SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 248058. September 28, 2020.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. EMMANUEL MESINA y DATUIN A.K.A. 'BOYONG', accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated28 September 2020which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 248058 (People of the Philippines v. Emmanuel Mesina y Datuin a.k.a. 'Boyong'). — The Court NOTES: (a) the letter dated 11 July 2020 of CTCInsp. Albert C. Manalo, LLB, Officer-In-Charge, Inmate Documents and Processing Division, Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, confirming the confinement of accused-appellant Emmanuel Mesina y Datuin a.k.a. 'Boyong' (accused-appellant) at the said institution since 10 January 2018; and (b) the manifestation (in lieu of supplemental brief) dated 3 August 2020 of the Public Attorney's Office, adopting accused-appellant's brief filed before the Court of Appeals (CA) as supplemental brief since the same had adequately discussed all the matters pertinent to accused-appellant.
Assailed in this ordinary appeal 1 is the Decision 2 dated November 29, 2018 of the CA in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10118, which affirmed the Decision 3 dated November 24, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 216 (RTC) in Criminal Case Nos. R-QZN-15-09142-CR and R-QZN-15-09143-CR finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, 4 otherwise known as the 'Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.'
The Facts
This case stemmed from two (2) Informations 5 filed before the RTC charging accused-appellant with the crimes of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, defined and penalized under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165, respectively. The prosecution alleged that at around 1:40 in the morning of September 27, 2015, acting on an information received from a confidential informant, officers of the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Group of the Quezon City Police successfully conducted a buy-bust operation against accused-appellant along Segundo Street, Barangay Baesa, Quezon City, during which, one (1) plastic sachet containing 0.08 gram of white crystalline substance was recovered from him by Senior Police Officer 1 Eric Lazo (SPO1 Lazo). After accused-appellant was arrested, officers found two (2) more plastic sachets containing a combined weight of 0.25 gram of the same substance from his possession. The police officers then brought accused-appellant to the police station, where they marked, inventoried, 6 and photographed 7 the seized items in the latter's presence, as well as that of Ed Mahilum (Mahilum), a reporter of the Manila Bulletin. Thereafter, the seized items were taken 8 to the Quezon City Police District Crime Laboratory where, after examination, 9 their contents tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. 10
In defense, accused-appellant denied the charges against him, claiming that, at the time of the alleged incident, he was on his way home, when three (3) armed men suddenly arrested him for purportedly selling illegal drugs, and brought him to the police station, where officers tried to extort money from him in exchange for his release. 11
In a Decision 12 dated November 24, 2017, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged, and accordingly, sentenced him to suffer the following penalties: (a) in Criminal Case No. R-QZN-15-09143-CR, for the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine in the amount of P500,000.00; and (b) in Criminal Case No. R-QZN-15-09142-CR, for the crime of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of twelve (12) years and one (1) day reclusion temporal, as minimum, to thirteen (13) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and to pay a fine in the amount of P300,000.00. 13 Giving credence to the testimony of SPO1 Lazo, the trial court ruled that all the respective elements of the crimes charged had been duly established, and that there was substantial compliance with the rule on chain of custody. Meanwhile, it found accused-appellant's defenses of denial, frame-up, and extortion untenable for lack of clear and convincing evidence. 14
Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed 15 to the CA, arguing, among others, that he should be acquitted on account of the arresting officers' failure to comply with the chain of custody rule considering that the inventory of the seized items was not witnessed by an elected public official. 16
In a Decision 17 dated November 29, 2018, the CA affirmed the conviction of accused-appellant. 18 Echoing the trial court's findings, it ruled that the prosecution was able to successfully prove that, during a legitimate buy-bust operation, accused-appellant had sold one (1) plastic sachet containing 0.08 gram of shabu, and when searched upon arrest, he was found to be in possession of two (2) more plastic sachets containing a combined weight of 0.25 gram of shabu. Moreover, the CA held that the absence of an elected public official during the conduct of inventory was justified, since the conduct of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items had been properly preserved. 19
Hence, this appeal seeking that accused-appellant's conviction be overturned.
The Court's Ruling
The appeal is meritorious.
In cases for Illegal Sale and/or Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under RA 9165, 20 it is essential that the identity of the dangerous drug be established with moral certainty, considering that the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime. 21 Failing to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti renders the evidence for the State insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and hence, warrants an acquittal. 22
To establish the identity of the dangerous drugs with moral certainty, the prosecution must be able to account for each link of the chain of custody from the moment the drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as evidence of the crime. 23 As part of the chain of custody procedure, the law requires, inter alia, that the marking, physical inventory, and photography of the seized items be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation of the same. In this regard, case law recognizes that '[m]arking upon immediate confiscation contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team.' 24 Hence, the failure to immediately mark the confiscated items at the place of arrest neither renders them inadmissible in evidence nor impairs the integrity of the seized drugs, as the conduct of marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team is sufficient compliance with the rules on chain of custody. 25
The law further requires that said inventory and photography 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 certain required witnesses, namely: (a) if prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, 26 'a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official'; 27 or (b) if after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, 'an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media.' 28 The law requires the presence of these witnesses primarily 'to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence.' 29
As a general rule, compliance with the chain of custody procedure is strictly enjoined as the same has been regarded 'not merely as a procedural technicality but as a matter of substantive law.' 30 This is because the law has been crafted by Congress as safety precautions to address potential police abuses, especially considering that the penalty imposed may be life imprisonment. 31
Nonetheless, the Court has recognized that due to varying field conditions, strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure may not always be possible. 32 As such, the failure of the apprehending team to strictly comply with the same would not ipso facto render the seizure and custody over the items as void and invalid, provided that the prosecution satisfactorily proves that: (a) there is a justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item are properly preserved. 33 The foregoing is based on the saving clause found in Section 21 (a), 34 Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165, which was later adopted into the text of RA 10640. 35 It should, however, be emphasized that for the saving clause to apply, the prosecution must duly explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses, 36 and that the justifiable ground for non-compliance must be proven as a fact, because the Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist. 37
Anent the witness requirement, non-compliance may 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. While the earnestness of these efforts must be examined on a case-to-case basis, the overarching objective is for the Court to be convinced that the failure to comply was reasonable under the given circumstances. 38 Thus, mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses, are unacceptable as justified grounds for non-compliance. 39 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 fully well that they would have to strictly comply with the chain of custody rule. 40
Notably, the Court, in People v. Miranda, 41 issued a definitive reminder to prosecutors when dealing with drugs cases. It implored that '[since] the [procedural] requirements are clearly set forth in the law, the State retains the positive duty to account for any lapses in the chain of custody of the drugs/items seized from the accused, regardless of whether or not the defense raises the same in the proceedings a quo; otherwise, it risks the possibility of having a conviction overturned on grounds that go into the evidence's integrity and evidentiary value, albeit the same are raised only for the first time on appeal, or even not raised, become apparent upon further review.' 42
In this case, there was a deviation from the witness requirement as the conduct of inventory and photography of the seized items was not witnessed by an elected public official. This may be easily gleaned from the Inventory Receipt, 43 which only confirms the presence of the arresting officers, i.e., SPO1 Lazo and SPO2 Joselito Mendoza, as well as a media representative, i.e., Mahilum. Such finding is also confirmed by the testimony of SPO1 Lazo on cross-examination, to wit:
Cross-Examination
[Atty. Jonathan Magallanes]:
Who were present during the Inventory?
[SPO1 Lazo]:
Representative from the media Ed Mahilum.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: During that time there was no representative from the DOJ and public official?
A: Yes, sir. 44
As earlier stated, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to account for the absence of a required witness by presenting a justifiable reason therefor or, at the very least, by showing that genuine and sufficient efforts were exerted by the apprehending officers to secure his or her presence. Here, records show that the prosecution did not acknowledge, much less justify, the arresting officers' failure to procure the attendance of an elected public official. In view of this unjustified deviation from the chain of custody rule, the Court is therefore constrained to conclude that the integrity find evidentiary value of the items purportedly seized from accused-appellant were compromised, which consequently warrants his acquittal.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated November 29, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10118 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Emmanuel Mesina y Datuin a.k.a. 'Boyong' is ACQUITTED of the crimes charged. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ordered to: (a) cause accused-appellant's immediate release, unless he is being lawfully held in custody for any other reason; and (b) inform the Court of the action taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED. (Delos Santos, J., on official leave; Baltazar-Padilla, J., on leave.)"
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. See Notice of Appeal dated December 27, 2018; rollo, pp. 20-22.
2.Id. at 3-19. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia with Associate Justices Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. and Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig, concurring.
3. CA rollo, pp. 52-65. Penned by Presiding Judge Alfonso C. Ruiz II.
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. Criminal Case No. R-QZN-15-09143-CR is for the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, defined and penalized under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 (records, pp. 4-5); while Criminal Case No. R-QZN-15-09142-CR is for the crime of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, defined and penalized under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165; records, pp. 2-3.
6. See Inventory Receipt dated September 27, 2015; records, p. 22.
7.Id. at 25-27.
8. See Request for Laboratory Examination dated September 27, 2015; id. at 16.
9. See Chemistry Report No. D-796-15 dated September 27, 2015; id. at 17.
10. See rollo, pp. 3-8. See also CA rollo, pp. 52-55.
11. See rollo, pp. 8-9. See also CA rollo, pp. 55-56.
12. CA rollo, pp. 52-65.
13.Id. at 64.
14. See id. at 56-64.
15. See Notice of Appeal dated November 27, 2017; CA rollo, p. 13.
16. See Brief of the Accused-Appellant dated May 27, 2018; id. at 31-50.
17.Id. at 3-19.
18.Id. at 19.
19. See id. at 12-19.
20. 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; while the elements of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 are: (a) the accused was in possession of an item or object identified as a prohibited drug; (b) such possession was not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. (See People v. Crispo, G.R. No. 230065, March 14, 2018, 859 SCRA 356, 369; People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 231383, March 7, 2018, 858 SCRA 94, 104; People v. Magsano, G.R. No. 231050, February 28, 2018, 857 SCRA 142, 152; People v. Manansala, G.R. No. 229092, February 21, 2018, 856 SCRA 359, 369-370; People v. Miranda, G.R. No. 229671, January 31, 2018, 854 SCRA 42, 52; and People v. Mamangon, G.R. No. 229102, January 29, 2018, 853 SCRA 303, 312-313; all cases citing People v. Sumili, 753 Phil. 342, 348 [2015] and People v. Bio, 753 Phil. 730, 736 [2015].)
21. See People v. Crispo, id.; People v. Sanchez, id.; People v. Magsano, id.; People v. Manansala, id.; People v. Miranda, id.; and People v. Mamangon, id. See also People v. Viterbo, 739 Phil. 593, 601 (2014).
22. See People v. Gamboa, G.R. No. 233702, June 20, 2018, citing People v. Umipang, 686 Phil. 1024, 1039-1040 (2012).
23. See People v. Año, G.R. No. 230070, March 14, 2018; People v. Crispo, supra note 20; People v. Sanchez, supra note 20; People v. Magsano, supra note 20; People v. Manansala, supra note 20; People v. Miranda, supra note 20; and People v. Mamangon, supra note 20. Sec also People v. Viterbo, supra note 21.
24.People v. Mamalumpon, 767 Phil. 845, 855 (2015), citing Imson v. People, 669 Phil. 262, 270-271 (2011). See also People v. Ocfemia, 718 Phil. 330, 348 (2013), citing People v. Resurreccion, 618 Phil. 520, 532 (2009)
25. See People v. Tumulak, 791 Phil. 148, 160-161 (2016); and People v. Rollo, 757 Phil. 346, 357 (2015).
26. 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.'" As the Court noted in People v. Gutierrez (see G.R. No. 236304, November 5, 2018), RA 10640 was approved on July 15, 2014. Under Section 5 hereof, it 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). Thus, RA 10640 appears to have become effective on August 7, 2014.
27. Section 21 (1) and (2), Article II of RA 9165; emphasis and underscoring supplied.
28. Section 21 (1), Article II of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640; emphasis and underscoring supplied.
29. See People v. Bangalan, G.R. No. 232249, September 3, 2018, citing People v. Miranda, supra note 17. See also People v. Mendoza, 736 Phil. 749, 764 (2014).
30. See People v. Miranda, id. See also People v. Macapundag, G.R. No. 225965, March 13, 2017, 820 SCRA 204, 215, citing People v. Umipang, supra note 22, at 1038.
31. See People v. Segundo, G.R. No. 205614, July 26, 2017, citing People v. Umipang, id.
32. See People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214, 234 (2008).
33. See People v. Almorfe, 631 Phil. 51, 60 (2010).
34. Section 21 (a), Article II of the IRR of RA 9165 pertinently states: "Provided, further, that non-compliance with 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 of and custody over said items[.]" (Emphasis supplied)
35. Section 1 of RA 10640 pertinently states: "Provided, finally, That non-compliance or 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 supplied)
36.People v. Almorfe, supra note 33.
37.People v. De Guzman, 630 Phil. 637, 649 (2010).
38. See People v. Manansala, supra note 20, at 375.
39. See People v. Gamboa, supra note 22, citing People v. Umipang, supra note 22, at 1053.
40. See People v. Crispo, supra note 20, at 376-377.
41.Supra note 20.
42. See id.
43. Records, p. 22.
44. TSN, September 20, 2016, p. 17.