People v. Monte y Dimaiwat

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 248876. November 10, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.HENRY MONTE Y DIMAIWAT, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated10 November 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 248876 (People of the Philippines v. Henry Monte y Dimaiwat). — On appeal is the August 30, 2018 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09004 which affirmed the January 27, 2017 Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 79 of Quezon City in Criminal Case No. R-QZN-14-07725-CR finding accused-appellant Henry Monte y Dimaiwat (appellant) guilty of illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."

Factual Antecedents:

Appellant was charged with violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 in an Information 3 dated August 6, 2014, which alleged:

That on or about the 3rd day of August, 2014, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, not authorized by law to possess or use any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession and control dangerous drugs, to wit: six (6) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets marked as "A (HMAF-ADDA-8/03/14- "1"); B (HMAF-ADDA-8/03/14- "2"); C (HMAF-ADDA-8/03/14- "3"); D (HMAF-ADDA-8/03/14- "4"); E (HMAF-ADDA-8/03/14- "5"); F (HMAF-ADDA-8/03/14- "6") with thirteen point fifty six (13.56) grams of white crystalline substance containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 4

When arraigned, appellant entered a plea of "not guilty." 5 Trial on the merits ensued.

The prosecution presented the lone testimony of SPO4 Arnel Araojo (SPO4 Araojo), the member of the police team who apprehended appellant. The defense, on the other hand, presented the testimonies of appellant and his mother-in-law, Regina Vega (Vega).

Version of the Prosecution:

At around ten in the evening of August 3, 2014, the Quezon City Station 12 Tactical Operations received an information from an unknown caller about an on-going illegal gambling along Boni Serrano Street, Brgy. Libis, Quezon City. SPO4 Araojo, SPO2 Rodolfo Del Rosario, PO1 Jason Dela Cruz (PO1 Dela Cruz), and PO1 Jayson Artista (PO1 Artista) were dispatched to the area to verify the report.

When the police team arrived at the area, they noticed several persons inside a shanty playing tong-its, thereby confirming the report they received. As a result, the police officers barged in and immediately arrested the suspects for Illegal Gambling in violation of Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1602. PO1 Dela Cruz then confiscated the playing cards on the table. The bet money was likewise retrieved.

Among those apprehended was herein appellant. SPO4 Araojo, who made the arrest, immediately frisked appellant and recovered from him six plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance suspected to be shabu. One of the plastic sachets was recovered from appellant's right hand while the other five sachets were tucked in his waist.

The police officers feared that appellant's relatives in the area might attack them so they brought appellant and the other arrested individuals to the barangay hall to avoid any commotion. Thereat, SPO4 Araojo, who was in possession of the seized items, marked them in front of appellant. The barangay secretary recorded the said items in the barangay's blotter book which was signed by Barangay Chairwoman Leny Givalno (Givalno). The Receipt/Inventory of Property Seized 6 was likewise prepared and signed by Givalno and Barangay Executive Officer Ludovico Torralba as witnesses. Appellant, however, refused to sign the same. PO1 Dela Cruz took photographs of the playing cards 7 and bet money while SPO4 Araojo photographed the seized plastic sachets. 8

Afterwards, the police officers, together with appellant and the other arrested men, went to the police station. SPO4 Araojo presented the seized items to the desk officer and subsequently turned them over to the investigator on duty, PO3 Jonar Jorta (PO3 Jorta) as evidenced by the Chain of Custody 9 report. SPO4 Araojo and PO3 Jorta requested the conduct of: (a) physical 10 and drug test 11 examinations on the apprehended suspects including appellant; and (b) laboratory examination 12 of the confiscated items relative to illegal gambling and illegal drugs.

SPO4 Araojo subsequently turned over the seized plastic sachets to Forensic Chemist PCI Anamelisa Bacani (PCI Bacani) of the QCPD Crime Laboratory Office. PCI Bacani conducted a qualitative examination on the said items, which yielded positive results as shown in Chemistry Report No. D-389-14. 13

Version of the Defense:

Appellant raised the defense of denial. On the date of the incident, he claimed that he was inside his house playing cards with his mother-in-law Vega, his child Menchie, and his friends Jojo and August. Suddenly, PO1 Artista and Dela Cruz barged in, ordered them to raise their hands and not to run.

Appellant, Jojo, and August were initially handcuffed, brought outside of the house, and stayed by the road. They were subsequently transported to the police station where the apprehending, police officers tasked for money in exchange for their release. Unfortunately, however, appellant and his companions failed to give them any amount, hence, they were not released from jail.

A few days later, or on August 19, 2014, the police officers showed appellant, Jojo, and August three plastic sachets which they claimed would be used as evidence against them.

Vega, on the other hand, narrated that she was at the front door of their house while appellant was having a conversation with their neighbors, Jojo, James, and Culay on the time and day in question. She recalled seeing two men in black shirts. The next thing she knew, appellant and his companions were handcuffed by these men who turned out to be police officers. Appellant was later brought to the barangay hall.

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:

In its January 27, 2017 Decision, 14 the RTC found appellant guilty of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs. The trial court sentenced him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay the fine of P400,000.00, to wit:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused HENRY MONTE y DIMAIWAT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of violation of Section 11, Article II, Republic Act 9165, and he is hereby sentenced to suffer life imprisonment, and to pay a fine of Four Hundred Thousand Pesos (P400,000.00).

The Branch Clerk of Court is directed to immediately turn over to the Chief of PDEA Crime Laboratory, the subject drugs covered by Chemistry Report No. D-389-14 to be disposed of in strict conformity with the provisions of Republic Act No. 9165 and its implementing rules and regulations on the matter.

SO ORDERED. 15

The trial court held that the prosecution sufficiently established the presence of all the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Appellant, who was initially arrested for illegal gambling, was caught in possession of six plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance, which were round to be shabu, an illicit drug. Appellant was likewise not authorized by any law to possess the same.

The RTC further ruled that the chain of custody of the seized illegal drugs remained intact. The fact that the marking was done at the barangay hall and not where the crime as committed was duty explained by the police officers, i.e., to avoid commotion brought about by the presence of appellant's relatives in the area. The prosecution also sufficiently showed that the illegal drugs presented during the trial were the very same items confiscated from appellant. Thus, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized illegal drugs were duly preserved.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals:

In its August 30, 2018 Decision, 16 the CA affirmed the findings of the RTC, viz.:

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED.

The assailed January 27, 2017, Judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 79 in Criminal Case No. R-QZN-14-07725-CR is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. No costs.

SO ORDERED. 17

The CA agreed with the RTC that the prosecution sufficiently proved that appellant illegally possessed shabu, and that the chain of custody remained unbroken.

In addition, the appellate court opined that appellant's prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs was not because of a buy-bust operation but due to a permissible warrantless arrest. Appellant was caught inflagrante delicto engaging in illegal gambling activity when he was arrested. The subsequent search conducted on his body, which resulted in the discovery of the illicit drugs in his possession, was therefore valid. Hence, the seized plastic sachets containing shabu are admissible as evidence.

Aggrieved, appellant appealed before this Court seeking for the reversal of the CA Decision. 18

Issue

Whether or not appellant is guilty of Illegal Possession of shabu, a dangerous drug.

Our Ruling

The appeal has merit. We acquit appellant for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Indisputably, appellant was caught inflagrante delicto committing a crime. To recall, the police officers, acting on an information, caught him and his companions red-handed playing tong-its in violation of PD 1602, thus warranting their lawful warrantless arrest under Section 5 (a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, viz.:

Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is a attempting to commit an offense;

(b) When an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. (Emphasis Ours)

Thus, the seized illegal drugs are admissible in evidence. They were products of a valid subsequent search conducted on appellant in accordance with Section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, to wit:

SEC. 13. Search incident to lawful arrest. — A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant.

Nonetheless, the Court finds that the chain of custody as to the seized drugs had been broken, thereby warranting appellant's acquittal of the crime charged.

In a successful prosecution of cases for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under RA 9165, the following elements must be present: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. 19

It is likewise imperative that the identity of the dangerous drug be established with moral certainty as it forms an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime. 20 As such, the prosecution must duly establish that the seized illicit drugs from the accused must be the very same items presented before the court. 21 Chain of custody should therefore be observed to remove unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence. 22

Chain of custody is the "duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping, to presentation in court for destruction." 23 In Catuiran v. People, 24 the Court emphasized the importance of chain of custody rule in this wise:

As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence. In such a way 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' possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. Indeed, it is from the testimony of every witness who handled the evidence from which a reliable assurance can be derived that the evidence presented in court is one and the same as that seized from the accused. 25 (Citations Omitted)

The following links in the chain of custody of the seized items should therefore be established: (1) the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and (4) the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court. 26

Here, appellant committed the Crime charged on August 3, 2014. Hence, RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, 27 which took effect on July 23, 2014 applies.

Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, laid down the procedures to be observed on the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered dangerous drugs, viz.:

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. — 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 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 the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated a 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.

(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination;

(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued immediately upon the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not allow the completion of testing within the time frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided, however, That a final certification shall be issued immediately upon completion of the said examination and certification; [Emphasis Supplied.]

A careful examination of the records reveals that the apprehending officers committed fatal lapses in the custody of the seized drugs.

First link was severely breached.

The procedures on marking, inventory, and taking of photograph of the seized illegal drugs were not strictly observed.

First. Marking of the drugs was not immediately made after the confiscation of the illegal drugs.

"Marking" is defined as the placing by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initials and signature on the items seized. 28 "Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link; hence, it is vital that the seized contraband be immediately marked because the succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference." 29

In People v. Gonzales, 30 the Court explained the importance of marking in this wise:

The first stage in the chain of custody is the marking of the dangerous drugs or related items. Marking, which is the affixing on the dangerous drugs or related items by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his initials or signature or other identifying signs, should be made in the presence of the apprehended violator immediately upon arrest. The importance of the prompt marking cannot be denied, because succeeding handlers of the dangerous drugs or related items will use the marking as reference. Also, the marking operates to set apart as evidence the dangerous drugs or related items from other material from 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 short, the marking immediately upon confiscation or recovery of the dangerous drugs or related items is indispensable in the preservation of their integrity and evidentiary value. 31

Here, SPO4 Araojo admitted that he did not immediately mark the illegal drugs upon seizure from appellant. The marking was made at the barangay hall, and not in the crime scene. When asked why the marking was not immediately made, SPO4 Araojo answered that it was due to fear of being mugged by appellant's relatives in the area, thus:

Q: Mr. Witness, you stated that it was you who recovered the plastic sachets from the accused, Henry Monte?

A: Yes, ma'am.

Q: And you said that the plastic sachets were marked by yourself at the barangay hall?

A: Yes, ma'am.

Q: Why did you not mark them at the area of operation, sir?

A: Because we immediately brought the suspect and the pieces of evidence to the barangay hall, ma'am.

Q: The question, sir, is why did you not mark the plastic sachets in the area of operation?

A: Because there were a lot of relatives of the accused in the area and they might mug us, ma'am.

Q: And from the area where you recovered the evidence, how far is the barangay hall where you marked the same?

A: It was near the area, ma'am.

Q: So, how did you proceed to the barangay hall, what mode of transportation did you use?

A: We just walked, ma'am.

Q: So, who was in possession of the plastic sachets recovered from the accused from the area where you recovered them up to the time that you reached the barangay hall?

A: I myself, ma'am.

Q: And during the markings of the plastic sachets, where was the accused at that time?

A: He was inside the office in front of the barangay official.

Q: Was he present during the markings of the plastic sachets, sir?

A: Yes, ma'am. 32 (Emphasis Ours)

SPO4 Araojo's explanation does not impress this Court. Fear of being mugged or that a commotion might occur during a police operation does not justify a deviations from procedures in the chain of custody. Non-observance of the procedures is only justified in case of an impending or actual threat on the life and limb of the apprehending officers, which is not present in the instant case. In fact, SPO4 Aragjo never mentioned during his testimony that their safety was threatened by an immediate retaliatory action from the appellant or his relatives. 33

Moreover, the Court notes that the place of seizure was just a short distance away from the barangay hall. SPO4 Araojo recalled that the police team, together with appellant and the other arrested personalities, proceeded to the barangay hall on foot. Hence, the failure to immediately mark the seized drugs solely out of fear that the spectators might create disorder was nothing but a flimsy excuse.

We stress that transporting the unmarked seized drugs rendered the same susceptible to tampering or switching. 34 The police officers' non-compliance with the requirements thus raises doubts on the corpus delicti. There is therefore a distinct possibility that the items submitted for laboratory examination and presented in court were not those actually seized from the appellant. 35 It also negates the presumption that they have regularly performed their official duties. 36

Worse, SPO4 Araojo failed to narrate in detail how he handled the illegal drugs. He only made a sweeping general statement that he was in possession of the said items from the time they were confiscated from appellant until they reached the barangay hall. Notably, SPO4 Araojo did not explain where he placed the illegal drugs and the manner he handled the same while walking towards the barangay hall. Surely, even an ordinary person would wonder what happened to the seized drugs during that brief but crucial period. The unexplained irregular manner in the handling of the said unlawful items from the time they were confiscated from appellant until they were marked by SPO4 Araojo is therefore a significant gap in the chain of custody relative to said drugs. 37

Second. The physical inventory and taking of photographs of the seized drugs were conducted in the barangay hall. Remarkably, the prosecution failed to elucidate why the procedures were not conducted at the nearest police station or at their office. No statement was likewise made on how far was the place of arrest or seizure from the said alternative places. To reiterate, the only explanation propounded by the prosecution was that the relatives of appellant might mug or attack them, which is clearly speculative. Besides, the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 clearly states that physical inventory and photographing of the seized drugs can be alternatively made in the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable. 38 Obviously, a barangay hall is not one of them. 39

Third. Neither a representative of the National Prosecution Service (NPS) nor of the media was present during the conduct of inventory and taking of photograph of the seized illegal drugs.

It is settled that the apprehending team must immediately conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, and the following required witnesses: (a) if prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official; or (b) if after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, as in this case, an elected public official, and a representative of the NPS or the media. 40 The presence of these witnesses guarantees compliance with the chain of custody rule and removes any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence. 41

Here, the records show that the physical inventory and the taking of photograph of the confiscated drugs were made only in the presence of an elected official, i.e., the barangay captain. Notably, other than the barangay captain, only the signature of the barangay executive appeared in the inventory report. Clearly, a barangay executive is not among the required witnesses contemplated by law. He/she is neither an elected official nor a prosecutor or a member of a media.

Worse, SPO4 Araojo admitted that there was no media or NPS representative at the time the inventory was conducted. 42 When asked why their presence was not secured, he simply stated that the presence of the required witnesses is only requested in drug operations, and not in an illegal gambling activity report, like in this case. 43 SPO4 Araojo, however, never testified if the apprehending team made subsequent efforts to obtain the presence of either a media or NPS representative after the illegal drugs were found in the possession of appellant. Neither did the prosecution allege nor prove that any of the following recognized valid explanations existed to justify the absence of the insulating witnesses:

(1) their attendance was impossible because the place of arrest was a remote area; (2) their safety during the inventory action of the seized drugs was threatened by an immediate retaliatory action of the accused or any person/s acting for and in his/her behalf; (3) the elected official themselves were involved in the punishable acts sought to be apprehended; (4) earnest effort to secure the presence of a DOJ or media representative and an elected public official within the period required under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code prove futile through no fault of the arresting officers, who face the threat of being charged with arbitrary detention; or (5) time constraints and urgency of the anti-drug operations, which often rely on tips of confidential assets, prevented the law enforcers from obtaining the presence of the required witnesses even before the offenders could escape. 44

Indeed, the absence of the required witnesses does not per se render the seized items inadmissible. 45 Still, however, the prosecution must sufficiently show that the apprehending officers made earnest efforts in contacting the required insulating witnesses to faithfully comply with the law. As aptly held in People v. Ramos:

It is well to note that the absence of these required witnesses does not per se render the confiscated items inadmissible. However, a justifiable reason for such failure or a showing of any genuine and sufficient effort to secure the required witnesses under Section 21 of RA 9165 must be adduced. In People v. Umipang, the Court held that the prosecution must show that earnest efforts were employed in contacting the representatives enumerated under tic law for "a sheer statement that representatives were unavailable without so much as an explanation on whether serious attempts were employed to look for other representatives, given the circumstances is to be regarded as a flimsy excuse." Verily, mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses are unacceptable as justified grounds for non-compliance. There considerations arise from the fact that police officers are ordinarily given sufficient time — beginning front the moment they have received the information about the activities of the accused until the time of his arrest — to prepare for a buy-bust operation and consequently, make the necessary arrangements beforehand knowing full well that they would have to strictly comply with the set procedure prescribed in Section 21 of RA 9165. As such, police officers are compelled not only to state reasons for their noncompliance, but must in fact, also convince the Court that they exerted earnest efforts to comply with the mandated procedure, and that under the given circumstances, their actions were reasonable. 46 (Citation Omitted)

Fourth link was likewise not observed.

There is no proof as to how the seized illegal drugs were handled, stored, and preserved after they were submitted to the forensic chemist for examination.

Both parties in this case agreed to dispense with the testimony of PCI Bacani, the forensic chemist. In People v. Cabuhay, 47 the Court laid down the statements to be included in the parties' stipulations in case the testimony of the forensic chemist has been dispensed with:

In People v. Pajarin,48 the Court ruled that in case of a stipulation by the parties to dispense with the attendance and testimony of the forensic chemist, it should be stipulated that the forensic chemist would have testified that he had taken the precautionary steps required to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, thus: (1) that the forensic chemist received the seized article as marked, properly sealed, and intact; (2) that he resealed it after examination of the content; and (3) that he placed his own marking on the same to ensure that it could not be tampered with pending trial. 49 (Emphasis supplied)

In the similar case of People v. Pasiona50(Pasiona), the Court acquitted the accused due to the absence of the second and third required stipulations, among others. In Pasiona, the parties therein dispensed with the testimony of the forensic chemist and only admitted the following: (a) the forensic chemist was an expert witness; (b) she received four transparent sachets containing suspected shabu from the police officer who confiscated the same, and requested the examination thereof; (c) the specimen yielded a positive result for methamphetamine hydrochloride upon examination, and thereafter indicated these findings in the Physical Science Report No. MCSO-D-009-17 dated May 15, 2017; and (d) she would be able to identify the specimen and that the same ones were submitted and identified in court. 51

A perusal of the RTC Order 52 dated February 26, 2015 showed that the second and third required stipulations were lacking, to wit:

a. PCI Anamelisa S. Bacani is a qualified forensic chemist at the QCPD Crime Laboratory Office, PS-10, Edsa/Kamuning, Quezon City;

b. PCI Anamelisa S. [Bacani] personally received a Request for Laboratory Examination;

c. PCI Anamelisa S. Bacani can identify the Request for Laboratory Examination;

d. PCI Anamelisa S. Bacani received the drug evidence on August 4, 2014 of 4:10 in the afternoon;

e. PCI Anamelisa S. Bacani, upon receiving the drug evidence conducted a qualitative examination and found that the specimens are positive for the presence of Methamphetamine hydrochloride; and

f. PCI Anamelisa S. Bacani can identify the Final Chemistry Report No. D-389-14, indicating her findings. 53

PCI Bacani personally received the Request for Examination and the seized drugs. She likewise conducted the examination on the said drugs, which yielded a positive result. She also prepared the chemistry report thereon. Remarkably, no stipulation was made on the condition of the seized drugs when PCI Bacani received them, i.e., if they were sealed, properly marked and intact. The seized drugs were also not marked by PCI Bacani after the conduct of examination so as to ensure that they were the very same drugs submitted to the trial court. Moreover, there is no evidence showing that PCI Bacani, or somebody else, remained in custody of the seized drugs, until the same were presented before the trial court.

The prosecution also did not explain who and how the seized drugs were brought to the court from the forensic chemist or evidence custodian. Absent any stipulation thereon, what ensues is a serious breach in the fourth link of the chain of custody. 54

Conclusion:

Verily, the prosecution failed to sufficiently establish that the chain of custody remained unbroken. The multiple and serious breaches committed by the apprehending officers, without a doubt, failed to prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated illegal drugs were duly preserved. It is only therefore proper to acquit appellant.

On a final score, the Court stresses that police officers have the bounden obligation to strictly observe the procedures set forth in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, as amended, in apprehending individuals who are suspected to have violated our law on drugs. Non-compliance therewith must only be made under justifiable circumstances. While the Court supports the government's program of eradication of drug-related crimes, we also expect and demand from our law enforcement officers strict compliance with and observance of the law. Unlawful actions in the performance of one's duty will never justify the result no matter how noble the intention may be.

Additionally, the prosecutors are strongly reminded of their positive duty to prove that the rules on chain of custody have been duly complied. In case of deviation therefrom, they must offer sufficient explanation for the same. The trial court must also be circumspect and thorough in examining the evidence presented by the prosecution to ensure that the high and exacting standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt has been met. 55 After all, the administration of justice in the prosecution of criminal cases can only be dispensed with if the innocent remains free and the truly guilty suffers behind the iron bars. As the Court held in People v. Manansala: 56

In this light, prosecutors are strongly reminded that they have the positive duty to prove compliance with the procedure set forth in Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended. As such, they must have the initiative to not only acknowledge but also justify any perceived deviations from the said procedure during the proceedings before the trial court. Since compliance with this procedure is determinative of the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti and ultimately, the fate of the liberty of the accused, the fact that any issue regarding the same was not raised, or even threshed out in the court/s below, would not preclude the appellate court, including this Court, from fully examining the records of the case if only to ascertain whether the procedure had been completely complied with, and if not, whether justifiable reasons exist to excuse any deviation. If no such reasons exist, then it is the appellate court's bounden duty to acquit the accused, and perforce, overturn a conviction. 57

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The August 30, 2018 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09004 is REVERSEDand SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Henry Monte y Dimaiwat is ACQUITTED of the charge of violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 on reasonable doubt.

The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City is ORDERED to cause the immediate release of Henry Monte y Dimaiwat, unless he is being held in custody for any other lawful reason, and to REPORT to this Court the action he/she has taken within five days from receipt of this Resolution.

Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.

SO ORDERED." (Inting and Dimaampao, JJ., no part due to prior action in the Court of Appeals; Carandang and Lazaro-Javier, JJ., designated additional Members per Raffle dated October 6, 2021).

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 2-17. Penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (now a Member of this Court), and concurred in by Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao (now a Member of the Court) and Manuel M. Barrios.

2. CA rollo, pp. 46-50. Penned by Presiding Judge Nadine Jessica Corazon J. Fama.

3. Records, pp. 1-2.

4.Id. at 1.

5.Id. at 42.

6.Id. at 14.

7.Id. at 26.

8.Id. at 25.

9.Id. at 23-24.

10.Id. at 12.

11.Id. at 13.

12.Id. at 16.

13.Id. at 15.

14. CA rollo, pp. 46-50.

15Id. at 50.

16.Rollo, pp. 2-17.

17.Id. at 16-17.

18.Id. at 21.

19.People v. Prudencio, 800 Phil. 128, 135-136, (2016).

20.People v. Flores, G.R. No. 241261, July 29, 2019.

21. See People v. Barte, 806 Phil. 533, 544 (2017).

22. See People v. Gayoso, 808 Phil. 19, 30 (2017).

23.Id.; Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1-02 (Guidelines on the Custody and Disposition of Seized Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursor and Essential Chemicals, and Laboratory Equipment, Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1-02, [October 18, 2002]).

24. 605 Phil. 646 (2009); See also People v. Havana, 776 Phil. 462, 471-472 (2016).

25.Id. at 655-656.

26.Musa v. People, G.R. No. 242132, September 25, 2019, citing People v. Nandi, 639 Phil. 134, 144-145 (2010).

27. Entitled "AN ACT TO FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE ANTI-DRUG CAMPAIGN OF THE GOVERNMENT, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE SECTION 21 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE 'COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002,'" approved on July 15, 2014. See Office of the Court Administrator Circular No. 77-2015 dated April 23, 2015, which pertinently provides:

TO: ALL REGIONAL TRIAL COURT JUDGES

SUBJECT: APPLICATION OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10640

The attention of this Court has been called to the significance of the so-called 'Sotto Amendment to the Anti-Drug Law,' or otherwise known as Republic Act No. 10640 (An Act to Further Strengthen the Anti-Drug Campaign of the Government, Amending for the Purpose Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, Otherwise Known as the 'Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002') which took effect on July 23, 2014.

In view of the foregoing, all concerned are hereby REMINDED to COMPLY with the above-quoted law, appended herein as 'Annex A,' for the purpose of ensuring that all those involved in the proper apprehension of the drug violators will avail of the full benefits of the law. (Emphasis supplied)

Note, however, that under Section 5 of RA 10640, the "Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its complete publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation." RA 10640 was published on July 23, 2014 in The Philippine Star (Vol. XXVIII, No. 359, Philippine Star Metro section, p. 21) and Manila Bulletin (Vol. 499, No. 23; World News section, p. 6) — both considered as newspapers of general circulation. Thus, following Section 5 thereof, RA 10640 appears to have become effective on August 7, 2014 or fifteen days after its publication in the Philippine Star and Manila Bulletin.

Additionally, RA 10640 was filed with the Office of the National Administration at the University of the Philippines Law Center also on July 23, 2014. It was also published in the Official Gazette, Vol. 110, dated September 1, 2014.

28.People v. Hementiza, 807 Phil. 1017, 1030 (2017).

29.Id.

30.People v. Gonzales, 708 Phil. 121 (2013).

31.Id. at 130-131.

32. TSN, February 4, 2016, p. 3.

33. See People v. Vertudes, G.R. No. 220725, October 16, 2019.

34. See People v. Bumanglag, G.R. No. 228884, August 19, 2019.

35. See People v. Orteza, 555 Phil. 701, 708 (2007).

36.Id.

37. See People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 33 (2017).

38. Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165, IRR of RA 9165, [August 30, 2002].

39. See People v. De Leon, G.R. No. 214472, November 28, 2018.

40.Supra note 26.

41.Id.

42. TSN dated February 4, 2016, p. 10.

43.Id. at 12.

44.People v. Lim, G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018, citing People v. Sipin, 833 Phil. 67, 93 (2018).

45.Id., citing People vs. Ramos, 826 Phil. 981, 996 (2018).

46.Id.

47.People v. Cabuhay, 836 Phil. 903 (2018).

48. 654 Phil. 461, 466 (2011).

49.Supra note 48 at 918.

50. G.R. No. 247820 (Notice), October 14, 2020.

51.Id.

52. Records, pp. 62-64.

53.Id. at 62.

54. See People v. Kasan, G.R. No. 238334, July 3, 2019.

55.People v. Mirondo, 771 Phil. 345, 364 (2015).

56. 826 Phil. 578 (2018).

57.Id. at 592.