FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 249856. September 14, 2022.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.JERICK LUDOR y LANORIO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 14, 2022, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 249856 (People of the Philippines v. Jerick Ludor y Lanorio). — This is an appeal 1 filed by accused-appellant Jerick Ludor y Lanorio from the January 15, 2019 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09577, which affirmed the July 5, 2017 Judgment 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Calamba City, Branch 37 in Criminal Case Nos. 27890-2016-C and 27891-2016-C finding accused-appellant guilty of violation of Sections 5 4 and 11, 5 paragraph 2 (3), Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, 6 otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Act of 2002."
The Factual Antecedents
Accused-appellant was charged with violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165 under the following Informations:
Criminal Case No. 27890-2016-C
That on or about October 12, 2016, in Calauan, Laguna and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver one plastic sachet of methamphetamine hydrochloride, weighing 0.04 gram, a dangerous drug, without the corresponding authority of law. AHDacC
CONTRARY TO LAW. 7
Criminal Case No. 27891-16-C
That on or about October 12, 2016, in Calauan, Laguna and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously possess four plastic sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride, weighing 0.15 gram, a dangerous drug, without the corresponding authority of law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 8
Upon arraignment, accused-appellant, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty to the charges. 9 Thereafter, the pre-trial conference was conducted and subsequently trial ensued. The prosecution presented Police Officer 1 Rainnier Demillo (PO1 Demillo) as its witness, while the defense presented accused-appellant.
Version of the Prosecution
PO1 Demillo testified that on October 12, 2016 at 7:30 p.m., while he was assigned at Calauan Police Station, a confidential informant informed them about the illegal drug activities of accused-appellant. A buy-bust operation was arranged wherein he was designated as the poseur-buyer. Police Chief Inspector Mederic Mati-Ong Villarete (PCI Villarete) gave PO1 Demillo a P500.00 bill as buy-bust money which he marked with an "X" at the bottom portion. 10
The buy-bust team and the informant boarded their vehicle and proceeded to the target area. Upon arrival, the informant PO1nted to accused-appellant who was standing at the corner of the street. PO1 Demillo approached accused-appellant while the other members of the buy-bust operation positioned themselves around the area; the informant remained in the vehicle. 11
When PO1 Demillo was near accused-appellant, he told the latter "[i]iskor sana ako ng 500.00 kung meron ka." When accused-appellant answered in the affirmative, PO1 Demillo handed him the P500.00 bill marked money. Accused-appellant then removed a coin purse from his left waistband, took out one plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance, and handed it to PO1 Demillo. After the exchange, PO1 Demillo removed his cap which was the pre-arranged signal that the transaction was completed. 12 PO1 Demillo held on to the sachet that be bought from accused-appellant.
Police officers then rushed towards PO1 Demillo and accused-appellant. PO1 Demillo held the hand of accused-appellant and introduced himself as a police officer. Police Officer 2 Roginald Dimla (PO2 Dimla) handcuffed accused-appellant and informed him of his violation, the nature of his offense, and his constitutional rights. PO1 Demillo then conducted a search on accused-appellant's body wherein he recovered a purse from the latter's right hand which contained the marked buy-bust money of P500.00, money of different denominations amounting to a total of P900.00, and four plastic sachets of white crystalline substance, suspected as shabu. 13
At the place of arrest, PO1 Demillo then marked five plastic sachets as follows: "BBB" (weighing 0.04 gram), "A-1" (weighing 0.04 gram), "A-2" (weighing 0.03 gram), "A-3" (weighing 0.04 gram) and "A-4" (weighing 0.04 gram). 14
Thereafter, the police officers brought accused-appellant to the Calauan Police Station, took photographs of the seized items, and prepared the inventory in the presence of the accused-appellant, media representative Victor Baldovino of Kabalikat and Barangay Kagawad Nelson Zarate. 15
After the inventory, PO1 Demillo showed the seized items to the police investigator, Police Officer Alfredo Abrea, Jr. Abria, who prepared the request for laboratory examination. PO1 Demillo further testified that he placed the specimens in a ziplock bag marked "RD," and that he delivered the seized items together with the request for laboratory examination to the crime laboratory. 16
Forensic Chemist Grace Plantilla Bombasi (FC Bombasi) then conducted qualitative and quantitative examinations on the specimen which yielded positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as shabu. The foregoing findings were reflected in Chemistry Report No. LD-1455-16. 17 The presentation of FC Bombasi, as the prosecution's additional witness, was dispensed with in view of the parties' stipulation on her testimony, to wit: (i) FC Bombasi was qualified as an expert witness; (ii) the existence and due execution of the Laboratory Examination Request dated October 12, 2016 with the subject specimens enclosed thereto which were delivered to and received by the crime laboratory; (iii) the Regional Crime Laboratory Office received the Laboratory Examination Request, including the specimens to be examined, as evidenced by the stamp receipt of the crime laboratory; (iv) the enclosed specimens were five heat scaled transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance with markings "BBE," "A-1" to "A-4," placed in a ziplock plastic sachet with the marking "RD"; (v) FC Bombasi conducted a qualitative examination of the specimens and the result of the examination was reduced into writing in Chemistry Report No. LD-1455-16; (vi) the specimens enclosed in the Laboratory Examination Request were the same specimens that were examined by FC Bombasi; (vii) the existence and due execution of Chemistry Report No. LD-1455-16; (viii) FC Bombasi had no personal knowledge from whom the specimens subject of the examination were taken/seized; and (ix) the specimens examined by FC Bombasi were the same specimens presented in Court and marked as prosecution's evidence. 18
The parties further dispensed with PO2 Dimla's testimony and instead stipulated that his narration will corroborate the testimony of PO1 Demillo. 19
Version of the Defense
Accused-appellant vehemently denied the accusation against him. He interposed the defenses of denial and frame-up. He claimed that on October 12, 2016, at around 2:00 to 4:00 p.m., he was on board a passenger jeepney on his way home to Calauan, Laguna, after he delivered rice in San Pablo, Laguna. Suddenly, the jeepney was flagged down by PO1 Demillo and PO2 Dimla who requested him and the other 10 to 12 passengers to alight. The police officers said they were looking for somebody else. However, the police officers asked accused-appellant to board a tricycle with them and brought him to their base where he was detained for seven hours. Thereafter, he was brought out of the cell and made to sit on a table with money and prohibited drugs and was ordered to sign something which he did because he was scared. He further testified that he did not file a case against the police officers because he did not have the financial capacity to do so. 20 aCIHcD
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
In its July 5, 2017 Judgment, the trial court found accused-appellant guilty, the dispositive portion of which reads:
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, in Criminal Case No. 27890-16-C(P), the Court finds accused, JERICK LUDOR y LANORIO, GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of violation of Section 5, Article II, of Republic Act No. 9165, and 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. 27891-16-C(P), the Court likewise finds accused, JERICK LUDOR y LANORIO, GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of violation of Section 11, paragraph 2(3), Article II, of Republic Act No. 9165, and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment 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.
The Branch Clerk of Court is hereby ordered to turn-over to PDEA the methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) submitted in evidence for this case.
SO ORDERED. 21 (Emphasis in the original)
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
Aggrieved with the trial court's findings, accused-appellant appealed with the CA. However, in its January 15, 2019 Decision, the appellate court affirmed the findings of the RTC, the fallo of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The assailed Judgment dated July 5, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 37, Calamba City, in Criminal Case Nos. 27890-2016-C and 27891-2016-C, is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 22
Issue
The pivotal issue in the instant case is whether accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offenses charged.
Our Ruling
We grant the appeal.
In a prosecution for the Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, such as shabu, the following elements must be duly established: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. 23 It is essential in a prosecution for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs to show proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the seized dangerous drugs which constitute as the corpus delicti. 24
On the other hand, a case of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs will prosper if the following elements are present: (1) the accused was in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. 25
As regards the chain of custody of the seized drugs, Sec. 21, Art. II of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, 26 reads:
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: cHaCAS
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 al 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. 27 (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, the prosecution must be able to account for each link in the chain of custody from the moment the drugs were seized up to their presentation in court, in order to establish the identity of the dangerous drug with moral certainty. 28 As part of the chain of custody procedure, the law requires that the marking, physical inventory, and photography of the seized items be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation of the same. 29 Furthermore, to ensure the preservation of the integrity of the seized items, We reiterated in People v. Cuevas30 the requirement of the required witnesses, to wit:
The law further requires that the said inventory and photography be done in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: (a) if prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, "a representative from the media and the [DOJ], and any elected public official"; or (b) if after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, "[a]n elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media." The law requires the presence of these witnesses primarily "to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence." 31 (Emphasis in the original; citations omitted)
The evidence on record shows that there was a failure to comply with the foregoing provisions by the apprehending officers. We note that PO1 Demillo marked the sachet subject of the sale simultaneous with four sachets they recovered from the person of accused-appellant. There was no explanation as to how PO1 Demillo was able to identify and segregate the sachet subject of the sale from the sachets confiscated from the accused-appellant. PO1 Demillo did not state the precautions taken to prevent interchanging the five sachets. This is crucial considering that the penalty for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs depends on the weight of the contraband. Thus, starting from the top of the chain, the integrity of the seized drugs has already been compromised. DACcIH
Furthermore, the prosecution did not sufficiently account for each link in the chain of custody, from the moment the sachets of shabu were seized up to their presentation in court. PO1 Demillo supposedly testified that he brought the specimen to the laboratory for examination, together with the request. The parties then stipulated that these were received by the Regional Crime Laboratory Office and that the specimens were examined by FC Bombasi and found them to be positive for shabu. 32 Remarkably, the prosecution did not identify the person who received the items from PO1 Demillo. FC Bombasi's testimony was also stipulated upon but there was no mention at all as to who delivered the items to her. This gap therefore gave rise to the uncertainty that the items that were delivered by PO1 Demillo were the same items received and examined by FC Bombasi.
Notably, the quantities of the illegal drugs subject of the instant case are miniscule. Hence, it is important for the prosecution to establish their identity and preserve their integrity beyond reasonable doubt. Unfortunately, the prosecution utterly failed to prove that there was full compliance with the chain of custody rule. Consequently, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs have been seriously compromised casting doubt on the guilt of accused-appellant.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The January 15, 2019 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09577 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Jerick Ludor y Lanorio is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections of Muntinlupa City is DIRECTED to release accused-appellant from confinement unless he is being held for another lawful cause. The Director General is DIRECTED to report the action taken hereon within five days from receipt of this Resolution.
Let entry of 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. Rollo, pp. 14-15.
2. CA rollo, pp. 83-93. Penned by Associate Justice Victoria Isabel A. Paredes and concurred in by Associate Justices Marlene B. Gonzales-Sison and Jhosep Y. Lopez (now a Member of the Court).
3. Id. at 44-61. Penned by Presiding Judge Caesar C. Buenagua.
4. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, ARTICLE II:
Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any such transactions.
5. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, ARTICLE II:
Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof:
xxx xxx xxx
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be graduated as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a tine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu," or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy," PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or less than three hundred (300) grams of marijuana.
6. 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: June 7, 2002.
7. CA rollo, p. 65.
8. Id. at 66.
9. Id.
10. Id. at 83.
11. Id. at 68.
12. Id. at 69.
13. Id. at 69 and 84.
14. Id.
15. Id. at 47, 69 and 84.
16. Id. at 69 and 84.
17. Id. at 69.
18. Id. at 66-67.
19. Id. at 85.
20. Id.
21. Id. at 60-61.
22. Id. at 92-93. Emphasis in the original.
23. People v. Ordiz, G.R. No. 206767, September 11, 2019.
24. People v. Yanson, G.R. No. 238453, July 31, 2019.
25. Duarte v. People, G.R. No. 238971, August 28, 2019.
26. Entitled "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.
27. See also People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 229053, July 17, 2019.
28. People v. Piñero, G.R. No. 242407, April 1, 2019.
29. Id.
30. 842 Phil. 709 (2018).
31. Id. at 717.
32. Id. at 58-60 and 91.