SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 248203. September 13, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. MARICEL MEDINA y CINCO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 13 September 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 248203 (People of the Philippines v. Maricel Medina y Cinco). — On appeal is the February 18, 2019 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10089, which affirmed the November 24, 2017 Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 100, in Criminal Case Nos. R-QZN-16-04279-80-CR, finding accused-appellant Maricel Medina y Cinco (Medina) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Antecedents:
In two separate Informations 3 dated April 28, 2016, Medina was charged with violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165, which respectively alleged:
Criminal Case No. R-QZN-16-04279-CR:
That on or about the 26th of April 2016, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, without lawful authority, did then and there willfully and unlawfully sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport, or act as broker in the said transaction, one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing zero point zero seven (0.07) gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
Criminal Case No. R-QZN-16-04280-CR:
That on or about the 26th day of April 2016, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, not authorized by law to possess or use any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in her possession and under her control two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing the following grams to wit: zero point eleven (0.11) and zero point zero nine (0.09), a total of zero point [twenty] (0.20) gram of white crystalline substance containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, also known as "shabu," a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
Both cases were consolidated and trial was jointly held. 6
Upon arraignment, Medina pleaded not guilty to both charges. 7 After pre-trial, trial on the merits ensued.
Police Officer 2 Ronaldo C. Flores (PO2 Flores), Police Officer 1 Charito R. Rebultan (PO1 Rebultan), Police Officer 1 Jeffrey Santos (PO1 Santos), and Police Senior Inspector (PSI) Bernardo R. Roque (PSI Roque) testified for the prosecution. The defense, on the other hand, presented the accused-appellant.
Version of the Prosecution:
PO2 Flores testified that on April 26, 2016, the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs-Special Operation Task Group (SAID-SOTG) at Kamuning Station 10 received a report from a confidential informant regarding accused-appellant's illegal drug trade in Hillcrest, Brgy. Immaculate Conception, Quezon City. Thus, a buy-bust operation was planned by the SAID-SOTG in coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). 8 PO2 Flores was designated as the poseur-buyer and was given buy-bust money consisting of three (3) pieces of P100.00 bill with Serial Nos. HQ805649, CED921154, and GJ222098, 9 each of which were marked with his initials "RF" at the left upper portion. 10
At around 7:30 p.m., they proceeded to the place of operation together with the confidential informant. 11 Thereafter, the confidential informant approached the accused-appellant while the rest of the team secured the perimeter. The confidential informant introduced PO2 Flores as the buyer. 12 Medina in turn asked PO2 Flores how much shabu he is buying. 13 In response, PO2 Flores told accused-appellant that he wanted to purchase P300.00 worth of shabu.
Thereafter, accused-appellant gave PO2 Flores one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. 14 Upon receipt of the sachet, PO2 Flores simultaneously handed the three marked P100.00 bills to Medina, and executed the pre-arranged signal to notify the team that the sale has already transpired.
Thereafter, PO1 Rebultan immediately proceeded to the crime scene. 15 PO2 Flores arrested the accused-appellant, identified himself as a police officer, and confiscated the marked money. 16 As a standard operating procedure, PO2 Flores informed the accused-appellant of her constitutional rights. Incidental to her arrest, PO2 Flores ordered Medina to take out the contents of her pockets. As a result, PO2 Flores was able to recover from accused-appellant another two plastic sachets suspected to contain shabu.
At the place of arrest, PO2 Flores immediately marked the plastic sachet he purchased from the accused-appellant with "RF-MM-1 4-26-16" and those which he recovered from her pocket with "RF-MM-2 4-26-16," and "RF-MM-3 4-26-16." 17 Thereupon, Medina was brought to the Brgy. Hall of Immaculate Conception where the seized items were inventoried in her presence, the arresting officers, and Brgy. Kagawad Ronaldo Quivajo. 18
Thereafter, PO2 Flores personally brought a Request for Laboratory Examination to the Quezon City Police District (QCPD) Crime Laboratory together with the seized items. 19 PSI Roque received the seized items and conducted a qualitative examination which yielded positive results for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride. 20
Version of the Defense:
Accused-appellant proffered a different account of the incident and professed denial and frame up as his defenses. She testified that on April 26, 2016 at around 1:00 p.m., she was arrested in Hillcrest, Brgy. Immaculate Conception, Quezon City while buying a diaper for her daughter. 21 She narrated that a white Adventure vehicle suddenly stopped in front of her. 22 Four (4) police officers alighted and confronted her about certain "Sonya." When she told them that she did not know anything about said person, they boarded her on the vehicle and brought her to Police Station 10. 23 The police officers told her that they would just clarify certain matters with her. As she could not stop crying, she was brought to the comfort room of the station and detained for one (1) hour. 24 Thereafter, an investigator talked to her and convinced her to reveal the person selling drugs in the area. 25 At around 6:00 p.m., she was brought to the Crime Laboratory Office for physical examination and drug test. 26
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:
The RTC, in its Decision 27 dated November 24, 2017, found Medina guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offenses charged. The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds accused MARICEL MEDINA Y CINCO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the following Violations of Republic Act No. 9165 or otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002:
(1) Section 5, and hereby sentences her to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 without parole; and
(2) Section 11, and hereby sentences her to suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months, and a fine of P300,000.00.
The Branch Clerk of Court is hereby ordered to turn over to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) the subject illegal drug in order that it be included in the agency's next scheduled date of burning and disposal.
SO ORDERED. 28
The RTC ruled that the prosecution was able to establish all the elements of both crimes. It further ruled that the requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 have likewise been complied with by the arresting officers in both cases. Moreover, it held that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items have been preserved from the time they were sold, marked, and inventoried by PO2 Flores. Immediately thereafter, PO2 Flores personally brought the Request for Laboratory Examination and the seized items to the QCPD Crime Laboratory for testing. PSI Roque, the forensic chemist, conducted the qualitative examination, and thereafter, presented them in court.
The trial court disregarded the defense of denial proffered by the accused-appellant in light of the superior positive evidence of the prosecution that the accused-appellant illegally sold one (1) plastic sachet of shabu and that she illegally possessed two (2) other plastic sachets of shabu on April 26, 2016.
Aggrieved, Medina appealed her conviction before the CA.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
Before the appellate court, accused-appellant raised the following assignment of errors, to wit:
I.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE OFFENSES CHARGED DESPITE THE BROKEN CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF ILLEGAL DRUGS ALLEGEDLY RECOVERED FROM HER.
II.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE OFFENSES CHARGED DESPITE THE IRREGULARITIES IN THE ALLEGED CONDUCT OF THE BUY-BUST OPERATION.
III.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE OFFENSES CHARGED DESPITE THE FAILURE TO PROVE THE INTEGRITY OF THE CORPUS DELICTI.
IV.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN REJECTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT'S DEFENSE OF DENIAL. 29
In its assailed Decision, 30 the CA affirmed the trial court's Decision finding accused-appellant guilty of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165. It ruled that the prosecution duly established all the elements of illegal sale as well as illegal possession of shabu. Moreover, it sustained the trial court's finding that the prosecution established each link in the chain of custody over the shabu, from the time they were seized from the accused-appellant up to their presentation during the trial as proof of the corpus delicti.
The appellate court likewise rejected the defense of denial, holding that the same cannot overcome the positive declarations of the police officers especially when they have not shown to be actuated by ill will or false motive.
Finally, the appellate court ruled that the penalties imposed by the trial court were proper.
Thus, the dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the Appeal is hereby DENIED. The Judgment dated November 24, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 100, in Criminal Case Nos. R-QZN-16-04279-80-CR, is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 31
Hence, the instant appeal.
Issue
Whether accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165.
Our Ruling
The appeal is meritorious.
In the prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, it is the dangerous drug itself that forms part of the corpus delicti of the offense. Thus, the integrity of the corpus delicti must be established with moral certainty through an unbroken chain of custody.
Accused-appellant contends that the procedures laid down in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 were not strictly complied with, which consequently compromised the integrity of the evidence presented against her.
Here, the acts subject of this case were allegedly committed on April 26, 2016, or during the effectivity of RA 10640, 32 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]
The prosecution failed to establish that the apprehending team complied with the rule on chain of custody. Based on the established facts, the dangerous drugs were not inventoried and photographed in the presence of a representative of the media or of the National Prosecution Service (NPS). Likewise, no explanation was proffered by the arresting officers why they failed to secure the presence of these insulating witnesses. The records show that PO2 Flores conducted the inventory only in the presence of an elected barangay official. A mere statement by the buy-bust team that they invited the required representatives but they failed to arrive would not suffice to justify their non-compliance. Jurisprudence dictates that they must show that they exerted earnest efforts to secure the presence of these witnesses.
In this case, it is apparent that the buy-bust team utterly failed to comply with the afore-described procedure. To stress, the buy-bust team had enough time and opportunity to secure their presence considering that a buy-bust operation is, by its nature, a planned activity. 33
During trial, PO2 Flores effectively admitted to this lapse when he testified as follows:
Q: Mr. witness, you have stated earlier that you allegedly conducted the initial markings at the place of arrest. Correct?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: Were there pictures that would support your statements aside from your previous statement?
A: There was no picture on the location, Sir.
Q: Was there a media representative present during the alleged inventory and markings?
A: None, Sir. We invited them but nobody arrived.
Q: What is your proof aside from your self-serving statement that you indeed invited a member from the media aside from your statement?
A: None, Sir.
Q: Was there any member of PDEA present during the alleged buy-bust operation?
A: None, Sir.
Q: Was there any member of Department of Justice present during the alleged buy-bust operation?
A: None, Sir. 34
Section 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 expressly provides that non-compliance with the requirements, under justifiable grounds, shall not render void and invalid the seizure of and custody over the items seized, as long as their integrity and the evidentiary value are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team.
The omissions above noted clearly indicate that the prosecution failed to comply with the mandatory requirement under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. At the very least, the prosecution should have proffered that genuine and sufficient efforts were exerted by the apprehending officers to secure the presence of the required witnesses. In People v. Tulod, 35 We enunciated that:
Indeed, the presence of the insulating witnesses during inventory is vital. In the absence of these persons, the possibility of switching, planting, or contamination of the evidence negates the credibility of the seized drug and other confiscated items. Non-compliance with the requirement is, therefore, fatal to the prosecution's case.
Although the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 offers a saving clause allowing leniency whenever there are justifiable grounds to deviate from established protocol so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved, the prosecution offered no such explanation here. In fine, the condition sine qua non for the saving clause to become operational was not complied with. For the same reason, the proviso "so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved," too, will not come into play. Absent any acceptable explanation for the deviation from the procedural requirements of the chain of custody rule, the corpus delicti cannot be deemed preserved.
In view of such unwarranted departure from the procedure set forth in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, as amended, the Court is therefore constrained to conclude that the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti have been compromised, which consequently warrants accused-appellant's acquittal.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The assailed February 18, 2019 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10089 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Maricel Medina y Cinco is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. She is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless she is confined for any other lawful cause.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Superintendent, Correctional Institution for Women, Mandaluyong City, for immediate implementation. Furthermore, the Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for Women, Mandaluyong City, is DIRECTED to report to this Court the action he/she 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. 3-11; penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao and concurred in by Associate Justices Manuel M. Barrios and Maria Filomena D. Singh.
2. CA rollo, pp. 49-60; penned by Presiding Judge Editha G. Mina-Aguha.
3. Records. p. 3; p. 7.
4.Id. at 3.
5.Id. at 7.
6.Id. at 1.
7.Id. at 99.
8. TSN, September 13, 2017, p. 4.
9.Id.
10.Id. at 6.
11.Id. at 21-22.
12.Id. at 22.
13.Id. at 20.
14.Id. at 24.
15.Id. at 23.
16.Id.
17.Id. at 8-9.
18.Id. at 10.
19.Id.
20. Records, p. 121.
21. TSN, October 18, 2017, pp. 3-4.
22.Id. at 5.
23.Id. at 6.
24.Id. at 8.
25.Id. at 9.
26.Id. at 10.
27. CA rollo, pp. 49-60.
28.Id.
29.Id. at 34-35.
30.Rollo, pp. 3-11.
31.Id.
32. 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.
33.People v. Tomawis, 830 Phil. 385, 405 (2018).
34. TSN, September 13, 2017, pp. 17-18.
35. G.R. No. 227993, September 25, 2019.