SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 243659. November 10, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. CHARLIE OCCIANO y TANAY, 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. 243659 — (People of the Philippines v. Charlie Occiano y Tanay). — Challenged in this appeal 1 is the April 11, 2017 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08050 which affirmed the December 10, 2015 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 60 of Iriga City, in Crim. Case No. IR-9524 finding accused-appellant Charlie Occiano y Tanay (Occiano) guilty of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs in violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
The Antecedent Facts:
Occiano was charged with Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs in violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 in an Information which reads:
That on (the) 27th day of January 2011 at about 8:30 o'clock in the evening at Diversion Road, San Antonio Poblacion, Nabua, Camarines Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without any legal purpose or authority, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell/deliver to a civilian poseur-buyer one heat sealed transparent plastic sachet now with markings "AAP-1" containing methamphetamine hydrochloride known as shabu, a dangerous drug, weighing more or less 0.02 [gram] in exchange [for] One Thousand Pesos consisting of two Five Hundred Peso bills with Serial Numbers JD030006 and GG176211 with markings "A", marked money handed to him by the poseur-buyer and recovered from him after the buy-bust, to the great damage of public interest and of that of the Republic of the Philippines.
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
Occiano pleaded "not guilty" to the offense charged. 5 Trial on the merits thereafter ensued.
Version of Prosecution:
The prosecution presented the following witnesses: (a) Senior Police Officer (SPO) 3 Fidel Agnas (SPO3 Agnas); (b) Victoriano Dinero; and (c) Police Officer (PO) 3 Ariel Parañal (PO3 Parañal). 6
PO3 Parañal received an information that Occiano was selling illegal drugs, which was confirmed upon verification. As a result, Police Inspector (P/Insp.) Noel Abay (P/Insp. Abay), Chief of Police of the Nabua Municipal Police, instructed SPO3 Agnas to prepare the required documents for the entrapment operation against Occiano. The coordination form was sent through facsimile to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). Two P500.00 bills were likewise prepared as marked money, which were authenticated by Prosecutor Sergio Ramos of the Provincial Prosecutor's Office.
The members of the Second Maneuver Platoon in Nierva, Nabua, Camarines Sur and the Provincial Intelligence Operatives from Naga City conducted a brief meeting to discuss the entrapment operation. PO2 Joseph Ramos (PO2 Ramos) of the 2nd Maneuver Platoon was designated to arrest Occiano once the sale transaction is consummated while PO1 Jose Rejuador Cada of the Nabua Philippine National Police (PNP) was assigned to conduct the inventory. A civilian was designated to act as the poseur-buyer.
On the night of January 27, 2011, the buy-bust team proceeded to the house of the poseur-buyer's mother in San Antonio Poblacion where the sale transaction will supposedly take place. PO3 Parañal, PO2 Ramos and PO1 Jammy Colipano positioned themselves five meters away from the house, and waited for the poseur-buyer to give the pre-arranged signal which would indicate that the transaction has already taken place.
At around 8:30 pm., Occiano arrived at the house and met with the poseur-buyer in the balcony. From the vantage point of the buy-bust team, they saw the poseur-buyer handing the marked money to Occiano who, in return, gave something to the former. Afterwards, the poseur-buyer gave the pre-arranged signal and the buy-bust team immediately rushed towards them. PO3 Parañal apprehended Occiano. The poseur-buyer then turned over to PO3 Parañal a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance, which was the subject of the sale.
The buy-bust team immediately brought Occiano to the police station to conduct an inventory since a crowd has gathered in the crime scene. While on board the patrol car, PO3 Parañal saw Occiano throw his wallet outside the window. He then instructed PO2 Ramos to retrieve the wallet.
At the police station, the apprehending officers, for inventory purposes, presented the confiscated items in the presence of Prosecutor Winefredo Pornillos, Jr., Kagawad Victoriano Dinero, and Don-don Onido, a media representative. Among the items confiscated from Occiano were the following: (a) two plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance; (b) firearms, calibers .45 and .38, and one slug; (c) small empty black sachet; (d) black wallet; and (e) a rolled aluminum foil inside a container. PO3 Parañal then marked the confiscated items, including the two plastic sachets which were respectively marked as "AP-1" and "AP-2."
PO3 Parañal then brought the two plastic sachets with markings "AP-1" and "AP-2" to the crime laboratory for examination, which was conducted by forensic chemist PSI Jun F. Malong (PSI Malong). The Chemistry Report No. D-07-2011 7 showed that the plastic sachet containing 0.02 gram that was marked "AP-1" tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. However, the plastic sachet containing 0.01 gram that was marked "AP-2" yielded a negative result. 8
After the prosecution rested its case, Occiano filed a Demurrer to Evidence 9 for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Occiano averred that the apprehending officers did not observe the legal and jurisprudential requirements on the chain of custody under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, and that the prosecution did not identify and offer numerous evidence that were previously marked as exhibits.
In its July 1, 2014 Order, 10 the RTC denied the demurrer and ordered the defense to proceed with its presentation of evidence.
Version of the Defense:
The defense presented the lone testimony of Occiano.
Occiano strongly denied that he was selling shabu as he was gainfully employed. He also claimed that, on the night of the incident, he was at home in Bato, Camarines Sur. While cooking dinner, someone fetched him and invited him for a drink together with two women at San Antonio Poblacion. Upon arrival at a house in San Antonio, which turned out to be owned by a certain P/Insp. Alan Alcomendas, the women poked a gun at him. Two men then went out of a room and ordered him to lie down but he refused.
Thereafter, Occiano was handcuffed and brought to the police station where he saw several items placed on a table. PO3 Parañal then showed to him a P500.00 bill, which he denied to have been retrieved from his possession.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:
In its December 10, 2015 Decision, 11 the RTC convicted Occiano of the crime charged, to wit:
WHEREFORE, finding the accused CHARLIE T. OCCIANO guilty beyond reasonable doubt for having violated Sec. 5, Article II of Republic Act 9165, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of Life Imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00.
Exhibit A is hereby confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government and shall be disposed of in accordance with Sec. 20, Article IV of RA 9165 and the pertinent provision of the Rules of Court.
SO ORDERED. 12
The RTC held that the prosecution sufficiently proved all the elements of the crime charged. Occiano was caught selling shabu valued at P1,000.00 to the civilian poseur-buyer in a legitimate entrapment operation.
The trial court also opined that the buy-bust team duly observed the chain of custody rule, thus preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti. PO3 Parañal positively identified the illegal drug presented in open court and testified that it was the same item sold by Occiano to the poseur-buyer and subsequently brought to the crime laboratory for examination. Hence, the RTC held that the apprehending officers regularly performed their duties during the entrapment operation.
Lastly, the trial court did not give weight to Occiano's defenses of denial and alibi. It reasoned that Occiano failed to prove that it was physically impossible for him to be present at the crime scene on the date of the incident. Also, his denial was self-serving as it lacked any corroborating evidence to support the same.
Aggrieved, Occiano appealed to the CA asserting that the chain of custody was not duly observed thus warranting his acquittal. He averred that PO3 Parañal failed to indicate in his marking the date, time, and place where the alleged illegal drug and other confiscated items were seized. Further, no records were found as to whether the investigator, the forensic chemist, and the evidence custodian made their separate markings on the illegal drugs, as required by law. Occiano also maintained that the non-presentation of the civilian poseur-buyer as a witness failed to duly prove that he indeed sold the seized drugs.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
The CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC. The fallo of its April 11, 2017 Decision 13 reads:
IN LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, the instant appeal is DENIED. Accordingly, the Judgment dated December 10, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 60 of Iriga City in Criminal Case No. IR-9524 for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.14
The CA held that the RTC correctly observed that all the elements of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs were duly proven. The sale of shabu between Occiano and the civilian poseur-buyer was consummated, which then led to the arrest of the former after the latter made the pre-arranged signal. PO3 Parañal positively identified Occiano as the person who sold the seized drug to the poseur-buyer. Clearly, this cannot outweigh the bare denial and alibi proffered by Occiano as defenses.
Moreover, the appellate court ruled that the chain of custody remained unbroken; thus, the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti were duly preserved. It held that the failure of the prosecution to present the poseur-buyer as a witness was not fatal as his testimony was not indispensable or necessary especially since the police operatives witnessed the actual sale of the shabu, which led to Occiano's immediate arrest afterwards.
The CA likewise held that the law enforcers' failure to indicate the time, date and place in the marking and the identification of the seized illegal drug was inconsequential. This is because PO3 Parañal successfully identified the markings he made, explained how they were made and narrated how the seized items, including the confiscated illegal drug, were transferred from one person to another. Also, the failure to mark the seized items at the crime scene was immaterial as it was made in the presence of Occiano in the nearest police station, i.e., the office of the apprehending officers.
Lastly, the appellate court ruled that the purported absence of the signatures of the two witnesses in the Inventory Report was completely justified. Therefore, it will neither invalidate Occiano's arrest nor render the seized items, especially the illegal drug, inadmissible in evidence.
Hence, Occiano appealed to this Court.
Issue
Was the chain of custody remained unbroken?
Our Ruling
There were gaps in the chain of custody. We thus acquit Occiano.
Lack of substantial proof that a
The prosecution must duly prove the following elements of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under RA 9165: (1) that the transaction or sale took place between the accused and the poseur-buyer; and (2) that the dangerous drug subject of the transaction or sale is presented in court as evidence of the corpus delicti.15 The sale transaction must be properly established and that the object thereof be presented in court and identified as the same items seized from the accused. 16
In the case at bench, PO3 Parañal stated in his affidavit, 17 which he testified on and attested to its truthfulness during the trial, that he and the other apprehending officers were more or less five meters away from the house where the supposed sale transaction took place. They effected the arrest of Occiano after the civilian poseur-buyer gave the pre-arranged signal, to wit:
A transaction between our poseur buyer and our target (Charlie Occiano) was made through the means of a cellular phone where they agreed that they will meet in the house of our confidential asset, situated at diversion road, [B]rgy. San Antonio Poblacion, Nabua, Camarines Sur;
Immediately thereafter, I and PO2 Joseph Ramos together with the other team proceeded to the place on board on a motorcycle while the confidential asset and the other team were on board in a motorized padjak and I, PO2 Joseph Ramos and PO1 Sammy Colipano strategically positioned to the house of the mother of our confidential asset more or less five (5) meters away from the house of the confidential asset were a transaction will be made, while our confidential asset was already waiting our target in their house;
On or about 8:30 PM of same date, our target (Charlie Occiano) arrived in the house of our confidential asset were they [met] in the balcony of our confidential asset;
Thereafter, a transaction was then made between the duo where we saw our civilian poseur buyer (confidential asset) handed the marked money to Charlie Occiano who in return handed something to our civilian poseur buyer and the latter gave the Pre-arranged signal, prompting us to immediately rush up to the place and apprehended him, while a small transparent plastic sachet containing suspected shabu was turned over to me by the civilian poseur and I apprised [him] of his constitutional rights as provided in our constitution; (Emphases and underscoring supplied) 18
Interestingly, PO3 Parañal did not further elaborate during the trial as to the circumstances surrounding the sale transaction. He merely reiterated in the witness stand the statements he made in the affidavit.
PO3 Parañal's testimony further shows that they merely relied on the pre-arranged signal given by the poseur-buyer in order to effect the arrest. However, it was never mentioned what was the exact agreed upon pre-arranged signal.
What is even more conspicuous is that the apprehending officers, who were more or less five meters away from the poseur-buyer and Occiano, neither clearly witnessed what happened between the latter nor were they privy to their conversation. In fact, PO3 Parañal only stated that Occiano "handed something" to the civilian poseur-buyer who immediately gave the pre-arranged signal. Had the apprehending officers indeed witnessed the consummation of the sale transaction, PO3 Parañal could have easily stated and described with exactitude the item that was handed by Occiano to the poseur-buyer. This, all the more, indubitably showed that the apprehending officers only relied on the pre-arranged signal given by the poseur-buyer to signify that a sale transaction took place, with disastrous consequences to the cause of the prosecution.
In the analogous case of People v. Palaras, 19 the High Court acquitted the accused-appellant therein as it was impossible for the prosecution witness, who was inside a tricycle and ten meters away from the illicit transaction, to clearly see the acts of both the poseur-buyer and the appellant. In this case, the buy-bust team, in similar fashion, relied solely on the pre-arranged signal given by the poseur buyer indicating that the illicit transaction had been allegedly consummated.
In the recent case of People v. Cabrillos, 20 We also ruled that "the seven-meter distance between the police officers waiting for the pre-arranged signal from the poseur-buyer and the accused-appellant made it difficult for the police officers, the supposed eyewitnesses, to see and to hear what exactly was happening between accused-appellant and the poseur-buyer." 21
Undoubtedly, the non-presentation of the poseur-buyer is fatal to the prosecution's case. We stress that proof of sale transaction must be credible and complete. 22 Unfortunately in this case, the prosecution had no credible eyewitness who could have showed and described with certainty that an illegal sale of shabu actually transpired. Nobody from the apprehending officers, not even PO3 Parañal, directly witnessed the illicit sale. Instead, they merely relied on the pre-arranged signal from the poseur-buyer. It is therefore only with the presentation of the poseur-buyer as a witness that the prosecution could have proved that the sale of shabu between him and Occiano indeed took place.
We reiterate Our pronouncement in People v. Andaya,23viz.:
The non-presentation of the confidential informant as a witness does not ordinarily weaken the State's case against the accused. However, if the arresting lawmen arrested the accused based on the pre-arranged signal from the confidential informant who acted as the poseur buyer, his non-presentation must be credibly explained and the transaction established by other ways in order to satisfy the quantum of proof beyond reasonable doubt because the arresting lawmen did not themselves participate in the buy-bust transaction with the accused.
xxx xxx xxx
Proof of the transaction must be credible and complete. In every criminal prosecution, it is the State, and no other, that bears the burden of proving the illegal sale of the dangerous drug beyond reasonable doubt. This responsibility imposed on the State accords with the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused, who has no duty to prove his innocence until and unless the presumption of innocence in his favor has been overcome by sufficient and competent evidence.
Here, the confidential informant was not a police officer. He was designated to be the poseur buyer himself. It is notable that the members of the buy-bust team arrested Andaya on the basis of the pre-arranged signal from the poseur buyer. The pre-arranged signal signified to the members of the buy-bust team that the transaction had been consummated between the poseur buyer and Andaya. However, the State did not present the confidential informant/poseur buyer during the trial to describe how exactly the transaction between him and Andaya had taken place. There would have been no issue against that, except that none of the members of the buy-bust team had directly witnessed the transaction, if any, between Andaya and the poseur buyer due to their being positioned at a distance from the poseur buyer and Andaya at the moment of the supposed transaction. (Emphasis in the original) 24
Not only did the prosecution fail to establish the sale transaction, it also did not duly prove that the chain of custody remained unbroken.
Chain of custody was severely
The drug itself is the corpus delicti of the crime in drug cases. As such, the prosecution must prove that the seized drugs are the same as those presented before the court during the trial. It is their bounden and utmost duty to satisfactorily establish that the following links in the chain of custody were duly complied with: first, the seizure and marking 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. 25
We have thoroughly examined the records and found that the apprehending officers failed to strictly observe the chain of custody rule.
Occiano was charged with selling 0.02 gram of shabu, a very diminutive amount. The courts, therefore, ought to have been more prudent in evaluating its evidentiary value to fully determine if Occiano was indeed guilty of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs. It is settled that 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. 26 As We have aptly explained in the case of Malillin v. People, to wit: 27
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.
While testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard because it is almost always impossible to obtain, an unbroken chain of custody becomes indispensable and essential when the item of real evidence is not distinctive and is not readily identifiable, or when its condition at the time of testing or trial is critical, or when a witness has failed to observe its uniqueness. The same standard likewise obtains in case the evidence is susceptible to alteration, tampering, contamination and even substitution and exchange. In other words, the exhibit's level of susceptibility to fungibility, alteration or tampering — without regard to whether the same is advertent or otherwise not — dictates the level of strictness in the application of the chain of custody rule. 28 [Citations Omitted.]
Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 states when and how physical inventory and taking of photographs, which constitute the first link, are to be conducted, to wit:
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. (Emphasis Ours.)
The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 further provides:
Section 21. (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. (Emphasis Ours.)
Here, the apprehending officers failed to properly observe the firstlink in chain of custody.
First. The marking and physical inventory on the seized drugs were not immediately conducted.
PO3 Parañal categorically affirmed that he marked the illegal drug only during the inventory that was conducted at the police station. 29 Moreover, he never offered any explanation on how he handled and secured the illegal drug as well as the other confiscated items during their transportation from the crime scene to the police station. Hence, the fact that the purported subject of the sale remained unmarked even for a brief period without any justification or description on how it was safely secured during that crucial time is a substantial gap in the chain of custody. It clearly raises doubt on the integrity of the illicit drug in this case.
Not only was the marking belatedly made but it was also improperly conducted. To recall, there were two plastic sachets both allegedly containing white crystalline substance involved in this case. Noticeably, the Certificate of Inventory 30 merely indicated "Two (2) plastic sachet[s] containing white crystalline substance[s] with [m]arking[s] AP-1, AP-2."31 It was not clear which of the two plastic sachets was the subject of the sale transaction, and which was confiscated from Occiano after his apprehension. The prosecution, therefore, should have been more detailed and prudent in making the necessary markings on the plastic sachets. Regrettably, its witness failed to account in detail, in his affidavit or even during the trial, which between the two plastic sachets was indeed the subject of the sale transaction. This is very critical considering that, upon examination, the plastic sachet marked "AP-1" tested positive for shabu while the other plastic sachet marked "AP-2" yielded a negative result.
"Marking" is the placing by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initials and signature on the items seized. 32 Considering that it is the starting point in the custodial link, it is thus imperative that the seized item should have been immediately and properly marked, unlike in this case, for it serves as the reference of the succeeding handlers of the specimens. 33 In People v. Gonzales, 34 the Court explained that marking the seized item will also prevent switching, planting or the contamination of the evidence, to wit:
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. 35
Second. No photographs of the seized items, including the illegal drug subject of the sale, were taken in the presence of Occiano and/or his representative, and the required witnesses.
The Court observes that not a scintilla of evidence was presented by the prosecution indicating that the apprehending officers took photographs of the illegal drug, as well as the other items purportedly confiscated from Occiano. In fact, the only photo attached and submitted as evidence by the prosecution was that of the marked money used in the buy-bust operation. It baffles this Court that the apprehending officers did not even offer any explanation with respect to the omission of this vital procedural rule, considering that it is mandatory in the first link of chain of custody. Interestingly, both the trial court and the appellate court completely overlooked the apparent absences of any photograph of the seized illegal drug, and any explanation or justification on why the apprehending officers did not take any photograph of the same.
A photograph of the seized item is required by law. 36 Absent such mandatory requirement as evidence is a fatal break in the chain of custody. 37
Third. The prosecution did not present substantial proof showing that the seized items were inventoried in the presence of Occiano and that he was furnished a copy of the inventory receipt. 38 Worse, the certificate of inventory did not bear appellant's signature or his representative, which could have proved that an inventory was made before him. The apprehending officers did not even offer any explanation or justification on the absence thereof.
Last. Not only was the first link breached, the prosecution also failed to establish the full compliance with the fourth link in the chain of custody, i.e., the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court.
It is settled that the following statements must be included in the parties' stipulations in case the parties agreed to dispense with the testimony of the forensic chemist: (1) that the forensic chemist received the seized article as marked, properly sealed, and intact; (2) that he rescaled 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. 39
Here, both the prosecution and the defense agreed to dispense with the testimony of PSI Malong, the forensic chemist, during the trial. Noticeably, there is dearth of evidence showing in detail how PSI Malong handled the seized drug, in particular whether he marked the same after examination. Although the prosecution stipulated that PSI Malong marked the specimens after examination, no proof of such marking can be gleaned from the evidence on record.
Worse, there is absence of a detailed account on how the seized drug was kept until it was transferred to the court. The stipulations made by the prosecution as regards the handling of the seized drug by the forensic chemist until it was presented to the trial court were only general statements that the specimen was duly preserved and safely kept inside the crime laboratory "free from any tampering, interference, substitution and other acts which would tend to discredit the integrity and the original condition" of the same. 40
In fine, the apprehending officers failed to regularly perform their duties in view of the serious and damaging breaches in the chain of custody they committed. 41 Because of their blatant non-compliance with the law, the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti were not duly preserved. Thus, Occiano should be acquitted of the crime charge due to reasonable doubt.
Indeed, the Court is aware of the prevalent drug related cases in our society. However, the pressing need to eradicate these crimes does not justify the police officers' disregard of the statutory requirements in apprehending the supposed criminals. 42 Failure to follow the law only tarnishes the integrity of the administration of justice which we must always uphold and preserve.
The Court further observes that our courts are being swarmed by cases involving small-time drug users and retailers, and yet the "big fishes" are still out there peddling havoc among the citizenry. It is thus only proper to reiterate Our pronouncement in People v. Holgado, 43 to wit:
It is lamentable that while our dockets are clogged with prosecutions under Republic Act No. 9165 involving small-time drug users and retailers, we are seriously short of prosecutions involving the proverbial "big fish." We are swamped with cases involving small fry who have been arrested for miniscule amounts. While they are certainly a bane to our society, small retailers are but low-lying fruits in an exceedingly vast network of drug cartels. Both law enforcers and prosecutors should realize that the more effective and efficient strategy is to focus resources more on the source and true leadership of these nefarious organizations. Otherwise, all these executive and judicial resources expended to attempt to convict an accused for 0.05 gram of shabu under doubtful custodial arrangements will hardly make a dent in the overall picture. It might in fact be distracting our law enforcers from their more challenging task: to uproot the causes of this drug menace. We stand ready to assess cases involving greater amounts of drugs and the leadership of these cartels. 44
On a final note, We remind the courts to be cautious and astute in examining the evidence presented by both parties. Justice is duly attained when those who are guilty are indeed punished and those who are truly innocent remain free from the shackles of imprisonment. Sadly, the courts below should have easily noticed the immediate red flags in this case indicating non-compliance with the law if only they had been more circumspect and discerning of the evidence, both documentary and testimonial, presented during the trial, then Occiano would not have been unjustifiably deprived of his freedom and rights as an individual.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The April 11, 2017 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08050 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Charlie Occiano y Tanay is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City is ordered to IMMEDIATELY RELEASE accused-appellant from detention, unless he is confined for any other lawful cause.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. Furthermore, the Director General is DIRECTED to report to this Court the action he/she has taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED." (C.J. Gesmundo designated additional Member per raffle dated October 6, 2021 vice J. Dimaampao who recused himself due to prior action in the Court of Appeals.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 15-17.
2.Id. at 2-14. Penned by Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante and concurred in by Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao (now a Member of this Court) and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles.
3. CA rollo, pp. 61-71. Penned by Presiding Judge Timoteo A. Panga, Jr.
4. Records, p. 1.
5.Id. at 37.
6. Also referred to in the records as PO3 Paranal.
7. Records, p. 13.
8.Id.
9.Id. at 379-381.
10.Id. at 394.
11.Supra note 2.
12. CA rollo, pp. 70-71.
13.Supra note 1.
14.Rollo, p. 13.
15.People v. Cabrillos, G.R. No. 247657, June 8, 2020.
16.People v. Palaras, 836 Phil. 117, 128 (2018).
17. Records, pp. 8-9.
18.Id. at 8.
19.Supra note 15.
20.Supra note 14.
21.Id.
22.People v. Andaya, 745 Phil. 237 (2014).
23.Id.
24.Id. at 240 and 247; See also People v. Cabrillos, supra note 14.
25.People v. Miranda, G.R. No. 218126, July 10, 2019, citing People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 231 (2015).
26.Malillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 588-589 (2008).
27.Id.
28.Id. at 587-588.
29. TSN, February 27, 2013, p. 12.
30. Records, pp. 17 and 370.
31.Id.
32.People v. Hementiza, 807 Phil. 1017, 1030 (2017).
33.Id.
34.People v. Gonzales, 708 Phil. 121 (2013).
35.Id. at 130-131.
36.People v. Dela Torre, G.R. No. 225789, July 29, 2019.
37.Id.
38.People v. Ferrer, 832 Phil. 527, 545 (2018).
39.People v. Cabuhay, 836 Phil. 903, 918 (2018), citing People v. Pajarin, 654 Phil. 461, 466 (2011).
40. TSN, January 23, 2014. p. 2.
41.People v. Balibay, 742 Phil. 746, 757 (2014).
42.People v. Romano, G.R. No. 224892, June 15, 2020.
43. 741 Phil. 78 (2014).
44.Id. at 100.