FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 252330. July 6, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. MICHAEL LEGASPI y EUSEBIO @ "SUNOG", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated July 6, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 252330 (People of the Philippines v. Michael Legaspi y Eusebio @ "Sunog").
This Appeal 1 seeks to reverse and set aside the October 10, 2019 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 10033. The CA affirmed the October 25, 2017 Judgment 3 of the Regional Trial Court, Calamba City, Laguna, Branch 37 (RTC), in Criminal Case Nos. 28014-2016-C, 28015-2016-C, and 28016-2016-C, finding Michael Legaspi y Eusebio @ "Sunog" (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, or the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
Antecedents
In three (3) separate Informations, 4 accused-appellant was charged with violation of Secs. 5, 11, and 12, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, allegedly committed as follows:
Criminal Case No. 28014-2016-C(Violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165)
That on or about 7:30 o'clock in the evening of October 14, 2016 at Purok I, Brgy. Parian, Calamba City, Laguna and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell to a [poseur-buyer] a quantity of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride otherwise known as "shabu," a dangerous drug, having a total weight of 0.11 [gram], in violation of the aforementioned law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
Criminal Case No. 28015-2016-C(Violation of Sec. 11, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165)
That on or about 7:30 o'clock in the evening of October 14, 2016 at Purok I, Brgy. Parian, Calamba City, Laguna and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously possess two (2) heat-sealed plastic sachets of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride otherwise known as "shabu," a dangerous drug, having a total weight of 0.24 [gram], in violation of the aforementioned law.
CONTRARY TO LAW." 6
Criminal Case No. 28016-2016-C(Violation of Sec. 12, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165)
That on or about 7:30 o'clock in the evening of October 14, 2016 at Purok I, Brgy. Parian, Calamba City, Laguna and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously possess one (1) improvised toother [sic.] with traces of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride otherwise known as "shabu," a dangerous drug, in violation of the aforementioned law.
CONTRARY TO LAW." 7
During his arraignment on November 17, 2016, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges. Thus, trial on the merits ensued. 8
Version of the Prosecution
The prosecution presented Police Officer I Ray Dean Aguilba (PO1 Aguilba) as witness. The testimonies of Police Chief Inspector Donna Villa P. Huelgas (PCI Huelgas)9 and Police Officer I Jhon Kevin Villarino (PO1 Villarino) were dispensed with, upon a stipulation by the parties on the substance of their testimonies.
On October 14, 2016, PO1 Aguilba received a phone call from a confidential informant (CI) that a certain Michael alias "Sunog," who was later identified as accused-appellant, was engaged in selling drugs at Purok 1, Barangay Parian, Calamba City, Laguna. Acting on this tip, a buy-bust team was formed consisting of Police Chief Inspector Eufrocino Maunahan, Police Superintendent Albert D. Capulao, Police Officer 1 Jomer Cadiao, PO1 Villarino, and PO1 Aguilba. PO1 Aguilba was designated as the poseur-buyer and was given three (3) One Hundred Peso (P100.00)-bills as buy-bust money. The operation was likewise coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency. 10
Subsequently, the buy-bust team and the CI proceeded to the target area. The CI, PO1 Aguilba, and PO1 Villarino walked towards accused-appellant's house while the rest of the buy-bust team discreetly positioned themselves around the area. Upon their arrival at accused-appellant's house, the CI called out to accused-appellant. Accused-appellant appeared and, seeing the CI, uttered, "[p]are ikaw pala." The two had a brief conversation and accused-appellant asked him who his companions were. After responding that his companions were "tropa" and that they were interested buyers, the CI was led by accused-appellant into the house. 11
Not long after, accused-appellant invited PO1 Aguilba to come inside the house. Accused-appellant asked PO1 Aguilba, "[p]are, magkano iskorin ninyo ng kasama mo?" PO1 Aguilba replied, "[k]asang tatlong piso pare." PO1 Aguilba gave the buy-bust money to accused-appellant, who received it and put it in his right pocket. Accused-appellant brought out from his left pocket, several plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance, placed these on his palm, and chose which among the sachets he would give to PO1 Aguilba. Afterwards, accused-appellant gave PO1 Aguilba one (1) plastic sachet and placed the remaining ones in his pocket. PO1 Aguilba executed the pre-arranged signal, which accused-appellant noticed. Accused-appellant attempted to run but PO1 Aguilba quickly exclaimed, "[h]uwag ka ng tatakbo Michael, [p]ulis ako." PO1 Villarino entered the house and assisted in the arrest of accused-appellant. 12
Thereafter, Barangay Councilor Ma. Ursula V. Santos (Councilor Santos) and media representative Rolando L. De Leon (media representative De Leon) arrived at the place of arrest. PO1 Aguilba frisked accused-appellant and recovered the following items: two (2) plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance, one (1) improved glass tooter with residues of white crystalline substance, one (1) disposable lighter, and the buy-bust money. 13
PO1 Aguilba proceeded to mark the confiscated items in the presence of accused-appellant, Councilor Santos, and media representative De Leon. PO1 Aguilba marked the sachet purchased from accused-appellant with "10-14-16 RDA-BB," and the two other recovered sachets with "RDA-1" and "RDA-2." PO1 Aguilba also conducted the inventory while Senior Police Officer IV Jose Winnie Tayactac (SPO4 Tayactac) took photographs. PO1 Aguilba placed all the confiscated items in an evidence bag, which he sealed and kept in his custody. 14
Afterwards, the buy-bust team brought accused-appellant and the confiscated items to the barangay hall of Parian, Calamba City, to record the buy-bust operation and the seized items in the barangay blotter. Accused-appellant was then brought to the JP Hospital for a medical examination, and then to the police station for the preparation of the laboratory examination request by the investigator. 15 After getting the request for laboratory examination, PO1 Aguilba personally delivered the three (3) sachets to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Regional Crime Laboratory Office 4-A for forensic examination. The confiscated sachets were received by Police Officer III Bayan C. Gonzales (PO3 Gonzales), who was the desk officer on duty at that time. PO3 Gonzales then turned over the confiscated items to PCI Huelgas, who conducted a qualitative and quantitative examination thereon. In her Chemistry Report No. D-2445-16, she reported that the contents of the three sachets were positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. 16
Version of the Defense
The defense presented accused-appellant as its sole witness. He testified that, on October 14, 2016, at around 5:00 p.m., he was on his way to the paliguan to take a bath, when three men approached him and asked if he was alias "Sunog." Accused-appellant denied it and said that his moniker was "Nognog" and not "Sunog." The men, however, refused to believe accused-appellant. They handcuffed him and asked where his house was. When they reached accused-appellant's house, the men immediately conducted a search. During the search, one of the men shouted, "eto pala, eh," while showing his companions a plastic sachet. The plastic sachet, along with various items, were placed on a table, and photographs thereof were taken. Afterwards, accused-appellant was brought to the barangay hall. 17
The RTC Ruling
In its October 25, 2017 Judgment, 18 the RTC found accused-appellant guilty of violating Secs. 5 and 11, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, but acquitted him of the charge under Sec. 12, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165. The dispositive portion of the judgment reads:
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, in Criminal Case No. 28014-2016-C, the Court finds accused, MICHAEL LEGASPI y EUSEBIO @ SUNOG, GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. He is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to PAY A FINE OF FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND (PhP500,000.00) PESOS.
In Criminal Case No. 28015-2016-C, the Court finds accused, MICHAEL LEGASPI y EUSEBIO @ SUNOG, GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of violation of Section 11, paragraph 2(3), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. He is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of TWELVE (12) YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY, as minimum, to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS, as maximum, and to PAY A FINE of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND (PhP300,000.00) PESOS.
In Criminal Case No. 28016-2016-C, for failure of the Prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt, accused MICHAEL LEGASPI y EUSEBIO @ SUNOG, is ACQUITTED of the offenses charged.
The Branch Clerk of Court is hereby ordered to turn over to PDEA the methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) and drug paraphernalia submitted in evidence for this case for proper disposition.
SO ORDERED. 19
The RTC held that the prosecution sufficiently established all the elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs based on PO1 Aguilba's testimony. PO1 Aguilba confirmed in court that he transacted with accused-appellant, who gave him the plastic sachet that tested positive for shabu, and who received the P300.00 buy-bust money. PO1 Aguilba also positively testified that he recovered two more plastic sachets of shabu during his preventive search. The RTC also held that there was substantial compliance with the chain of custody requirements. PO1 Aguilba testified that he placed markings on the sachets at the place of arrest in the presence of accused-appellant, Councilor Santos, and media representative De Leon. He testified during cross-examination that he ensured the segregation of the sachets when he placed these on the table for marking in order to prevent interchanging the sachets. He also conducted an inventory of the items in the presence of the same witnesses while SPO4 Tayactac took photographs. More importantly, PO1 Aguilba categorically stated that custody of the sachets never left him from the time of seizure until their turnover to PO3 Gonzales of the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory. 20
The RTC acquitted accused-appellant of the charge of violation of Sec. 12, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, on the ground of insufficient evidence that the paraphernalia confiscated might be used or were intended to introduce any dangerous drug into the body. 21
Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed to the CA.
The CA Ruling
In its October 10, 2019 Decision, 22 the CA affirmed accused-appellant's conviction for the offenses charged, to wit:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED. The assailed Judgment dated 25 October 2017 rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Calamba City, Laguna, Branch 37 is hereby AFFIRMED, with respect to Criminal Case No. 28014-2016-C (for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165) and Criminal Case No. 28015-2016-C (for violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165).
SO ORDERED. 23
Similar to the RTC, the CA found that all the elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs were proven by the prosecution. The CA also found that the apprehending team had complied with Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165. The seized items were inventoried and photographed at the place of arrest in the presence of accused-appellant, Councilor Santos, and media representative De Leon, who all signed the receipt/inventory for property seized. The CA also ruled that there was no gap in the second link of the chain of custody; PO1 Aguilba testified that there was no instance that he yielded possession of the seized drugs to another police officer from the time, of seizure until their submission to the crime laboratory. As to the third and fourth links, the CA held that the lapse of time, between the receipt by PO3 Gonzales of the seized items to the time of completion of the forensic examination by PCI Huelgas, was not fatal to the prosecution's case, since the parties stipulated that the specimens enclosed in the letter request were the same specimens examined by PCI Huelgas and presented in court. 24
Hence, this appeal.
Assignment of Errors
In its August 26, 2020 Resolution, 25 this Court required the parties to submit their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desired. Accused-appellant filed his Manifestation in Lieu of Supplemental Brief 26 dated October 28, 2020, and manifested that he was adopting his Brief for the Accused-Appellant, 27 dated April 2, 2018, as his supplemental brief. The appellee, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), averred in its Manifestation 28 dated December 10, 2020, that it would no longer file a supplemental brief to avoid a repetition of the arguments it raised in its Appellee's Brief 29 dated July 19, 2018.
In his brief, accused-appellant submitted the following errors in support of his appeal:
I.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE CRIME [sic.] CHARGED DESPITE THE UNPROVEN CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF THE ALLEGEDLY CONFISCATED DRUGS AND THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO ESTABLISH THEIR IDENTITY AND INTEGRITY.
II.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FAILING TO GIVE CREDENCE TO THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT'S VERSION OF THE INCIDENT, WHICH REMAINED UNREFUTED THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW. 30
Accused-appellant contends that there are gaps in the chain of custody that warrant his acquittal. First, there was no turnover of the seized drugs to the investigator, which was irregular and which showed that the second link in the chain of custody was non-existent. Second, there was no testimony on the management and storage of the seized drugs after the forensic examination conducted by PCI Huelgas until the presentation thereof in court.
The appellee, on the other hand, counters that the prosecution clearly established the chain of custody over the seized items. PO1 Aguilba marked and inventoried the confiscated items at the place of arrest in the presence of the required witnesses. The confiscated items were placed in an evidence bag and remained in PO1 Aguilba's custody until their submission to the crime laboratory. The parties also stipulated that the specimen enclosed in the letter request received by PCI Huelgas was the same specimen she examined and transmitted to the prosecution. Absent any showing of ill or improper motive on the part of the police officers, appellee argues that their testimonies should be given full faith and credence.
The Court's Ruling
The appeal is meritorious.
The Court has time and again emphasized the importance of establishing with moral certainty the identity and credibility of the corpus delicti in the illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, 31 due to the unique characteristics of illegal drugs which render them indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration, or substitution either by accident or otherwise. 32 Hence, other than proving the elements of the crime, it is of utmost importance to show, with the same degree of certitude to sustain a guilty verdict, that the substance illegally sold or possessed by the accused is the same substance offered in court. 33
The chain of custody rule, which is a method of authenticating evidence, performs this function and 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. Chain of custody means having testimonies on 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 has been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. 34
The links in the chain of custody that the prosecution must sufficiently prove are as follows: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court. 35
Here, there is a breach in the fourth and final link of the chain, which involves the custody of the forensic chemist before the submission and presentation of the seized illegal drugs in court.
To prove the fourth link of the chain of custody, the prosecution must establish the safety precautionary measures made by the forensic chemist from the time he received the seized items until their turnover to the court. 36 In case of a stipulation by the parties to dispense with the testimony of the forensic chemist, the following stipulations must be included to show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved: (1) that the forensic chemist received the seized article as marked, properly sealed, and intact; (2) that he resealed it after examination of the contents; and (3) that he placed his own marking on the same to ensure that it could not be tampered with pending trial. 37
In the present case, the parties agreed to dispense with the testimony of PCI Huelgas and stipulated that: (a) PCI Huelgas is an expert witness; (b) the existence and due execution of the Letter Request for Laboratory Examination dated October 14, 2016, including the specimens enclosed therewith were delivered to and received by the crime laboratory; (c) the letter request for laboratory examination was duly received by the Regional Crime Laboratory Office; (d) the enclosed specimens included (i) three (3) pieces of heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance suspected as shabu, marked as 10-14-16 RDA-BB, RDA-1, and RDA-2; and (ii) one (1) piece improvised glass tooter with suspected shabu residue marked as RDA-3; (e) pursuant to the letter request, PCI Huelgas conducted a qualitative examination of the enclosed specimen, and the result of the examination was reduced in writing in Chemistry Report No. D-2445-16; (f) the specimens enclosed in the letter request were the same specimens examined by PCI Huelgas; (g) the existence and due execution of Chemistry Report No. D-2445-16 was presented; (h) PCI Huelgas had no personal knowledge from whom the specimens subject of the examination were taken/seized; and (i) the specimens examined by PCI Huelgas were the same specimens transmitted by PCI Huelgas to the prosecution. 38
The second and third stipulations required to be established are lacking in this case. There was no stipulation on whether PCI Huelgas resealed the specimen she received from PO1 Aguilba after conducting the forensic examination and on how she ensured that there could be no opportunity to tamper with the specimen or for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same in the meantime while awaiting trial.
In De Guzman v. People, 39 the Court acquitted the petitioner solely on the ground of failure to establish the fourth link of the chain. The parties' stipulations therein lacked the essential details on whether the forensic chemist resealed and marked the seized items after conducting quantitative and qualitative examination thereon. There was also no stipulation on whether she exercised precautionary measures after the examination of the seized items in order to preserve their integrity and evidentiary value.
Similarly, in People v. Villalon, Jr., 40 the Court rendered a judgment of acquittal due to the ineffective stipulation of the parties on the testimony of the forensic chemist. The stipulations did not mention the precautionary steps taken by the forensic chemist from the time he received the seized items for laboratory examination and before its delivery to the trial court for identification. The Court held that such failure left a gap in the chain of custody of the seized items.
In People v. Sorrera, 41 the Court also acquitted the accused-appellant because of the prosecution's failure to reasonably establish the fourth link in the chain of custody. Although the forensic chemist therein testified that the specimen presented in court were the same ones examined by the forensic chemist, the lack of testimony on how the forensic chemist handled the seized drugs after examination and before presentation in court warranted the acquittal of the accused-appellant.
Finally, in People v. Pasiona, 42 the parties stipulated that the specimens presented in court were the same ones received by the forensic chemist therein for examination, similar to the present case. However, the Court found that the stipulation was also ineffective as it lacked the safety precautions taken by the forensic chemist after the examination.
Based on the foregoing, We find that the CA erred when it ruled that the parties' stipulations had sufficiently established the fourth link in the chain of custody. The precautionary measures supposedly observed by PCI Huelgas post-examination are lacking, which renders the stipulations in her testimony ineffective. Absent any stipulation regarding the management, storage, and preservation of the seized items after its qualitative examination, the fourth link in the chain of custody could not be established with moral certainty. 43
Hence, the prosecution's failure to account for the fourth link in the chain of custody of the seized illegal drugs from accused-appellant compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized illegal drugs. Accordingly, the Court is bound to render a judgment of acquittal.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is GRANTED. The October 10, 2019 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 10033, which affirmed the October 25, 2017 Judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Calamba City, Laguna, Branch 37, in Criminal Case Nos. 28014-2016-C and 28015-2016-C, finding accused-appellant Michael Legaspi y Eusebio @ "Sunog" guilty of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Let Entry of Judgment be issued immediately.
The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City is ORDERED to IMMEDIATELY RELEASE the accused-appellant from detention, unless he is being lawfully held in custody for any other reason, and to INFORM this Court of his action hereon within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
SO ORDERED." Gaerlan, J., no part; Rosario, J., designated Additional Member per Raffle dated July 5, 2021.
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. 21-23.
2.Id. at 3-20; penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan (now a Member of this Court) with Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Germano Francisco D. Legaspi, concurring.
3. CA rollo, pp. 41-61; penned by Presiding Judge Caesar C. Buenagua.
4.Rollo, pp. 4-5.
5.Id. at 4.
6.Id.
7.Id. at 4-5.
8.Id. at 5.
9. Also referred to as "Forensic Chemist Donna Villa Huelgas" in some parts of the rollo.
10.Rollo, pp. 6-7.
11.Id. at 7.
12.Id. at 7-8.
13.Id. at 8.
14.Id.; CA rollo, p. 55.
15.Id. at 8.
16.Id. at 9.
17.Id.
18.Id. at 3-20.
19. CA rollo, pp. 60-61.
20.Id. at 46-59.
21.Id. at 60.
22.Rollo, pp. 3-20.
23.Id. at 20.
24.Id. at 11-20.
25.Id. at 27-28.
26.Id. at 34-35.
27. CA rollo, pp. 25-39.
28.Rollo, pp. 45-47.
29. CA rollo, pp. 73-85.
30.Rollo, p. 11.
31.People v. Pasiona, G.R. No. 247820, October 14, 2020.
32.Jocson v. People, G.R. No. 199644, June 19, 2019, 904 SCRA 537, 548-549.
33.People v. Lopez, G.R. No. 248085, July 15, 2020.
34.People v. Ladip, 729 Phil. 495, 514-515 (2014).
35.People v. Nandi, 639 Phil. 134, 144-145 (2010).
36.People v. Pasiona, supra note 31.
37.People v. Cabuhay, 836 Phil. 903, 918 (2018).
38. CA rollo, pp. 45-46.
39. G.R. No. 246327, January 13, 2021.
40. G.R. No. 249412, March 15, 2021.
41. G.R. No. 251110, February 3, 2021.
42.Supra note 31.
43.People v. Lopez, supra note 33.