FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 248201. September 8, 2020.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. JOSE LAGOTA y TEODOSIO @ UTE, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 8, 2020which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 248201 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JOSE LAGOTA Y TEODOSIO @ UTE
The Case
This appeal seeks to reverse the Decision 1 dated April 10, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09905 affirming the conviction of appellant Jose Lagota y Teodosio @ Ute for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165).
The Proceedings Before the Trial Court
The Charge
On March 10, 2016, an Information 2 was filed against appellant, viz.:
The undersigned Associate City Prosecutor hereby accuses Jose Lagota y Teodosio @ "Ute" for Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," committed as follows:
That on or about March 8, 2016 at around 7:45 in the evening at Brgy. 11, Poblacion, Batangas City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law, did then and there knowingly, willfully, and criminally sell or dispense one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, more commonly known as "Shabu," a dangerous drug, weighing 0.15 gram, which is a clear violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. (Emphasis in the original)
The case was raffled to the Regional Trial Court (RTC)-Branch 84, Batangas City. On arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. 3
During the trial, PO2 Rudy Catilo Añonuevo (PO2 Añonuevo) 4 and investigating officer PO2 Lowie Enriquez (PO2 Enriquez) 5 of Batangas City Police Station testified for the prosecution. The testimonies of Department of Justice (DOJ) representative Rode Espina, 6 Batangas City Police Station's desk officer SPO1 Carlos A. Llegado (SPO1 Llegado), 7 Batangas City Provincial Crime Laboratory's receiving officer SPO4 Jesus Agustin, Jr. (SPO4 Agustin), 8 forensic chemist PSI Herminia Llacuna (PSI Llacuna) 9 and evidence custodian PO2 Joel Barcelona (PO2 Barcelona) 10 were dispensed with after the prosecution and the defense stipulated on their participation in the handling of the seized drug. 11
On the other hand, appellant 12 and his common-law wife Amy Factor 13 testified for the defense.
The Prosecution's Evidence
On March 8, 2016, around 5:30 in the afternoon, PO2 Añonuevo received information from a confidential informant that a certain Jose Lagota alias "Ute" was selling shabu in Barangay 11, Poblacion 2, Batangas City. PO2 Añonuevo then met with the informant in Plaza Mabini located just in front of the Batangas City Police Station. 14
Thereafter, PO2 Añonuevo together with the informant went back to the police station to plan a buy-bust operation. 15 After taking all the details from the informant, PO2 Añonuevo relayed the information to investigator PO2 Enriquez who prepared the Coordination Form and Pre-Operation Report. He sent them to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) through e-mail. The PDEA provided the operation with Control No. 10005-032016-0238. Then, PO2 Añonuevo prepared a P500 bill and placed his initials "RCA" on the forehead of one of the persons on the bill as marked money. Desk Officer SPO1 Llegado entered to the police blotter under no. 03822, 03/08/16 – 7:10 p.m., as the date and time of the buy-bust team's departure. PO2 Añonuevo was designated as poseur-buyer while PO2 Benjamin Dalisay (PO2 Dalisay), as back-up. 16
Around 7:45 in the evening, the team reached the target area. It was only ten (10) meters away from the house of appellant. PO2 Añonuevo and the informant alighted from the car while PO2 Dalisay remained therein. The two (2) walked toward appellant's house and the informant called him. Appellant went out of the house and he had a short conversation with the informant. Thereafter, the informant introduced PO2 Añonuevo as buyer of shabu. PO2 Añonuevo handed over the marked-money to the appellant, and the latter in return gave him one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing suspected shabu. 17 After receipt of the plastic sachet, PO2 Añonuevo introduced himself as police officer and arrested appellant. He handcuffed him and informed him of his constitutional rights. PO2 Añonuevo recovered the P500 marked money from appellant. 18
In front of appellant's house, PO2 Añonuevo placed his markings "RCA" on the one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing suspected shabu. 19 Pictures were also taken during the marking. 20
Meanwhile, the team returned to the Batangas City Police Station. They arrived around 8:40 in the evening. 21 SPO1 Llegado recorded the team's arrival and appellant's arrest on the police blotter under entry no. 03822. 22 The inventory of the seized items was conducted in the presence of DOJ representative Rodel Espina and Barangay Official Eliza M. Bergonia. The Certificate of Inventory was prepared and pictures were taken during the inventory. DOJ Representative Espina signed the certificate but Barangay Official Bergonia failed to sign on top of her name. 23
After inventory, PO2 Añonuevo turned over the items to investigating officer PO2 Enriquez per the Chain of Custody Form. 24 Too, PO2 Enriquez prepared the Spot Report, Request for Laboratory Examination, and Request for Drug Test. Then, PO2 Añonuevo and PO2 Dalisay brought appellant to the Batangas Medical Center for medical examination. 25
On even date, PO2 Enriquez delivered the plastic sachet containing suspected shabu together with the letter requests for drug examination and drug test to the Batangas City Provincial Crime Laboratory Office (BPCLO). SPO4 Agustin received the evidence, as shown in the stamped portion of the letter request for laboratory examination. Both SPO4 Agustin and PO2 Enriquez signed the Chain of Custody Form. 26 SPO4 Agustin turned over the requests and the one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing suspected shabu with markings "RCA" to forensic chemist PSI Llacuna. SPO4 Agustin and PSI Llacuna signed the BPCLO's Chain of Custody Form. 27
After laboratory examination on the specimen, PSI Llacuna found that the plastic sachet contained substance positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. The result was recorded in her Chemist Report No. BD-342016. PSI Llacuna placed the specimen in the plastic sachet which she marked BD-343-2016 and her initials "HCL." PSI Llacuna turned it over to evidence custodian PO2 Barcelona. 28 On April 12, 2016, PO2 Barcelona brought the specimen to RTC-Branch 84, Batangas City per the BPCLO's Acknowledgment Receipt. 29
The prosecution submitted the following evidence: (1) Kusang Loob na Sinumpaang Salaysay of PO2 Rudy A. Añonuevo; (2) Affidavit of Investigator; (3) Booking Sheet/Arrest Report of Jose Lagota; (4) Request for Laboratory Examination dated March 8, 2016; (5) Chemistry Report No. BD343-2016; (6) Request for Drug Test Examination dated March 8, 2016; (7) Certificate of Inventory dated March 8, 2016; (7) Chain of Custody Form; (8) Spot Report; (9) Certified Copy of the Batangas City Police Station Blotter; (9) Pre-operation Report dated March 8, 2016; (10) Coordination Form dated March 8, 2016; (11) Request for Physical Examination dated March 8, 2016; (12) Pictures during marking and inventory; (13) Photocopy of the P500 bill with marking "RCA;" (14) BPCLO's Acknowledgment Receipt; (15) BPCLO's Chain of Custody Form; and (16) shabu contained in a plastic transparent sachet with marking "RCA." 30
The Defense's Evidence
On March 8, 2016, around 3 o'clock in the afternoon, appellant was at his house in P. Canlapan Street, Batangas City. Meanwhile, three (3) men passed by and asked him if he knew a certain "Hapon." Appellant only came to know the three (3) men as police officers Añonuevo, Macaraig, and Dalisay during the trial. When appellant answered he did not know "Hapon," the police officers arrested him. 31 The police officers brought him to the police station. There, he was taken at the back of the detention cell where he was asked to stand by the post while they took pictures of him. Thereafter, he was brought to a camp and urine sample was taken from him. From the camp, they proceeded to the Provincial Hospital where the police officers asked him to sign papers he knew nothing about. After which, he was brought back to the police station and got detained. 32
Appellant's common law wife Amy testified that she was getting firewood outside their house when she saw three (3) men entered their house. She hurriedly followed them inside the house. There, she saw the men put handcuffs on appellant. She asked what did appellant do for them to arrest him. But they did not answer. Instead, one of the men told her not to make a scene or else she would be arrested too. Thereafter, appellant was boarded on a motorcycle. Later on, she found out that appellant was incarcerated for drugs. 33
The defense did not present any documentary evidence. 34
The Trial Court's Ruling
Under its Decision 35 dated September 26, 2017, the trial court convicted appellant as charged, thus:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused JOSE LAGOTA y Teodosio GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 (sale of dangerous drugs) and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (Php500,000.00).
Accordingly, the shabu contained in a plastic sachet with marking "RCA" (Exhibit "R"), the slightly bigger plastic sachet (Exhibit "R-1"), and the big transparent plastic sachet with marking BD-343-2016 (Exhibit "R-2") shall be immediately transmitted to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for its proper disposal in accordance with law and pertinent regulations.
SO ORDERED.36
The trial court found that the prosecution was able to establish all the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. 37 It gave credence to PO2 Añonuevo 's testimony positively identifying appellant as the one who received the P500 bill marked money in exchange of the one (1) plastic sachet containing suspected shabu during the buy-bust operation. Too, the buy-bust team substantially complied with the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended. PO2 Enriquez' testimony revealed that from the time PO2 Añonuevo turned over the confiscated drug to him when they arrived in the Batangas City Police Station until delivery to the Batangas City Provincial Crime Laboratory for examination, the seized drug remained in his custody. 38 Hence, it was clear that the identity and the integrity of the corpus delicti had been preserved. 39
The Proceedings Before the Court of Appeals
On appeal, appellant faulted the trial court for ruling that the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs were proven based on the incredible testimony of PO2 Añonuevo. It was beyond human experience that the illegal sale of drugs could be consummated outside appellant's house. It was also absurd that PO2 Añonuevo was able to tum over the seized plastic sachet to PO2 Enriquez around 8:40 in the evening when the buy-bust team only arrived at 9:55 in the evening based on police blotter entry no. 03822. Too, the trial court overlooked the buy-bust team's failure to observe the mandatory safeguards under Section 21 of RA 9165, viz.: (1) the confiscated drug was not marked in the presence of appellant and the required witnesses; (2) appellant was not present during the inventory; and (3) Barangay Kagawad Bergonia failed to sign the Certificate of Inventory. 40
For its part, the People through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), countered, in the main: (1) the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs were present and appellant's guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt; (2) trade of illegal drugs is usually consummated outside the pusher's residence and on the streets; (3) the inconsistency between the time when the team arrived in the police station and the time when the seized drug was turned over to the investigating officer was immaterial. What was important is that the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti preserved; and (4) the pictures depicting the conduct of inventory showed that Barangay Kagawad Bergonia and appellant were both present thereto. Thus, Barangay Kagawad Bergonia's failure to sign the Certificate of Inventory did not invalidate the inventory conducted. 41
The Court of Appeals' Ruling
By Decision 42 dated April 10, 2019, the Court of Appeals affirmed. It agreed with the trial court that all the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs were proven. The discrepancy between the time of arrival at the police station and the turnover of the seized drug to the investigator as indicated in the police blotter was a minor inconsistency which did not affect the truthfulness of the evidence presented by the prosecution. 43
Too, the chain of custody remained intact. Records showed that PO2 Añonuevo marked the evidence at the place of arrest. Thereafter, the buy-bust team went to the Batangas City Police Station for the inventory of the evidence collected. PO2 Añonuevo delivered all collected evidence to PO2 Enriquez. Then, PO2 Enriquez delivered the illegal substance to the Batangas Provincial Crime Laboratory Office where SPO4 Agustin received the same. SPO4 Agustin turned over the plastic sachet containing suspected shabu to PSI Llacuna for examination. After the examination, PSI Llacuna found that the contents of the plastic sachet yielded positive result for methamphetamine hydrochloride. PSI Llacuna delivered the illegal drug to evidence custodian PO2 Barcelona, who turned it over to the RTC-Branch 84, Batangas City on April 12, 2016. 44
The Present Appeal
Appellant now seeks affirmative relief from the Court and pleads anew for his acquittal.
For the purpose of this appeal, both the OSG and appellant manifested that in lieu of supplemental briefs, they were adopting their respective briefs before the Court of Appeals. 45
Issue
Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the verdict of conviction against appellant for illegal sale of drugs?
Ruling
We acquit.
Appellant was charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 allegedly committed on March 8, 2016. The applicable law, therefore, is RA 10640, 46 amending RA 9165.
In cases involving violations of RA 9165, as amended, it is essential that the identity of the dangerous drug be established with moral certainty, considering that the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime. Failing to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti renders the evidence for the State insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, hence, warrants an acquittal. 47
Section 1 of RA 10640, amending Section 21 of RA 9165 outlines the mandatory procedural safeguards in the preservation of the corpus delicti, viz.:
SECTION 1. Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," is hereby amended to read 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 non-compliance 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.
xxx xxx xxx
(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued immediately upon the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not allow the completion of testing within the time frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided, however, That a final certification shall be issued immediately upon completion of the said examination and certification.
These provisions embody the chain of custody rule. They are the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of the seized drugs at each stage from the time of seizure or confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory, to safekeeping and their presentation in court for identification and destruction. This record includes the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized items, the date and time when the transfer of custody was made in the course of the items' safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and their final disposition. 48
People v. Lacdan49 reiterated that for a successful prosecution of a case involving illegal drugs, the following four (4) links in the chain of custody must be proved: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the dangerous drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the dangerous drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the dangerous drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked dangerous drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.
We focus on the first, third, and fourth links.
The first link refers to the marking, inventory, and photograph of the seized items.
"Marking" means the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer places his or her initials and signature on the seized item. Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link. It is vital that the seized contraband be immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. 50 Marking though should be done in the presence of the apprehended violator and the required insulating witnesses i.e.,an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media51 immediately upon confiscation to truly ensure that they are the same items which enter the chain of custody. 52
Here, PO2 Añonuevo testified that he marked the seized drug at the place of arrest, in front of appellant's house; but there was no mention whatsoever if the marking was done in the presence of appellant and the insulating witnesses, viz.:
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Where were you when you placed your markings on that plastic sachet?
A: Near, in front of the house, Sir.
Q: In the place where the incident happened?
A: Yes, Sir. 53
xxx xxx xxx
Q: You mentioned that you placed marking "RCA" on the plastic sachet, is that correct?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What did "RCA" stand for?
A: Rudy Catilo Añonuevo, Sir. 54
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Could you please point out that marking?
A: This one, Sir.
INTERPRETER:
Witness is pointing to the black markings placed on the sachet itself reading "RCA."
FISCAL CASTOR:
Q: After you placed your marking on item and photograph was taken, what happened next, if any?
A: We proceeded to the police station, Sir.55
It was not clear if appellant was indeed present during the marking of the seized drug. Too, there was no indication that the insulating witnesses were present. Neither was there any attempt on the part of the arresting officers to secure their presence during the marking. Notably, records showed that DOJ representative Espina and Barangay Official Bergonia were only present during the conduct of inventory in the Batangas City Police Station. 56 This was after the confiscated drug was already marked. Hence, the source, identity, and integrity of seized drug remained questionable.
In People v. Castillo, 57 the Court elucidated that the presence of the insulating witnesses at the onset during seizure and marking of items ensure that the items subsequently inventoried, photographed, examined, and presented in Court are the same items initially obtained from the accused, viz.:
Here, the absence of witnesses during seizure and marking casts reasonable doubt on the actual origin and identity of the drugs introduced in evidence as those allegedly seized from accused-appellant. Ultimately, this same absence casts reasonable doubt on accused-appellant's guilt for the offenses with which he is charged.
xxx xxx xxx
Having third-party witnesses present only during the subsequent physical inventory and photographing renders the whole requirement of their presence futile. Securing third-party witnesses provides a layer of protection to the integrity of the items seized and forecloses any opportunity for the planting of dangerous drugs. Having their presence only at a very late stage reduces them to passive automatons, x x x. (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, the first link itself was breached.
The third link pertains to the turnover by the investigating officer of the dangerous drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination. Here, while PO2 Enriquez testified that he was the one who delivered the seized drug together with the letter requests to the Batangas City Provincial Crime Laboratory Office, he failed to testify how he handled the seized item from the time the inventory and photographing in the Batangas City Police Station had been completed until the drug was eventually sent to the Batangas Provincial Crime Laboratory for examination, viz.:
xxx xxx xxx
Q: After the inventory what happened next if any?
A: The Chain of Custody Sir.
Q: Why did you prepare a Chain of Custody?
A: For the custody of the evidence, Sir.
Q: And who turned over the item to you?
A: PO2 Añonuevo, Sir. 58
xxx xxx xxx
Q: After the items were turned over to you, what happened next?
A: I prepared the Spot Report (,) Sir for the evidence confiscated that was turned over to me, Sir.59
xxx xxx xxx
Q: You also mentioned that you prepared the Request for Laboratory Examination and Request for Drug Test, is that correct?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: And if you will see those documents again will you be able to identify them?
A: Yes, Sir. 60
xxx xxx xxx
INTERPRETER:
Witness is being shown document marked as Exhibits "D" and "F"
A: This is the Request for Laboratory Examination that I prepared, Sir.
Q: What did you do with this document?
A: After I had it signed, we brought the accused as well as the specimen to the Crime Lab, Sir.61
xxx xxx xxx
Q: What did you do with these documents together with the specimen?
A: We went to the Crime lab for these requests to be brought there for examination, Sir.
Q: Did you arrive at the Crime Lab?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: What did you do when you arrived there?
A: We submit the evidence and the accused for the drug testing, Sir.
Q: How about the documents, what did you do to them?
A: We gave it to them as proof that we submitted the evidence and the accused for drug testing, Sir.
Q: What is your proof that the documents were received by the personnel from the Crime Lab?
A: The stamp pad marking of the Batangas Provincial Crime Laboratory, Sir. 62 (Emphasis supplied)
In People v. Bermejo63 and People v. Ramos, 64 the Court acquitted the accused when the investigating officer who was in custody of the dangerous drug before the same was sent to the crime laboratory for examination failed to testify on how he handled the drug after it was placed in his custody until it was brought to the forensic chemist. It was emphasized that "during the interim time — from when the specimen was placed under his custody until the time it was brought to court — the threat of tampering, alteration, or substitution of the corpus delicti still existed."
Here, considering the miniscule amount of the drug supposedly confiscated from appellant weighing only 0.15 gram of shabu, as well as the fact that it was transported multiple times i.e., from the place of the arrest to the Batangas City Police Station, until it finally reached the crime laboratory, the chances of the police officers tampering or altering the substance present in the original plastic sachets or substituting them with ones which will certainly test positive for shabu, were greater. There is nothing on record, however, showing how the seized drug was handled, stored, and secured prior to its qualitative examination. PO2 Enriquez failed to explain how he preserved his exclusive custody thereof until it was turned over to the crime laboratory. Clearly, the third link had been broken.
The fourth link refers to the turnover and submission of the dangerous drug from the forensic chemist to the court. 65 In drug related cases, it is of paramount necessity that the forensic chemist testifies as to details pertinent to the handling and analysis of the dangerous drug submitted for examination i.e., when and from whom the dangerous drug was received; what identifying labels or other things accompanied it; description of the specimen; and the container it was in, as the case may be. Further, the forensic chemist must also identify the name and method of analysis used in determining the chemical composition of the subject specimens. 66
Here, both the prosecution and defense dispensed with forensic chemist PSI Llacuna's testimony during the hearing on February 15, 2017. 67 The stipulation, however, failed to mention the condition of the specimen when PSI Llacuna received it and how she handled the same before, during, and after the chemical examination until it reached the court. 68
In People v. Dahil, et al., 69 the Court acquitted the accused therein in view of the forensic chemist's failure to testify on how she handled the dangerous drug submitted to her for laboratory examination, viz.:
The last link involves the submission of the seized drugs by the forensic chemist to the court when presented as evidence in the criminal case. No testimonial or documentary evidence was given whatsoever as to how the drugs were kept while in the custody of the forensic chemist until it was transferred to the court. The forensic chemist should have personally testified on the safekeeping of the drugs but the parties resorted to a general stipulation of her testimony. Although several subpoena were sent to the forensic chemist, only a brown envelope containing the seized drugs arrived in court. Sadly, instead of focusing on the essential links in the chain of custody, the prosecutor propounded questions concerning the location of the misplaced marked money, which was not even indispensable in the criminal case.
In fine, the fourth link here had also been breached.
Surely, these lapses in the chain of custody cast serious doubts on the identity and the integrity of the corpus delicti. The metaphorical chain did not link at all, albeit it unjustly deprived petitioner of his right to liberty. Mallilin v. People70 ordained:
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.
As stated, the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti here had not been preserved. The marking of the illegal drug was not conducted in the presence of the appellant and the insulating witnesses. PO2 Enriquez did not even acknowledge his failure to secure the seized dangerous drug while it was in his custody. Similarly, PSI Llacuna did not testify how she stored the drug specimen after examination and before it was presented in court. For these reasons, there is reasonable doubt on whether the drug allegedly seized from appellant's house was the same drug presented in court. Hence, the Court must acquit as a matter of right. 71
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated April 10, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09905 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Appellant JOSE LAGOTA y TEODOSIO @ "UTE" is ACQUITTED in Criminal Case No. 20928 for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The Court DIRECTS the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City to cause the immediate release of Jose Lagota y Teodosio @ "Ute" from custody unless he is being held for some other lawful cause, and to submit his report on the action taken within five (5) days from notice.
Let an entry of final judgment be issued immediately.
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. Penned by Associate Justice Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas and concurred in by Associate Justices Marlene Gonzales-Sison and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes, all members of the Twelfth Division, rollo, pp. 3-16.
2. Record, p. 1.
3. Certificate of Arraignment dated March 30, 2016, id. at 27.
4. TSN, July 28, 2016.
5. TSN, April 20, 2017.
6.See RTC Order dated June 17, 2016, record, pp. 73-74.
7.See RTC Order dated September 21, 2016, id. at 85-86.
8.See RTC Order dated February 15, 2017, id. at 107-109.
9.Id.
10.Id.
11.Rollo, p. 4.
12. TSN, July 17, 2017.
13. TSN, August 15, 2017.
14. TSN, July 28, 2016, pp. 5-6.
15.Rollo, p. 5.
16.Id.
17.Id.
18.Id.
19. TSN, October 21, 2016, pp. 9-11.
20.Id. at 8-9.
21. TSN, November 23, 2016, p. 16.
22. Exhibit "J"; record, pp. 46-47.
23. TSN, November 23, 2016, pp. 18-19; See also Certificate of Inventory dated March 8, 2016 (Exhibit "G"), record, p. 43.
24.Rollo, p. 5; See also Chain of Custody Form dated March 8, 2016 (Exhibit "H"), record, p. 44.
25.Rollo, p. 5.
26.Rollo, p. 6; See also Chain of Custody Form dated March 8, 2016 (Exhibit "H"), record, p. 44.
27. Exhibit "Q"; id. at 55.
28.Rollo, p. 6.
29. Exhibit "P"; record, p. 54.
30.Formal Offer of Evidence dated May 25, 20 I 7, id. at 131-136.
31. TSN, July 17, 2017, pp. 3-6.
32.Id. at 6-18.
33. TSN, August 15, 2017, pp. 3-11.
34.Rollo, p. 7.
35. Penned by Judge Dorcas P. Ferriols-Perez; CA rollo, pp. 51-54.
36.Rollo, p. 54.
37. Elements: (1) the transaction or sale took place; (2) the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) the buyer and seller were identified; CA rollo, pp. 52-53.
38.Id. at 53.
39.Id. at 53-54.
40. Brief for the Accused-Appellant dated April 4, 2018; id. at 29-49.
41. Brief for the Appellee dated August 10, 2018; id. at 71-83.
42. Penned by Associate Justice Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas and concurred in by Associate Justices Marlene Gonzales-Sison and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes; rollo, pp. 3-16.
43.Id. at 8.
44.Id. at 14.
45. Accused-Appellant's Manifestation (in lieu of Supplemental Brief) dated November 19, 2019; rollo, pp. 32-34 and Plaintiff-Appellee's Manifestation (in lieu of Supplemental Brief) dated November 18, 2019, id. at 28-30.
46. 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." Amendment to R.A. No. 9165 (Anti-Drug Campaign of the Government), Republic Act No. 10640, [July 15, 2014]).
47. See People v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 236304, November 5, 2018.
48.Largo v. People, G.R. No. 201293. June 19, 2019.
49. G.R. No. 232161, August 14, 2019.
50.People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 31 (2017).
51.People v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 236304, November 5, 2018 citing Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640.
52.People v. Ramirez and Lachica, 823 Phil. 1215, 1225 (2018) citing People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214, 241 (2008).
53. TSN, October 21, 2016, p. 8.
54.Id. at 10.
55.Id. at 11.
56.Id. at 11-17.
57. See G.R. No. 238339, August 7, 2019.
58. TSN, April 20, 2017, p. 10.
59.Id. at 11.
60.Id. at 12.
61.Id.
62.Id. at 13.
63. G.R. No. 199813, June 26, 2019; Also see People v. Gayoso, 808 Phil. 19-35 (2017).
64. 826 Phil. 981-999 (2018).
65.People v. Hementiza, 807 Phil. 1017-1039 (2017).
66. Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002: Guidelines on the Custody and Disposition of Seized Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, and Laboratory Equipment.
67. RTC Order dated February 15, 2017; record, p. 108.
68.Id.
69. 750 Phil. 212, 237 (2015).
70. 576 Phil. 576, 587 (2008).
71. G.R. No. 230070, March 14, 2018.