SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 240220. October 13, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs.JESSIE BONGHANOY y NABLE and MARCELLA NABLE y BACOY, accused;
MARCELLA NABLE y BACOY, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 13 October 2021 which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 240220 (People of the Philippines v. Jessie Bonghanoy y Nable and Marcella Nable y Bacoy, accused; Marcella Nable y Bacoy, accused-appellant). — This is an Appeal 1 from the Decision 2 dated August 24, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB-CR-HC No. 01815 which affirmed the Decision 3 dated December 11, 2013 of Branch 13, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Cebu City. The RTC found both Jessie Bonghanoy y Nable (Bonghanoy) and Marcella Nable y Bacoy (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002." 4
The Antecedents
Accused-appellant and Bonghanoy were charged under the following Information with violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165:
That on or about the 29th day of August, 2011, at about 5:00 P.M., more or less, in the City of Cebu, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, conniving and confederating together and mutually helping with each other, with deliberate intent, and without authority of law, did then and there transport from Balamban, Cebu to Cebu City, and attempted to deliver and give away to another person one (1) green plastic bag tied with a yellow elastic band containing 1,028.00 grams of dried marijuana stalks and fruiting tops, a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
When arraigned, accused-appellant and Bonghanoy entered their pleas of not guilty to the offense charged. 6
Trial ensued. 7
Version of the Prosecution
On August 29, 2011, at around 4:00 p.m., the group of Police Officer 2 Rey Dosdos (PO2 Dosdos), PO2 Ruben Quita (PO2 Quita), PO2 Pompee Tañajura, Jr. (PO2 Tañajura), and Police Officer 1 Bomer Garciano (PO1 Garciano) received an information that marijuana dried leaves would be delivered from Balamban, Cebu to Upper Torre, Brgy. Inayawan, Cebu City by two persons, a male and a female, who were later on identified as Bonghanoy and accused-appellant. Acting on the information, the police officers proceeded to Brgy. Inayawan, Cebu City where they met the informant. PO2 Quita, PO2 Tañajura, and the informant waited for Bonghanoy and accused-appellant to arrive at the place. Shortly, accused-appellant and Bonghanoy who was carrying a big pouch, arrived and proceeded to a store. Another male person (buyer) arrived and approached Bonghanoy and accused-appellant. Bonghanoy handed over to the buyer the big pouch. The buyer inspected the contents of it and took out samples. After which, the buyer handed money bills to accused-appellant. The police officers observed and saw that the contents of the pouch appeared to be shreds of suspected dried marijuana leaves. Thus, they got closer to the buyer, accused-appellant, and Bonghanoy. When the buyer noticed the police officers, he immediately shouted, "Police!" and ran. The back-up police officers chased the buyer but failed to arrest him. 8
PO2 Quita and PO2 Tañajura approached accused-appellant and Bonghanoy, introduced themselves as police officers, and arrested them. PO2 Quita recovered from accused-appellant a big plastic pack containing shreds of dried marijuana leaves. 9
The police officers brought accused-appellant and Bonghanoy, together with the confiscated items, to the office of the Investigation and Detection Management Branch (IDMB) in Cebu City. There, they marked the confiscated items with the initials "MNB-JNB" for easy identification. They then brought the seized drugs to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory for examination. The seized drugs tested positive for the presence of marijuana, a dangerous drug. 10
Version of the Defense
Accused-appellant and Bonghanoy denied the charges against them. They averred that they did not know the reason why they were arrested, and that nothing was confiscated from them at the time of the arrest. 11
Bonghanoy testified that no photographs were taken after their arrest and before they were made to board the police vehicle. He averred that there was no immediate photographing of the items allegedly confiscated from them at the scene of confiscation. 12
Bonghanoy further alleged that the police officers brought him and accused-appellant directly to the police headquarters in Gorordo Avenue. Upon arrival, the police officers placed them inside separate detention cells. The police officers conducted an inventory without them and absent a representative from the media, or the Department of Justice (DOJ). Furthermore, there was no photographing of the inventory of the seized items. 13
Ruling of the RTC
On December 11, 2013, the RTC rendered the Decision 14 as follows:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused JESSIE BONGHANOY Y NABLE and MARCELLA NABLE Y BACOY GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt in transporting dried marijuana leaves weighing 1,028 grams, a dangerous drug. The court will, therefore, impose the penalty LIFE IMPRISONMENT to each of them and fine in the amount of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00).
The marijuana mentioned in the information and marked as Exhibit "D" for the prosecution are hereby ordered CONFISCATED AND DESTROYED.
With costs against the accused.
SO ORDERED. 15
The RTC ruled that all the elements of illegal transportation of dangerous drugs were present in the instant case. 16
Accused-appellant interposed an appeal to the CA. Bonghanoy opted not to appeal. 17
Ruling of the CA
On August 24, 2017, the CA agreed with the findings of the RTC and affirmed the conviction of accused-appellant of the violation charged. 18
Hence, the Appeal 19 before the Court.
Issue
Accused-appellant raises the sole issue as follows:
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HER GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. 20
Our Ruling
The Court grants the Appeal.
The elements of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 are: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. 21
For a successful prosecution of cases involving the sale, possession, or transportation of dangerous drugs, it is essential that the identity of the dangerous drug be established with moral certainty considering that the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus delicti of the offense. 22
Thus, 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. 23 As part of the chain of custody procedure, the law requires, inter alia, that the marking, physical inventory, and photography of the seized items be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation of the same. 24
The law further requires that the inventory and photography be done in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: (a) if prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, 25 a representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official; or (b) if after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media. 26
In cases where strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure is not possible, non-compliance with the witness requirement 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. 27
After a review of the records of the case, the Court finds that the prosecution utterly failed to prove the corpus delicti of the offense charged as it failed to demonstrate that the police officers observed the requirements mandated by Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. The violation charged was purportedly committed on August 29, 2011 when RA 9165 was not yet amended by RA 10640. Thus, the three-witness rule applies.
In the case, there was a deviation from the three-witness requirement under RA 9165. It appears that all the required witnesses, i.e., an elected public official and a representative from the media and the DOJ were not present during the inventory of the seized items. The only persons who signed the inventory sheet were PO2 Quita, PO2 Tañajura, and PO1 Garciano. Likewise, neither accused-appellant nor Bonghanoy signed the inventory sheet. 28
The procedure on the custody and handling of the seized dangerous drugs authorizes "substantial compliance," provided that the prosecution satisfactorily proves that: (1) there is justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (2) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. 29
Nothing in the records would show that the police officers or the prosecution provided justifiable reason for failure to observe the witness requirement. The joint affidavit of arrest did not even mention that an inventory was ever conducted. Neither did the prosecution show that the police officers exerted genuine and earnest efforts to secure the presence of the required witnesses to the inventory. This deviation was left unjustified by the prosecution.
Considering that the inventory of the allegedly seized drugs was highly questionable, there is no assurance that the drugs that were tested in the laboratory and presented in court were the same drugs that were allegedly confiscated from accused-appellant and Bonghanoy. Evidently, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items have not been preserved.
The prosecution's sweeping guarantees as to the identity and integrity of the seized dangerous drugs will not secure a conviction. 30 In drug cases, conviction cannot be sustained if there is a persistent doubt on the identity of the drug. The identity of the prohibited drug must be established with moral certainty. Apart from showing that the elements of illegal sale are present, the fact that the substance illegally sold in the first place is the same substance offered in court as an exhibit must likewise be established with the same degree of certitude as that needed to sustain a guilty verdict. 31
The Court holds that the evidence on record and the circumstances obtaining here do not support a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Because the quantum of proof required for the conviction of accused-appellant of the offense charged was not met, her acquittal is in order.
Likewise, Bonghanoy should be acquitted pursuant to Rule 122, Section 11 (a) of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provides:
SECTION 11. Effect of appeal by any of several accused. — (a) An appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter. (Italics supplied.)
In People v. Sison, 32 only one of the four accused interposed an appeal. When therein accused-appellant was acquitted because the corpus delicti was not proven, the Court ruled that the acquittal must benefit the co-accused who did not appeal, viz.:
As a rule, the effects of an appeal can only bind the accused who appealed his or her conviction. However, when an appellate court renders a favorable judgment, the effects of such favorable judgment extends even to those who did not appeal, to the extent that such effects apply to their specific contexts.
Here, accused-appellant's acquittal arising from a lock of proof of corpus delicti favor the other accused, Sison and Bautista, even if they did not appeal before this Court. This Decision applies to them as much as it does to accused-appellant. 33
Applying the above-stated case, the Court also acquits Bonghanoy.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated August 24, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB-CR-HC No. 01815 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Marcella Nable y Bacoy and her co-accused, Jessie Bonghanoy y Nable, are ACQUITTED of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and are ordered RELEASED from confinement unless they are being held for some other legal cause.
The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, and the Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for Women, Mandaluyong City, are respectively ORDERED to: (a) cause the immediate release of Marcella Nable y Bacoy and her co-accused, Jessie Bonghanoy y Nable, unless they are being held in custody for any other lawful reason; and (b) inform the Court of the action taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED." (PERLAS-BERNABE, S.A.J., on official leave; HERNANDO, J., Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2846 dated October 6, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. CA rollo, pp. 149-151.
2.Id. at 137-148; penned by Associate Justice Germano Francisco D. Legaspi with Associate Justices Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig, concurring.
3.Id. at 95-99; penned by Judge Meinrado P. Paredes.
4.Id. at 99.
5.Id. at 138.
6.Id.
7.Id.
8.Id. at 113-114.
9.Id. at 114.
10.Id.
11.Id. at 79, 81.
12.Id. at 80.
13.Id.
14.Id. at 95-99.
15.Id. at 99.
16.Id. at 98.
17.Id. at 142.
18.Id. at 147.
19.Id. at 149-151.
20.Id. at 82.
21.People v. Crispo, 828 Phil. 416, 429 (2018).
22.People v. Santos, G.R. No. 243627, November 27, 2019.
23.People v. Año, 828 Phil. 439, 448 (2018). See also People v. Viterbo, 739 Phil. 593, 601 (2014) and People v. Alagarme, 754 Phil. 449, 459-460 (2015).
24.People v. Gabunada, G.R. No. 242827, September 9, 2019.
25. 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, and which took effect on August 7, 2014.
26.People v. Gabunada, supra.
27.Id.
28. CA rollo, p. 89.
29.People v. Goco, 797 Phil. 433, 443 (2016).
30.People v. Saunar, 816 Phil. 482, 495 (2017), citing People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78 (2014).
31.People v. Lorenzo, 633 Phil. 393, 403 (2010).
32. G.R. No. 238453, July 31, 2019.
33.Id.