People v. Mendoza y Manlapaz

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 252301. October 6, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.MARY/MARRY ANNE MENDOZA y MANLAPAZ, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 6, 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 252301 (People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, v. Mary/Marry Anne Mendoza y Manlapaz, accused-appellant).

This Appeal 1 seeks to reverse and set aside the September 10, 2019 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09591. The CA affirmed the June 15, 2017 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 23 (RTC), in Criminal Case Nos. 16-321985 and 16-321986, finding Mary/Marry Anne Mendoza y Manlapaz (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

Antecedents

Accused-appellant was charged in two separate Informations 4 with illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Secs. 5 and 11, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, to wit:

Criminal Case No. 16-321985

That on or about December 5, 2015, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, not having been authorized by law to sell, trade, deliver, transport or distribute any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell or offer for sale for Php500.00 to PO3 Jason Magbitang, a police officer/poseur buyer one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with recorded net weight and marking as follows:

"MM" containing ZERO POINT TWO THREE (0.23) gram of white crystalline substance containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride commonly known as SHABU, a dangerous drug. CAIHTE

Contrary to law.

Criminal Case No. 16-321986

That on or about December 5, 2015, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, not having been authorized by law to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in her possession and under her custody and control five (5) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets with recorded net weights and markings, as follows:

"MM-1" containing ZERO POINT TWO SIX (0.26) gram

"MM-2" containing ZERO POINT TWO SEVEN (0.27) gram

"MM-3" containing ZERO POINT TWO SIX (0.26) gram

"MM-4" containing ZERO POINT TWO EIGHT (0.28) gram

"MM-5" containing ZERO POINT THREE ZERO (0.30) gram

or with a total net weight of ONE POINT THREE SEVEN (1.37) gram of white crystalline substance containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride commonly known as SHABU, a dangerous drug.

Contrary to law. 5

Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty during her arraignment. Thereafter, the parties stipulated on the testimonies of the following witnesses for the prosecution during the preliminary conference: Forensic Chemist Police Chief Inspector Jocelyn Belen Julian (PCI Julian), Police Officer II Ariel Codon (PO2 Codon), Police Officer II Dexter Martin (PO2 Martin), Barangay Chairman Joycee Reyes (Brgy. Chairman Reyes), and media representative John Robert Amoroso (Amoroso). 6 As trial ensued, the prosecution presented Police Officer III Jason Magbitang (PO3 Magbitang), the designated poseur-buyer, as witness.

Evidence for the Prosecution

On December 5, 2015, at around 12:00 noon, PO3 Magbitang received a tip from a confidential informant (CI) that a certain "Maan" (later identified as accused-appellant) was selling illegal drugs to tricycle drivers somewhere along the streets of Maceda and Dimasalang in Sampaloc, Manila. PO3 Magbitang relayed the information to Police Senior Inspector Jeffrey Dallo (PSI Dallo), who instructed him to conduct a surveillance operation. Thus, PO3 Magbitang went to the target area with the CI to observe accused-appellant's drug activities. After PO3 Magbitang reported the results of his surveillance, PSI Dallo formed a buy-bust team consisting of PO3 Magbitang, PO2 Martin as the immediate backup officer, and Police Officer III Henry Parajado, Police Officer III Sabino Panganiban, Jr., and Senior Police Officer IV Alex Cariazo as perimeter backup officers. Meanwhile, PO2 Martin coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) and prepared the necessary documents for the operation. PSI Dallo gave PO3 Magbitang a Five Hundred Peso (P500.00) bill to be used as buy-bust money. 7 DETACa

Around 3:00 p.m. of the same day, the CI called accused-appellant regarding an interested buyer of shabu. After confirming the meeting, the buy-bust team and the CI made their way to the target area. En route to Maceda Street, accused-appellant called the CI and told the latter to meet her at the corner of Tayuman and Malabon streets instead. Upon reaching the meeting place, the CI introduced PO3 Magbitang to accused-appellant as the buyer of shabu. Accused-appellant asked PO3 Magbitang how much he wanted to buy, to which the latter answered "limang daan lang," while handing the buy-bust money to her. Accused-appellant then placed the buy-bust money inside her pocket and took out a small plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. She gave the sachet to PO3 Magbitang and the latter executed the pre-arranged signal. 8

The buy-bust team hurried to the crime scene while PO3 Magbitang arrested accused-appellant. After ordering accused-appellant to empty her pockets, PO3 Magbitang recovered the buy-bust money and five (5) other plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance. He then maintained custody of the seized items by placing the sachet subject of the sale and the buy-bust money in his left hand, while the five (5) other sachets were in his right hand. The buy-bust team then proceeded to the barangay office of Barangay 337, Zone 34, Sta. Cruz, Manila, which was about two to three minutes away from the place of arrest. 9

At the barangay office, PO3 Magbitang marked the sachet of shabu he bought from accused-appellant with "MM," and the other five (5) sachets recovered from her with "MM-1" to "MM-5." PO3 Magbitang also conducted an inventory of the seized items in the presence of Brgy. Chairman Reyes and Amoroso, while PO2 Martin took photographs. 10

Thereafter, the buy-bust team went to the police station, with PO3 Magbitang still retaining custody of the seized items. Upon reaching the police station, PO3 Magbitang turned over the seized items to PO2 Codon, the investigator, who prepared the request for laboratory examination. PO2 Codon delivered the request and the seized items to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory, where PCI Julian personally received the same. PCI Julian conducted a qualitative examination on the contents of the sachets and stated in her Chemistry Report No. D-516-15 that the contents were positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. Thereafter, PCI Julian made her own markings on the sachets and placed them in a big transparent plastic sachet. She turned over the big plastic sachet to an evidence custodian for safekeeping and retrieved it on April 21, 2016 to identify it in court and to surrender the same. 11

Evidence for the Defense

Accused-appellant presented herself as the sole defense witness. She denied the charges against her and averred that she was framed-up by the police officers. She testified that she was at home on December 5, 2015, when her friend, EJ Francisco (Francisco), told her to meet him at the LRT Tayuman Station. She went to meet Francisco. While they were having a conversation at the LRT Station, several police officers arrived and made them board a vehicle. She was then brought to Police Precinct 4 where a female police officer searched her. Finding nothing, the police officers told her to call someone for help. When she failed to do so, the police officers showed her a plastic bag containing some items which allegedly belonged to her. They also told her that she was being charged with sale and possession of illegal drugs. 12 aDSIHc

The RTC Ruling

In its June 15, 2017 Decision, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty of the offenses charged. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused MARY/MARRY ANNE MENDOZA y MANLAPAZ @ "MAAN" is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt and is hereby sentenced as follows:

1. In Criminal Case No. 16-321985 for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165, the accused is hereby sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of five hundred thousand pesos (Php500,000.00); and

2. In Criminal Case No. 16-321986 for violation of Section 11(3), Article II of R.A. 9165, the accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of three hundred thousand pesos (Php300,000.00).

The six (6) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets, subject of the instant cases, are hereby forfeited in favor of the State and ordered destroyed immediately pursuant to existing Rules. Costs de oficio.

SO ORDERED. 13

The RTC held that all the elements of the offenses charged were proven by the prosecution. It gave credence to PO3 Magbitang's account of the buy-bust operation, where he narrated that he bought a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance from accused-appellant for P500.00, and that he recovered from the latter five (5) other plastic sachets suspected of containing shabu. Later on, PCI Julian confirmed that the contents of all the sachets tested positive for the presence of shabu. The RTC held that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were unaffected by the fact that PO3 Magbitang only marked the sachets at the barangay office since it was merely two to three minutes away from the place of arrest. The RTC also ruled that the prosecution sufficiently showed substantial compliance of the police officers with the chain of custody rule. PO3 Magbitang testified how he handled the seized evidence from the place of arrest until its marking at the barangay office. The chain of custody form also reflected the seized items transfer from PO3 Magbitang to PO2 Codon, and from PO2 Codon to PCI Julian. Moreover, the stipulations of the parties sufficiently described how PO2 Codon and PCI Julian handled the seized items while they were in their custody.

Aggrieved, accused-appellant filed an appeal with the CA.

The CA Ruling

In its September 10, 2019 Decision, the CA affirmed accused-appellant's conviction for the offenses charged, to wit:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Appeal is hereby DENIED. The assailed Decision dated 15 June 2017 is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED. 14

In upholding accused-appellant's conviction, the CA concurred with the findings of the RTC that the elements for illegal sale and illegal possession of drugs were duly proven by the prosecution. It also held that the warrantless arrest of accused-appellant was valid considering that she was caught in flagrante delicto. As a result, the five (5) sachets of shabu recovered from accused-appellant were also validly seized. As to the marking of the sachets at the barangay office, the CA found the prosecution's explanation adequate. As narrated by PO3 Magbitang, it was a collective decision by the buy-bust team to conduct the marking at the barangay office in order to secure the presence of the required witnesses during the marking and inventory. The CA also found the stipulations of the parties with respect to the testimonies of PO2 Codon, Brgy. Chairman Reyes, Amoroso, and PCI Julian sufficient in proving the chain of custody of the seized items. The CA held that the illegal drugs presented in court were proven to be the same drugs confiscated from accused-appellant.

Hence, this appeal.

Issues

Accused-appellant raised the following errors committed by the courts a quo:

I

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FINDING THE SEARCH CONDUCTED ON THE PERSON OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT UNCONSTITUTIONAL. TIADCc

II

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO COMPLY WITH SECTION 21 OF R.A. 9165 AS AMENDED BY R.A. 10640 AND TO PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF THE [CORPUS] DELICTI.

III

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT GIVING CREDENCE TO THE DEFENSE'S VERSION OF EVENTS. 15

This Court required the parties to submit their respective supplemental briefs in its September 2, 2020 Resolution. 16 Accused-appellant filed a Manifestation (In lieu of Supplemental Brief) 17 dated November 16, 2020, declaring that she was adopting her Brief for the Accused-Appellant, 18 dated January 25, 2018, as her supplemental brief. Similarly, appellee, through the Office of the Solicitor General, submitted a Manifestation (Re: Supplemental Brief) 19 dated December 18, 2020, stating that it was adopting its Appellee's Brief 20 dated May 30, 2018, in order to expedite the resolution of the case and to avoid repetition of arguments.

Accused-appellant insists on the illegality of the search conducted on her due to the absence of a warrant. She also claims that the prosecution was unable to establish the chain of custody, considering that: PO3 Magbitang merely held the items allegedly seized from her in his hands instead of placing the same in an evidence bag; the marking of the seized items was not done immediately at the place of arrest; and the prosecution failed to offer any justifiable ground for the deviations committed by the apprehending officers from the proper procedure under Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165.

Appellee, on the other hand, contends that accused-appellant is estopped from questioning the validity of her arrest and the incidental search made on her person since it was not raised as an issue before arraignment. Nonetheless, the search that yielded the five (5) sachets of shabu was incidental to a lawful arrest as she was committing a crime at that time. The appellee also avers that the chain of custody was substantially complied with. The marking of the items at the barangay office was explained by the sudden change of location of the intended transaction. Hence, the buy-bust team was unfamiliar with the area.

The Court's Ruling

The appeal has merit. The judgment of conviction is reversed and set aside, and accused-appellant is acquitted of the crimes charged based on reasonable doubt.

In illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, it is paramount to establish with moral certainty that the substance presented in court is the same one seized from the accused. 21 The prosecution has the burden of proving every link in the chain of custody of the seized drugs, which is the corpus delicti of the offense. 22 Failing to do so warrants the acquittal of the accused, as in this case. 23 AIDSTE

The first link in the chain of custody refers to the seizure and marking of the illegal drugs. As a rule, the confiscated drugs must be marked in the presence of the accused immediately at the place of arrest and seizure, or at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team. 24 The prompt marking of the seized items is crucial in effectively separating the evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence. 25 It is the starting point of the chain from which all succeeding persons who take custody of the contraband referred to, since it is at this instance where the seized illegal drugs are given its specific identity into the chain.

Here, it is undisputed that the buy-bust team conducted the marking at the barangay office, which was two to three minutes away from the place of arrest. During his testimony, PO3 Magbitang recounted that they decided to mark the items at the barangay office for purposes of complying with the witness requirement under Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165:

Q: Could you tell us the reason why you did not mark the items at the place of arrest. Was there circumstance or was there a commotion that was happening at that time that is why you decided to go to the nearest barangay?

A: There was none, ma'am. We just collectively decided to mark the evidence to the nearest barangay so that there will be witnesses if we are going to mark it at the area and there would be witnesses. 26

Clearly, this is a deviation from the stringent requirement of the chain of custody rule that raises doubts as to the identity of the illegal drugs presented by the prosecution in court. In People v. Villarta, 27 the Court ruled that the failure by the police officer to mark the seized sachets of illegal drugs immediately upon seizure from the accused was considered a break in the chain of custody.

Here, the justification given by PO3 Magbitang for marking the illegal drugs at the barangay office fails to convince Us. In its appellee's brief, appellee asserts that the buy-bust team conducted the marking at the barangay office because of the sudden change in the meeting place. To the Court's mind, this is a mere afterthought that only exacerbates the apparent ignorance with the requirements of the law. Those who are called to enforce R.A. No. 9165 are presumed to be well instructed on the law demanding the preservation of the links in the chain of custody. 28 A slight change in the venue of the buy-bust operation should not cause a total and careless disregard by the buy-bust team of the first link in the chain of custody.

Aside from the irregularity in the first link, the fourth link in the chain of custody is also weak. The fourth link deals with the turnover by the forensic chemist of the illicit drugs to the court. After the forensic chemist turns over the seized evidence to an evidence custodian after conducting the forensic examination, the fourth link should include the testimony of the evidence custodian as to the manner he handled the seized evidence when it was in his custody before its turnover to the court.

As stipulated by the parties, PCI Julian turned over the seized items to an evidence custodian after the qualitative examination. The evidence custodian, however, was not named; nor was it mentioned how the evidence custodian stored and preserved the seized items while it was in his custody for safekeeping. This is considered a break in the chain of custody which puts into greater doubt whether the illegal drugs presented in court were the very same ones seized from accused-appellant. AaCTcI

The CA correctly ruled that the search which yielded the five (5) sachets of shabu from accused-appellant was valid, as it was incidental to her lawful arrest when she was committing the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs at that time. However, the glaring lapses by the buy-bust team in the chain of custody of the seized illegal drugs compromised their integrity and evidentiary value. Thus, the identity of the corpus delicti itself cannot be established with moral certainty, which is vital in sustaining a judgment of conviction.

Thus, contrary to the findings of the courts a quo, the Court is not convinced that there was substantial compliance with the chain of custody rule. As it has been established, the marking was not immediately done at the place of arrest. Moreover, the evidence custodian to whom the forensic chemist turned over the seized evidence for safekeeping was not named, and the measures he undertook to store and preserve the seized items while they were in his custody were not identified. The lack of conclusive identification of the illegal drugs seized from accused-appellant, coupled with the irregular manner by which the buy-bust team handled the same, strongly militates against the finding of guilt, 29 as in this case.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The September 10, 2019 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09591, which affirmed the June 15, 2017 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 23, in Criminal Case Nos. 16-321985 and 16-321986, finding Mary/Marry Anne Mendoza y Manlapaz guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Mary/Marry Anne Mendoza is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for Women is ORDERED to IMMEDIATELY RELEASE accused-appellant from detention, unless she is being lawfully held in custody for any other reason, and to SUBMIT a report on the action taken thereon within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.

Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.

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. 22-24.

2.Id. at 3-21; penned by Associate Justice Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin, with Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Danton Q. Bueser, concurring.

3. CA rollo, pp. 66-77; penned by Presiding Judge Caroline Rivera-Colasito.

4.Id. at 66-67.

5.Id.

6.Rollo, pp. 5-7.

7.Id. at 7-8.

8.Id. at 8-9.

9.Id. at 9; CA rollo, p. 71.

10.Id.

11.Id. at 5 and 9.

12.Id. at 10.

13. CA rollo, p. 77.

14.Rollo, p. 21.

15.Id. at 11.

16.Id. at 28-29.

17.Id. at 33-35.

18. CA rollo, pp. 43-65.

19.Rollo, pp. 38-39.

20. CA rollo, pp. 94-113.

21.People v. Nandi, 639 Phil. 134, 142 (2010).

22.People v. Geronimo, 817 Phil. 11, 24 (2017).

23.People v. Caranto, 728 Phil. 507, 521 (2014).

24.People v. Gabunada, G.R. No. 242827, September 9, 2019.

25.People v. Coreche, 612 Phil. 1238, 1245 (2009).

26. CA rollo, p. 58.

27. 828 Phil. 259 (2018).

28.People v. Geronimo, supra note 22, at 23.

29.Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 593 (2008).