SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 248014. September 28, 2020.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PLOYD MADLANG-AWA y PELICIANO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 28 September 2020 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 248014 (People of the Philippines v. Ployd Madlang-Awa y Peliciano). — The Court NOTES: (a) the manifestation dated 14 September 2020 of the Office of the Solicitor General, dispensing with the filing of supplemental brief, since it had already exhaustively discussed all the issues in the appellee's brief filed before the Court of Appeals (CA) on 3 January 2019; and (b) the manifestation (in lieu of supplemental brief) dated 20 July 2020 of counsel for accused-appellant Ployd Madlang-Awa y Peliciano (accused-appellant), adopting the appellant's brief as supplemental.
Assailed in this ordinary appeal 1 is the Decision 2 dated April 11, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10242, which affirmed the Judgment 3 dated November 17, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 98 (RTC) in Criminal Case No. R-QZN-16-13134-CR, finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, 4 otherwise known as the 'Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.'
The Facts
This case stemmed from an Information 5 filed before the RTC accusing accused-appellant of violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. The prosecution alleged that at around 8:00 in the evening of November 8, 2016, a team composed of members of the Philippine National Police, Police Station 2, Masambong, Quezon City (QC), acting on a tip from a confidential informant and with coordination from the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, conducted a buy-bust operation against accused-appellant at No. 93A Cotabato St., Brgy. Galicia, QC, during which, one (1) heat-sealed plastic sachet containing an undetermined quantity of white crystalline substance of suspected shabu (seized item) was recovered from his possession. During the course of the operation, a group of people was likewise arrested for possession and use of drugs and drug paraphernalia in flagrante delicto. 6 The seized item from accused-appellant was marked by the police poseur-buyer, Police Officer 1 Edward Ramos with the marking 'PM-ER 11-8-16' 7 at the place of arrest. The team, together with accused-appellant and the other suspects, proceeded to the police station where the seized item from accused-appellant was photographed, and inventoried in his presence, the arresting officers, the police investigator, and media representative Jimmy Mendoza (Mr. Mendoza) of DZAR Sunshine Radio Reporter. 8 Thereafter, the seized item was brought to the crime laboratory 9 where, after examination, 10 its contents tested positive for 0.08 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. 11
In defense, accused-appellant denied the charges against him. He claimed that on November 8, 2016, he was just in their house, and having a heated argument with his sister. When their mother could not pacify them, she sought the assistance of barangay officials. However, instead of barangay officials, police officers came and arrested him. He was brought to the police station where he learned that he was being accused of selling illegal drugs. 12
In a Judgment 13 dated November 17, 2017, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, and accordingly, sentenced him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine in the amount of P500,000.00. 14 The RTC held that the prosecution sufficiently established all the elements of the crime charged, and further ruled that the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti were preserved. On the other hand, it rejected accused-appellant's defense of denial and frame-up, in light of his positive identification by the poseur-buyer, and for failure to show any motive on the part of the arresting officers to implicate him in a crime he claimed he did not commit. 15
In a Decision 16 dated April 11, 2019, the CA affirmed the RTC ruling. 17 Among others, the CA observed that while there were slight deviations from the chain of custody rule, the same did not compromise the corpus delicti. 18
Hence, this appeal seeking that accused-appellant's conviction be overturned.
The Court's Ruling
The appeal is meritorious.
At the outset, it must be stressed that an appeal in criminal cases opens the entire case for review, and thus, it is the duty of the reviewing tribunal to correct, cite, and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned. 'The appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and renders such court competent to examine records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law.' 19
In this case, accused-appellant was charged with the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, defined and penalized under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. In cases for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under RA 9165, 20 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. 21 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 which, therefore, warrants an acquittal. 22
To establish the identity of the dangerous drugs with moral certainty, the prosecution must be able to account for each link of the chain of custody from the moment the drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as evidence of the crime. 23 Thus, as part of the chain of custody procedure, the apprehending team is mandated, immediately after seizure and confiscation, to conduct a physical inventory and to photograph the seized items 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, 24 representative from the media AND the Department of Justice (DOJ), AND any elected public officia1; 25 or (b) if after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640 (i.e., August 7, 2014), 26 an elected public official AND a representative of the National Prosecution Service (NPS) 27OR the media. 28 The presence of these witnesses safeguards 'the establishment of the chain of custody and remove[s] any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence.' 29
As a general rule, compliance with the chain of custody procedure under Section 21, Rule II of RA 9165 is strictly enjoined as the same has been regarded not merely as a procedural technicality but as a matter of substantive law. 30 This is because the law has been crafted by Congress as safety precautions to address potential police abuses, especially considering that the penalty imposed may be life imprisonment. 31 Strict adherence to Section 21 is particularly required where the quantity of illegal drugs seized is miniscule, as in this case, since it is highly susceptible to planting, tampering or alteration of evidence. 32
Be that as it may, the Court acknowledges that strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure may not always be possible. 33 During such eventualities, the failure of the apprehending team to strictly comply with the same would not ipso facto render the seizure and custody over the items as void and invalid, provided that the prosecution satisfactorily proves that: (a) there is a justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. 34 The foregoing is based on the saving clause found in Section 21 (a), 35 Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165, which was later adopted into the text of RA 10640. 36 However, in People v. Almorfe, 37 the Court stressed that for the saving clause to apply, the prosecution must explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses. 38 Further, in People v. De Guzman, 39the justifiable ground for non-compliance must be proven as a fact, because the Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist. 40
With regard to the witness requirement, non-compliance therewith may be permitted only if the prosecution proves that the apprehending officers exerted genuine and sufficient efforts to secure their presence, although they eventually failed to appear. While the earnestness of these efforts must be examined on a case-to-case basis, the primary objective is for the Court to be convinced that the failure to comply was reasonable under the given circumstances. Thus, mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses, are unacceptable as justified grounds for non-compliance. These considerations arise from the fact that police officers are ordinarily given sufficient time — beginning from the moment they have received the information about the activities of the accused until the time of his arrest — to prepare for a buy-bust operation and consequently, make the necessary arrangements beforehand, knowing fully well that they would have to strictly comply with the chain of custody rule. 41
The relevant incident, including the arrest of accused-appellant, in this case happened on November 28, 2016. Thus, considering that at this time RA 10640 was already in effect (August 7, 2014), the witnesses required in this case are: (1) an elected public official AND (2) a representative of the NPS OR the media.
In this case, although the inventory and photography of the seized item were conducted in the presence of media representative Mr. Mendoza of DZAR Sunshine Radio Reporter, the other required witness, i.e., an elected public official, was not present thereat. While the prosecution claimed that the police officers tried to contact a representative from the barangay and the DOJ but no one arrived, 42 records fail to show that there were genuine and earnest efforts exerted to secure their presence as jurisprudentially required. The Court observes that there was more than sufficient time from the receipt by the police officers of the confidential information from their asset in the evening of November 7, 2016 and the conduct of the buy-bust operation the following evening on November 8, 2016 (which were both weekdays). This notwithstanding, no other efforts were exerted to comply with what the law requires. Absent any showing of other justifiable circumstances, 43 law enforcement officers should not be allowed to circumvent the witness requirement by a mere casual statement that a required witness was unavailable at a certain time. To reiterate, case law states that mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses, are unacceptable as justified grounds for non-compliance.
Moreover, the Court notes the inconsistency in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses as to the timing of Mr. Mendoza's presence during the inventory, further casting doubt on the identity of the seized item. While the arresting officers claimed that Mr. Mendoza arrived at the police station earlier than them and was already present before the inventory was conducted, 44 Mr. Mendoza himself testified that at the time he arrived at the police station, he saw a police officer already conducting an inventory of the seized item. 45
In view of the foregoing, the Court is impelled to conclude that the integrity and evidentiary value of the item purportedly seized from accused-appellant, which constitutes the corpus delicti of the crime charged, have been compromised; hence, his acquittal is perforce in order pursuant to existing law and jurisprudence. 46
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated April 11, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10242 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Ployd Madlang-Awa y Peliciano is ACQUITTED of the crime charged. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ordered to: (a) cause accused-appellant's immediate release, unless he is being lawfully held in custody for any other reason; and (b) inform the Court of the action taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED. (Gesmundo, J., designated Additional Member vice Inting, J., Delos Santos, J., on official leave; Baltazar-Padilla, J., on leave.)"
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. See Notice of Appeal dated April 30, 2019; rollo, pp. 21-23.
2.Id. at 3-20. Penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (now a Member of the Court) with Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Rodil V. Zalameda (now a Member of the Court), concurring.
3. CA rollo, pp. 51-60. Penned by Presiding Judge Marilou D. Runes-Tamang.
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 June 7, 2002.
5. See records, p. 1.
6. See CA rollo, pp. 53-54.
7. See rollo, pp. 16-18.
8. See CA rollo, p. 55.
9. See Request for Laboratory Examination; records, p. 10.
10. See Chemistry Report No. D-1930-16 dated November 9, 2016; id. at 11.
11. See rollo, p. 7.
12.Rollo, p. 8; CA rollo, p. 57.
13. CA rollo, pp. 51-60.
14. See id. at 60.
15. See id. at 57-60.
16.Rollo, pp. 3-20.
17. See id. at 19.
18. See id. at 15-19.
19. See People v. Feriol, G.R. No. 232154, August 20, 2018; People v. Magsano, G.R. No. 231050, February 28, 2018, 857 SCRA 142.
20. The elements of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 are: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. (See People v. Crispo, G.R. No. 230065, March 14, 2018, 859 SCRA 356, 369; People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 231383, March 7, 2018, 858 SCRA 94, 104; People v. Magsano, id. at 152; People v. Manansala, G.R. No. 229092, February 21, 2018, 856 SCRA 359, 369-370; People v. Miranda, G.R. No. 229671, January 31, 2018, 854 SCRA 42, 52; and People v. Mamangon, G.R. No. 229102, January 29, 2018, 853 SCRA 303, 312-313; all cases citing People v. Sumili, 753 Phil. 342, 348 (2015]).
21. See People v. Crispo, id.; People v. Sanchez, id.; People v. Magsano, id.; People v. Manansala, id.; and People v. Miranda, id.; all cases citing People v. Viterbo, 739 Phil. 593, 601 (2014).
22. See People v. Gamboa, G.R. No. 233702, June 20, 2018, citing People v. Umipang, 686 Phil. 1024, 1039-1040 (2012).
23. See People v. Año, G.R. No. 230070, March 14, 2018; People v. Crispo, supra note 20; People v. Sanchez, supra note 20; People v. Magsano, supra note 20; People v. Manansala, supra note 20; People v. Miranda, supra note 20, at 53; and People v. Mamangon, supra note 20, at 313. See also People v. Viterbo, supra note 21.
24. 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.
As the Court noted in People v. Gutierrez (G.R. No. 236304, November 5, 2018), RA 10640, which was approved on July 15, 2014, states that it shall "take effect fifteen (15) days after its complete publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation." Accordingly, a copy of the law was published on July 23, 2014 in the respective issues of "The Philippine Star" (Vol. XXVIII, No. 359, Philippine Star Metro section, p. 21) and the "Manila Bulletin" (Vol. 499, No. 23, World News section, p. 6); hence, RA 10640 became effective on August 7, 2014. (See also People v. Santos y Littaua, G.R. No. 243627, November 27, 2019).
25. See Section 21 (1), Article II of RA 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations.
26. See footnote 24.
27. The NPS falls under the DOJ. (See Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1275, entitled "REORGANIZING THE PROSECUTION STAFF OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, REGIONALIZING THE PROSECUTION SERVICE, AND CREATING THE NATIONAL PROSECUTION SERVICE" [April 11, 1978] and Section 3 of RA 10071, entitled "AN ACT STRENGTHENING AND RATIONALIZING THE NATIONAL PROSECUTION SERVICE" otherwise known as the "PROSECUTION SERVICE ACT OF 2010" [lapsed into law on April 8, 2010].)
28. See Section 21 (1), Article II of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640.
29. See People v. Miranda, supra note 20, at 57. See also People v. Mendoza, 736 Phil. 749, 764 (2014).
30. See People v. Miranda, supra note 20, at 60-61. See also People v. Macapundag, G.R. No. 225965, March 13, 2017, 820 SCRA 204, 215 (FN42), citing People v. Umipang, supra note 22, at 1038.
31. See People v. Segundo, G.R. No. 205614, July 26, 2017, 833 SCRA 16, 44, citing People v. Umipang, supra note 22.
32.People v. Saragena, G.R. No. 210677, August 23, 2017.
33. See People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214, 234 (2008).
34. See People v. Almorfe, 631 Phil. 51, 60 (2010).
35. Section 21 (a), Article II of the IRR of RA 9165 pertinently states: "Provided, further, that non-compliance with 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 of and custody over said items."
36. Section 1 of RA 10640 pertinently states: "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."
37.Supra note 34.
38. See id. at 60. (FN15)
39. 630 Phil. 637 (2010).
40. See id. at 649. (near FN29)
41.People v. Doctolero, G.R. No. 243940, August 20, 2019 (FN49-FN51), citing People v. Manansala, supra note 18 (near FN41), People v. Gamboa, supra note 22 (FN48) which cited People v. Umipang, supra note 22, at 1053 (near FN33), and People v. Crispo, supra note 20 (near FN53).
42. See CA Decision, rollo, p. 19. See also Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN), August 2, 2017, p. 24.
43. In People v. Lim y Miranda (G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018), the Court held that:
It must be alleged and proved that the presence of the [required] witnesses to the physical inventory and photograph of the illegal drug seized was not obtained due to reason/s such as:
(1) their attendance was impossible because the place of arrest was a remote area; (2) their safety during the inventory and photograph of the seized drugs was threatened by an immediate retaliatory action of the accused or any person/s acting for and in his/her behalf; (3) the elected official themselves were involved in the punishable acts sought to be apprehended; (4) earnest efforts to secure the presence of a DOJ or media representative and an elected public official within the period required under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code prove futile through no fault of the arresting officers, who face the threat of being charged with arbitrary detention; or (5) time constraints and urgency of the anti-drug operations, which often rely on tips of confidential assets, prevented the law enforcers from obtaining the presence of the required witnesses even before the offenders could escape.
44. See RTC Judgment, CA rollo, p. 55. See also TSN, August 2, 2017, p. 27.
45. See RTC Judgment, CA rollo, p. 52. See also TSN, August 2, 2017, p. 6.
46. See People v. Santos y Littaua, G.R. No. 243627, November 27, 2019.