SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 244679. June 23, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.JOSE LOE MATRIANO y RAMOS, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated23 June 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 244679 (People of the Philippines v. Jose Loe Matriano y Ramos). — Asserting his innocence in this appeal, accused-appellant Jose Loe Matriano y Ramos seeks the reversal of the Decision1 dated January 8, 2018, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07255, affirming his conviction for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, or The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Accused-appellant invites the Court's attention to the irregularities in the marking and inventory of the illegal drugs allegedly recovered from him. Mainly, the accused-appellant points to the fact that the marking was not done immediately after confiscation because they had to travel for two hours from Alabang to the PDEA office in Quezon City where the marking, inventory, and taking of photographs were conducted. Also, the buy-bust team failed to secure the presence of a DOJ representative during the inventory and there is no proof on record that earnest efforts were exerted to contact said witness. Accused-appellant submits that these lapses, among others, affect the integrity of the corpus delicti, resulting in the prosecution's failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized items. 2
Ruling
An appeal in a criminal case throws open the entire case for review. Bearing in mind that what is at stake is no less than the liberty of accused-appellant, 3 the Court meticulously examined the case and finds merit in this appeal.
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. 4 Thus, to secure a judgment of conviction, there should be proof that the sale transaction took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence. 5 In view of the innate quality of illegal drugs which make these susceptible to planting, switching, or altering, it becomes essential that the identity of the seized drug be established with moral certainty. To dispel any doubt, the prosecution must show an unbroken chain of custody over the dangerous drug from the moment of seizure up to its presentation in court as evidence of the corpus delicti. 6 CAIHTE
The chain of custody is divided into four (4) links: 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 by the forensic chemist to the court. 7 The Court sees that the prosecution failed to account for the first link and fourth link in the chain of custody.
The first link:
The first link in the chain of custody is essentially anchored on the procedure under RA 9165 which requires that the marking, physical inventory, and photography of the seized items be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation of the same. Moreover, the inventory and photograph taking should 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 the required witnesses. The presence of these witnesses ensures the establishment of the chain of custody and removes any suspicion of switching, planting, or contaminating of evidence. As to the number of witnesses, if the incident happened prior to the amendment of RA 9165, as in this case wherein the buy-bust happened on August 3, 2010, three (3) insulating witnesses are required: a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official. Meanwhile, if the arrest transpired after the amendment of RA 9165, the new law by RA 10640, 8 which took effect on August 7, 2014, 9 requires the presence of at least two (2) witnesses: an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media. 10
In this case, one could readily discern that the marking was not done immediately after the seizure of the illegal drugs from the accused-appellant. In People v. Dahil, 11 the Court held that the marking of the drugs immediately after they have been confiscated is crucial in proving the chain of custody because this is the starting point in the custodial link. "Marking" — which is the placing by the apprehending officer or the poseur buyer of his/her initials and signature on the seized items upon seizure — is imperative because succeeding handlers of the specimen will use the same as a reference. The marking is intended to segregate the specific evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized until they are disposed of. It is a safeguard against switching, planting, or contaminating of evidence.
Here, the illegal drugs were seized from the accused-appellant in Filinvest Mall in Alabang, yet the buy-bust team delayed the marking and inventory procedures for two more hours as they had to travel to the PDEA main office in Quezon City. Clearly, the alteration of the seized items while in transit was a possibility because of the absence of the immediate marking. 12
The Court is aware that there are instances wherein the chain of a custody rule is relaxed for as long as the marking is done in the presence of the accused. In fact, Article II, Section 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 allows the inventory to be done at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending team whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures. 13 In this case, however, the PDEA main office in Quezon City is not the nearest police station or office from Filinvest Mall where the drugs were seized.
Also, even if the Court were to believe that the PDEA did receive information that the accused-appellant was a member of a syndicate such that they deemed it best to delay the conduct of the marking and inventory, it is illogical and unacceptable for them to travel for two hours to Quezon City. It is on record that the PDEA buy-bust team passed by the Southern Police District Command in Alabang, Muntinlupa for proper coordination before the actual buy-bust. This means that the marking and the inventory procedures could have been easily facilitated at any of the nearby police stations in Alabang, but the PDEA team opted for a more complicated route.
Moreover, it did not escape the Court's attention that at the time of arrest, the accused-appellant was inside the car besieged by PDEA agents. Given the decent number of PDEA agents at the time of arrest and the fact that the carefully planned buy-bust operation was being covered by the news program "Imbestigador," SI Emerson Joshua Santiago (SI Santiago) should have endeavoured to at least mark the seized items at the earliest possible opportunity, before transporting it to the PDEA in Quezon City. Because of the delay in markings, the seized drugs were prone to a mix-up at the PDEA office itself, because this agency handles and processes numerous illegal drugs at any given time. The marking is a simple but critical task in preserving the identity and integrity of the confiscated shabu, which the agents failed to perform in this case.
Another point. The error of SI Santiago of not immediately placing his markings on the seized illegal drugs was aggravated by the absence of a representative of the DOJ as an insulating witness to the inventory procedure of the seized item and puts serious doubt as to the integrity of the first link. We have repeatedly emphasized that the presence of the insulating witnesses is a vital requirement to ensure the preservation of the identity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs. 14 In People v. Lim, 15 We explained that in case the presence of any or all the insulating witnesses were not obtained, the prosecution must allege and prove not only the reasons for their absence, but also the earnest efforts made to secure their attendance:
It is well to note that the absence of these required witnesses does not per se render the confiscated items inadmissible. However, a justifiable reason for such failure or a showing of any genuine and sufficient effort to secure the required witnesses under Section 21 of RA 9165 must be adduced. In People v. Umpiang, the Court held that the prosecution must show that earnest efforts were employed in contacting the representatives enumerated under the law for "a sheer statement that representatives were unavailable without so much as an explanation on whether serious attempts were employed to look for other representatives, given the circumstances is to be regarded as a flimsy excuse." Verily, mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses are unacceptable as justified grounds for noncompliance. 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 full well that they would have to strictly comply with the set procedure prescribed in Section 21 of RA 9165. x x x. (Emphases in the original.)
Later, in People v. Caroy, 16 We ruled that the corpus delicti cannot be deemed preserved absent any acceptable explanation for the deviation from the procedural requirements of the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of RA 9165. In the case at bar, it is clear from the testimony of SI Santiago that no representative from the DOJ was present at the time of the physical inventory, marking, and taking of photographs of the evidence seized from the accused-appellant. The sheer statement of unavailability of an insulating witness, without an actual serious attempt to contact them, cannot justify non-compliance. 17 DETACa
The fourth link:
The final link involves the submission of the seized drugs by the forensic chemist to the trial court as evidence of the corpus delicti. In this case, the prosecution simply stated that after the qualitative examination performed inside the PDEA Laboratory Service, the forensic chemist released the seized items to the evidence custodian. Other than this, there was no testimonial or documentary evidence on how the items were kept by the evidence custodian, and in what condition the items were in until its presentation during the trial. The Court cannot not rely on guesswork on what precautions were taken to ensure that there was no change in the condition of the seized illegal drugs. In this circumstance, the Court could only hope that there was no opportunity for someone who is not in the chain to have possession of the confiscated items. There being no assurance that the drugs presented as evidence before the trial court are exactly what the prosecution claims them to be, no conviction can be expected from the Court. 18
We must stress that 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. 19 True enough, when the performance of duty is tainted with irregularities, such presumption is effectively destroyed. 20
In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the integrity and evidentiary value of the illegal drugs purportedly seized from the accused-appellant had been compromised because of the significant gaps in the chain of custody, thereby warranting the accused-appellant's acquittal based on reasonable doubt.
FOR THESE REASONS, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated January 8, 2018, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07255, affirming the conviction of accused-appellant Jose Loe Matriano y Ramos for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, is REVERSED. Accused-appellant Jose Loe Matriano y Ramos is ACQUITTED of the offense charged and is ordered immediately RELEASED from custody unless he is being held for some other lawful cause.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, is ORDERED to implement this Resolution and to inform this Court of the date of the actual release from confinement of the accused within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED." (Rosario, J., no part due to prior action in the Court of Appeals; Gaerlan, J., designated additional member per Raffle dated February 3, 2021; and Lopez, J.Y. J., designated additional member per Special Order No. 2822 dated April 7, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. CA rollo, pp. 122-137. Penned by Court of Appeals Associate Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr., with concurrence of Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario (now a member of the Court) and Maria Elisa Sempio Diy.
2.Rollo, pp. 35-52 (for pagination). Supplemental Brief for the Accused-Appellant.
3.People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 225 (2015).
4.People v. Dela Cruz y Dayo, G.R. No. 238212, January 17, 2020.
5. See People v. Partoza, 605 Phil. 883, 890 (2009).
6. See People v. Rivera y Suarez, G.R. No. 252886, March 15, 2021.
7.Id., citing Dela Riva v. People, 769 Phil. 872 (2015).
8. 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.
9. In People v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 236304, November 5, 2018, the Court noted that under Section 5 of 10640, it states that the "Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its complete publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation." RA 10640 was published on July 23, 2014, in The Philippine Star (Vol. XXVIII, No. 359, Philippine Star Metro section, p. 21) and Manila Bulletin (Vol. 499, No. 23; World News section, p. 6) — both considered as newspapers of general circulation. Thus, following Section 5, amendatory law, RA 10640 appears to have become effective on August 7, 2014, or fifteen days after its publication in the Philippine Star and Manila Bulletin.
10.Supra note 4.
11. See supra note 3.
12.Id. at 233.
13.People v. Coronado, 832 Phil. 731, 750 (2018).
14. See People v. Maralit y Casilang, 838 Phil. 191, 208 (2018).
15. G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018; citing People v. Ramos, 826 Phil. 981 (2018).
16. See G.R. No. 245391, September 11, 2019.
17. See Matabilas v. People, G.R. No. 243615, November 11, 2019.
18. See People v. Del Rosario y Niebres, G.R. No. 235658, June 22, 2020.
19. See People v. Cañete, 433 Phil. 781, 794 (2002); and Mallillin y Lopez v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 593 (2008).
20.People v. Dela Cruz, 589 Phil. 259, 272 (2008).