FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 242279. July 28, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CRISPIN MAGPANTAY y GARCIA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 28, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 242279 (People of the Philippines v. Crispin Magpantay y Garcia). — The conviction of appellant Crispin Magpantay y Garcia for Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs is the subject of review in this Appeal assailing the Court of Appeals' Decision dated May 23, 2018 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09576, which affirmed the findings of the Regional Trial Court. 1
We acquit.
A successful prosecution for the Sale and Possession of Illegal Drugs requires more than the perfunctory presentation of evidence establishing each element of the crime. It is imperative to prove with moral certainty that the intrinsic worth of the pieces of evidence, especially the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti, has been preserved. Evidence must show beyond reasonable doubt that the illegal drugs presented in court are the same illegal drugs seized from the accused. The rationale behind this stringent requirement is the unique characteristic of the illegal drug that renders it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and usually open to tampering, alteration, or substitution either by accident or by deliberate act, especially when seized in small quantity. 2
In this regard, the law provides procedural safeguards to remove any doubt on the identity and integrity of the seized drugs. The procedure is known as the chain of custody rule. The chain of custody is "the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs, controlled chemicals, plant sources of dangerous drugs, or laboratory equipment of each stage from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for identification and destruction." 3
Section 21, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 4 outlines the post-seizure procedure for the custody and disposition of seized drugs. Notably, the alleged crimes were committed on August 14, 2014, or after the enactment of the amendatory law. Hence, RA No. 10640 5 applies, 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, x x x 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, x x x 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 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, [T]hat noncompliance of these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and 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.
xxx xxx xxx
To this end, the prosecution must satisfactorily establish the movement and custody of the seized drugs through the following links: first, the confiscation and marking of the specimens seized from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the seized items by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the investigating officer's turnover of the specimens to the forensic chemist for examination; and fourth, the submission of the items by the forensic chemist to the court. 6 Here, records reveal several gaps in the chain of custody.
Noteworthy, in this case, is the absence of one of the required witnesses during the inventory and photography of the confiscated drugs. As amended by RA No. 10640, Section 21 requires the physical inventory and photography to be done in the presence of the accused, or his representative or counsel, and certainly required witnesses, namely: an elected public official, and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media. The witness requirement mandates the presence of the witnesses during the inventory to ensure that the evils of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence will be adequately prevented. 7 Here, DZJV-AM radio representative Gil Magno (Magno), and an unnamed Barangay Police Security Officer or barangay tanod witnessed the conduct of the inventory process. 8 The prosecution failed to explain, much less acknowledge, the absence of an elected public official. To be sure, the buy-bust operation was arranged and scheduled in advance with the police officers verifying the report, coordinating with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, and calling media representative Magno. Records reveal that at 6:45 a.m. of August 14, 2014, an anti-narcotics operation was organized after receiving a report about the appellant's drug activities, and the operation was implemented about 4:30 p.m. of the same day. 9 Certainly, the team had enough time and opportunity to secure the presence of the required insulating witnesses. 10 Yet, the buy-bust team failed to ensure that an elected public official would be present during the inventory of the seized drugs.
Non-compliance with the requirements of Section 21 may only be permitted if the prosecution proves that the apprehending officers exerted genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of such witnesses, albeit they eventually failed to appear. 11 In People v. Lim, we explained that in case the presence of any or all the insulating witnesses was not obtained, the prosecution must allege and prove, not only the reasons for their absence but also the fact that earnest efforts were made to secure their attendance. 12 Evidently, there was no attempt on the part of the apprehending officers to comply with the law and its implementing rules. The prosecution failed to provide any justification showing that the integrity of the evidence had all along been preserved.
Moreover, the records do not reflect the manner of handling the specimens after the forensic chemist completed her examination and before the drugs were presented in court. We have ruled, in People v. Ubungen, 13 that in case of a stipulation by the parties to dispense with the attendance and testimony of the forensic chemist, it should be stipulated that the forensic chemist took precautionary steps to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, thus: (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 marking on the same to ensure that it could not have tampered pending trial. Here, there was a stipulation of facts on the testimony of Police Chief Inspector Grace Plantilla-Bombasi (PCI Bombasi), but it was silent on required particulars, to wit:
(1) Her qualification in the field of Forensic Chemistry as an expert witness; and
(2) A Request for Laboratory examination dated August 14, 2012 was received by the personnel of the Crime Laboratory Office from one PO2 Torres; upon receipt of the Request for Laboratory Examination and the specimen attached therewith, the Forensic Chemist Grace Plantilla[-]Bombasi conducted a qualitative examination of the specimen subject of these cases; upon qualitative examination conducted on the specimen with markings CM and CM-1, the same resulted in a positive test for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu," a dangerous drug; and after the result of the examination, Forensic Chemist Grace Plantilla-Bombasi executed Chemistry Report No. LD-687-14 to reflect the result on the specimen subject of these cases.
The defense counsel made a counter stipulation that the forensic chemist has no personal knowledge of the recovery of the subject specimen from the accused. 14
Verily, the dearth of evidence on the management, storage, and preservation of the drugs after the qualitative examination is another fatal defect in an already broken chain of custody. In sum, the prosecution did not disclose the identities of (a) the person who had custody of the specimens after they were examined by PCI Bombasi, (b) the person who received the drugs for safekeeping pending their presentation in court, and (c) the person who submitted the drugs to the trial court. The prosecution failed to establish the continuous custody of the dangerous drugs from the time they were confiscated until they were offered in evidence.
We stress, while the law enforcers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties, this presumption cannot prevail over the constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent and it cannot by itself constitute proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of regularity is disputable and cannot be regarded as binding truth. 15 It is effectively destroyed when the performance of duty is tainted with irregularities. 16 Accordingly, the accused Crispin Magpantay y Garcia must be acquitted.
FOR THESE REASONS, the appeal is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals' Decision dated May 23, 2018 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09576 is REVERSED. Crispin Magpantay y Garcia is ACQUITTED and is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention unless he is being lawfully held for another cause. Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City for immediate implementation. The Director is directed to report to the Court the action taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
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. 2-22. Penned by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr., with the concurrence of Associate Justices Carmelita Salandanan Manahan and Rafael Antonio M. Santos.
2.People v. Nuarin, 764 Phil. 550, 557 (2015).
3. Entitled "GUIDELINES ON THE CUSTODY AND DISPOSITION OF SEIZED DANGEROUS DRUGS, CONTROLLED PRECURSORS AND ESSENTIAL CHEMICALS, AND LABORATORY EQUIPMENT," approved on October 18, 2002. Section 1 (b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002. See also People v. Omamos, G.R. No. 223036, July 10, 2019.
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. 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. RA No. 10640 states that it shall "take effect fifteen (15) days after its complete publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation." Verily, 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, R.A. No. 10640 became effective on August 7, 2014.
6.People v. Bugtong, 826 Phil. 628, 638-639 (2018).
7. See People v. Cariño, G.R. No. 233336, January 14, 2019, citing People v. Jugo, 824 Phil. 743, 751 (2018).
8. CA rollo, p. 75.
9.Id. at 65-66.
10. See People v. Goyenoche, G.R. No. 244985, September 3, 2020; People v. Ramos, 826 Phil. 981, 992 (2018).
11. See People v. Sendad, G.R. No. 242025, November 20, 2019; People v. Flores, G.R. No. 241261, July 29, 2019; People v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 233535, July 1, 2019; and People v. Maralit, 838 Phil. 191, 207-209 (2018); People v. Sipin, 833 Phil. 67, 93 (2018).
12.People v. Lim, G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018; People v. Ramos, 826 Phil. 981, 996 (2018); People v. Umipang, 686 Phil. 1024, 1052-1053 (2012).
13. 836 Phil. 888 (2018), citing People v. Pajarin, 654 Phil. 461, 466 (2011).
14.Rollo, p. 5.
15.Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 593 (2008); People v. Cañete, 433 Phil. 781, 794 (2002).
16.People v. Dela Cruz, 589 Phil. 259, 272 (2008).