FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 245395. September 29, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. JALILAH MIRA-ATO y MUSA AND JAMINAH SANDAB y MUSA, accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated September 29, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 245395 (People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee v. Jalilah Mira-Ato y Musa and Jaminah Sandab y Musa, accused-appellants)
This is an appeal from the October 16, 2018 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08509, which affirmed the January 28, 2016 Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court, Daet, Camarines Norte Branch 39 (RTC), in Criminal Case No. 15184, finding accused-appellants Jalilah Mira-Ato y Musa (Jalilah) and Jaminah Sandab y Musa (Jaminah; collectively accused-appellants) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. No. 9165).
Antecedents
Accused-appellants were indicted for violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 in an Information 3 dated July 10, 2012, the accusatory portion of which reads:
That on or about the 9:30 o'clock in the morning of April 19, 2012 at Belen Canteen located inside the vicinity of Superlines Bus Terminal, Brgy. Camambugan, [M]unicipality of Daet, province of Camarines Norte, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another for a common purpose, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, distribute or transport four (4) pieces of big heat sealed transparent plastic sachets each containing white crystalline substance with markings "CPV-A-1 4/19/12" to "CPV-A-4 4/19/12" and marked as specimen A to D respectively. The net weights are A-4.89 grams, B-3.40 grams; C-3.75 grams and D-3.20 grams, which after qualitative examination conducted on the above stated specimen gave positive result to the tests for the presence of [methamphetamine hydrochloride] otherwise known as [shabu,] a dangerous drug, having a [total weight of 15.24 grams,] per Chemistry Report No. D-40-12, without authority of law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Accused-appellants pleaded not guilty during their arraignment. After the termination of pre-trial, trial on the merits ensued.
Version of the Prosecution
The prosecution presented Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) agents Security Officer II Christopher P. Viaña (SO2 Viaña) and Intelligence Officer II Judith J. Rigo (IO2 Rigo), Police Chief Inspector Grace Y. Gorospe (PCI Gorospe) of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory, and Barangay Kagawad Robert Paris (Brgy. Kagawad Paris), as its witnesses.
SO2 Viaña testified that on April 19, 2012, at around 9:30 a.m., he was at the premises of Superlines Bus Terminal, Barangay Camambugan, Daet, Camarines Norte, along with several PDEA agents including IO2 Rigo, to conduct a buy-bust operation against Jalilah and her companion. He claimed that they were conducting a follow-up operation from a successful anti-drug operation held on April 18, 2012, wherein the PDEA operatives apprehended Pilar Camposano (Camposano), a suspected drug pusher from Basud, Camarines Norte. During the tactical interview, Camposano told SO2 Viaña that her suppliers were from Manila, and that she had a transaction with them to transpire on the next day, April 19, 2012. Camposano agreed to cooperate by becoming a confidential informat (CI) for the PDEA and by introducing SO2 Viaña to her suppliers. Later, CI Camposano confirmed that her suppliers would arrive on April 19, 2012, and that they would meet at the Superlines Bus Terminal at Brgy. Camambugan, Daet.
At around 7:30 a.m. of following day, SO2 Viaña conducted a briefing for the intended entrapment and designated himself as the poseur-buyer while IO2 Rigo would be the arresting officer. SO2 Viaña prepared the buy-bust money consisting of a P1,000.00-bill from the PDEA's operational fund, and 23 pieces of bogus money. He also sent a pre-operational report to the PDEA Regional Office. The buy-bust team and CI Camposano left the office at around 8:50 a.m. and proceeded to the Superlines Bus Terminal. After 20 minutes, a bus from Manila arrived. CI Camposano pointed at the two (2) women who alighted from the bus, who were later identified as accused-appellant drug suppliers. Thereafter, CI Camposano, SO2 Viaña, and IO2 Rigo approached the accused-appellants. CI Camposano introduced the two PDEA operatives to them as the interested buyers.
Upon SO2 Viaña's suggestion, accused-appellants agreed to transact inside the Belen Canteen located within the bus terminal. He learned from CI Camposano that her contact was Jalilah, also known as "Maruja (Maruja)." As soon as they were seated, he proceeded with the transaction by asking Jalilah about the quality of the items and where they came from. Jalilah assured him that the items were of good quality and that they came from Quiapo. He then asked the accused-appellant if he could see the items for himself. Jaminah replied that the items were with Maruja whom he told to produce the items. At that instant, Jalilah/Maruja brought out the items wrapped in a piece of paper from inside her brassiere. SO2 Viaña inspected the package and found therein plastic sachets containing substances which appeared to be shabu. He then handed the buy-bust money to Jalilah. After Jalilah received the buy-bust money, SO2 Viaña stood up and placed his hand on Jalilah's shoulder to signal the rest of the team that the sale had been consummated. He then identified himself and IO2 Rigo as PDEA agents and declared that they were arresting accused-appellants for drug pushing.
Following the apprehension of the accused-appellants, SO2 Viaña ordered the other PDEA agents to fetch the representatives from the Department of Justice (DOJ), the media, and an elected barangay official. After an hour, the three (3) witnesses arrived. In the presence of the accused-appellants and the witnesses, SO2 Viaña opened the confiscated package and took out therefrom four (4) heat-sealed plastic sachets containing suspected shabu. He marked the sachets with "CPV-A-1 4/19/12" to "CPV-A-4 4/19/12," and proceeded to prepare a certificate of inventory where he allowed the witnesses to affix their respective signatures. Photographs were also taken during the marking and inventory. The PDEA operation ended at around 12:00 o'clock noon after which the team brought the accused-appellants and the confiscated narcotics to their office at the Capitol Compound in Daet, Camarines Norte. SO2 Viaña had custody of the seized narcotics until they arrived at the PDEA office where he prepared the request for laboratory examination. At around 7:00 p.m., SO2 Viaña brought the said request and the confiscated items to the PNP Crime Laboratory. 4
IO2 Rigo corroborated the testimony of SO2 Viaña in its material points and added that the buy-operation was planned on April 18, 2012, after SO2 Viaña learned from CI Camposano that her supplier Maruja was on her way to Daet to deliver the contraband the following day. IO2 Rigo alleged that CI Camposano introduced her and SO2 Viaña to the accused-appellants as the buyers of shabu from Paracale. She recounted that they proceeded to the Belen Canteen where the illegal sale of shabu was consummated. 5
PCI Gorospe recalled that at 7:10 p.m., on April 19, 2012, she personally received from SO2 Viaña the letter-request for laboratory examination along with the specimens contained in four (4) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets with the markings "CPV-A-1 4/19/12" to "CPV-A-4 4/19/12." After comparing the markings on the samples with those indicated in the letter-request for laboratory examination, she entered the details in the logbook. The laboratory examination turned positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug as shown in the Chemistry Report No. D-40-12. 6 Thereafter, PCI Gorospe placed the letter-request, the chemistry report and the subject specimens inside a case envelope with the marking "D-40-12," and placed the envelope inside the steel cabinet of her office. She only took the said envelope out of the cabinet on the day she was required to appear at the RTC. 7
Barangay Kagawad Robert Paris of Barangay Camambugan, Daet, Camarines Norte, testified that on April 19, 2012, PDEA agents came to their barangay hall and requested his presence at the Belen Canteen inside the Superlines Bus Terminal to appear as a witness since they had arrested persons involved in illegal drugs. He acceded to the request since the Belen Canteen was only 200 meters from the barangay hall. Upon his arrival, he saw the representatives from the media and the DOJ, the PDEA agents and the accused-appellants. The PDEA showed him the items confiscated from accused-appellants, particularly, the four transparent plastic sachets containing substances resembling "tawas." 8
Version of the Defense
Accused-appellants denied the charge as well as the conduct of the buy-bust operation. They insisted on the following: that they went to Daet, on Camarines Norte on April 19, 2012, to look for Jaminah's daughter who had eloped with her boyfriend to Brgy. Borabod, Daet, Camarines, Norte; that Jaminah asked her sister Jalilah to accompany her because the latter had been to Daet and is familiar with the place; that they went to Naira Camad, a Muslim vendor in Quiapo, who is also familiar with Daet, and asked her to accompany them; that Naira is also known as "Ola" or "Maruja"; that Naira begged off, but offered to arrange their meeting with a certain woman whom Jalilah had met in Daet before, who would accompany them; that Naira also told Jalilah that the said woman owed her money, and requested that Jalilah collect the payment on her behalf; that upon arriving at the Superlines Bus Terminal, Jalilah saw the woman referred to by Naira; that the man and woman (whom they later came to know as SO2 Viaña and IO2 Rigo) who were standing next to the lady they were supposed to meet, approached and held them by their arms; that they were brought inside the canteen of the bus terminal and were asked about the shabu that they were supposedly carrying; that when they denied the accusation, SO2 Viaña took their belongings and started to open them; that since they thought they were being robbed, Jalilah shouted for help; that two (2) local policemen heard and responded, but they were prevented by the PDEA agents from interfering and who then declared that they were conducting an illegal drugs operation. 9
The RTC Ruling
On January 28, 2016, the RTC rendered its Decision 10 finding accused-appellants guilty as charged. The fallo reads:
WHEREFORE, all the foregoing premises considered, the Court hereby finds the accused JALILAH MIRA-ATO y MUSA and JAMINAH SANDAB y MUSA, GUILTY of the crime of Violation of Section 5, Article II, of Republic Act No. 9165.
The accused are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT. They are likewise ORDERED to pay the fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (PhP500,000.00) each.
SO ORDERED.11
The RTC ruled that the prosecution had duly established all the elements of violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, and that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the corpus delicti were preserved by the apprehending PDEA agents. It declared that the requirements of Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 were complied with and the chain of custody of the seized items remained unbroken.
Unfazed, accused-appellants appealed before the CA.
The CA Ruling
On October 16, 2018, the CA rendered the now assailed Decision 12 affirming the RTC. The CA disposed in this wise:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Appeal filed by Jalilah Mira-Ato y Musa and Jaminah Sandab y Musa on 16 February 2016 is DENIED. The Decision rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 39, Daet, Camarines Norte on 28 January 2016 in Criminal Case No. 15184 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 13
The CA found the testimonies of SO2 Viaña and IO2 Rigo as straightforward, positive, and categorical 14 and had sufficiently shown that a legitimate buy-bust operation was validly conducted. The appellate court held that their testimonies deserve full faith and credence because there was no clear and convincing evidence adduced to prove that the PDEA agents were inspired by ill will or improper motive, or that they neglected to perform their duties properly. Moreover, the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated narcotics had been preserved from the moment they were seized from accused-appellants until they were offered in evidence before the RTC. The appellate court ruled that the presentation of CI Camposano is not essential since her testimony is merely corroborative of the apprehending officers' eyewitness accounts. Finally, the CA observed that whether or not Jalilah went by the alias of "Maruja" or that the entrapment was hatched primarily to apprehend a certain "Maruja" is of no moment since it was satisfactorily proven that accused-appellants brazenly sold 15.24 grams of shabu to SO2 Viaña and IO2 Rigo and received the marked money as payment thereof. The CA rejected the defense of denial interposed by the accused-appellants for being self-serving and unsupported by any plausible proof.
Hence, this appeal.
In the Resolution 15 dated July 17, 2019, the Court directed both parties to submit their supplemental briefs, if they so desired. On November 6, 2019, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed its Manifestation and Motion 16 stating that it would no longer file a supplemental brief as its appellee's brief filed before the CA had sufficiently ventilated the issues raised. Accused-appellants filed their Supplemental Brief 17 on February 26, 2020.
ISSUES
Insisting on their innocence, accused-appellants assigned the following errors allegedly committed by the CA:
I
The Court of Appeals erred in upholding the conviction of the accused-appellants for violation of Section 5 Article II of R.A. No. 9165 despite the absence of a valid buy-bust operation.
II
The Court of Appeals gravely erred in ruling that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties applies in the instant case.
Accused-appellants maintain their innocence and claim that there was no valid buy-bust operation conducted against them. They insist that the testimony of CI Camposano is crucial because she was the one who closed the deal as to the quantity and price of the shabu, as well as the time and venue of the sale. SO2 Viaña, as the poseur-buyer, did not discuss the quantity and price of the shabu.
On the other hand, the OSG counters that the testimonies of SO2 Viaña and IO Rigo established the true events that transpired on April 19, 2021; that the prosecution was able to establish all the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs; and that the transaction arranged by CI Camposano was within the personal knowledge of the PDEA agents, hence, there was no need to present her as witness.
The Court's Ruling
The appeal is meritorious.
Prefatorily, it must be emphasized that an appeal in criminal cases throws the whole case open for review, and the appellate court has the duty to correct, cite, and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment, whether or not assigned or unassigned. 18 The appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and renders such court competent to examine records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law. 19 Thus, the appellate court is charged with the duty to cite and appreciate the errors it may find in the appealed judgment, whether these errors are assigned or unassigned. This is one such instance where we are duty bound to rectify errors that, although unnoticed below and unassigned by the parties, are clearly reflected in the records of the case.
It is an oft-repeated rule that findings of facts of the trial court, as affirmed by the appellate court, are conclusive on this Court, absent any evidence that both courts ignored, misconstrued, or misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances of substance which, if considered, would warrant a modification or reversal of the outcome of the case. 20 The foregoing exceptional circumstance is availing in the case at bar. After a careful review and evaluation of the records, We find that the courts a quo failed to take into account vital pieces of evidence and circumstances that engender serious doubt on the guilt of accused-appellants.
The prosecution failed to
In the prosecution for the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs under Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, the following elements must concur: (1) the identities of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof. 21 Significantly, what is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually occurred, coupled with the presentation in court of the substance seized as evidence. 22
In here, the prosecution sought to establish the presence of these elements principally through the testimony of SO2 Viaña, the poseur-buyer in the buy-bust operation allegedly conducted against accused-appellants. The innocence or culpability of accused-appellants hinges on the sufficiency of proof that they were caught in flagrante delicto selling 15.24 grams of shabu during a buy-bust operation.
A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment whereby ways and means are resorted to the purpose of trapping and capturing lawbreakers in the execution of their plan. 23 It has become a familiar and much-resorted to procedure to apprehend lawless elements and to put a dent on the proliferation of criminal activities. In particular, its use has been proven effective in putting an end to the illicit business of drug peddlers who are susceptible to deal with anyone willing to purchase their goods even if the prospective buyer is a total stranger. This is not to say, however, that an end can justify the means. If carried out with due regard to constitutional and legal safeguards, a buy-bust operation deserves judicial sanction. 24
To determine whether there was a valid entrapment or whether proper procedures were undertaken in effecting the buy-bust operation, it is incumbent upon the courts to make sure that the details of the operation are clearly and adequately laid out through relevant, material, and competent evidence. 25 It is the duty of the prosecution to present a complete picture detailing the buy-bust operation; failing in this duty, the buy-bust operation will be greeted with furrowed brows. In People v. Doria, 26 the Court adopted the "objective test" to determine the authenticity of a buy-bust operation, thus:
We therefore stress that the "objective" test in buy-bust operations demands that the details of the purported transaction must be clearly and adequately shown. This must start from the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise or payment of the consideration until the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal drug subject of the sale. The manner by which the initial contact was made, whether or not through an informant, the offer to purchase the drug, the payment of the "buy-bust" money, and the delivery of the illegal drug, whether to the informant alone or the police officer, must be the subject of strict scrutiny by courts to insure that law-abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced to commit an offense. Criminals must be caught but not at all cost. 27 (emphasis supplied)
We scrutinized the records herein vis-à-vis the object test laid down in People v. Doria, and find that the prosecution failed to prove all the material details of the purported buy-bust operation.
The evidence for the prosecution failed to establish that accused-appellants had willfully and unlawfully sold or offered to sell 15.24 grams of shabu to the poseur-buyer SO2 Viaña. A careful perusal of SO2 Viaña's testimony would disclose that he was not privy to the sale transaction that allegedly transpired between CI Camposano and accused-appellants. We quote the following excerpts of SO2 Viaña's testimony pertinent to the buy-bust operation, viz.:
[PROS. APUYA:]
Q: Will you please tell us about the previous incident regarding the [follow-up] operation from an informant from Basud?
[SO2 Viaña:]
A: Yes, ma'am. We apprehended one suspected pusher from Basud and then upon tactical interview of this suspect, she told us that her supplier came from Manila and they have a transaction to transpire on April 19, 2012. x x x I asked her if she can cooperate to us. If she can introduce to us her supplier? x x x From that information, I ordered my agents to standby. We were on alert for a possible buy bust operation on April 19.
Q: By the way, Mr. Witness, when was the conversation with this informant of yours from Basud?
A: On April 18, 2012.
Q: So what happened after you informed your agents to standby for your further instruction?
A: On April 19 at around 7:30 a.m. upon confirmation from the apprehended suspect who turned as the confidential informant, on that day her supplier will come and they will meet at Superlines Terminal in Brgy. Camambugan, Daet which is the usual routine.
Q: Will you kindly give us the name of this informant of yours from Basud who was arrested?
A: She is Pilar Camposano. 28 (italics omitted, emphases supplied)
xxx xxx xxx
Q: So upon reaching the place, what happened?
A: Upon reaching the place, we waited at Superlines Terminal for about twenty to thirty [minutes].
Q: And?
A: And then after that ma'am, the bus from Manila arrived and then two ladies alighted.
Q: And then what happened next?
A: And then our CI told me that, "yan na po yong dalawang babaeng hinihintay natin" (those are the two ladies we are·waiting).
Q: And what happened next upon seeing these ladies alighting from the bus?
A: Together with CI Agent Rigo, we approached the two ladies.
Q: Who were your companions?
A: With us ma' am.
Q: So, what happened next?
A: We were introduced to Maruja as the buyer. And then I asked them if I can make the transaction inside the Belen Canteen.
Q: So what was the reaction of these two ladies?
A: [They] just nod.
Q: And what happened next?
A: We proceeded to Belen Canteen.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: What happened inside the Belen Canteen?
A: Our confidential Agent excused herself that she will go to the comfort room. Then I proceeded with the transaction.
Q: Will you tell us how did you go about the transaction?
A: I asked her if the items were good.
Q: And what was the response?
A: Maruja replied, "maganda eto."
Q: What was your next move?
A: And then I asked them where it came from[.]
Q: And what was the answer?
A: The other lady/Jam answered, "Galing pa sa Quiapo."
Q: After that what happened next?
A: After that I asked them if they can show me the items.
Q: What was the response?
A: Maruja — Jalilah look at Jam as if asking permission.
Q: What was the reaction of Jam?
A: Jam said that, "nakay Maruja yong item." She told Maruja to show the item.
Q: What did Maruja do?
A: Maruja got something from her brassiere.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: And then what happened?
A: She took a pack wrapped with a piece of paper.
Q: What did you do?
A: I inspected the contents.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Will you kindly tell us how you inspected it?
A: I opened it ma'am. I removed the scotch tape and I saw plastic sachets with suspected shabu.
Q: You said that you saw plastic sachets?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: How many?
A: During that time, I did not know the number of pieces, but I saw plastic sachets with suspected shabu. I did not open the whole paper I just break a little and tried to see inside.
Q: So what happened next?
A: After that I took the buy bust money together with the boodle money and I handed it to Maruja.
Q: By the way, you just took the boodle money without asking how much the amount of the item?
A: It was during the prearrange transaction with the CI.
Q: How much would you be buying from them?
A: Php60,000.00
Q: And you prepared One Thousand real money and 24 pieces of boodle money?
A: Twenty-three pieces.
Q: So you already gave her the boodle money and the One Thousand Pesos?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: After that what happened next?
A: After Maruja received the buy bust money and the boodle money that was the time I stood up and put my hand over the shoulder of Maruja.
Q: And what else happened, Mr. Witness?
A: And then I told them that we are PDEA agents and we are going to arrest them for drug pushing. 29 (emphases supplied)
Apparently, not all of the elements of a valid buy-bust operation were established in the foregoing testimony of SO2 Viaña. There was no indication from his testimony that SO2 Viaña offered to buy shabu for a certain price and that accused-appellants accepted the offer. Even quite apparent from the testimony is that SO2 Viaña had no knowledge of the quantity of the shabu that he was going to buy. The Court finds it suspicious that after merely inquiring about the supposed quality of the shabu, that SO2 Viaña would readily hand over the buy-bust money.
To reiterate, the objective test requires that there should be proof of the initial contact between the buyer and the sellers, the promise or payment of consideration until the consummation of the sale by delivery. Inevitably, SO2 Viaña's testimony failed to establish the initial contact with accused-appellants, the offer to purchase, and the acceptance by accused-appellants, because it was only CI Camposano who had personal knowledge of the same.
In People v. Salcena, 30 the Court declared that "courts are mandated to put the prosecution evidence through the crucible of a "severe testing" and that the presumption of innocence requires them to take a more than casual consideration of every circumstance or doubt favoring the innocence of he accused." 31 Viewed in this light, the prosecution's claim that there was a valid entrapment of the accused-appellants must fail.
The prosecution failed to
Contrary to the findings of the lower courts, We rule that the prosecution failed to properly prove the existence of the corpus delicti. After reviewing the records of the case, We find that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were not preserved as the evidence on record manifests serious doubts in the handling of the confiscated items.
Undeniably, in every prosecution for illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the presentation in evidence of the seized drug, as an integral part of the corpus delicti, is most material. 32 It is therefore vital that the identity of the prohibited drug be proved with moral certainty. Also, the fact that the substance bought or seized during the buy-bust operation is the same item offered in court as exhibit must be established with the same degree of certitude. 33 The chain of custody requirement performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. 34
Since the illegal sale of dangerous drugs by accused-appellants was allegedly committed on April 19, 2012, the applicable law is R.A. No. 9165. Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, which laid down the procedure to be followed by a buy-bust team in the seizure, custody, handling and disposition of confiscated illegal drugs and/or paraphernalia, states in part:
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. — x x x
(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[.]
Sec. 21 (a), Art. II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 (IRR), supplements Sec. 21 (a) of the said law, to wit:
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. — x x x
(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: 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, 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[.]
Based on the foregoing provisions, the Court enumerated the links that must be established in the chain of custody of the confiscated item: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court. 35 The chain of custody rule requires the testimony as to every link in the chain, describing how and from whom the seized evidence was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, its condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain, and the precautions taken to ensure its integrity. 36
Here, the first link of the chain of custody rule was not complied with. The marking of confiscated narcotics was not done immediately upon seizure thereof; and the required three (3) insulating witnesses, namely, the representatives from the DOJ and the media, and the elected public official, were not physically present at the time of and at or near the place of apprehension and seizure. SO2 Viaña testified that after the apprehension of the accused-appellants, he ordered his agents to bring the representatives from the DOJ and media and the elected barangay official. Notable also that the marking, inventory, and photographing were conducted only when the said witnesses arrived at the Belen Canteen or an hour after accused-appellants were arrested.
Indeed, the failure to immediately mark the shabu after confiscation constituted a gap in the chain of custody of the seized illegal drugs. In People v. Lumaya, 37 the Court explained that it is important to promptly mark the dangerous drug because succeeding handlers will use such marking as reference. It operates to set apart as evidence the dangerous drugs from other items the moment they are confiscated until they are disposed of at the close of the criminal proceedings, thereby forestalling switching, planting or contamination of evidence. In People v. Ismael, 38 the Court stressed that the failure to mark the illegal drugs immediately after confiscation from the accused casts doubt on the prosecution's evidence and warrants the acquittal of the accused on reasonable doubt. Further, the Court emphasized the requirement that the presence of the three (3) witnesses must be secured and complied with at the time of the warrantless arrest. They are required to be at or near the intended place of the arrest so that they can be ready to witness the inventory and photographing of the seized and confiscated drugs immediately after seizure and confiscation. 39 The rationale behind this is simple. It is at the time of arrest or the confiscation of the narcotic that the presence of the three witnesses is most needed to insulate against the police practice of planting evidence. Their presence would surely minimize, if not eliminate, rooms for adulteration or the planting of evidence. 40
The second link pertains to the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer. Based on the testimony of SO2 Viaña, he was both the apprehending and investigating officer, thereby appearing that there was no break in the custody since the confiscated items remained in his possession. However, We find that the record is barren of any showing how SO2 Viaña handled and secured the seized shabu after the confiscation, the inventory, and while in transit from the Belen Canteen to his office at the Capitol Compound in Daet, Camarines Norte. There is no account as to how long he remained in possession thereof, and who else had access to the illegal drugs from the time it was allegedly taken from accused-appellants. Absent any proof on how SO2 Viaña managed to secure the integrity of the seized items, the prosecution cannot maintain that it was able to prove the guilt of accused-appellants beyond the whisper of a doubt.
The third link was also not sufficiently established. The Court notes that it took a rather long time before the specimens were turned over to the PNP Laboratory for chemical examination. SO2 Viaña testified that the PDEA operation ended at around 12:00 o'clock noon and the team headed back to the PDEA office together with accused-appellants and the seized shabu. Yet, the specimens were only submitted to the crime laboratory at 7:10 p.m. The prosecution did not offer any explanation for the delay in turning over the seized substances to the forensic chemist for laboratory analysis. Regrettably, the records are again wanting of any details regarding the custody of the seized drugs during the interim — from the time the confiscated narcotics were brought to the PDEA office until the same were turned over to the laboratory. There was also no showing that precautions were taken to ensure that there was no change in the condition of the specimens and that there had been no opportunity for any person not in the chain of custody to have possession thereof.
Anent the fourth link, PCI Gorospe testified that she placed the letter-request, the chemistry report, and the subject specimens inside a case envelope with the marking "D-40-12" inside the steel cabinet of her office. However, there was neither testimony nor stipulation describing the condition of the seized items while they were in the steel cabinet, as well as the precaution taken to ensure the integrity thereof. Absent any testimony on the management, storage, and preservation of the illegal drugs subject of seizure after its qualitative examination, the fourth link in the chain of custody of the illegal drugs is deemed not to have been reasonably established. 41
It bears emphasis that the prosecution cannot rely on the saving clause provided under Sec. 21 (a) of the IRR that noncompliance with the legal requirements shall not render void and invalid the seizure of and custody over said items. This saving clause is applicable only if the prosecution was able to prove the following twin conditions: (a) the existence of a justifiable ground to allow departure from the rule on strict compliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team. 42 In here, the prosecution failed to provide any explanation to justify the non-compliance by the buy-bust team with the prescribed procedures. In fact, the records clearly reveal that the prosecution did not even acknowledge the procedural lapses committed by the buy-bust team in the handling of the seized shabu.
Moreover, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty invoked by the prosecution and relied upon by the courts a quo cannot by itself overcome the presumption of innocence nor constitute proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 43 A presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty applies when nothing in the record suggests that the law enforcers deviated from the standard conduct of official duty required by law. Conversely, where the official act is irregular on its face, the presumption cannot arise. 44 The presumption of regularity is just a presumption disputable by contrary proof; when challenged by evidence, it cannot serve as binding proof. 45 Given the flagrant procedural lapses committed by the PDEA agents in handling the seized shabu, as well as their failure to present a complete picture of the buy-bust operation, the presumption of regularity in the performance of duties cannot be applied in this case.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt imposes upon the prosecution the burden of proving an accused's guilt through the strength of its own evidence. The prosecution cannot merely capitalize on the defense's supposed weaknesses. Unless it discharges its burden, the accused need not even offer evidence in his or her behalf, and the accused should necessarily be acquitted. Evidence of the prosecution must stand or fall on its own weight and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense. 46 The totality of the evidence presented by the prosecution herein utterly failed to overcome the presumption of innocence. The failure of the prosecution to prove all the elements of the violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 beyond reasonable doubt must perforce result in accused-appellants' exoneration from criminal liability.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The October 16, 2018 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08509 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellants Jalilah Mira-Ato y Musa and Jaminah Sandab y Musa are hereby ACQUITTED of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 on the ground of reasonable doubt and are ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention unless they are being lawfully held for another cause. Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
The Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for Women, Mandaluyong City, is hereby ORDERED to report to this Court the date of the actual release from confinement of accused-appellants 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. 3-23; penned by Associate Justice Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles, with Associate Justices Stephen C. Cruz and Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig, concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 35-40; penned by Judge Winston S. Racoma.
3. Records, pp. 1-2.
4. CA rollo, pp. 36-38.
5.Id. at 37.
6.Id. at 38.
7. TSN, March 5, 2013, p. 12.
8. CA rollo, p. 25.
9.Id. at 41-49.
10.Id. at 35-40.
11.Id. at 40.
12.Id. at 3-23.
13.Id. at 22.
14.Id. at 17.
15.Id. at 39-40.
16.Id. at 41-42.
17. Unpaginated part of the rollo, inserted between pp. 58-59.
18.People v. Zapanta, G.R. No. 230227, November 6, 2019.
19.People v. Ceralde, 815 Phil. 711, 718 (2017).
20.People v. Ong, 568 Phil. 114 (2008).
21.People v. Clara, 715 Phil. 259, 272-273 (2013).
22.People v. Concepcion, 578 Phil. 957, 976 (2008).
23.People v. De Leon, 624 Phil. 786, 803 (2010).
24.People v. Salazar, 334 Phil. 556, 570 (1997).
25.People v. Hilario, 823, Phil. 580, 597 (2018).
26. 361 Phil. 595 (1999).
27.Id. at 621.
28. CA rollo, pp. 92-93.
29. CA rollo, pp. 70-74.
30. 676 Phil. 357 (2011).
31.Id. at 377, citing People v. Tan, 432 Phil. 171, 198 (2002).
32.People v. Quiamanlon, 655 Phil. 695, 715 (2011).
33.People v. Cortez, 611 Phil. 360, 379 (2009).
34.Catuiran v. People, 605 Phil. 646, 655 (2009).
35.People v. De Leon, G.R. No. 227867, June 26, 2019, 906 SCRA 317, 326.
36.People v. Havana, 776 Phil. 462, 476 (2016).
37. 827 Phil. 473 (2018).
38. 806 Phil. 21 (2017).
39.People v. Dumanjug, G.R. No. 235468, July 1, 2019, 907 SCRA 89, 104.
40.People v. Adobar, 832 Phil. 731, 754 (2018).
41.People v. Ubungen, 836 Phil. 888, 902 (2018).
42.Valencia v. People, 725 Phil. 268, 286 (2014).
43.Valdez v. People, 563 Phil. 934, 954 (2007).
44.People v. Siaton, 789 Phil. 87, 107 (2016).
45.People v. Ramos, 791 Phil. 162, 175-176 (2016).
46.People v. Santos, Jr., 562 Phil. 458, 473 (2007).