FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 252889. July 14, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. VERGEL MENDOZA y YUMOL, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated July 14, 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 252889 (People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee v. Vergel Mendoza y Yumol, accused-appellant).
After a careful review of the records, the Court resolves to GRANT the appeal from the January 29, 2018 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07928. The CA affirmed the November 13, 2015 Judgment 2 of the Regional Trial Court of Gapan City, Nueva Ecija, Branch 34 (RTC), finding Vergel Mendoza y Yumol (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, in Criminal Case No. 15263-12.
Antecedents
Accused-appellant was charged with illegal sale and use of dangerous drugs under Secs. 5 and 15, respectively, of Art. II, R.A. No. 9165, in two (2) separate Informations dated February 6, 2012, as follows:
Criminal Case No. 15263-12
That on or about the 3rd day of February, 2012, in the City of Gapan, Republic of the Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not authorized by law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously deliver to a poseur-buyer one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet of white crystalline substance, a Methamphetamine Hydrochloride otherwise known as "Shabu" weighing ZERO POINT ZERO FOUR (0.04) GRAM, a dangerous drug, then in his possession, control, and custody.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 3
Criminal Case No. 15264-12
That on or about the 3rd day of February[,] 2012, in the City of Gapan, Republic of the Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not authorized by law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously consume, ingest, inhale and administer to himself a Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or "Shabu" a dangerous drug, which was found to be positive after a confirmatory test was conducted upon the accused's urine sample by the Nueva Ecija PNP Crime Laboratory Office.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges at the arraignment. The following admissions were made during pre-trial: (1) that he was the same person charged in these cases; (2) that he was arrested on February 3, 2012, at Gapan City; (3) that he was arrested by members of the Gapan City Police Station, namely: PO3 Nestor Ison (PO3 Ison), PO2 Redentor Rios (PO2 Rios), and PO1 Randy Perez (PO1 Perez); (4) that he was brought to the Nueva Ecija Crime Laboratory on February 3, 2012, at about 3:45 p.m.; (5) that he was accompanied by PO2 Rios and other members of the Gapan City Police Station at the Nueva Ecija Crime Laboratory; and (6) that pictures were taken during the investigation inside the Gapan City Police Station. 5
Accused-appellant's petition for bail in Criminal Case No. 15263-12 was subsequently denied. CAIHTE
Version of the Prosecution
On or about 11:00 a.m. of February 3, 2012, PO3 Ison received a text message from a civilian police asset about an ongoing sale of prohibited drugs, naming a certain "Berto" as the drug seller. Subsequently, Police Chief Marcelo Dayag ordered a buy-bust operation against the accused-appellant. The necessary recording of the planned operation in the police blotter was made. The apprehending team then coordinated with the National Police Commission, Philippine National Police (PNP) at 1:00 p.m. on the same day. 6
The P500.00 bill with Serial No. NM218667 was marked by Police Investigator Capili (PI Capili) with the letters "VER." PO3 Ison then took possession of the marked money and, together with PO2 Rios and PO1 Perez, went to Brgy. San Vicente to meet the police asset who was to act as the poseur-buyer. The marked money was handed to the poseur-buyer and he was instructed to wait for PO3 Ison's text message. The buy-bust team then proceeded to the house of accused-appellant and posted themselves at the back. PO3 Ison thereafter messaged the poseur-buyer to proceed to accused-appellant's house. 7
A few minutes later, from a distance of about thirty (30) meters, the buy-bust team saw the poseur-buyer and accused-appellant meet and converse at the side of the latter's house. Accused-appellant went inside his house and after coming out therefrom, he approached the poseur-buyer. PO3 Ison saw the poseur-buyer hand something to accused-appellant who, in turn, handed something back to poseur-buyer. After said exchange, the poseur-buyer scratched the right side of his head, the pre-arranged signal indicating that the sale was concluded. The buy-bust team then rushed towards accused-appellant and poseur-buyer. When accused-appellant noticed the team running towards them, he ran away even before the buy-bust team reached them. A brief chase took place towards the house of accused-appellant's neighbor which the latter entered and where he was later found hiding under a table. PO1 Perez arrested accused-appellant and apprised him of his constitutional rights. PO3 Ison frisked accused-appellant and recovered the marked money from the latter. On the other hand, the poseur-buyer turned over to PO2 Rios the small transparent plastic sachet containing suspected shabu he had bought from the accused-appellant. 8
After the arrest, the buy-bust team and accused-appellant proceeded to the police station for the marking, inventory, and photographing of the seized items, which were all conducted in the presence of accused-appellant and representatives from the media, the DOJ, and two (2) barangay officials. The sachet was marked with the letters "VMY." 9
After the inventory, two (2) formal requests for laboratory examination of the specimen and for drug test on accused-appellant were made. Both examinations yielded positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride. 10
The prosecution witnesses' testimonies were consistent in positively identifying accused-appellant as the violator, as well as in narrating the details of the buy-bust operation, except as regards the person who actually placed the markings "VMY" on the sachet. PO3 Ison testified that PO2 Rios made the said markings, while the latter averred that they were placed by PI Capili. 11
Version of the Defense
The defense filed a demurrer to evidence, but the RTC denied it for being filed out of time and for lack of merit. 12
As for his defense, accused-appellant primarily asserted that no buy-bust operation took place. He was watching television inside his house when PO3 Ison suddenly entered, and two (2) other policemen immediately handcuffed him. He did not get a response when he asked why he was being handcuffed. He was then made to board the police car with his sister and sister-in-law until they reached the police station. 13
At the police station, appellant was ordered to point to the money and the plastic sachet while pictures were being taken by PO2 Rios. Thereafter, he was brought to the crime laboratory where he was asked to give a urine sample and to sign his name on a document. Afterwards, he was brought back to the police station. 14
Appellant also claimed that PO2 Rios had once poked a gun at his daughter sometime in September 2011. He admitted that his estranged wife was likewise detained on drug charges. 15
Appellant's sister-in-law, Annabel Mendoza (Annabel), also testified that three (3) persons in civilian clothes suddenly barged into appellant's house and poked a gun at him. She did not get a response when she asked what the problem was. Appellant was handcuffed, brought outside the house, and was boarded onto a police vehicle. She and her sister-in-law, Helen Mendoza (Helen), joined appellant in the vehicle. Meanwhile, Helen's testimony merely corroborated Annabel's testimony. 16
The RTC Ruling
On November 13, 2015, the RTC rendered judgment acquitting appellant of the offense of illegal use of dangerous drugs, but found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, the dispositive portion of which reads: DETACa
WHEREFORE, all the foregoing premises considered, in Criminal Case No. 15264-12, the accused is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime of illegal use of dangerous drugs, defined and penalized under Section 15, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Act of 2002. n No costs.
In Criminal Case No. 15263-12, the court finds and so holds accused VERGEL MENDOZA y Yumol, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, defined and penalized under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and hereby imposes upon him the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of PESOS: FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P5,000.00). n Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.17
The RTC ruled that the prosecution was able to establish the elements of the crime of illegal sale of shabu beyond moral certainty. 18 The identity of the corpus delicti was sufficiently established by the presentation of the drug evidence with markings "VMY" in court, the very same specimen that was subject of Chemistry Report No. D-027-2012. 19 The testimonial evidence came from two (2) eyewitnesses who played active roles in the entrapment and arrest of the accused-appellant and their testimonies substantially corroborated each other. 20
Further, the failure of the apprehending police officers to strictly comply with Sec. 21 was sufficiently explained by PO2 Rios and PO3 Ison. Both of them stated that the appellant was collared after a brief chase from the buy-bust place to the kitchen in his neighbor's house, in his attempt to evade arrest, a situation that must have attracted attention. 21
Likewise, the RTC ruled that the inconsistency in the testimonies as regards the person who actually placed the markings was neither substantial nor significant. Evidence showed that appellant was present throughout the entire process.
The CA Ruling
On appeal, the appellant argued as follows: (1) he was not arrested in flagrante delicto because the prosecution failed to present the police asset who could testify as to the existence of the sale transaction because he acted as the poseur-buyer; (2) even if the arrest can no longer be questioned, the seized item becomes inadmissible; (3) there was doubt as to the identity of the corpus delicti because of inconsistent testimonies as regards the markings, and that the marking and inventory were not done immediately at the place of arrest.
In the now appealed decision, the CA affirmed the RTC's judgment. It agreed with the trial court that the prosecution presented clear and convincing testimonies of the police officers who categorically recounted in detail how they conducted the buy-bust operation; beginning from receiving the tip from the police asset, to the marking of the buy-bust money, to the meeting of accused-appellant, as seller, and the poseur-buyer, to the actual exchange of the plastic sachet containing the white crystalline substance with the marked money, and finally, to appellant's eventual arrest and turnover to the Gapan City Police Station. 22
The CA further ruled that the totality of the evidence presented by the prosecution leads to an unbroken chain of custody of the confiscated specimen from appellant. 23
Hence, the present appeal.
Issue
Whether or not the CA correctly affirmed the RTC in convicting appellant for the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
The Court's Ruling
The Court GRANTS the appeal.
It is well-established that a buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment legally employed by peace officers as an effective way of apprehending drug dealers in the act of committing an offense. Such police operation has judicial sanction as long as it is carried out with due regard to constitutional and legal safeguards. 24 As such, warrantless arrests are commonly effected against perpetrators during a valid buy-bust operation.
Furthermore, in order for the prosecution to successfully prosecute a case of illegal sale of drugs, the following elements should be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor. To prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution must present in evidence the corpus delicti or the seized illegal drugs. Hence, it becomes essential for the prosecution to establish that the drug confiscated from the accused-appellant is the same item being presented in court to prove that the chain of custody remained unbroken.
After perusing the records, the Court is not convinced that the prosecution was able to sufficiently establish an unbroken chain of custody. While testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard because it is almost always impossible to obtain, an unbroken chain of custody becomes indispensable and essential when the item of real evidence is not distinctive and is not readily identifiable; or when its condition at the time of testing or trial is critical; or when a witness has failed to observe its uniqueness. The same standard likewise obtains in case the evidence is susceptible to alteration, tampering, contamination, and even substitution and exchange. In other words, the exhibit's level of susceptibility to fungibility, alteration or tampering — without regard to whether the same is advertent or otherwise not — dictates the level of strictness in the application of the chain of custody rule. 25 aDSIHc
In this case, records cast doubt on the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti. Although appellant was present during the marking, inventory and photographing of the seized items, such were not immediately made at the time and place of arrest, and were done without the presence of the insulating witnesses. Considering that the crime in this case was committed on February 3, 2012, the procedure under Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 shall apply. Sec. 21 provides:
Section 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 drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory 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, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof; x x x
Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) allow, under justifiable circumstances, the marking, inventory and photographing at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures. However, the presence of the three witnesses, namely, the representatives from the DOJ, the media, and any local public official, must be secured not only during the inventory but, more importantly, at the time of the warrantless arrest. It is at this point in which the presence of the three witnesses is most needed, as it is their presence at the time of seizure and confiscation that would belie any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drug. If the buy-bust operation is legitimately conducted, the presence of the insulating witnesses would also controvert the usual defense of frame-up, as the witnesses would be able to testify that the buy-bust operation and inventory of the seized drugs were done in their presence in accordance with Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165. 26
Here, records showed that the prosecution's insulating witnesses were absent at the time of the warrantless arrest. Their presence was only secured at the police station. The presence of these insulating witnesses at the time and place of arrest is significant in this case considering that the poseur-buyer was a police asset who was not accompanied by any member of the buy-bust team which witnessed the purported transaction from a distance of thirty (30) meters. The presence of these insulating witnesses would have removed any doubt regarding the conduct of the buy-bust operation, and would ensure that the item seized from appellant was the same that was marked, inventoried, and photographed by the apprehending officers.
Further, the records were bereft of any showing of how the specimen was handled after its qualitative examination until it was presented in the court. Although forensic chemist P/Sr. Insp. Jebie Timario (P/Sr. Insp. Timario) testified on how she handled the specimen after examining the same, the evidence custodian, SPO1 Vicente Soriano (SPO1 Soriano), was not presented in court to testify on how he preserved the integrity and evidentiary value of the specimen turned over to him by P/Sr. Insp. Timario. 27 It is settled that absent any testimony on the management, storage and preservation of the illegal drugs allegedly seized after their qualitative examination, the fourth link in the chain of custody could not be reasonably established. 28
Accordingly, the prosecution failed to observe the necessary precautions and procedures in preserving the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti. The identity of the corpus delicti must, in itself, be proven with moral certainty. When the same jeopardized by noncompliance with Sec. 21, critical elements of the offense of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs remain wanting. It follows then, that this noncompliance justifies an accused-appellant's acquittal. 29 The Court, in People v. Que, 30 stressed that:
What is critical in drug cases is not the bare conduct of inventory, marking, and photographing. Instead, it is the certainty that the items allegedly taken from the accused retain their integrity, even as they make their way from the accused to an officer effecting the seizure, to an investigating officer, to a forensic chemist, and ultimately, to courts where they are introduced as evidence. Hence, the four (4) links were underscored in Nandi: first, from the accused to the apprehending officers; second, from the apprehending officers to the investigating officers; third, from the investigating officers to the forensic chemists; and fourth, from the forensic chemists to the courts. The endpoints of each link (e.g., the accused and the apprehending officer in the first link, the forensic chemist and the court in the fourth link) are preordained, their respective existences not being question. What is prone to danger is not any of these end points by the intervening transitions or transfer from one point to another.
Section 21(1)'s requirements are designed to make the first and second links foolproof. Conducting the inventory and photographing immediately after seizure, exactly where the seizure was done, or at a location as practicably close to it, minimizes, if not eliminates, room for adulteration or the planting of evidence. The presence of the accused, or a representative, and of third-party witnesses, coupled with their attestations on the written inventory, ensures that the items delivered to the investigating officer are the items which have actually been inventoried. 31 (emphases supplied)
Thus, for failure of the prosecution to show the absence of any doubt on the identity of the corpus delicti, appellant's acquittal based on reasonable doubt is in order. ETHIDa
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The January 29, 2018 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07928, which affirmed the November 13, 2015 Judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Gapan City, Nueva Ecija, Branch 34, finding Vergel Mendoza y Yumol guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, in Criminal Case No. 15263-12 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, appellant is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged. Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
The Director General, New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City, is ORDERED to IMMEDIATELY RELEASE accused-appellant from detention, unless he is being lawfully held in custody for any other reason, and to inform this Court of his action hereon 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. 3-19; penned by Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybañez with Associate Justices Jose C. Reyes, Jr. (now a retired Member of this Court) and Pedro B. Corales, concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 64-76; penned by Judge Celso O. Baguio.
3. CA rollo, p. 64.
4.Id. at 65.
5.Id.
6.Id.
7.Id. at 66.
8.Id.
9.Id.
10.Id. at 67.
11.Id.
12.Id. at 68.
13.Id.
14.Id. at 68-69.
15.Id. at 69.
16.Id.
17.Id. at 76.
18.Id. at 70.
19.Id.
20.Id.
21.Id. at 72.
22.Rollo, p. 14.
23.Id. at 16.
24.People v. Membrebe, G.R. No. 238996, October 5, 2020.
25.Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 587-588 (2008).
26.People v. Tomawis, 830 Phil. 385, 409 (2018).
27. See People v. Catinguel, G.R. No. 229205, March 6, 2019, 895 SCRA 417, 434.
28.People v. Sorrera, G.R. No. 251110, February 3, 2021.
29.Id.
30. 824 Phil. 882 (2018).
31.Id. at 909.
n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document.
n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document. Discrepancy between amount in words and in figures.