FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 248807. March 23, 2022.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.JOSEPH JOVIE MOJICA y CABUHAT and ERNESTO HERNANDEZ y MAQUINANA, JR., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 23, 2022which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 248807 (People of the Philippines vs. Joseph Jovie Mojica y Cabuhat and Ernesto Hernandez y Maquinana, Jr.) — Before the Court is an appeal from the Decision 1 dated March 11, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09789. The CA affirmed with modification the Judgment 2 dated August 4, 2017 of Branch 37, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Calamba City in Criminal Case Nos. 23169-2014-C, 23170-2014-C, 23171-2014-C, 23172-2014-C, 23173-2014-C, and 23174-2014-C.
In the assailed Decision, the CA found: (a) Ernesto Hernandez y Maquinana, Jr. (Hernandez) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11, 3 Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 4 in Criminal Case No. 23173-2014-C; and (b) Hernandez and Joseph Jovie Mojica y Cabuhat (Mojica) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, 5 Article II of RA 9165 in Criminal Case No. 23174-2014-C. 6 Moreover, the CA acquitted Hernandez of violation of paragraph 1, Section 6, 7 Article II of RA 9165 in Criminal Case No. 23172-2014-C. 8
The Facts
The relevant Informations filed against Hernandez and Mojica (collectively, accused-appellants) before the RTC are as follows:
I. Against Hernandez for violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165
Criminal Case No. 23173-[2014]-C
That on or about July 31, 2014, in the Municipality of Calauan, Province of Laguna and within [the] jurisdiction of this Honorable court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously possess one (1) heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.3 gram of Methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, without the corresponding authority of law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 9
II. Against Mojica and Hernandez for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165
Criminal Case No. 23174-[2014]-C
That on or about July 31, 2014, in the Municipality of Calauan, Province of Laguna and within [the] jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating with one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver one (1) heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.12 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, without the corresponding authority of law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 10
Accused-appellants were also charged in the following respective Informations: (a) Mojica, in Criminal Case No. 23171-2014-C, with violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165; 11 and (b) Hernandez, in Criminal Case No. 23172-2014-C, with violation of Section 6, Article II of RA 9165. 12
Felix Nathaniel Kawit y Almanza (Kawit), accused-appellants' co-accused, was charged in the following Informations: (a) in Criminal Case No. 23169-2014-C, with violation of Section 15, Article II of RA 9165; and (b) in Criminal Case No. 23170-2014-C, with violation of Section 7, Article II of RA 9165. 13
Upon arraignment, accused-appellants and Kawit entered their respective pleas of not guilty to the offenses charged. After pre-trial, joint trial on the merits ensued. 14
Version of the Prosecution
On July 31, 2014, police officers of the Provincial Intelligence Branch, Calauan, Laguna conducted a test-buy operation against Hernandez. During the operation, the police obtained from him one plastic sachet containing suspected methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. Upon inquiry with the neighbors of Hernandez, the police found out that Hernandez used his house as a drug den for his friends and "parokyano." Thus, on the same day, the police officers proceeded to conduct a buy-bust operation against Hernandez. 15
During the buy-bust operation, Police Officer 1 Randy Alpapara (PO1 Alpapara) acted as the poseur-buyer; he was accompanied by another police officer as his backup security. When they arrived at the target area, they saw Hernandez outside of his house feeding the chickens. They talked to Hernandez and they all agreed that PO1 Alpapara will buy shabu worth P500.00. Hernandez then went inside his house to get shabu. At that point, the police officers saw a person, later identified as accused Kawit, using illegal drugs inside Hernandez's house. Mojica, who was sitting by the door of the house, approached PO1 Alpapara and asked for the payment of the shabu. Subsequently, Hernandez went out of the house and gave one plastic sachet of shabu to PO1 Alpapara. Mojica, in turn, gave the money to Hernandez. Hernandez told PO1 Alpapara that if he wanted to use the drugs, he could do so inside his house. PO1 Alpapara then executed the pre-arranged signal, i.e., holding the arms of Hernandez. Thereafter, the other police officers rushed to the house of Hernandez and arrested Hernandez, Mojica, and Kawit. 16
After the arrest, PO1 Alpapara frisked Hernandez and Mojica. He recovered one plastic sachet containing suspected shabu and the marked money from Hernandez; and one plastic sachet containing suspected shabu from Mojica. Subsequently, the police officers brought accused-appellants and Kawit to the Calauan Municipal Police Station where the marking, photographing, and inventory of the seized items were conducted. Media representative Dan S. Bicomong (Bicomong) of Remate witnessed the inventory. Thereafter, the police officers brought accused-appellants, Kawit, and the seized items to the barangay hall to present them to Barangay Chairwoman Julieta Libed for her to sign the inventory receipt. After that, they brought accused-appellants and Kawit to the Pagamutang Pangmasa ng Laguna in Bay, Laguna for medical examination. Afterwards, PO1 Alpapara brought the seized sachets of suspected shabu to the crime laboratory for examination; the contents of the sachets tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. 17
Version of the Defense
Accused-appellants and Kawit interposed the defenses of denial and frame-up. 18 They alleged that in the afternoon of July 31, 2014, Kawit went to the house of Hernandez to bring fighting cocks. Kawit and Mojica stayed at the side of the house with the two children of Hernandez. Suddenly, eight police officers arrived and ordered them not to run. One police officer approached Hernandez and poked a gun at him, while the others went inside the house and made a search. PO1 Alpapara then came out of the house, pulled a small purse from his pocket, and shouted, "Ito, ito, shabu!" The police subsequently handcuffed Hernandez, who then told the police officers, "Nakita ninyo sa bulsa niya nanggaling yon." The police thereafter brought accused-appellants and Kawit to the municipal hall. 19
The Ruling of the RTC
On August 4, 2017, the RTC rendered a Judgment, 20 the dispositive portion of which is as follows:
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, in Criminal Case Nos. 23169-2014-C and 23170-2014-C, for failure of the Prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, accused FELIX NATHANIEL KAWIT y ALMANZA is ACQUITTED of the offenses charged.
In Criminal Case No. 23171-2014-C, for failure of the Prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, accused JOSEPH JOVIE MOJICA y CABUHAT is ACQUITTED of the offenses charged.
In Criminal Case No. 23172-2014-C, this Court finds accused, ERNESTO HERNANDEZ y MAQUINANA, JR. @ DUROY KALABAW, GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT for violation of Section 6, paragraph 1, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. He is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and TO PAY A FINE OF FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND (PhP500,000.00) PESOS.
In Criminal Case No. 23173-2014-C, this Court finds accused, ERNESTO HERNANDEZ y MAQUINANA, JR. @ DUROY KALABAW, GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT for violation of Section 11, paragraph 2(3), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. He is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY, as minimum, to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS, as maximum, and to PAY A FINE OF THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND (PhP300,000.00) PESOS.
In Criminal Case No. 23174-2014-C, this Court finds both accused, ERNESTO HERNANDEZ y MAQUINANA, JR. @ DUROY KALABAW and JOSEPH JOVIE MOJICA y CABUHAT, GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT for violation of Section 5 in relation to Section 26, paragraph (b), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. They are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and TO PAY A FINE OF FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND (PhP500,000.00) PESOS each.
The Jail Warden of BJMP Calamba is hereby directed to immediately release accused FELIX NATHANIEL KAWIT y ALMANZA from detention, unless his continued detention is warranted for some other lawful cause.
The Branch Clerk of Court is hereby ordered to turn over to the PDEA the methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) and paraphernalia submitted in evidence for these cases.
SO ORDERED. 21
Accused-appellants appealed to the CA.
The Ruling of the CA
In the Decision 22 dated March 11, 2019, the CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC with modification in that it acquitted Hernandez of violation of paragraph 1, Section 6, Article II of RA 9165. The CA held that the prosecution failed to establish that Hernandez used his house as a drug den. 23
In affirming accused-appellant Hernandez's conviction for violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 and accused-appellants Hernandez and Mojica's conviction for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the CA echoed the findings of the RTC that the police officers are presumed to have performed their duties regularly 24 and that there was compliance on the part of the police officers with the rule on the chain of custody of the seized drugs. 25 The CA held that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs from accused-appellants were preserved considering that the confiscated drugs remained in the custody of PO1 Alpapara from the time of seizure until they were turned over to the forensic chemist. 26
The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is PARTLY GRANTED. The Judgment dated 4 August 2017 rendered by the Regional Trial Court, 4th Judicial Region, Branch 37, Calamba City, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION as follows:
In Criminal Case No. 23172-2014-C, for failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused-appellant Ernesto Hernandez for violation of Section 6, paragraph 1, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, he is hereby ACQUITTED from the crime charged.
SO ORDERED. 27
Thus, the instant appeal before the Court.
The Issue
The issue to be resolved is whether the CA correctly affirmed the RTC's conviction of: (a) accused-appellant Hernandez in Criminal Case No. 23173-2014-C for violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165; and (b) accused-appellants Hernandez and Mojica in Criminal Case No. 23174-2014-C for violation of Section 5, Article II of the same law.
The Court's Ruling
The appeal is meritorious.
The Court generally accords great weight and respect to the factual findings of the trial court, even finality especially when affirmed by the CA, absent a clear showing that certain substantial facts and circumstances that could have affected the result of the case have been overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied. 28 However, such factual findings may be reversed if it appears, by evidence or the lack thereof, that the trial court erred. 29
After a careful review of the case, the Court finds compelling reasons to reverse the judgment of the CA.
To sustain a conviction for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the prosecution must establish the following elements: (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. 30 Whereas, to successfully prosecute a case for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165, the prosecution has the burden of proving that: (a) the accused was in possession of an item or object identified as a prohibited drug; (b) such possession was not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. 31
In both cases, the drugs themselves are the corpus delicti of the crimes. 32 As such, the integrity and evidentiary value of the dangerous drug must be preserved. 33 It is essential that the identity of the dangerous drug be established with moral certainty. 34 For this purpose, the chain of custody ensures that the seized drugs are preserved. 35 The prosecution must be able to account for each link of the chain of custody from the moment the drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as evidence of the crime. 36
In connection with this, Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 — the applicable law at the time of the alleged commission of the charged offenses on July 31, 2014 — outlines the procedure which the arresting officers must strictly follow to preserve the integrity of the confiscated drugs and/or paraphernalia used as evidence. The provision requires, among others, that: (1) the seized items he inventoried and photographed immediately after seizure or confiscation; and (2) the physical inventory and photographing must be done in the presence of (a) the accused or his/her representative or counsel, (b) an elected public official, (c) a representative from the media, and (d) a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), all of whom shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and shall be given a copy of the same.
The rule on the chain of custody requires strict observance. 37 However, the Court has recognized that under varied field conditions, strict compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165 may not always be possible. 38 In such cases, the seizure and custody of the seized items will not be rendered void if the prosecution satisfactorily proves that there is justifiable ground for the deviation, and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. 39 This is based on the saving clause found in Section 21 (a), 40 Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165. 41 It must, however, be stressed that for the saving clause to apply, the prosecution must satisfactorily explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses, and that the justifiable ground for non-compliance must be proven as a fact. 42
With respect to the witness requirement, noncompliance therewith may be permitted if the prosecution proves that the apprehending officers exerted genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of the required witnesses, albeit the latter failed to appear. 43 It must be emphasized that the purpose of the presence of these witnesses is to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence. 44
In the case, the buy-bust team failed to strictly comply with the three-witness requirement under Section 21 of RA 9165. The conduct of the marking, inventory, and photographing of the evidence at the police station was not done in the presence of a DOJ representative and an elected public official; it was witnessed only by a media representative. 45 Notably, the barangay chairwoman simply affixed her signature on the inventory receipt without actually having witnessed the photographing and inventory of the seized items as the same had already occurred beforehand. 46 It will be recalled that when the police officers went to the barangay hall to secure the barangay chairwoman's signature, the conduct of marking, inventory, and photographing of the evidence were all already done at the police station. Thus, there was technically only one witness — media representative Bicomong — to the conduct of inventory of the allegedly seized drugs from accused-appellants. Just as glaring is the failure of the prosecution to specify any justification for the deviation from the three-witness rule.
As stated earlier, the prosecution bears the burden of accounting for the absence of a required witness by presenting a justifiable reason therefor or showing that genuine and sufficient efforts were exerted by the apprehending officers to secure his/her presence. 47 "Breaches of the procedure outlined in Section 21 committed by the police officers, left unacknowledged and unexplained by the State, militate against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt against the accused as the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti would necessarily be compromised." 48
Considering the foregoing, the Court finds that the apprehending officers' unjustified noncompliance with the three-witness rule under RA 9165 broke the chain of custody and tainted the integrity and the evidentiary value of the allegedly seized drugs. Given the prosecution's failure to prove the indispensable element of corpus delicti, the Court is constrained to overturn accused-appellants' conviction on the ground of reasonable doubt. 49
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated March 11, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09789 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE insofar as Criminal Case No. 23173-2014-C for violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and Criminal Case No. 23174-2014-C for violation of Section 5, Article II of the same law are concerned. Accordingly, accused-appellants Ernesto Hernandez y Maquinana, Jr. and Joseph Jovie Mojica y Cabuhat are ACQUITTED of the aforementioned offenses charged for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and are ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless they are confined for any other lawful cause.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Director General, Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. Furthermore, the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to report to this Court the action he has taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
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. 3-27. Penned by Associate Justice Perpetua T. Atal-Paño and concurred in by Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario (now a Member of the Court) and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela.
2. CA rollo, pp. 66-93; penned by Presiding Judge Caesar C. Buenagua.
3. SECTION 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. — x x x.
x x x [I]f the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be graduated as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
3. Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of x x x methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu" x x x.
4. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, approved on June 7, 2002.
5. SECTION 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.
xxx xxx xxx
6.Rollo, pp. 16-26.
7. SECTION 6. Maintenance of a Den, Dive or Resort. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person or group of persons who shall maintain a den, dive or resort where any dangerous drug is used or sold in any form.
The penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person or group of persons who shall maintain a den, dive or resort where any controlled precursor and essential chemical is used or sold in any form.
xxx xxx xxx
8.Rollo, p. 26.
9. As culled from the CA Decision; id. at 4.
10. As culled from the CA Decision; id. at 4-5.
11. CA rollo, p. 67.
12.Rollo, p. 4
13.Id. at 5-6.
14.Id. at 6.
15.Id. at 6-7; CA rollo, pp. 69-70.
16.Rollo, pp. 7-8.
17.Id. at 8; CA rollo, pp. 70-71.
18. CA rollo, p. 72.
19.Rollo, p. 9.
20. CA rollo, pp. 66-93.
21.Id. at 92-93.
22.Rollo, pp. 3-27.
23.Id. at 24.
24.Id. at 23.
25.Id. at 17-19.
26.Id. at 18-20.
27.Id. at 26.
28.People v. Lacsamana, G.R. No. 250176 (Notice), October 11, 2021, citing People v. De Guzman, 630 Phil. 637, 644 (2010).
29.Id.
30.People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 29 (2017).
31.People v. Crispo, 828 Phil. 416, 429 (2018).
32.People v. Rago, G.R. No. 252543 (Notice), October 11, 2021.
33.People v. Gandamon, G.R. No. 252018 (Notice), September 29, 2021, citing People v. Saragena, 817 Phil. 117, 131 (2017).
34.People v. Santos, G.R. No. 243627, November 27, 2019.
35.People v. Gandamon, supra note.
36. People v. Santiago, G.R. No. 252892 (Notice), July 28, 2021.
37. People v. Sendad, G.R. No. 242025, November 20, 2019.
38.People v. Espejo, G.R. No. 240914, March 13, 2019.
39. Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165.
40. 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[.]
41.People v. Gabunada, G.R. No. 242827, September 9, 2019.
42.Id.
43.Id.
44.People v. Piñero, G.R. No. 242407, April 1, 2019.
45. See rollo, p. 180.
46.Id.
47.People v. Roxas, G.R. No. 242817, September 16, 2019.
48.People v. Cardenas, G.R. No. 229046, September 11, 2019.
49. See People v. Echeveria, G.R. No. 247322 (Notice), June 17, 2020.