SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 252023. June 16, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. RODEL MORTEL y DIMAILIG, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 16 June 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 252023 (People of the Philippines v. Rodel Mortel y Dimailig). — The conviction of Rodel Mortel y Dimailig (accused-appellant) for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, is the subject of review in this appeal assailing the Decision 1 dated June 25, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10998, which affirmed the Consolidated Judgment 2 dated January 29, 2018 of the Regional Trial Court of Lemery, Batangas, Branch 5, in Criminal Case Nos. 198-2017 and 199-2017, respectively.
We acquit.
A successful prosecution for the sale and possession of illegal drugs requires more than the perfunctory presentation of evidence establishing each element of the crimes. It is imperative to prove with moral certainty that the intrinsic worth of the pieces of evidence, especially the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti, has been preserved. Evidence must show beyond reasonable doubt that the illegal drug presented in court is the same illegal drug actually seized from the accused. The rationale behind this stringent requirement is the unique characteristic of the illegal drug that renders it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and usually open to tampering, alteration, or substitution either by accident or by deliberate act, especially when seized in small quantity. 3
In this regard, the law provides procedural safeguards to remove any doubt on the identity and integrity of the seized drug. The procedure is known as the chain of custody rule. Chain of custody is "the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drug 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 and their presentation in court for identification and destruction. x x x." 4
Section 21, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," outlines the post-seizure procedure for the custody and disposition of the seized drugs. Notably, the alleged crimes were committed on September 8, 2017, or after the enactment of the amendatory law. Hence, RA No. 10640 5 shall apply, 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 x x x 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, x x x 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 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, 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.
xxx xxx xxx
This is implemented by Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA No. 9165 which states:
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 x x x so confiscated and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(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 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 item[.]
Accordingly, the prosecution must satisfactorily establish the movement and custody of the seized drugs through the following links: first, the confiscation and marking of the specimen seized from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the seized item by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the investigating officer's turnover of the specimen to the forensic chemist for examination; and fourth, the submission of the item by the forensic chemist to the court. 6 Here, records reveal several gaps in the chain of custody.
Evident from the records is the variance in the markings of the drugs. In open court, Senior Police Officer 1 Joel Capuno Baticos (SPO1 Baticos) testified that he marked the sachet he bought from accused-appellant with RMD-B, and the two sachets he recovered with RMD-P1 and RMD-P2. 7 The marking "RMD" represented the initials of accused-appellant while "B" represented the sachet subject of the buy-bust operation, and "P" represented the sachets in the possession of the accused. 8 In contrast, Senior Police Officer 1 Mark Gil Ortiz (SPO1 Ortiz) stipulated "[t]hat the pieces of drug-related evidence, particularly those with markings RMB-B, RMD-P1 and RMD-P2 were turned over to him by SPO1 Joel Baticos at Barangay Maligaya, Lemery, Batangas for investigation and documentation[.]" 9 Likewise, Forensic Chemist Police Senior Inspector Camille Bandelaria Ocfemia (PSI Ocfemia) "received and examined the specimen with markings RMB-B, RMD-P1 and RMD-P2 x x x[.]" 10 The discrepancy between the marking placed by SPO1 Baticos, and the marking on the sachets turned over to SPO1 Ortiz, and subsequently were examined by PSI Ocfemia bears doubt that the specimen submitted to the trial court are one and the same. Being the starting point in the custodial link, marking is essential because succeeding handlers of the drugs would use the marking as their reference to the seizure, and further serves to segregate the marked drugs from all other evidence from the time and point of seizure until the drugs are disposed of at the end of the criminal proceedings. 11 Given its significance, any variance in the markings of the seized drugs cannot simply be ignored and must be reasonably explained.
In People v. Ameril, 12 the Court held that the unexplained discrepancy in the markings of the seized drugs raises doubts on whether the items presented in court were the exact same items that were taken from the accused when he was arrested. As in this case, we find no justifiable explanation for this irregularity. The prosecution did not clarify, much less recognize, the discrepancy in the markings of the drugs. Serious doubts, therefore, exist that the drugs confiscated from the accused were the same specimens submitted to, and examined by the forensic chemist.
The fourth link in the chain is also tainted with infirmity. The turnover of the drugs from the receiving personnel in the crime laboratory to the forensic chemist, as well as the submission of the drugs from the forensic chemist to the court, lack material details. SPO1 Ortiz delivered the seized drugs to the Batangas Provincial Crime Laboratory and were personally received by Police Officer 3 Arijie Manjares (PO3 Manjares). 13 However, the prosecution did not explain how the drugs passed from the custody of the receiving personnel PO3 Manjares to forensic chemist PSI Ocfemia for qualitative examination. Moreover, no evidence was presented to show how PO3 Manjares handled and preserved the specimens while in his custody to prevent switching or contamination.
In addition, the records do not reflect the manner of handling the specimens after the forensic chemist completed her examination, and before the drugs were presented in court. We have ruled in People v. Ubungen, 14 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 took precautionary steps 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 contents; and (3) that he placed his own marking on the same to ensure that it could not be tampered pending trial. Here, while there was stipulation of facts on the testimony of PSI Ocfemia, it is silent on this particular link, to wit:
1. That PSI Camille Bandelaria Ocfemia is a Forensic Chemist assigned at the Batangas Provincial Crime Laboratory Office on September 9, 2017;
2. That the Lemery Municipal Police Station through SPO1 Ortiz submitted the request for laboratory examination as well as the specimen with markings RMB-B, RMD-P1 and RMD-P2 on September 8, 2017;
3. That PSI Camille Bandelaria Ocfemia received and examined the specimen with markings RMB-B, RMD-P1 and RMD-P2 and after qualitative examination, she found the same positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride;
4. That PSI Camille Bandelaria Ocfemia reduced into writing her examination with respect to the specimen with markings RMB-B, RMD-P1 and RMD-P2 as evidenced by Chemistry Report No. BD-1115-2017 marked as Exhibit "K" for the prosecution;
5. The genuineness and due execution of Chemistry Report No. BD-1115-2017;
6. That the Forensic Chemist can identify Chemistry Report No. BD-1115-2017 as well as the specimen with markings RMB-B, RMD-P1 and RMD-P2[;]
7. That the Forensic Chemist has no personal knowledge as to the origin or source of the specimen submitted by the police officer. 15
Verily, the dearth of evidence on the management, storage, and preservation of the drugs after qualitative examination is another fatal defect in an already broken chain of custody.
In sum, the prosecution did not disclose the identities of (a) the person who turned over the drugs to PSI Ocfemia for qualitative examination, (b) the person who had custody of the specimens after they were examined by PSI Ocfemia, (c) the person who received the drugs for safekeeping pending its presentation in court, and (d) the person who submitted the drugs to the trial court. The prosecution failed to establish the continuous custody of the dangerous drugs from the time they were confiscated until they were offered in evidence.
It must be stressed that while the law enforcers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties, this presumption cannot prevail over the constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent, and it cannot by itself constitute proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of regularity is disputable and cannot be regarded as binding truth. 16 Indeed, when the performance of duty is tainted with irregularities, such presumption is effectively destroyed. 17
We reiterate that the provisions of Section 21, Article II of RA No. 9165, as amended, embody the constitutional aim to prevent the imprisonment of an innocent man. The Court cannot tolerate the lax approach of law enforcers in handling the very corpus delicti of the crimes. Hence, Rodel Mortel y Dimailig must be acquitted of the charges against him given the prosecution's failure to prove an unbroken chain of custody.
FOR THESE REASONS, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated June 25, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10998 which affirmed the findings of the Regional Trial Court of Lemery, Batangas, Branch 5, in Criminal Case Nos. 198-2017 and 199-2017 for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, respectively, defined and penalized under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Rodel Mortel y Dimailig is ACQUITTED and is hereby ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless he is being lawfully held for another cause.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City for immediate implementation. The Director is directed to report to this Court the action taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED." (Lopez, J. Y., J., designated additional member per Special Order No. 2822 dated April 7, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-25. Penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan-Castillo, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Danton Q. Bueser and Rafael Antonio M. Santos. The dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED the Consolidated Judgment dated January 29, 2018 rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 5, Lemery, Batangas finding accused Rodel Mortel y Dimailig guilty of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. (Id. at 24.)
2. CA rollo, pp. 57-67. Penned by Executive Judge Hon. Mary Jane B. Valeza-Maranan.
3.People v. Nuarin, 764 Phil. 550, 557 (2015).
4. Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, Section 1 [b]; People v. Omamos, G.R. No. 223036, July 10, 2019.
5. Entitled "AN ACT TO FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE ANTI-DRUG CAMPAIGN OF THE GOVERNMENT, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE SECTION 21 OF [RA] NO. 9165, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE 'COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002,'" approved on July 15, 2014, states that it shall "take effect fifteen (15) days after its complete publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation." Verily, a copy of the law was published on July 23, 2014 in the respective issues of The Philippine Star (Vol. XXVIII, No. 359, The Philippine Star Metro Section, p. 21) and the Manila Bulletin (Vol. 499, No. 23, World News Section, p. 6). Hence, RA No. 10640 became effective on August 7, 2014.
6.People v. Bugtong, 806 Phil. 628, 638-639 (2018).
7.Rollo, p. 6.
8.Id.
9.Id. at 7.
10.Id. at 8.
11. See People v. Yagao, G.R. No. 216725, February 18, 2019, citing People v. Mendoza, 736 Phil. 749, 761 (2015).
12. See G.R. No. 222192, March 13, 2019, citing People v. Garcia, 599 Phil. 416 (2009).
13.Rollo, p. 8.
14. 836 Phil. 888 (2018), citing People v. Pajarin, 654 Phil. 461 (2011).
15.Rollo, pp. 8-9.
16.Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 593 (2008); People v. Cañete, 433 Phil. 781, 794 (2002).
17.People v. Dela Cruz, 589 Phil. 259, 272 (2008).