SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 245310. June 30, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. ADOLFO MINA, JR. y POSADAS and SALEM JOE PAJARILLO y NAPERI, accused,
ADOLFO MINA, JR. y POSADAS, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 30 June 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 245310 (People of the Philippines v. Adolfo Mina, Jr. y Posadas and Salem Joe Pajarillo y Naperi, accused; Adolfo Mina, Jr. y Posadas, accused-appellant). — The conviction of Adolfo Mina, Jr. y Posadas (Adolfo) for Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs is the subject of review in this appeal assailing the Decision 1 dated July 31, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09570, which affirmed the Decision 2 dated September 28, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Calamba City, Laguna, Branch 36.
ANTECEDENTS
On February 17, 2011, at around 1:00 p.m., the Calamba City Police Station received information that Adolfo alias 'Wami' was selling marijuana in Villa Palao, Brgy. Banlic, Calamba City, Laguna. Accordingly, the police officers planned a buy-bust operation. After the briefing, Police Officer Allen Llorente (PO3 Llorente) was designated as the poseur-buyer and the other members as back-up. At around 4:00 p.m., on the same day, the entrapment team and the confidential informant went to the target area. When PO3 Llorente and the informant approached the gate of Adolfo's house, Adolfo came out and said 'ikaw pala, pare . . . ieskor ka ba, may bagong dating.' The informant replied, 'oo, ieskor kami isang daan lang' and then handed Adolfo the marked P100.00 bill. PO3 Llorente and the informant then followed Adolfo inside his room in the house. 3
When Adolfo handed the marijuana to PO3 Llorente, PO3 Llorente immediately held Adolfo and introduced himself as a police officer. The informant immediately ran outside while the other members of the team barged inside the house. They also introduced themselves as police officers and immediately searched the person of Adolfo. They then called on the barangay officials to record the operation and the specimens recovered. PO3 Llorente marked the purchased marijuana inside a tea bag, as 'APM-ABL.' The entrapment team also seized fifty-two (52) pieces of tea bags containing marijuana placed on top of Adolfo's bed. PO3 Llorente marked them as 'APM-ABL-1' to 'APM-ABL-52.' The team took photographs of the confiscated items. They also arrested Salem Joe Pajarillo y Naperi (Salem), who was inside Adolfo's house. The police officers then brought them to the to the police station for further investigation. 4
Afterwards, PO3 Llorente delivered the items to the crime laboratory. After examination, the contents of the tea bags tested positive for marijuana. 5 Thus, Adolfo was charged with violation of Sections 5 6 and 11, 7 Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 8 before the RTC docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 18139-2011-C and 18140-2011-C, 9 to wit:
Criminal Case No. 18139-2011-C
That on or about 4:00 p.m. of 17 February 2011 at Villa Palao, Brgy. Banlic, Calamba City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without any authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously possess quantities of dried marijuana leaves, a dangerous drug, having a total weight of 139.04 grams, in violation of the aforementioned law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 10
Criminal Case No. 18140-2011-C
That on or about 4:00 p.m. of 17 February 2011 at Villa Palao, Brgy. Banlic, Calamba City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to a poseur-buyer quantity of dried marijuana, a dangerous drug, weighing 2.35 grams.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 11
Adolfo denied the accusation and claimed that while he was at home with Salem, several men armed with short firearms, and in civilian clothing, barged into his house. They handcuffed and ordered them to go outside, and brought them to the police station. 12
On September 28, 2016, 13 the RTC convicted Adolfo of Illegal Possession and Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, thus:
WHEREFORE, x x x.
In Criminal Case No. 18139-2011-C, the prosecution's evidence having established the guilt of accused ADOLFO MINA, JR. y POSADAS beyond reasonable doubt for possession of Marijuana leaves with aggregate weight of 139.04 grams, the Court hereby sentences accused MINA, JR. to suffer the penalty of TWELVE (12) years and ONE (1) day to TWENTY (20) years and a FINE of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P300,000.00) with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency for Violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act 9165.
In Criminal Case No. 18140-2011-C, this Court having established the guilt of accused ADOLFO MINA, JR. y POSADAS beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act 9165 hereby sentences ADOLFO MINA, JR. y POSADAS to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and a fine of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (Php500,000.00) with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
The confiscated Marijuana shall be turned over immediately to the Region IV-A Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, Camp Vicente Lim, Canlubang, Calamba City, Laguna for destruction in accordance with law.
SO ORDERED. 14
The RTC ruled that the prosecution clearly established the linkages in the chain of custody. The prosecution's failure to strictly comply with Section 21 of RA No. 9165 is not fatal considering that photographs were taken at the place of arrest and the incident was recorded in a barangay blotter in the presence of barangay officials. 15
On July 31, 2018, 16 the CA affirmed the RTC's findings. Notwithstanding that the barangay blotter merely stated that fifty-two (52) sachets of marijuana were seized from Adolfo, and that it was deficient as to the signatories, the CA still considered the barangay blotter as the inventory of the seized items. According to the CA, the integrity of the seized items had not been compromised. Also, the police officers enjoyed the presumption of regularity in the performance of their functions.
RULING
We acquit.
In illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the contraband itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction. 17 Thus, it is essential to ensure that the substance recovered from the accused is the same substance offered in court. 18 Indeed, the prosecution must satisfactorily establish the movement and custody of the seized drug through the following links: (1) the confiscation and marking of the specimen seized from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the turnover of the seized item by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) the investigating officer's turnover of the specimen to the forensic chemist for examination; and (4) the submission of the item by the forensic chemist to the court. 19 Here, the records reveal a broken chain of custody.
Notably, the alleged crime happened before RA No. 10640 20 amended RA No. 9165. Thus, the original provisions of Section 21 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) shall apply to wit:
Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of RA 9165
(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[.] (Emphases supplied.)
Section 21(a), Article II of the IRR of RA 9165
(a) The apprehending officer/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; 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[.] (Emphases and italics supplied.)
In earlier cases, this Court ruled that the deviation from the standard procedure in Section 21 dismally compromises the evidence, unless (1) such non-compliance was under justifiable grounds; and (2) the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team. 21 Later, we emphasized the importance of the presence of the three (3) insulating witnesses during the physical inventory and the photograph of the seized items. 22 In People v. Lim, 23 it was explained that in case the presence of any, or all the insulating witnesses was not obtained, the prosecution must allege and prove not only the reasons for their absence, but also the fact that earnest efforts were made to secure their attendance, thus:
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 non-compliance. 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. As such, police officers are compelled not only to state reasons for their non-compliance, but must in fact, also convince the Court that they exerted earnest efforts to comply with the mandated procedure, and that under the given circumstances, their actions were reasonable. (Emphases in the original.)
Indeed, the presence of the insulating witnesses is the first requirement to ensure the preservation of the identity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs. 24 Non-compliance with the requirements must be premised on justifiable grounds, otherwise, the integrity and the evidentiary value of the corpusdelicti is rendered doubtful. 25 Similarly, mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the witnesses, are unacceptable as justified grounds for non-compliance. 26
Here, there is want of proof that the entrapment team conducted physical inventory of the seized items. The prosecution did not submit a certificate of inventory to prove compliance with the above requirements and to avoid any suspicion whether the petitioner was indeed in possession of an object identified as dangerous drugs. 27 The supposed recording of the incident and seized items in a barangay blotter fails to approximate compliance with the required physical inventory under Section 21 of RA No. 9165.
A mere perusal of the Barangay Blotter dated February 17, 2011 reveals that it can hardly comply as the required physical inventory. First, it was not signed by Adolfo, nor any explanation was offered for his lack of signature. Second, while it mentions that fifty-two (52) sachets of marijuana were seized, it is severely lacking in material particulars which are necessary to establish and preserve the identity and integrity of the seized items. Third, it does not match the prosecution's version that they seized fifty-three (53) items of marijuana inside the teabags. The unreliability of reports in the barangay and the police blotters due to their incompleteness and inaccuracy 28 can aptly be observed in this case:
February 17, 2011
ISANG RAID ANG NAGANAP SA BLK. 24 LOT 14 SA PANGUNGUNA NI NI [sic] CAPT. SUMIGANG CHIEF INTEL, NG[] CALAMBA. NAKUHA SA RAID [] AY 52 SACHET[s] NG MARIJUANA ITO AY NAGANAP ALAS 4:00 NG HAPON DITO SA BLK. 24 LOT 14 V. PALAO BRGY. PANUC CALAMBA CITY. NAHULI SA RAID AY SINA ADOLFO MINA AT SALEM JOE N. PA[J]ARILLO AT KAGAMITAN SA PAG[G]AMIT NG SHABU AT MARIJUANA[.]
SIGNED:
CAPT. SUMIGANG, CHIEF INTEL
COUNTER-SIGNED
C.T. ABRAGANTE, JR.29 ( Emphasis supplied.)
Fourth, the required insulating witnesses did not sign the barangay blotter. Their absence during the inventory and photograph of the seized items puts serious doubt as to the integrity of the chain of custody. Admittedly, there was no representative from the media and the DOJ. While PO3 Llorente testified that 'the duty investigator of that barangay who arrived together with some barangay tanod,' 30 does not show that the duty investigator is among those elective officials in the barangay. Worse, there was no attempt on the part of the buy-bust team to comply with the law and its implementing rules. The operatives failed to provide any justification showing that the integrity of the evidence had all along been preserved. Clearly, the prosecution utterly failed to prove the first link in the chain of custody.
Moreover, the link between the investigating officer and the forensic chemist was not established with certainty. The police officers did not describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the items and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to gain possession. Foremost, PO3 Llorente first took possession after the sale and seizure of the drugs until the delivery to the crime laboratory. 31 However, the RTC noted that 'the investigator PO3 Lily Ann prepared the Request for Laboratory Exam' without stating who was in custody of the items. 32 PO3 Lily Ann was not presented as a witness, and PO3 Llorente's testimony lacked details on how the seized items fell into the hands of the forensic chemist. He did not identify to whom did he turnover the seized items in the crime laboratory. 33 Lastly, Police Chief Inspector Donna Villa Huelgas' (P/Chief Insp. Huelgas) testimony and the stipulation of the parties are insufficient. 34
In People v. Pajarin, 35 the Court identified the following matters which must ordinarily be covered by the testimony of the forensic chemist who examines the confiscated items: (1) that he received the seized items as marked, properly sealed and intact; (2) that he resealed it after examination of the content; and (3) that he placed his own marking to ensure that it could not be tampered pending trial. 36 Should the parties decide to dispense with the testimony of the chemist, it should be stipulated that the chemist undertook all the precautionary steps mentioned. These circumstances were neither stipulated by the parties nor mentioned in the testimony of P/Chief Insp. Huelgas. 37
In sum, the utter disregard of the required procedures created a huge gap in the chain of custody. We reiterate that the provisions of Section 21 of RA No. 9165 embody the constitutional aim to prevent the imprisonment of an innocent man. The Court cannot tolerate the lax approach of the law enforcers in handling the very corpusdelicti of the crime. Hence, Adolfo must be acquitted of the charges against him given the prosecution's failure to prove an unbroken chain of custody.
FOR THESE REASONS, the appeal is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals' Decision dated July 31, 2018 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09570, is REVERSED. Adolfo Mina, Jr. y Posadas is ACQUITTED of the charges against him in Criminal Case No. 18139-2011-C for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, and Criminal Case No. 18140-2011-C for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, and is hereby ORDEREDIMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless he is being lawfully held for another cause.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City for immediate implementation. The Director is directed to report to this Court the action taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED." (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.Rollo, pp. 3-15. Penned by Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr. (now a retired Associate Justice of the Court), with the concurrence of Associate Justices Franchito N. Diamante and Maria Elisa Sempio Diy.
2. CA rollo, pp. 60-74. Penned by Presiding Judge Glenda R. Mendoza-Ramos.
3.Id. at 4-5.
4.Id. at 5.
5.Id. at 10.
6. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals.
7. Possession of Dangerous Drugs.
8. 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 FUND THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on June 7, 2002.
9.Rollo, pp. 3-4; CA rollo, p. 61.
10.Rollo, id.; CA rollo, id.
11.Rollo, p. 4; CA rollo, id.
12.Rollo, pp. 5-6; CA rollo, pp. 42-43.
13. CA rollo, pp. 60-74.
14.Id. at 73-74.
15.Id. at 69-71.
16.Rollo, pp. 3-15. The CA disposed as follows:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated September 28, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 36 of Calamba City, Laguna in Criminal Case Nos. 18139-2011-C and 18140-2011-C is hereby AFFIRMED.
SOORDERED. (Id. at 14, emphases in the original.)
17. See People v. Cariño, G.R. No. 233336, January 14, 2019, 890 SCRA 346; Peoplev. Crispo, 828 Phil. 416, 429 (2018); People v. Sanchez, 827 Phil. 457, 465 (2018); People v. Magsano, 826 Phil. 947, 959 (2018); People v. Manansala, 826 Phil. 578, 586 (2018); People v. Miranda, 824 Phil. 1042, 1050 (2018); People v. Mamangon, 824 Phil. 728, 736 (2018); and People v. Partoza, 605 Phil. 883, 890 (2009).
18.People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 30-31 (2017), citing Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 587 (2008).
19.People v. Bugtong, 826 Phil. 628, 638-639 (2018).
20. 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.
RA No. 10640 took effect on July 23, 2014. See OCA Circular No. 77-2015 dated April 23, 2015. As amended, it is now mandated that the conduct of physical inventory and photograph of the seized items must be in the presence of (1) the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, (2) with an elected public official, and (3) a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
21.People v. Dela Cruz, 591 Phil. 259, 271-272 (2008).
22.People v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 233535, July 1, 2019.
23. G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018.
24.People v. Flores, G.R. No. 241261, July 29, 2019; People v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 233535, July 1, 2019; and People v. Maralit, G.R. No. 232381, August 1, 2018.
25. See Tolentino v. People, G.R. No. 227217, February 12, 2020.
26. See People v. Gamboa, 833 Phil. 1055, 1071 (2018).
27.Rollo, pp. 9-10; CA rollo, p. 66.
28.Santos v. People, 443 Phil. 618, 628 (2003); Teodosio v. Courtof Appeals, 675 Phil. 80, 93 (2004).
29. CA rollo, p. 46.
30.Rollo, p. 12.
31. See Peoplev. Bangcola, G.R. No. 237802, March 18, 2019.
32. CA rollo, p. 66.
33.Id.
34.Id. at 62.
35. 654 Phil. 461 (2011).
36.Id. at 466.
37. CA rollo, pp. 62-63.