FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 242814. October 13, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MUHAYMIN MUKHTAR y MUHAMMAD @ MEIN, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated October 13, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 242814 (People of the Philippines v. Muhaymin Mukhtar y Muhammad @ Mein). — This is an appeal, filed by accused-appellant Muhaymin Mukhtar y Muhammad alias "Mein" (accused-appellant) seeking the reversal of the Decision 1 dated May 17, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed the Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 103 of Quezon City, dated February 20, 2017, convicting accused-appellant for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00. HTcADC
The prosecution presented as evidence the testimonies of Police Officer 2 Benjamin Nepuscua, Jr. (PO2 Nepuscua), Police Officer 2 Eladio Pamittan (PO2 Pamittan), Police Officer Warlitto Cagurungan (PO Cagurungan), Police Senior Inspector Rendielyn Sahagun (PSISahagun), and Police Officer 1 Junia Tuccad (PO1 Tuccad). 3
Hence, this appeal.
The CA forwarded the records of the case to this Court on August 3, 2018. 4 The defense filed a Manifestation in Lieu of a Supplemental Brief 5 on August 7, 2019.
After evaluating the records of the case, this Court resolves to grant the instant appeal.
R.A. No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 prohibits the sale of dangerous drugs and provides the penalties for violations thereof:
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.
Jurisprudence provides that in all prosecutions for violation of R.A. No. 9165, the following elements must be proven beyond reasonable doubt: (1) proof that the transaction took place; and (2) presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence. 6 The existence of dangerous drugs is a condition sine quanon for conviction for the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs, it being the very corpus delicti of the crimes. 7
Through the proper exhibit handling, storage, labeling and recording, the identity of the seized drugs is insulated from doubt from their confiscation up to their presentation in court. 8 Following the provisions on the custody of dangerous drugs under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 9 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR), the Dangerous Drugs Board provided a detailed definition for the chain of custody involving drugs and other substances in Section 1 (b) of DDB Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002: 10
b. "Chain of Custody" means 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. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition[.]
The Court has previously explained that the chain of custody is divided into four (4) links, thus:
[F]irst, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court. 11
Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link. The marking of evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of the criminal proceedings, thus preventing switching, "planting," or contamination of evidence. 12
Together with the required step of marking, Section 21 of the R.A. No. 9165 points out the conditions for the conduct of the physical inventory and taking of photograph of the seized items, such that:
1. It must be done immediately after seizure or confiscation;
2. It must be done in the presence of the following personalities: a) the accused or his representative or counsel; b) representative from the media; c) representative from the DOJ; and d) any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof; and aScITE
3. It shall be conducted at the following places: a) place where the search warrant is served; or b) at the nearest police station or nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizure. 13
An important condition for the conduct of the inventory and photograph of seized drugs under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 refers to the Three Witness Rule. Under this provision, the following three witnesses are required to be present during the physical inventory and photographing of the seized items: a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official. 14
In this case, the police officers were only able to secure a representative from the media as their witness to the inventory and photograph of the seized drugs. As the records bear, the Receipt and Inventory of Property Seized 15 dated July 5, 2011 contains only one signature, that of a certain Rey Argana from Police Files Tonite. Even then, the prosecution admits that the witness did not have any ID or proof that he was indeed a member of the media. PO2 Nepuscua testified that he personally knew Mr. Argana to be a member of the media. 16
In the prosecution's attempt to justify their failure to secure the required witnesses, they state that the investigating officer exerted effort to contact the DOJ and the barangay official for a representative, but no one arrived. 17
Verily, non-compliance with the requirements of Section 21 affect the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti, an essential element of the offenses of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. There, thus arises doubts as to whether the items presented in court were indeed items recovered from accused-appellant.
The prosecution cannot solely rely on the saving mechanism provided in Section 21 of the IRR 18 to exempt them from compliance with its requirements. The Court still takes into consideration the sufficiency of effort exerted by the law enforcers to secure the required witnesses. 19 In People v. Umipang, 20 the Court held that the prosecution must show that earnest efforts were employed in contacting the representatives enumerated under the 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." In that case, the Court further explained that the police officers are ordinarily given sufficient time to contact the witnesses from the moment they have received the information about the activities of the accused until the time of his arrest. 21 As such, they compelled not only to state their reasons for non-compliance, 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. 22
In this case, the police officers cannot be said to have exerted sufficient efforts in securing the required witnesses. The testimony of PO2 Nepuscua reveals that they only contacted the representatives during the time they conducted the inventory:
Cross Examination of PO2 Benjamin Nepuscua
Q: But at this point Mr. Witness you have no proof that said person in the Inventory Receipt (w)as (a) member of the media?
A: No proof but I know personally the person who signed as media representative because I knew him for several years.
Q: But you admit that you did not attach any photocopy of his ID on the record of this case?
A: I did not prepare the documents, ma'am. 23
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Even if you said Mr. Witness that you know the media representative, you admit that you did not attach any photocopy of that media representative?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: And aside from that witness that you have mentioned there were no representatives from the DOJ or any barangay official, correct?
xxx xxx xxx
Court: So there was no DOJ representative or any elected barangay official?
A: Yes, your Honor.
Court: Did you not exert to contact them?
A: The investigator tried to call them through telephone.
Court: But what happened?
A: Nobody arrived, your honor.
Court: But in tise [sic] media representative who contacted him?
A: The investigator. 24
It is evident that the police officers in this case did not undergo the necessary preparations to meet the requirements for the proper conduct of the inventory and photograph of seized illegal drugs. It bears emphasizing that the saving mechanism in the IRR of R.A. No. 9165, which excuses non-compliance with its requirements, only applies as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer or team. HEITAD
Such is not the case here, where the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items is rendered uncertain because of the unjustified absence of the required witnesses.
The CA, in dismissing the defense of denial by the accused-appellant, stated that:
At this juncture, it must be pointed out that aside from his bare allegation that there were unexplained gaps in the chain of custody of the seized item, accused-appellant failed to show and prove that the seized item was handled by unauthorized persons or that the same was tampered with. The Supreme Court has ruled that the integrity of the evidence is presumed to have been preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered with. Accused-appellant bears the burden of showing that the evidence was tampered or meddled with in order to overcome the presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers and the presumption that public officers properly discharged their duties. 25
Indeed, denial and alibi may be weak but courts should not at once look at them with disfavor. There are situations where an accused may really have no other defenses but denial and alibi which, if established to be the truth, may tilt the scales of justice in his favor, especially when the prosecution evidence itself is weak. 26
Time and again, the Court has stated that for cases involving the sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must establish with unwavering exactitude that the dangerous drug presented in court as evidence against the accused is the same as that seized from him in the first place. 27 Considering that a buy-bust operation is usually done covertly and in secrecy such that the only ones present during the transaction itself are the poseur-buyer and seller, the procedural safeguards in R.A. No. 9165 become essential to establish the identity of the illegal drug with moral certainty. 28
This is all the more true in this case where the involved drugs is of miniscule volume. As stated by the Court in the case of People v.Holgado:
While the miniscule amount of narcotics seized is by itself not a ground for acquittal, this circumstance underscores the need for more exacting compliance with Section 21. In Mallillin v. People, this court said that "the likelihood of tampering, loss or mistake with respect to an exhibit is greatest when the exhibit is small and is one that has physical characteristics fungible in nature and similar in form to substances familiar to people in their daily lives." 29
In the case of Lescano v. People, 30 the Court held that "[t]he miniscule amount of narcotics supposedly seized amplifies the doubts on their integrity." What was involved in said case was a single sachet of 1.4 grams of plant material alleged to have been marijuana. In the same case, the Court cited People v. Dela Cruz31 where it deemed that the seizure of seven sachets supposedly containing 0.1405 gram of shabu (a quantity which, We emphasized, was "so miniscule it amount[ed] to little more than 7% of the weight of a five-centavo coin or a one-centavo coin") lent itself to dubiety. 32
We note that the volume of drugs supposedly involved in this case is far less, being one sachet of 0.11 gram of shabu. As jurisprudence has established, Courts must employ heightened scrutiny, consistent with the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt, in evaluating cases involving miniscule amounts of drugs as these can be readily planted and tampered. 33
Finally, We emphasize that contrary to the CA's discussion in its Decision, Courts are not precluded from tackling objections to evidence even if they are raised for the first time on appeal. Case law is replete with guidance that an appeal in criminal cases opens the entire case for review, and thus, it is the duty of the reviewing tribunal to correct, cite, and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned. 34 It is for these reasons that We considered the issues raised on the integrity and evidentiary nature of the seized illegal drugs and find the appeal meritorious.
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated May 17, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09118 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Muhaymin Mukhtar y Muhammad @ Mein is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged on the ground of reasonable doubt.
The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, is hereby ORDERED to IMMEDIATELY RELEASE accused-appellant Muhaymin Mukhtar y Muhammad @ Mein from custody, unless he is being detained for some other lawful cause. He is also ORDERED to REPORT to this Court the action taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution. Let an entry of Judgment be issued.
SO ORDERED." Lopez, M.J.,on official leave.
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
by:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate-Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo with Associate Justices Danton Q. Bueser and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (now a member of the Court), concurring; Rollo, pp. 2-18.
2. Penned by Presiding Judge Felino Z. Elefante; CA Rollo, pp. 50-60.
3.Id. at 3.
4.Id. at 22.
5.Id. at 29-30.
6.People v. Magat, 588 Phil. 395, 402 (2008).
7.Id.
8.Id. at 406.
9. 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;
(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 under oath by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued within twenty-four (24) hours after the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of the 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 on the completed forensic laboratory examination on the same within the next twenty-four (24) hours[.]
10. Dated October 18, 2002.
11.People v. Villalon, Jr. y Pabuaya, G.R. No. 249412 (2021), citing Dela Riva v. People, 769 Phil. 872, 886-887 (2015).
12.People v. Dahil, et al., 750 Phil. 212, 232 (2015).
13.People v. Tomas, G.R. No. 241631, March 11, 2019.
14. See People v. Maganon, G.R. No. 234040, June 26, 2019.
15. Records, p. 14.
16. TSN, October 23, 2014, p. 59.
17. TSN, October 23, 2014, p. 66.
18. (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;
19. See People v. Ramos, 826 Phil. 981, 996 (2018).
20. 686 Phil. 1024 (2012).
21.Id. at 1052.
22.Supra note 40 at 996-997.
23. TSN, October 23, 2014, p. 57.
24.Id. at 60.
25.Rollo, p. 16.
26.People v. Ladrillo, 377 Phil. 904-917 (1999).
27.People v. Yepes, 784 Phil. 113, 127 (2016).
28. See People v. Cabrellos, G.R. No. 229826, June 30, 2018.
29.People v. Holgado, et al., 741 Phil. 78, 99 (2014). Emphasis supplied.
30. 778 Phil. 460 (2016).
31. 744 Phil. 816 (2014).
32.Supra note 30 at 478.
33.Supra note 50 at 100.
34.People v. Villalon, G.R. No. 249412 (2021).