FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 251627. May 5, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.DELFIN M. LEDAMA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedMay 5, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 251627 (People of the Philippines,Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Delfin M. Ledama,Accused-Appellant). — On appeal 1 is the Decision 2 promulgated on 13 September 2019 by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01900-MIN, which affirmed the 05 March 2018 Joint Decision 3 of Regional Trial Court, Branch 11 of Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte (RTC) in Criminal Case Nos. S-5663 and S-5664. The RTC found accused-appellant Delfin M. Ledama (accused-appellant) guilty for violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 4 or the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
Antecedents
In separate Informations dated 12 September 2017, accused-appellant was charged for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165:
Criminal Case No. S-5663 (Illegal Sale of Shabu)
That on or about the 12th day of September 2017, in the Municipality of Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above-mentioned accused, not being licensed or authorized by law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to PO1 Jovanie E. Baje one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance known as Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu) a dangerous drug, having a total gross weight of 0.2231 gram, after PO1 Jovanie E. Baje handed to the accused the amount of [Php]500.00 as payment or consideration thereof, with his full knowledge that unauthorized selling of the said dangerous drug is in gross violation of [RA] 9165.
CONTRARY TO LAW (Viol. of Sec. 5, Art. II of [RA] 9165). 5
Criminal Case No. S-5664 (Illegal Possession of Shabu)
That on or about the 12th day of September 2017, in the Municipality of Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, not being licensed or authorized by law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously possess and have in his control and custody six (6) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance known as Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu) a dangerous drug, having a total gross weight of 1.1579 grams, with his full knowledge that unauthorized possession of the said dangerous drugs is in gross violation of [RA] 9165. TIADCc
CONTRARY TO LAW (Viol. of Sec. 11, Art. II of [RA] 9165). 6
Accused-appellant entered his plea of "not guilty" to the charges. 7
Version of the Prosecution
On 12 September 2017, a buy-bust team was formed consisting of PO1 Jovanie E. Baje (PO1 Baje), PO1 Mukod, PO2 Adipan, PO2 Garcia, PO3 Canton, PO2 Matias J. Miyas (PO2 Miyas). PO1 Baje was designated as a poseur-buyer, PO2 Miyas was designated as seizing officer, while the rest were assigned as arresting officers. PO2 Garcia handed to PO1 Baje a marked Php500.00 bill. After meeting with the civilian asset, the buy-bust team went to the target area located in front of a store in Poblacion, Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte. 8
The civilian asset accompanied PO1 Baje and introduced him to a man who was later identified as accused-appellant. The civilian asset told accused-appellant: "Bay he will be the one to buy rice." After PO1 Baje showed accused-appellant the marked Php500.00-bill, the latter asked PO1 Baje to sit with him. He, thereafter, grabbed the marked money, put it in his pocket and asked PO1 Baje to cover him a little so he would not look obvious. Accused-appellant then took a small plastic bottle out of his pocket, opened it, and transferred some of its contents in a small plastic sachet. He returned the plastic bottle in his pocket, while handing to PO1 Baje the small sachet. Accused-appellant was about to offer a handshake, but PO1 Baje grabbed both of accused-appellant's hands, introduced himself as a police officer, and effected the arrest. Accused-appellant tried to resist but the rest of the buy-bust team subdued him. 9
PO2 Miyas arrived at the place of arrest. He then contacted the representatives from the barangay, the Prosecutor's Office (DOJ) and the media to witness the preparation of the Inventory. Upon their arrival, PO1 Baje began marking the seized items and prepared the Inventory. He marked the sachet of shabu with the inscription "JEB-DML-BBL-1" as well as the following items: sling bag marked as "DML-1"; money worth Php57.00 as DML-2; and the marked money as DML-3. A body search was also conducted and a plastic container was recovered. Written on the plastic container was the name "Yeng Da Wang" and inside were six (6) more sachets of shabu. The plastic container was marked as DML-4; while the six (6) sachets of shabu as DML-5 to DML-10. Photographs were taken and then PO1 Baje executed a Chain of Custody Form which was signed by him and PO2 Miyas. 10
All the seized items were listed in the Inventory Form, which in turn, was signed by all three (3) witnesses and by accused-appellant. Thereafter, the latter was brought to the police station. While in custody of the seized item, PO2 Miyas prepared requests for laboratory examination and drug tests with the Crime Laboratory and then handed the seized item to SPO1 Michael Angcon of the Crime Laboratory. PO1 Baje also requested that accused-appellant be subjected to drug testing but the latter refused to be tested. 11
After confirming that the sachet indeed contained shabu, the corresponding charge was filed against accused-appellant. 12
Version of the Defense
Accused-appellant denied the charges against him and claims that at the time of the incident, he was with a friend named Junjun in a videoke house. When he was about to sing and open the songbook, five (5) police officers arrived and asked if he was "Delfin Ledama," to which he replied in the affirmative. 13 Thereafter, he was handcuffed and about a few minutes later, another police officer opened the zipper of his pocket and inserted something. Accused-appellant cried and begged for mercy. Afterwards, another officer opened his right pocket and inserted another item. Then a few moments later, the representatives from the barangay, DOJ and the media arrived. It was revealed that the items earlier inserted in his pockets were the plastic container and a Php500.00 bill. 14
Ruling of the RTC
On 05 March 2018, The RTC found accused-appellant guilty of violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 in Crim. Case No. S-5663 and of violating Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 in Crim. Case No. S-5664. It ruled that the evidence of the prosecution was sufficient to prove the identity of accused-appellant and the elements of the offenses. The court also ruled that the chain of custody was preserved from the time the evidence was confiscated, to the time it was examined at the crime laboratory, up until the time it was presented and finally offered in evidence. 15
The dispositive portion of the RTC's Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1) In Criminal Case No. S-5663, the Court finds accused Delfin M. Ledama GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the charge for Violation of Section 5, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 and he shall suffer the penalty of life imprisonment without eligibility for parole and to pay FINE of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php500,000.00); and
2) In Criminal Case No. S-5664, the Court also finds accused Delfin M. Ledama GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the charge for Violation of Section 11, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 and sentences him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY as minimum to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS and EIGHT (8) MONTHS as maximum and to pay a FINE of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php300,000.00).
The entire period of his preventive imprisonment shall be credited in full in the service of his sentence provided he is qualified according to Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code. AIDSTE
The dangerous drugs presented in the Court as exhibits are forfeited in favor of the government and shall be disposed of in the manner provided by law.
SO ORDERED. 16
Ruling of the CA
On appeal, accused-appellant claimed that the prosecution failed to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. 17 From the testimony of PO1 Baje himself, the buy-bust team had to wait for thirty (30) minutes before the ceremonial turnover with PO2 Miyas. As for the source of the sachet that was turned over, PO2 Miyas was not present at the time of the buy-bust operation. 18 Thus, the integrity of the identity of the drugs was highly compromised. Furthermore, the witnesses who signed the Inventory were never presented in court, in violation of Sec. 21 (1), Article II of RA 9165. 19
The CA, however, found the appeal bereft of merit and affirmed the RTC's ruling that the prosecution sufficiently proved the sale of dangerous drug between the poseur-buyer and accused-appellant. It ruled that there is nothing in the records that would indicate the thirty (30) minutes lapsed from the seizure of the drugs until PO2 Miyas' arrival. 20 The CA also considered trivial the prosecution's failure to present the witnesses to the Inventory. What is important is that the said individuals are present when the seized items were inventoried and photographed. 21
Issues
The lone issue in this case is whether the prosecution was able to prove with certainty the corpus delicti of the crimes charged.
Ruling of the Court
In all prosecutions for violation of RA 9165, what is material is the proof that the transaction or sale transpired, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti, which is the body or substance of the crime and establishes the act constituting the crime actually committed. 22 In this case, accused-appellant failed to prove any reversible error when the CA ruled that the prosecution had established, with moral certainty, the existence of these elements.
Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, as amended by RA No. 10640, 23 is the rule applicable at the time of the commission of the offense, and provides the following procedure in handling the corpus delicti of the crime:
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 persons 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.
The above provision requires the apprehending team to conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and the photographing of the same immediately after seizure and confiscation. The said inventory must be done in the presence of the aforementioned required witnesses, all of whom shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. The phrase "immediately after seizure and confiscation" means that the physical inventory and photographing of the drugs were intended by the law to be made immediately after, or at the place of apprehension. It is only when the same is not practicable that the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 allow the inventory and photographing to be done as soon as the buy-bust team reaches the nearest police station or the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team. In this connection, this also means that the required witnesses should already be physically present at the time of apprehension — a requirement that can easily be complied with by the buy-bust team considering that the buy-bust operation is, by its nature, a planned activity. Verily, a buy-bust team normally has enough time to gather and bring with it the said witnesses. 24
In People v. Manabat, 25 the Court explained that the presence of the witnesses is most needed at the time of seizure and confiscation in order to belie any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drugs, viz.:
The presence of the three witnesses must be secured not only during the inventory but more importantly at the time of the warrantless arrest. It is at this point in which the presence of the three witnesses is most needed, as it is their presence at the time of seizure and confiscation that would belie any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drug. If the buy-bust operation is legitimately conducted, the presence of the insulating witnesses would also controvert the usual defense of frame-up as the witnesses would be able to n testify that the buy-bust operation and inventory of the seized drugs were done in their presence in accordance with Section 21 of RA 9165. AaCTcI
The practice of police operatives of not bringing to the intended place of arrest the three witnesses, when they could easily do so — and "calling them in" to the place of inventory to witness the inventory and photographing of the drugs only after the buy-bust operation has already been finished — does not achieve the purpose of the law in having these witnesses prevent or insulate against the planting of drugs.
To restate, the presence of the three witnesses at the time of seizure and confiscation of the drugs must be secured and complied with at the time of the warrantless arrest; such that they are required to be at or near the intended place of the arrest so that they can be ready to witness the inventory and photographing of the seized and confiscated drugs "immediately after seizure and confiscation." 26
In the instant case, the prosecution failed to establish strict compliance with the mandatory requirements of Sec. 21 as the required witnesses were not present immediately after seizure and during the confiscation of the drugs obtained from the buy-bust operation. PO2 Miyas had to phone and wait for the witnesses before proceeding with the inventory and photographs. No explanation was given by the prosecution as to why the witnesses were not secured prior to conducting the planned buy-bust operation.
There being no justifiable reason in this case for non-compliance with Section 21, this Court finds it necessary to acquit accused-appellant for failure to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs seized during the buy-bust operation.
As for the drugs found in the
On the other hand, the circumstances surrounding the seizure of the drugs found in accused-appellant's possession were different from those obtained in the buy-bust. All required witnesses already arrived when accused-appellant was subjected to a body search and six (6) heat-sealed plastic sachets were found in his pockets.
As established by the prosecution, the arresting team waited for the arrival of the witnesses before conducting the search. Their presence at the time of seizure and confiscation bolsters the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti for the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Thereafter, the arresting officers performed the required procedure under the chain of custody rule in the presence of the required witnesses.
In People v. Gayoso, 27 the court expounded on the chain of custody rule:
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 in 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.
While the testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard because it is almost always impossible to obtain, an unbroken chain of custody becomes indispensable and essential when the item of real evidence is not distinctive and is not readily identifiable, or when its condition at the time of testing or trial is critical, or when a witness has failed to observe its uniqueness. The same standard obtains in case the evidence is susceptible of alteration, tampering, contamination and even substitution and exchange. In other words, the exhibit's level of susceptibility to fungibility, alteration or tampering — without regard to whether the same is advertent or otherwise not — dictates the level of strictness in the application of the chain of custody rule.
Every link in the chain of custody must be proven by each individual who touched the exhibit. These individuals, refer to the arresting officer, the seizing or investigating officer, and the forensic chemist, and not the attesting witnesses to the Inventory. Thus, even without presenting the attesting witnesses to the Inventory so long as the prosecution is able to account for the movements and custody of seized drugs to a such a level that it is not susceptible to alteration, tampering, contamination and substitution, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping, until it is brought to court for destruction, then it can be safely said that the chain of custody has been preserved. 28
This is exactly the case at bar with respect to the drugs found in accused-appellant's possession. A closer look on the findings of the RTC would yield that such movement and custody of the seized drugs were established through the following links:
(1) PO2 Miyas conducted a body search and recovered six more sachets of shabu and marked them as "DML-5," "DML-6," "DML-7," "DML-8," "DML-9" and "DML-10."
(2) The seized items were inventoried and photographed in the presence of the appellant, a barangay official, a representative from the Office of the City Prosecutor, and a media representative; EcTCAD
(3) A request for laboratory examination of the seized item was prepared and signed by PO2 Miyas and personally delivered the confiscated item and the request for laboratory examination to the crime laboratory;
(4) SPO1 Michael Angcon of the Crime Laboratory received the letter request and the seized item and subsequently performed a qualitative examination on the specimen;
(5) Chemistry Report No. D-166-2017 confirmed that the contents of the marked items seized from the appellant was Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug;
(6) The forensic chemist, Engr. Anne Aimee Pilayre, brought the contraband to court, she submitted it and presented it to the court.
Undoubtedly, the prosecution was able to establish with moral certainty and prove to this Court beyond reasonable doubt that the illegal drugs presented to the trial court as evidence are the same items possessed by accused-appellant and found to be positive for shabu, a dangerous substance.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision dated 13 September 2019 promulgated by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01900-MIN is hereby MODIFIED as follows:
In Criminal Case No. S-5663, for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 or Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, accused-appellant DELFIN M. LEDAMA is ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt.
In Criminal Case No. S-5664, the conviction of accused-appellant DELFIN M. LEDAMA for violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 or Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs is AFFIRMED.
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.Rollo, pp. 16-17; see Notice of Appeal dated 07 October 2019.
2.Id. at 4-15; penned by Associate Justice Florento M. Mamauag, Jr., and concurred in by Associate Justices Oscar V. Badelles and Angelene Mary W. Quimpo-Sale of the Twenty-Third (23rd) Division, Court of Appeals, Cagayan de Oro City.
3. CA Rollo, pp. 43-61; penned by Presiding Judge Reymar L. Lacaya.
4. Entitled "AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on 23 January 2020.
5. CA Rollo, pp. 43-44.
6.Id. at 44.
7.Id.
8.Id. at 47.
9.Id.
10.Id. at 48.
11.Id.
12.Id. at 49.
13.Id. at 50.
14.Id. at 51.
15.Id. at 70.
16.Id. at 61.
17.Id. at 34-40.
18.Id. at 34-35.
19.Id. at 37-40.
20.Rollo, p. 11.
21.Id. at 13-14.
22.People v. Serad, G.R. No. 224894, 10 October 2018 [Per J. Caguioa], citing People v. Dumangay, 587 Phil. 730, 739 (2008); G.R. No. 173483, 23 September 2008 [Per J. Quisumbing].
23. Entitled "AN ACT TO FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE ANTI-DRUG CAMPAIGN OF THE GOVERNMENT, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 21 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002," approved on 15 July 2014.
24.See People v. Manabat, G.R. No. 242947, 17 July 2019 [Per J. Caguioa].
25.Id.
26.Id., citing People v. Tomawis, 830 Phil. 385, 409 (2018); G.R. No. 228890, 18 April 2018 [Per J. Caguioa].
27. 808 Phil. 19, 31 (2017); G.R. No. 206590, 27 March 2017 [Per J. Del Castillo], citing People v. Havana, 776 Phil. 462, 471-472 (2016); G.R. No. 198450, 11 January 2016 [Per J. Del Castillo].
28.Id.
n Note from the Publisher: Written as "able testify" in the official document.