FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 243011. July 28, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CARLOS MIRASOL y BACLAYO A.K.A. "CARLING", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 28, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 243011 (People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee v. Carlos Mirasol y Baclayo a.k.a. "Carling," accused-appellant).
This Appeal 1 seeks to reverse and set aside the June 29, 2018 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 09356. The CA affirmed the May 5, 2017 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 42 (RTC) in Criminal Case Nos. 16-325727 and 16-325728, finding Carlos Mirasol y Baclayo a.k.a. "Carling" (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the Comprehensive DangerousDrugs Act of 2002. HTcADC
Antecedents
In two separate informations, accused-appellant was charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Secs. 5 and 11, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, to wit:
Criminal Case No. 16-325727
That on or about May 29, 2016, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, not being then authorized by law to sell, trade, deliver or give away to another any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell to one PO3 CARLITO OHOY, a police poseur-buyer, ONE (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with markings "CMB-1" containing ZERO POINT ONE FOUR FOUR (0.144) [GRAM] of white crystalline substance containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as "SHABU," a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law. 4
Criminal Case No. 16-325728
That on or about May 29, 2016, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession and under his custody and control THREE (3) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets with the following markings and recorded net weights:
CMB-2 ZERO POINT ONE FIVE SIX (0.156) GRAM
CMB-3 ZERO POINT ONE ONE SEVEN (0.117) GRAM
CMB-4 ZERO POINT ZERO SIX FOUR (0.064) GRAM
Contrary to law. 5
During his arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
Version of the Prosecution
The prosecution presented as witness Police Officer 3 Carlito Ohoy (PO3 Ohoy), Police Officer 3 Carlos Rivera (PO3 Rivera), and Police Senior Inspector Jeffrey Abergas Reyes (PSI Reyes). The testimonies of PO3 Rivera and PSI Reyes were dispensed with after a stipulation by the parties on the substance of their testimonies. 6
On May 28, 2016, at around 3:00 p.m., Police Chief Inspector Romeo Salvador of the Station Anti-Illegal Drug Special Operation Task Unit (SAID-SOTU), Manila Police District (MPD) Malate PS-9, received a tip from a confidential informant (CI) that a certain "Carling," who was later on identified as herein accused-appellant, was engaged in illegal drug activities along Leveriza St., Malate, Manila. According to the CI, he could arrange a meeting with accused-appellant the following day. A special operation task unit was thus formed to conduct immediate verification of the information. The operation was also coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). 7
The next day, at around 3:00 p.m., the SAID-SOTU had a briefing for the conduct of a possible buy-bust operation. The buy-bust team designated PO3 Ohoy as the poseur-buyer and gave him two (2) pieces of One Hundred Peso (P100.00)-bill as buy-bust money. 8
On even date, at around 4:50 p.m., the buy-bust team and the CI proceeded to Leveriza St., corner Quirino Avenue, Malate, Manila. They approached accused-appellant after seeing him standing in a corner, and the CI introduced PO3 Ohoy as the friend who wanted to buy shabu. Accused-appellant then asked how much shabu PO3 Ohoy wanted to buy, to which the latter replied "pang dalawang daan langho." PO3 Ohoy gave the buy-bust money which accused-appellant received and placed in his right back pocket. After taking three steps away from PO3 Ohoy, accused-appellant came back and got from his right front pocket one heat-sealed plastic sachet which he gave to PO3 Ohoy. PO3 Ohoy executed the pre-arranged signal and the backup officers immediately responded to the scene. PO3 Ohoy arrested accused-appellant and placed the sachet he bought inside his right pocket. 9
PO3 Ohoy then asked accused-appellant to empty his pockets. Accused-appellant brought out from his right front pocket three (3) heat-sealed plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance and the buy-bust money from his right back pocket. PO3 Ohoy placed the three recovered sachets inside his left pocket. 10
The buy-bust team noticed that people were starting to converge where they were, with some even throwing glass bottles at them. Hence, they decided to take the accused-appellant to the nearby barangay hall, where they conducted marking and inventory of the seized items in the presence of Barangay Kagawad Ma. Victoria Chavez (Kagawad Chavez) and Barangay Kagawad Rey Ranario (Kagawad Ranario). PO3 Ohoy marked the sachet he bought with "CMB-1," while the three other sachets he recovered were marked with "CMB-2," "CMB-3," and "CMB-4." After the marking and inventory, the buy-bust team brought accused-appellant to the Ospital ng Maynila for medical examination. Thereafter, they went to the police station, where PO3 Ohoy turned over to PO3 Rivera the seized items for investigation. PO3 Rivera prepared the necessary documents and returned the seized items to PO3 Ohoy. 11
On May 30, 2016, PO3 Ohoy delivered the seized items to PSI Reyes of the MPD Crime Laboratory for the purpose of forensic examination. PSI Reyes personally received the seized items and conducted a quantitative and qualitative examination thereon. In his Chemistry Report No. D-495-16, PSI Reyes reported that the contents of the seized sachets yielded a positive result for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. 12 aScITE
Version of the Defense
The defense presented accused-appellant as its sole witness. He testified that on May 29, 2016, between 5:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m., he was at his house waiting for his friend, Jonathan Samonte (Samonte), to return his motorcycle. Eventually, accused-appellant decided to go to Samonte's house to get the motorcycle himself. Samonte, however, was not in his house at that time. As he saw his helmet and keys inside the house, accused-appellant went inside to get them and left a note. 13
As accused-appellant was about to leave, he met Samonte's friend named Ian. While they were conversing, four (4) police officers arrived and asked for Samonte's whereabouts. The police officers asked accused-appellant if he was Samonte, to which he replied negatively. The police officers refused to believe him even after accused-appellant showed them his driver's license. The police officers insisted on accused-appellant being Samonte and invited him to the police station for verification. 14
At the police station, one of the police officers told accused-appellant to call any of his family members. Accused-appellant contacted his niece, and PO3 Ohoy demanded from her the payment of P300,000.00 in exchange for accused-appellant's release. When accused-appellant's niece failed to come up with the money, PO3 Ohoy got angry and fabricated evidence against accused-appellant. The following day, accused-appellant was brought to the fiscal's office for inquest proceedings, 15 and to the barangay hall where photographs of him, and the evidence presented against him, were taken.
The RTC Ruling
In its May 5, 2017 Decision, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused CARLOS BACLAYO MIRASOL is hereby found GUILTY of violation of Section 5 in relation to Section 26, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 in Criminal Case No. 16-325727 and is hereby sentenced to suffer a penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00.
Accused CARLOS BACLAYO MIRASOL is also hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section [11(3)], Article II of Republic Act [No.] 9165 in Criminal Case No. 16-325728. Consequently, said accused is hereby ordered to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) month, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months as maximum, and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos ([P]300,000.00).
The specimens are forfeited in favor of the government to be turned-over to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for disposal in accordance with the law and rules provided there is no further need for the same to be presented in other case/s.
SO ORDERED.16
The RTC ruled that the respective elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs were duly established by the prosecution. It gave credence to PO3 Ohoy's testimony and found the same to be consistent and logical. The RTC also held that the chain of custody of the seized evidence was well-documented. PO3 Ohoy marked, inventoried and photographed the seized items at the barangay hall then turned them over to PO3 Rivera for investigation. PO3 Rivera returned the seized items to PO3 Ohoy, who delivered it to PSI Reyes of the MPD Crime Laboratory. PSI Reyes found the contents of the seized sachets positive for shabu after conducting a qualitative and quantitative examination. It also found accused-appellant's defense of denial as self-serving since there was no evidence to corroborate the same.
Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed to the CA.
The CA Ruling
In its June 29, 2018 Decision, the CA affirmed the conviction of accused-appellant for the crimes charged. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. The assailed Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 42, Manila, in Criminal Case Nos. 16-325727 and 16-325728 convicting Carlos B. Mirasol of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, otherwise known as Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.17
The CA upheld the findings of the RTC that all the elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs were adequately established by the prosecution. The CA also held that the prosecution successfully established an unbroken chain of custody. The CA noted that the buy-bust team established a justifiable ground to conduct the marking and inventory at the barangay hall. As testified to by PO3 Ohoy, people were starting to gather around them with some even throwing glass bottles, which prompted them to move to the nearest barangay hall for the inventory and marking of the seized items. HEITAD
Hence, this appeal.
Assignment of Errors
I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE INCREDIBLE AND INCONSISTENT TESTIMONIES OF THE ARRESTING OFFICERS AND THE WEAK EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION.
II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CIRMES CHARGED DESPITE n THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO ESTABLISH THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY IN HANDLING THE SEIZED ILLEGAL DRUGS.
III
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIMES CHARGED DESPITE THE POLICE OFFICERS' PROCEDURAL LAPSES IN THE CUSTODY OF THE ALLEGEDLY SEIZED ILLEGAL DRUGS.
In its January 23, 2019 Resolution, 18 this Court required the parties to submit their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desired. The appellee, through the Office of the Solicitor General, averred in its Manifestation 19 dated April 22, 2019, that it would no longer file a supplemental brief as it had fully discussed in its Appellee's Brief 20 the issues raised by accused-appellant. Accused-appellant, on the other hand, through the Public Attorney's Office, filed Manifestation (In Lieu of Supplemental Brief) 21 dated May 16, 2019, where he stated that he had discussed in his Brief for Accused-Appellant 22 all the matters pertinent to his defense.
In his brief for accused-appellant before the CA, he argued that there were inconsistencies in PO3 Ohoy's testimony which raise doubts on the latter's credibility. PO3 Ohoy testified that the buy-bust operation took place between 4:55 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. while, in the joint affidavit of arrest, PO3 Ohoy, along with other police officers, stated that the buy-bust operation occurred at around 6:00 p.m. Accused-appellant also points out that there were blatant irregularities in the handling and marking of the seized evidence. According to accused-appellant, PO3 Ohoy's testimony was silent as to the presence of accused-appellant during the marking of the seized evidence. Moreover, the conduct of the inventory was not conducted at the place of arrest. There was also no representative from the National Prosecution Service (NPS) or the media during the inventory, and such absence was not justifiably explained by the prosecution. PO3 Rivera and PSI Reyes also failed to testify on the details regarding the manner they handled the seized items.
Appellee counters that PO3 Ohoy's testimony regarding the sale transaction and the recovery of the plastic sachets was clear and categorical. Moreover, there was no proof of ill motive on PO3 Ohoy's part which upholds the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties. The chain of custody of the seized items was also established by the prosecution considering that PO3 Ohoy marked the recovered items at the barangay hall which was near the place of arrest, as witnessed by Kagawad Chavez and Kagawad Ranario. PO3 Ohoy also maintained possession of the seized items from the time of recovery up to the time they reached the police station. Later on, PO3 Ohoy himself submitted the seized items to the crime laboratory for forensic examination, which yielded a positive result for the presence of shabu.
The Court's Ruling
The appeal is meritorious.
In the prosecution of drugs cases, proving that the chain of custody requirements were substantially, if not strictly, complied with by the police officers is as important as establishing the presence of the elements of the crime. This is because prosecutions under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act revolve around the credibility of the corpus delicti, 23 which, in drugs cases, is the seized prohibited drug.
The chain of custody requirement performs this function by ensuring that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. 24 It ensures that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized prohibited drug are preserved, owing to the unique characteristic of illegal drugs that renders it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration, or substitution either by accident or otherwise. 25
The following are the four (4) links in the chain of custody of the seized item which the prosecution must establish: 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 from the forensic chemist to the court. 26
A careful review of the records of the case show the glaring lapses committed by the apprehending officers in the handling and custody of the alleged seized illegal drugs from accused-appellant, which raise doubts as to its integrity and evidentiary value warranting the accused-appellant's acquittal. ATICcS
Primarily, the first link in the chain of custody, which includes compliance with the procedure under Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, was not complied with. There was no representative from the NPS or the media during the inventory and taking of photographs of the seized illegal drugs, which violates the strict compliance mandated of the apprehending officers with the procedure outlined under Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640.
Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 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[.]
R.A. No. 10640 which amended Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165, became effective on August 7, 2014. Significantly, R.A. No. 10640, reduced the number of representatives required to witness the conduct of the inventory and taking of photographs of the seized items. Only the accused, an elected public official, and a representative from the NPS or the media, are required by R.A. No. 10640 as witnesses. The amended Sec. 21 states:
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 chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seize and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph of 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, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media 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, finally, That noncompliance of 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.
R.A. No. 10640 applies in this case since the alleged crime was committed on May 29, 2016. Thus, the inventory and taking of photographs must be conducted in the presence of the accused, an elected public official, and a representative from either the NPS or the media.
Accused-appellant argues that PO3 Ohoy's testimony was silent as to his presence during the marking of the seized items. A review of the case records, however, reveal accused-appellant's presence during the marking and inventory of the seized items, as shown in the photographs taken at the barangay hall. 27
Despite the presence of the accused during inventory, the prosecution still failed to comply with the three-witness rule under Sec. 21. It is undisputed that the inventory and taking of photographs at the barangay hall were witnessed by Kagawad Chavez and Kagawad Ranario. There was, however, no representative from the NPS or the media. When asked to explain the absence, PO3 Ohoy stated during his cross-examination:
Q Who were the witnesses during the inventory?
A The two (2) [barangay] officials.
Q There is no media?
A At that time we [were] scouting but there was no media who came but we invited the [barangay] officials.
Q In your affidavit you also mentioned that there were no available public prosecutors at that time?
A Yes.
COURT:
Q Is that Saturday?
FISCAL MENDOZA
A Sunday, Your Honor. (At this juncture, off the record). 28
This Court has ruled that the absence of any of the witnesses required by R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, does not automatically render the seized illegal drugs inadmissible in evidence. Instead, the perceived deviations from the procedure in R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, must be acknowledged and explained by the prosecution. The prosecution must satisfactorily prove that the apprehending officers exerted genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of such witnesses 29 or that there was justifiable ground for failing to do so. 30
To recall, the confidential informant tipped off the members of the SAID-SOTU regarding the illegal drug activities of accused-appellant on May 28, 2016. On that same day, the pre-operation report was prepared by PO3 Ohoy and the operation was coordinated with the PDEA. The next day, May 29, 2016, a briefing was conducted and a buy-bust team was formed for the conduct of the buy-bust operation that same afternoon. TIADCc
In short, the police officers had one whole day to coordinate with the NPS or the media in order to secure the presence of a representative from either office during the inventory and taking of photographs of the seized illegal drugs. The police officers, however, only attempted to secure their presence when it was already time for the actual conduct of the inventory. While such practice by the police officers is not prohibited, albeit inefficient, the circumstances surrounding this case put forth the impression that they did not exert serious and earnest efforts to secure the attendance of the witnesses during the conduct of the inventory despite having more than sufficient time to do so. This Court is not convinced by the flimsy excuse given by PO3 Ohoy regarding the absence of a media or NPS representative during the conduct of the inventory. Without any justifiable explanation as to their absence, the corpus delicti becomes unreliable.
Second, there was no testimony or stipulation on the manner PO3 Rivera handled the seized items when it was in his custody for investigation. In Mallillin v. People, 31 the Court ruled that the prosecution must successfully show that "every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness's possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain." The witness must describe the precautions taken to ensure that there were no changes in the condition of the seized items. 32
In this case, PO3 Rivera's testimony was stipulated upon by the parties as follows:
(1) That he was the one who investigated the case;
(2) That in the course of his investigation, he prepared several documents, i.e., Joint Affidavit of Arrest of the Arresting Officers, Booking and Information Sheet of the Suspect, Request for Laboratory Examination, Receipt/inventory of items or property [s]eized, Chain of Custody, and Spot Report;
(3) That he turned over the custody of recovered evidence to PO3 Carlito Ohoy, to bring it to the Crime Laboratory of MPD for examination; and
(4) That he can identify the accused after said accused was turned over to him by the arresting officers. 33
Clearly from the foregoing, the manner by which PO3 Rivera handled the seized evidence when it was in his custody during the investigation was not established. There was also nothing to show how PO3 Rivera ensured that there were no changes in the condition of the items, or that there was no opportunity for any person not in the chain to have possession of the same, while it was in his custody. These raise doubts as to the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated items.
Third, the manner by which PO3 Ohoy preserved and stored the seized items when PO3 Rivera returned them to him was not established. It can be gleaned from the records of the case that PO3 Ohoy only submitted the seized items to the MPD Crime Laboratory the day after the buy-bust operation. However, nothing in PO3 Ohoy's testimony or in the Joint Affidavit of Arrest 34 stated how and where he stored the seized items, the steps he took to ensure that their integrity and evidentiary value were preserved, and the measures he took to preclude any incident of planting, tampering, or switching of evidence.
Fourth, the prosecution did not satisfactorily demonstrate compliance with the fourth link in the chain of custody. In People v.Pajarin, 35 the Court held that the stipulation on the forensic chemist's testimony must include the precautionary steps required in preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. Hence, it must be shown that: (1) the forensic chemist received the seized item as marked, properly sealed, and intact; (2) he resealed it after examination of the content; and (3) he placed his own marking on the same to ensure that it could not be tampered pending trial. 36
Here, the stipulations on the testimony of PSI Reyes lacked all the precautionary steps abovementioned. In the RTC Order 37 dated November 9, 2016, the stipulations agreed upon by the parties were the following:
That the witness was on duty on May 30, 2016 and he personally received that Request for Laboratory Examination previously marked as Exhibit "E" for the prosecution together with the subject evidence;
That after receiving the request for laboratory examination together with the subject evidence, he proceeded to the quantitative examination and after that, he also conducted the qualitative examination;
That after conducting those examinations the witness reduced into writing the result of his findings previously marked as Exhibit "F";
That after conducting the examination of the subject evidence, it was found out that the same gave [a] positive result to Methamphetamine as dangerous drug as indicated in the report;
That he can identify the signature above the typewritten name Jeffrey Abergas Reyes as his signature being the one who conducted the laboratory examination; AIDSTE
That the witness, in compliance with the Order of this Honorable Court, he brought the subject evidence he examined which he turned over to the Court;
That the witness has participation in the Chain of Custody Form as evidenced by his signature as Exhibit "H-6";
That the witness has no personal knowledge regarding the arrest or the circumstances that led to the arrest of the accused;
That the witness has no knowledge as to the ultimate source of the specimen submitted for laboratory examination; [and]
That the witness only conducted a quantitative and qualitative examination on the specimen, subject matter of this case. 38
The above stipulations lacked details on the condition of the seized evidence when PSI Reyes received it, whether it was sealed, marked, and if he himself resealed the remaining specimen of the said evidence after conducting the quantitative and qualitative examination. There was also no mention of any markings he placed on the seized evidence after conducting the examination to ensure that the same is not exposed to tampering. As there was no testimony regarding the management, storage, and preservation of the seized illegal drugs after PSI Reyes conducted the examination, the fourth link in the chain of custody was also not established with moral certainty.
We stress the necessity of complying with the chain of custody rule and the requirements laid down in Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, as these deal with the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti of crimes involving dangerous drugs. The prosecution's failure to prove the corpus delicti equates to a finding of reasonable doubt as to the accused's guilt.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is GRANTED. The June 29, 2018 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 09356, which affirmed the May 5, 2017 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 42, in Criminal Case Nos. 16-325727 and 16-325728, finding accused-appellant Carlos Mirasol y Baclayo a.k.a. "Carling" guilty of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Let Entry of Judgment be issued immediately.
The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections 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. 16-17.
2.Id. at 2-15; penned by Associate Justice Romeo F. Barza with Associate Justices Stephen C. Cruz and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (now a Member of this Court), concurring.
3. CA rollo, pp. 60-69; penned by Presiding Judge Dinnah C. Aguila-Topacio.
4.Rollo, p. 3.
5.Id. at 4.
6. Records, pp. 46-47 and 66-67.
7.Rollo, p. 4.
8.Id.
9.Id.
10.Id. at 4-5.
11.Rollo, p. 5; CA rollo, p. 63.
12.Id.
13.Id. at 6.
14.Id.
15.Id.
16. CA rollo, pp. 68-69.
17.Rollo, p. 14.
18.Id. at 21-22.
19.Id. at 23-26.
20. CA rollo, pp. 77-87.
21.Rollo, pp. 27-31.
22. CA rollo, pp. 36-59.
23.People v. Que, 824 Phil. 882, 896 (2018).
24.People v. Gayoso, 808 Phil. 19, 30 (2017).
25.People v. Hementiza, 807 Phil. 1017, 1026 (2017); citing People v. Alcuizar, 662 Phil. 794, 801 (2011).
26.People v. Nandi, 639 Phil. 134, 144-145 (2010).
27. Records, p. 19.
28. TSN, February 8, 2017, p. 11.
29.Matabilas v. People, G.R. No. 243615, November 11, 2019.
30.People v. Libre, G.R. No. 235980, August 20, 2018.
31. 576 Phil. 576 (2008).
32.Id. at 587.
33. Records, p. 66.
34.Id. at 8-9.
35. 654 Phil. 461 (2011).
36.Id. at 466.
37. Records, pp. 46-47.
38.Id. at 46-47.
n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document.