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 207944. January 5, 2022.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.PAQUITO LACUNA AND LEONORA AMISTAD RUTA, accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated05 January 2022which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 207944 (People of the Philippines v. Paquito Lacuna and Leonora Amistad Ruta). — The Court NOTES:
1. the ex-parte motion for early resolution of the case dated June 12, 2021 of accused-appellant Paquito R. Lacuna (Lacuna), stating, among others, that this criminal complaint must be dismissed outright for reasons stated therein, and praying that the Court rectify/reverse the decisions rendered by the trial court and the Court of Appeals (CA) and acquit accused-appellants Lacuna and Leonora Amistad Ruta (Ruta) of the offense charged; and
2. the letter (handwritten and in the vernacular) dated November 24, 2021 of accused-appellant, praying that his appeal be immediately resolved as he has been incarcerated for 18 years.
For resolution of this Court is an appeal from the July 22, 2010 Decision 1 and the May 21, 2013 Resolution 2 of the CA in CA-G.R. CEB-C.R.-H.C. No. 00918 affirming in toto the April 9, 2008 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 10, finding the accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and finding Lacuna guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
The Case
Lacuna and Ruta were indicted for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, while Lacuna was also indicted for violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The accusatory portions of the Informations dated May 22, 2003 read:
Criminal Case No. CBU-66163
FOR VIOLATING SECTION 5, ARTICLE II, OF RA NO. 9165
That on or about the 21st day of May 2003, at about 9:15 P.M., in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, conniving and confederating together and mutually helping with each other with deliberate intent and without being authorized by law, did then and there sell, deliver, or give away to a poseur buyer the following:
One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic packet containing .50 gram of white crystalline substance locally known as "SHABU," containing methylamphetamine [sic] hydrochloride, a dangerous drug/s.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
Criminal Case No. CBU-66164
FOR VIOLATING SECTION 11, ARTICLE II OF RA NO. 9165
That on or about the 21st day of May 2003, at about 9:15 P.M., in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, with deliberate intent, did then and there have in his/her possession and under his/her control or use the following:
A. Two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic packets each containing of white crystalline substance having total weight of 4.62 grams
B. Four (4) heat-sealed transparent plastic packets and each containing white crystalline substance total net weight of 1.91 grams
C. Ten (10) heat-sealed transparent plastic packets each containing white crystalline substance having total net weight of 2.74 grams
Locally known as "SHABU," containing methamphetamine hydrochloride dangerous drug/s without being authorized by law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
When arraigned, Lacuna and Ruta pleaded not guilty. After termination of the pre-trial, trial on the merits ensued. AScHCD
The evidence for the prosecution established that around 9:00 p.m. on May 21, 2003, an asset of Police Officer (PO) 3 Elmo Rosales (PO3 Rosales) 6 informed the Drug Enforcement Unit (DEU) of Cebu City Police Station that a shabu dealer named Leonora from Iligan City is currently staying at Room 512 of Hallmark Hotel with her male companion, later identified as Lacuna. 7 PO3 Rosales reported the same to his Unit Chief, Police Senior Inspector Jonathan Abella (PSI Abella) who then decided to conduct a buy-bust operation that same night. The team was composed of PO1 Patrick Mumar (PO1 Mumar) as the poseur-buyer and PO2 Cirilo Luague (PO2 Luague), PO2 Gil Garcia, PO1 Dindo Lumapak, PO3 Rosales, and PSI Abella as the back-up team. It was decided that PO1 Mumar would buy P1,000.00 worth of shabu with two one-hundred-peso bills and a wad of papers in between to make it appear to be one thousand pesos. 8
Thereafter, the team proceeded to the hotel. PO1 Mumar and the asset proceeded to the fifth floor of the hotel while the rest of the team remained outside to wait for their pre-arranged signal, a missed call. The asset entered room 512 while PO1 Mumar waited in the hallway. The asset exited the room with Ruta and Lacuna and proceeded to the lobby with PO1 Mumar. He introduced him to them as the one interested to buy P1,000.00 worth of shabu. The asset and Ruta conversed for a few seconds, then, Ruta handed a plastic packet to Lacuna who then gave the same to PO1 Mumar. After receiving the packet and handing over the marked money, he immediately placed a missed call to PO3 Rosales's cellphone. He announced that he is a police officer, and arrested the two. They initially resisted the arrest. Meanwhile, PO3 Rosales heard the missed call, and instructed the team to enter the hotel and climbed the stairs to the fifth floor. They arrived after several seconds. He frisked Lacuna for weapon, and recovered a black lady's wallet from his left pocket and the marked money from the right pocket. On the other hand, nothing was found in Ruta's possession. 9
PO1 Mumar found 16 plastic packets in different sizes inside the wallet. He turned over the bought packet and the others to PO3 Rosales who then took charge of the seized items. Afterwards, they brought the two accused to their office. Upon arrival, PO3 Rosales marked the packets with "PL" for the one bought during buy-bust, and "PL-1" to "PL-16" for the confiscated packets found in the wallet. They were able to identify the accused as Lacuna and Ruta, who were then brought to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Regional Crime Laboratory for examination of the presence of ultraviolet powder, which proved positive thereof in Chemistry Report No. PE-021-2003. 10
On the other hand, the defense narrates that Ruta was in Cebu City to enroll her child 11 and to spend time with her lover, Lacuna. At around 4:30 p.m., Lacuna, a resident of Barangay Hinaptanon, Iligan City, and she had a snack and dinner at a restaurant on Manalili Street then returned to their hotel room afterwards. At 7:00 p.m., he ordered two cups of coffee and cold water thru the hotel intercom. He was taking a bath when he heard a knock on the door. He asked her to open the door. She relented after initially refusing since she did not know who was at the door. He told her to wear a duster as she was only clad in towel. Two police officers barged in their room with guns pointed at them when she opened the door. They ordered him to exit the bathroom, raise his hands, and sit on the bed. PO1 Mumar informed them that they were under arrest for selling shabu. A few moments later, a group of police officers arrived. PO3 Rosales asked Lacuna if he was "Tata" 12 to which he replied in the affirmative. He also told him that they have information that he is selling shabu. They were brought to the DEU office for interrogation with a promise that they will return to their hotel. He saw Ruta's husband hiding in one of the cars parked near the DEU office. He told him "balos-balos lang ta parts."13 While they were in the office, PO3 Rosales asked for a "regalo,"14 a name of a drug pusher or drug lord from Iligan City. He promised him that he will be released if he gave a name. Since he was unable to do so, he was asked if he could give P150,000.00 in exchange of their liberty. PO3 Rosales poured the contents of a red wallet at the table and told him that they were shabu. He told PO3 Rosales that it was up to them since he is innocent. The police officers took their P25,000.00 cash, his bracelet, his cellphone, and Ruta's ring. He was brought downstairs and then someone wiped his hands with a piece of paper. 15
The RTC Ruling
In a Decision 16 dated April 9, 2008, the RTC found Lacuna and Ruta guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, and found Lacuna guilty of the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The fallo of the decision reads: AcICHD
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, this Court finds the two accused, PACQUITO RABOR LACUNA, alias "TOTO" and LEONORA AMISTAD RUTA alias "NORA[,"] GUILTY for violating Section 5, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 for Criminal Case No. 66163. Both are hereby sentenced to suffer in prison the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and a FINE of [P]500,000.00.
For Criminal Case No. 66164, this Court finds the accused PAQUITO RABOR LACUNA alias "Toto[,"] GUILTY of violating Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. He is sentenced to SUFFER in prison the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and a FINE of [P]500,000.00.
This Court orders the confiscation of .50 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride and the sixteen plastic packs/packets with total weight of 9.27 grams methamphetamine hydrochloride and the contents thereon shall be destroyed in accordance with the law.
SO ORDERED.17
The trial court dismissed Ruta's testimonies and found them full of inconsistencies which seriously undermined their integrity. It did not believe that Ruta's estranged husband was behind the charges as he was a mere habal-habal driver. 18 It insinuated that a man of his stature cannot influence the DEU. 19 The prosecution was able to establish and prove the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The following were also established: PO1 Mumar positively identified Ruta as the one who negotiated with the asset and himself, and gave the plastic packet to Lacuna who then handed the same to him; he, in turn, handed the marked money to Lacuna; PO1 Mumar handed the packet and the wallet containing 16 packets of suspected drugs to PO2 Rosales; they brought Lacuna and Ruta to their office; PO3 Rosales marked the seized items in the presence of the buy-bust team at their office; PO3 Luague delivered the seized items at 2:30 a.m. on May 22, 2003 at the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory; PO1 Cortes 20 received the items and later turned over to P/Inspector David Alexander Patriana who then examined the same and were later found positive of methamphetamine hydrochloride. The RTC held that the non-presentation of the marked money as the consideration during the transaction does not affect the cause of the prosecution. As to illegal possession case against Lacuna, the Court ruled that the prosecution was able to prove the elements. PO1 Mumar frisked Lacuna and found in his right pocket a wallet which contained 16 packs of suspected shabu. 21
Subsequently, the RTC denied Lacuna and Ruta's motion for reconsideration. 22
Aggrieved, Lacuna and Ruta appealed to the CA.
The CA Ruling
On appeal, the CA affirmed in toto the Decision 23 of the RTC. It did not disturb the findings of the trial court as to the issue on credibility, since the latter was in the better position to resolve the matter having heard the witnesses and observed their deportment during the trial. It gave credence to the police officers for they were presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary suggesting ill motive on the part of the police officers. There was no evidence that the witnesses were impelled by improper motive in testifying against Lacuna and Ruta. It also held that Lacuna and Ruta's denial becomes weaker in the face of positive identification by the witnesses. What is material in the prosecution of the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence. It was clear from the testimony of PO1 Mumar, the poseur-buyer, that Lacuna and Ruta were caught selling the white crystalline substance, and that when Lacuna was frisked, more of the said substance were found, which were later tested positive of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. 24
It ruled that a perfect chain of custody is not always the standard procedure because it is almost always impossible to obtain the same. The failure to mark and photograph the confiscated items in the presence of the accused is not fatal and will not render the items inadmissible, provided the evidentiary nature of the seized items was preserved. There was no showing of a broken chain in the custody of the items, from the moment of its seizure by the entrapment team, to the investigating officer, to the time they were brought to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination. The appellants have the burden to show that the pieces of evidence were tampered with to overcome a presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by the police officers. Conspiracy may be established by acts of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime, from which may be logically inferred the existence of a common purpose to commit the crime. It was established that Ruta brokered the transaction and the one who gave the packet containing shabu to Lacuna who then gave it to PO1 Mumar. From the said acts, it was apparent that there was conspiracy between Lacuna and Ruta. The allegation that they were not licensed or authorized to sell and deliver the shabu could have been disproved by presenting a copy of the license or authority thereof. 25 The decretal portion of the Decision 26 reads: TAIaHE
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated April 9, 2008 in Criminal Case Nos. 66163-66164 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.27
Hence, the instant appeal.
Lacuna and Ruta seek the reversal of their conviction. In their Supplemental Brief, 28 they alleged that the apprehending team failed to conduct the physical inventory and photograph in their presence at the place of the crime, to coordinate with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, and to present and prove justifiable grounds that excuses their non-compliance with the chain of custody procedure.
Ruling of the Court
Appeal in criminal cases throws the whole case open for review and it is the duty of the appellate court to correct, cite and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned. Considering that what is at stake here is no less than the liberty of Lacuna and Ruta, 29 the Court has judiciously reviewed the case and finds merit in the instant appeal.
Lacuna and Ruta were charged with the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. Moreover, Lacuna was separately charged with the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
In order to properly secure the conviction of the accused charged with illegal sale of prohibited drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the following must concur: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and its consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. 30 The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money by the seller successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction. What is material, therefore, is the proof that the transaction or sale transpired, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti, as evidence. 31
While, in prosecutions for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, it must be shown that: (1) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a dangerous drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug. 32 The existence of the drug is the very corpus delicti of the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs and, thus, a condition sine qua non for conviction. 33
Since the incident happened prior to the amendment of R.A. No. 9165 by R.A. No. 10640, 34 the pertinent provision which applies in the instant case provides:
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 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 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[.] (Emphasis supplied)
From the foregoing, Section 21 requires that the marking, physical inventory, and photography of the seized items be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation, and be done in the presence of no less than three witnesses namely: (a) representative from the media and (b) the Department of Justice, and (c) any elected public official. The presence of these witnesses primarily ensures the establishment of chain of custody and remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence. 35
This Court has recognized that due to varying field conditions, strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure may not always be possible. As such, the failure of the apprehending team to strictly comply with the same would not ipso facto render the seizure and custody over the items as void and invalid, provided that the prosecution satisfactorily proves that: (a) there is a justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. 36
Here, the Court finds that the apprehending officers committed unjustified deviations from the chain of custody rule which put into question the integrity and evidentiary value of the dangerous drugs allegedly seized from Lacuna and Ruta.
In this case, it can readily be discerned that the markings were not done immediately after the seizure of the illegal drugs from Lacuna and Ruta.
The testimony of PO3 Rosales further provides:
Q You were the one who recovered it?
A No sir, after [PO1] Mumar recovered it [sic] he gave it to me.
Q Who were present?
A Police Officers Gil Garcia, Cirilo Luague, Dindo Lumapak, and the asset.
Q You brought the items to your office?
A Yes, sir.
Q That was the time you marked them?
A Yes, sir. 37
xxx xxx xxx
Q Did you issue a receipt of those items at the place of the incident to PO1 MUMAR?
A I did not.
Q There was no markings made there?
A No markings.
Q There was no marking on the shabu when Mumar gave it to you?
A Yes, sir. 38 (Emphases supplied)
From the foregoing, it appears that PO1 Mumar turned over the unmarked items to PO3 Rosales. The marking was only placed at the DEU office. It is held that the marking of the drugs immediately after they have been confiscated is crucial in proving the chain of custody because this is the starting point in the custodial link. "Marking" — which is the placing by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initials and signature on the seized items upon seizure — is imperative because the succeeding handlers of the specimen will use the same as a reference. The marking is intended to segregate the specific evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized until they are disposed of. 39 Considering the seized illegal drugs were to be used for different criminal charges, and the place of apprehension is a private building, the officers could have endeavored to at least mark the packets before transporting them to their office. Moreover, the apprehending team did not proffer any explanation for not immediately marking the seized items at the hotel. The steps taken by the officers to avoid any mix-up were also not established. The marking is a critical task in preserving the identity and integrity of the confiscated shabu, which the officers failed to perform in this case. cDHAES
The failure to immediately place markings was aggravated by the absence of the three insulating witnesses to the inventory procedure of the confiscated items. It is not enough for the apprehending officers to merely mark the seized sachets of shabu; the buy-bust team must also conduct a physical inventory and take photographs of the confiscated item in the presence of the persons required by law. 40 While the absence of the required witnesses does not per se render the seized items inadmissible, a justifiable reason for such failure or a showing of any genuine and sufficient effort to secure the required witnesses under Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 must be adduced. 41
The Court, in People v. Miranda, 42 reminded prosecutors that since the requirements are clearly set forth in the law, the State retains the positive duty to account for any lapses in the chain of custody of the drugs/items seized from the accused, regardless of whether or not the defense raises the same in the proceedings a quo; otherwise, it risks the possibility of having a conviction overturned on grounds that go into the evidence's integrity and evidentiary value, albeit the same are raised only for the first time on appeal, or even not raised, become apparent upon further review. 43 As such, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to account for the witnesses' absence by presenting a justifiable reason therefor, or at the very least, by showing that genuine and sufficient efforts were exerted by the officers to secure their presence. 44 The justifiable ground for non-compliance must also be proven as a fact because the Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist. 45
The prosecution did not offer any justifiable reason for the absence of the witnesses nor a showing that the police officers exerted genuine efforts in securing their presence. Additionally, the existence of the inventory and photography were never established during the trial. A perusal of the exhibits presented during the trial reveals that there were no inventory receipts for the illegal sale and illegal possession cases. 46 In establishing the chain of custody, the prosecution merely mentioned that PO3 Rosales marked the seized items in the presence of his team members at the DEU office and remained mum as to the inventory and photography in the presence of accused-appellants and of the required witnesses. The said lapses in the procedures were completely unacknowledged and left unjustified.
Lastly, the Court disagrees with the CA that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties could apply in favor of the police officers. The regularity of the performance of duty could not be properly presumed in favor of the police officers because the records were replete with indicia of their serious lapses. 47 The presumption stands when no reason exists in the records by which to doubt the regularity of the performance of official duty. 48
The deviations in the chain of custody procedure committed by the apprehending officers weigh against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt against Lacuna and Ruta as the integrity and evidentiary value of the items supposedly seized from them have been compromised. Hence, the Court is constrained to rule that Lacuna and Ruta's acquittal is in order.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated July 22, 2010 and the Resolution dated May 21, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB-C.R.-H.C. No. 00918 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellants Paquito Lacuna and Leonora Amistad Ruta are accordingly ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is ORDERED to immediately cause the release of accused-appellants from detention, unless they are being held for some other lawful cause, and to REPORT to this Court compliance herewith within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution. ASEcHI
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED." (Hernando, J., no part due to prior action in the Court of Appeals; Lopez, M.V., J., designated additional Member per Raffle dated November 29, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 3-20. Penned by Associate Justice Agnes Reyes-Carpio with Associate Justices Edgardo L. Delos Santos (a retired Member of this Court) and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. concurring.
2. Id. at 24-25. Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo L. Delos Santos (a retired Member of this Court) with Associate Justices Pampio A. Abarintos and Ramon Paul L. Hernando (now a Member of this Court) concurring.
3. CA rollo, pp. 22-38. Penned by Presiding Judge Soliver C. Peras.
4. Rollo, p. 4.
5. Id. at 4-5.
6. Also referred to as SPO1 Rosales.
7. Rollo, p. 6.
8. Rollo, p. 6.
9. CA rollo, p. 25.
10. Id. at 25-26.
11. It was first stated that it was her son, then on cross examination, it was her daughter.
12. Also mentioned as "Toto" in the dispositive portion of the decision.
13. CA rollo, p. 29.
14. Id.
15. Id. at 29-30.
16. CA rollo, pp. 22-41.
17. Id. at 41.
18. Id. at 35.
19. Id. at 35-36.
20. Also mentioned as Fortes in the RTC Decision.
21. CA rollo, pp. 39-40.
22. Id. at 19-20.
23. Id. at 22-41.
24. Rollo, pp. 10-11.
25. Id. at 14-18.
26. Id. at 3-20.
27. Id. at 19.
28. Id. at 41-51.
29. People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 225 (2015), citing People v. Balagat, 604 Phil. 529, 534 (2009).
30. People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 29 (2017).
31. People v. Sipin, 833 Phil. 67, 80 (2018).
32. Id.
33. People v. Martinez, 652 Phil. 347, 369 (2010).
34. AN ACT TO FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE ANTI-DRUG CAMPAIGN OF THE GOVERNMENT, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE SECTION 21 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE "COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002." Approved on July 15, 2014.
35. People v. Mendoza, 736 Phil. 749, 764 (2014).
36. Limbo v. People, G.R. No. 238299, July 1, 2019.
37. CA rollo, p. 78; TSN, October 9, 2006, p. 10.
38. Rollo, p. 47; TSN, October 9, 2006, p. 11.
39. People v. Dahil, supra note 29 at 232.
40. People v. Paz, G.R. No. 233466, August 7, 2019, citing Lescano v. People, 778 Phil. 460, 476 (2016).
41. People v. Umipang, 686 Phil. 1024, 1052-1053 (2012).
42. 824 Phil. 1042 (2018).
43. Id. at 1059.
44. People v. Bangalan, G.R. No. 232249, September 3, 2018.
45. People v. De Guzman, 630 Phil. 637, 649 (2010).
46. Rollo, pp. 9-11.
47. People v. Catalan, 699 Phil. 603, 621 (2012).
48. People v. Dahil, supra note 29 at 238-239.