SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 252387. September 13, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.ERIC MAGABILIN y FERNANDEZ, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated13 September 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 252387 (People of the Philippines v. Eric Magabilin y Fernandez). — Before this Court is an appeal 1 filed by accused-appellant Eric Magabilin y Fernandez (accused-appellant/Eric) assailing the October 22, 2019 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08849 which affirmed the October 17, 2016 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 164 in Criminal Case Nos. 21013-D and 21014-D. The RTC found accused-appellant guilty of Illegal Possession and Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs in violation of Sections 11 and 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The accusatory portions of the Informations 4 read:
Criminal Case No. 21013-D:
On or about January 7, 2016, in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, not being lawfully authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and give away to PO2 Marvin A. Santos, a police poseur-buyer, one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.11 gram of white crystalline substance, which was found positive to the tests for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of the said law.
Contrary to law. 5
Criminal Case No. 21014-D:
On or about January 7, 2016, in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, not being lawfully authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, and under his custody and control, one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.10 gram of white crystalline substance, which was found positive to the tests for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of the said law.
Contrary to law. 6
Eric pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged. 7 After the pre-trial, joint trial on the merits ensued.
The prosecution presented the testimony of Police Officer 2 (PO2) Marvin A. Santos (PO2 Santos). 8 Meanwhile, the testimonies of Police Senior Inspector Anghelisa S. Vicente (PSI Vicente), the forensic chemist, and PO3 Rex G. Baygar (PO3 Baygar), who prepared the post-operation documentations, were stipulated and agreed upon by the parties. 9 TIADCc
The defense presented the lone testimony 10 of Eric. 11
Version of the Prosecution:
On January 7, 2016 at around 6 o'clock in the evening, Police Chief Inspector (PCI) Renato B. Castillo (PCI Castillo) of the Station Anti-Illegal Drug-Special Operation Task Group (SAID-SOTG) of Pasig City conducted a briefing to the police operatives of SAID-SOTG and the Anti-Drug Abuse Council of Pasig 12 for possible buy-bust operations against nine targets/personalities 13 involved in illegal drug activities. Among the target personalities was a certain "Eric" who was reported by the confidential informant to be engaged in illegal drug activities along K95 Street, Karangalan Village, Barangay Dela Paz, Pasig City. PO2 Santos and the confidential informant cased and surveyed the target area and were able to verify the information against Eric. 14
Thus, PCI Castillo held another briefing for the actual buy-bust operation during which PO2 Santos was designated as the poseur-buyer and PO2 Michael Palatao 15 (PO2 Palatao) as the back-up officer. PO2 Santos was given two pieces of P100.00 bills with serial numbers RH483642 and RV400657, marked on the lower left-hand corner with his initials "MAS," as buy-bust money. 16 The team agreed that PO2 Santos would scratch his head to signal that the transaction was completed. PO2 Palatao prepared the Coordination Sheet 17 and Pre-Operation Report on the nine personalities including Eric, 18 and submitted them to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). 19
After getting authority from PDEA, the buy-bust team proceeded to the target area at around 8:20 in the evening of January 7, 2016. PO2 Santos and the confidential informant went to the house of Eric while the rest of the team positioned themselves nearby. PO2 Santos and the confidential informant approached Eric and the former said that they wanted to "score dos" 20 or P200.00 worth of shabu. Eric nodded and PO2 Santos handed the marked money. Eric placed the bills inside his right pocket and brought out from his left pocket two pieces of transparent plastic sachets each containing white crystalline substance appearing to be shabu. Eric gave one sachet to PO2 Santos who placed it inside his right pocket. PO2 Santos then executed the pre-arranged signal by scratching his head.
When PO2 Santos saw his team members approaching, he held Eric's left hand and introduced himself as a police officer. PO2 Santos confiscated from Eric the other transparent sachet with white crystalline substance and placed it inside his left pocket. Eric did not resist his arrest. PO2 Santos ordered Eric to bring out the money he paid and when the latter complied, PO2 Santos confiscated them. PO2 Santos frisked Eric and informed him of his violation of selling and possessing illegal drugs and his constitutional rights. 21
PO3 Allan Caponga 22 summoned a barangay elected official and the media representative at the place of arrest. While waiting, PO2 Santos marked the seized items in the presence of Eric. The sachet sold to PO2 Santos was marked with "1MAS/ERIC 1/7/16" and the other sachet he recovered bore the marking "2MAS/ERIC/1/7/2016". PO2 Santos likewise affixed his signature on the two sachets. The required witnesses did not arrive and so the team decided to bring Eric to the Barangay Hall of Dela Paz, Pasig City. All the while, the seized items were in the custody of PO2 Santos. 23
At the barangay hall, Barangay Kagawad Sonny Santos (Kagawad Sonny) together with Eric witnessed the inventory and signed the Inventory Sheet. Photographs were likewise taken during the process. No media or representative of the Department of Justice were present. 24
After the marking and inventory, PO2 Santos brought the accused to the SAID-SOTG, Pasig City Police Station. Thereat, PO2 Santos presented to PO3 Baygar the seized items and the marked money. PO3 Baygar prepared the Request for Laboratory Examination 25 and the Chain of Custody Form. 26 Eric was then brought to the Rizal Medical Center for medical examination. PO2 Santos turned over the seized transparent sachets and submitted the Request Form and Chain of Custody Form to PSI Vicente, the forensic chemist of the Eastern Police District Crime Laboratory in Mandaluyong City. 27
PSI Vicente conducted the forensic examination of the contents of the two transparent sachets. She reduced her findings in Physical Sciences Report No. D-009-16E 28 which showed that both specimens yielded positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. 29 After the examination, she affixed her markings on each of the sachets containing the shabu and placed them in a bigger plastic sachet. 30
Version of the Defense:
On January 7, 2016 at 7:00 o'clock in the evening, Eric was alone in their house preparing food for his family. Suddenly, somebody kicked their door open. Three men in civilian clothes barged in and began searching his house. Eric asked them what were they looking for and they answered him to just "bring it out." Eric did not know what the three men were referring to so he asked them what he did wrong. Instead of answering him, they told him that he should just go with them for further questioning. They then boarded a motorcycle and proceeded to the barangay motorpool headquarters 31 where PO2 Santos asked Eric for P50,000.00 to settle the case. Eric maintained that he did not do anything wrong and that he had no money.
The trio brought Eric to the Barangay Hall of Dela Paz, Pasig City and informed the barangay official thereat that they arrested him and showed him the plastic sachets containing shabu which were allegedly confiscated from him. Eric was thereafter brought to a clinic in Mandaluyong City, then to a hospital where he was asked to sign some documents. Thereafter, they proceeded to Pasig Police Headquarters whereby he was again asked by PO2 Santos for money to settle the case. When he answered that he had no money, he was detained. 32 AIDSTE
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:
In a Decision 33 dated October 17, 2016, the RTC found Eric guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged. The dispositive portion of the Judgment reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused Eric Fernandez Magabilin is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offenses for illegal sale of 0.11 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride and possession of 0.11 gram thereof and sentence him as follows:
1. For Criminal Case No. 21013-D [violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165] — life imprisonment and to pay a fine of five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00); and
2. For Criminal Case No. 21014-D [violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165] — imprisonment ranging from twelve years and one day to fifteen years (applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law) and to pay a fine of three hundred pesos (P300,000.00). n
Accordingly, let accused Eric F. Magabilin be committed to the Bureau of Corrections in Muntinlupa City for the service of his sentence.
The sachets of shabu subject matter of these cases are ordered forfeited in favor of government. The Branch Clerk of this Court is directed to forward the two (2) sachets of shabu (Exhibits "S" and "T") to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for destruction.
SO ORDERED.34
The trial court found that the prosecution was able to prove all the elements of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs through a valid buy-bust. Moreover, the prosecution was able to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of seized items. Eric's defenses of denial and frame up were rejected there being no evidence of improper motive on the part of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation against him. 35
Aggrieved, Eric elevated the case to the CA for the reversal of his conviction. 36
Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
The appellate court sustained the findings of the trial court. The dispositive portion of the October 22, 2019 Decision 37 of the CA reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED. The judgment dated October 17, 2016 rendered by Branch 164, Regional Trial Court of Pasig City in Criminal Case Nos. 21013-D and 21014-D is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.38
The appellate court found no error on the ruling rendered by the trial court. Applying the saving clause under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, as amended the CA held that despite the absence of other insulating witnesses, the prosecution was able to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items and all links in the chain of custody were fully established. Therefore, the guilt of Eric for the crimes charged was established beyond reasonable doubt. 39
Undeterred, Eric filed the appeal before Us. 40 Both parties manifested that they are not filing any Supplemental Brief and shall adopt their respective briefs filed before the appellate court.
Issues
I.
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT DESPITE THE POLICE OFFICER'S NON COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 21 OF R.A. NO. 9165 AND ITS IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS.
II.
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED GUILTY DESPITE THE BROKEN CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF THE ALLEGEDLY CONFISCATED SHABU.
III.
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT IS GUILTY DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY AND EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF THE ALLEGEDLY SEIZED DANGEROUS DRUG. 41
Our Ruling
The appeal is granted.
It is a well-established principle 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 by the parties. 42
For the offense of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, the following elements that must be proven are: (1) [T]he identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) [T]he delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. 43 On the other hand, for the prosecution of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drug, it must be shown that (1) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug. 44 AaCTcI
In both cases, the illicit drugs seized from the accused comprise the very corpus delicti of the charges. It is thus obligatory upon the prosecution to ensure that the links in the movements of the seized drugs, from confiscation to their presentation to the court are established and their identity and integrity are preserved.
Here, the acts subject of this case were allegedly committed on January 7, 2016, or during the effectivity of RA 10640, 45 which amended Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, and imposed the mandatory procedural safeguards in a buy-bust operation, viz.:
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 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. [Emphasis Ours]
It is jurisprudentially settled under the saving clause that strict compliance with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, as amended, may not always be possible under varied field conditions. The procedure, among others, allows inventory and photography to be conducted at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team in instances of warrantless seizure, and that non-compliance with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 — under justifiable grounds — will not render void and invalid the seizure and custody over the seized items so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer or team and fortified by the presence of the insulating witnesses. This Court stressed that for the above saving clause to apply, the prosecution must explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses and that the reasons given for the deviation be proven as a fact. 46
In particular, the amendatory law mandates that the conduct of physical inventory and photograph taking of the seized items must be made in the presence of (1) the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, (2) with an elected public official, and (3) a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
In the present case, records reveal that the inventory and photograph taking were conducted in the presence only of Eric and a barangay elected official. No representatives of the media and the DOJ were present. Moreover, the prosecution was not able to demonstrate that it exerted earnest effort to secure the presence of these witnesses. The prosecution witness only conveniently stated that they summoned the barangay official and the representative from the media but nobody arrived. 47 Neither did the police operatives try to secure the presence of the representative of the National Prosecution Service, the alternative witness to the media representative as clearly provided by Section 21, Article II of RA 9165.
People v. Maganon48 explained the significance of the presence of the insulating witnesses in preserving the chain of custody of the corpus delicti, thus:
The purpose of the law in requiring the presence of certain witnesses, at the time of the seizure and inventory of the seized items, is to "insulate the seizure from any taint of illegitimacy or irregularity." In People v. Mendoza, the Court ruled that "without the insulating presence of the representative from the media or the Department of Justice, or any elected public official during the seizure and marking of the shabu, the evils of switching, 'planting' or contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-busts conducted under the regime of RA 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) might again rear their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the sachets of shabu that were evidence herein of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affect the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused. Indeed, the insulating presence of such witnesses would preserve an unbroken chain of custody. [Emphasis Ours; Citations Omitted]
In People v. Balabarez, 49 recognizing that there are instances where the presence of the insulating witnesses cannot be obtained, this Court outlined the steps the prosecution must undertake for the deviation to be acceptable. The prosecution must not only allege but also prove the reasons for their absence and convince the court that earnest efforts were made to secure their attendance. Although, the absence of the required insulating witnesses does not per se render the seized items inadmissible, a justifiable reason for such failure or a showing of any genuine and sufficient effort to secure the required witnesses under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 must be adduced. EcTCAD
Verily, mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses are unacceptable as justified grounds for non-compliance. 50 Leniency or applicability of the saving clause based on substantial compliance cannot be applied absent a genuine justifiable reason for the departure from the required procedure.
In the present case, records are bereft of any justification of the absence of the media representative or the DOJ representative. Notably, the presence of the required witnesses can easily be secured by the apprehending team considering that buy-bust operations are most often than not well-planned activities. 51 Given the magnitude of the buy-bust operations in the case at bar, having nine suspects including the accused-appellant as targets, 52 then the buy-bust operatives should have coordinated and obtained the presence of the witnesses ahead of time.
A more exacting standard that entails an unbroken chain of custody of the seized items with sufficient completeness or with justifiable reason for deviation is required if only to render improbable the contamination, exchange or tampering of the items seized. The failure of the prosecution to comply with the safeguards imposed by the law clearly proved fatal to its case.
In view of the fatal lapses committed by the police operatives in preserving the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti, reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused-appellant exists. Acquittal is thus imperative.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The October 22, 2019 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08849 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Eric Magabilin y Fernandez is ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt, and is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless he is being lawfully held for another cause.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Director General, Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. Furthermore, the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to report to this Court the action he has taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED." (J. Rosario designated as additional Member per Special Order No. 2835 dated July 15, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 22-24.
2.Id. at 3-21; penned by Associate Justice Maria Elisa Sempio Diy and concurred in by Associate Justices Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla (former member of this Court) and Walter S. Ong.
3. Records, pp. 80-87; penned by Judge Jennifer Albano Pilar.
4.Id. at 1-3.
5.Id. at 1.
6.Id. at 3.
7.Id. at 31.
8. TSN, April 26, 2016, May 3, 2016, June 13, 2016.
9. Records, pp. 44; 74-75.
10. TSN, August 22, 2016, pp. 2-15.
11. Records, p. 77.
12.Id. at 50.
13.Id. at 62.
14. TSN, April 26, 2016, pp. 3-5.
15. Also referred to as PO2 Palattao in the records and TSN.
16. Records, p. 71.
17.Id. at 61.
18.Id. at 62.
19. TSN, April 26, 2016, pp. 5-11.
20.Id. at 12.
21. Records, pp. 81-82; TSN, April 26, 2016, pp. 12-15.
22. TSN, June 13, 2016, p. 15; However, in the decision of the RTC it was stated that PO2 Palattao was the one who called the media and the elected barangay official, records, p. 82.
23. TSN, April 26, 2016, pp. 15-16.
24. TSN, June 13, 2016, p. 15.
25. Records, p. 65.
26.Id. at 64.
27.Id. at 82-83.
28.Id. at 17.
29.Id. at 66; 73.
30.Id. at 44-45.
31. TSN, August 22, 2016, pp. 3-7.
32.Id. at 8-15.
33.Supra 3.
34. Records, p. 87.
35.Id. at 84-87.
36. CA rollo, p. 13.
37.Supra 2.
38.Rollo, p. 20.
39.Id. at 13-20.
40.Id. at 22-26.
41. CA rollo, pp. 30-31; lifted from Appellant's Brief filed before the CA.
42.People v. Quiñones, November 23, 2020; citations omitted.
43.People v. Magalong y Maramba, G.R. No. 231838, March 4, 2019 citing People v. Sic-Open, 795 Phil. 859, 869-870 (2016); People v. Eda, 793 Phil. 885, 896 (2016); People v. Amaro, 786 Phil. 139, 146-147 (2016); and People v. Ros, 758 Phil. 142, 159 (2015).
44.People v. Buesa, G.R. No. 237850, September 16, 2020.
45. 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.
46.People v. Miranda, 824 Phil. 1042, 1055 (2018); People v. Mamangon, 824 Phil. 728, 742 (2018); People v. Jugo, 824 Phil. 743, 757 (2018); People v. Calibod, 820 Phil. 1225, 1234 (2017); People v. Ching, 819 Phil. 565, 578 (2017); People v. Geronimo, 817 Phil. 1163, 1174 (2017); People v. Ceralde, 815 Phil. 711, 721 (2017); and People v. Macapundag, 807 Phil. 234, 243 (2017); People v. Sagana, 815 Phil. 356, 378 (2017).
47. TSN, April 26, 2016, p. 15.
48. G.R. No. 234040, June 26, 2019.
49. G.R. No. 246999, July 28, 2020.
50. See People v. Lim, G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018.
51.People v. Ordiz, G.R. No. 206767, September 11, 2019.
52.Supra note 19.
n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document. Discrepancy between amount in words and in figures.