FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 246161. October 6, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.MARLON ODARES-PEÑARANDA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 6, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 246161 (People of the Philippines v. Marlon Odares-Peñaranda). — This is an Appeal 1 from the Decision 2 dated September 27, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09513, affirming the conviction of accused-appellant Marlon Odares-Peñaranda for Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Sections 5 and 11, respectively, of Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
In cases of Illegal Sale and/or Possession of Dangerous Drugs, the identity of the prohibited drug must be established with moral certainty, considering that the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime. 3 Thus, it is of utmost importance that the integrity and identity of the seized drugs must be shown to have been duly preserved. 4 It must be established that the subject of the sale which was acquired from the accused-appellant during the buy-bust operation must be the exact same item presented before the court. This is where the chain of custody requirement in drugs cases come into play to ensure that doubts concerning the identity of the seized drugs are removed. 5
In this regard, Section 21, 6 Article II of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640 in 2014, lays down the procedure which the police operatives must follow to maintain the integrity of the seized drugs. As part of the chain of custody procedure, the law requires that the apprehending team, immediately after seizure and confiscation, 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, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: (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, "[a]n elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service OR the media." 7
In the present case, it was established that the required witnesses under Section 21 of RA 9165 were not present during the conduct of the inventory. Considering that the crime was committed on September 14, 2012, Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, prior to its amendment, applies. This provision requires all of the following as witnesses to the taking of inventory and photographs of the seized items: (1) a representative from the media, (2) a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and (3) any elected public official. As testified by Police Officer 2 Wilfredo Flores (PO2 Flores), the inventory was made only in his presence, that of accused-appellant, PO3 Eugene Martinez, and Barangay Kagawad Ricky Lacad. He admitted that there were no representatives from the media and the DOJ. 8
The prevailing rule is that in cases where the presence of the essential witnesses was not obtained, the prosecution must establish not only the reasons for their absence, but also that earnest efforts had been exerted to secure their presence. 9 Here, the records show that not only were there no attempts made to secure the appearance of representatives from the media and the DOJ, there was also no explanation whatsoever as to why no such attempts were made. Instead, the prosecution argues that the absence of the said representatives was merely a "minor deviation" from the requirements of Section 21 which will not automatically exonerate accused-appellant from the crimes he was charged. They contend that the presence of the barangay kagawad during the inventory shows that the arresting team endeavored to comply with the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. 10
The Court disagrees.
The presence of all the required witnesses during inventory is vital to the chain of custody. Their presence is intended to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence. 11 Thus, it has been ruled in a line of cases 12 that the absence of any or all the required witnesses under Section 21 without justifiable reason is tantamount to a failure to establish the chain of custody.
Even assuming that the absence of the required witnesses was justified, there was still an evident break in the chain of custody as borne out by the records of the case. The chain of custody is comprised of the following links: 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. 13
Here, there is a glaring gap in the fourth link of the chain. During pre-trial, the parties stipulated on the proposed testimony of forensic chemist Police Senior Inspector Rendielyn (PSI Rendielyn), thus:
1. That she is a Forensic Chemist of the Philippine National Police;
2. That she received a request for laboratory examination in connection with these cases marked as Exhibit "A," and attached to said request was a plastic sachet marked as Exhibit "B," which contained two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance marked as Exhibits "B-1" and "B-2";
3. That she conducted the requested laboratory examination on the said specimens, and in connection therewith, she issued Chemistry Report No. D-178-12 marked as Exhibit "C," the findings thereon showing the specimens positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, marked as Exhibit "C-1," the signature of PSI Sahagun as Exhibit "C-2" and the Jurat as Exhibit "C-3";
4. That she, thereafter, turned over the specimens to the evidence custodian and retrieved the same for the pre-trial conference. 14
It has been held that in case the parties stipulate to dispense with the attendance and testimony of the forensic chemist, it should be stipulated that the forensic chemist was to testify that he/she took the precautionary steps required in order to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item, thus: (1) that the forensic chemist received the seized article as marked, properly sealed, and intact; (2) that he/she resealed it after examination of the content; and (3) that he/she placed his/her own marking on the same to ensure that it could not be tampered with during trial. 15
Notably, the stipulation on the proposed testimony of PSI Rendielyn did not cover the foregoing safekeeping measures to preserve the integrity of the seized items. Moreover, the stipulation did not include details as to the safekeeping measures adopted by the evidence custodian after PSI Rendielyn turned over the custody of the seized items to him, following the laboratory examination. In People v. Ubungen, 16 the Court said that the absence of any testimony regarding the management, storage, and preservation of the illegal drug allegedly seized after its qualitative examination, could not reasonably establish the fourth link in the chain of custody of the said illegal drug.
The failure of the apprehending officers to strictly comply with the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9156 without any justifiable reason and to establish the chain of custody, casts doubt as to whether the supposedly seized illegal drugs from accused-appellant are the same as the ones subjected to laboratory examination and presented to court during trial. Stated otherwise, the repeated breach of the chain of custody is a fatal flaw which had destroyed the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti. 17 As such, the Court is constrained to acquit accused-appellant based on reasonable doubt.
As a final point, the Court stresses that the RTC's and CA's reliance on the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty in finding accused-appellant guilty is seriously misplaced. As aptly discussed in People v. Omamos: 18
The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty arises only when the records do not indicate any irregularity or flaw in the performance of official duty. Applied to dangerous drugs cases, the prosecution cannot rely on the presumption when there is a clear showing that the apprehending officers unjustifiably failed to comply with the requirements laid down in Section 21 of RA 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations. In any case, the presumption of regularity cannot be stronger than the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. 19
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated September 27, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09513 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Marlon Odares-Peñaranda is ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt.
The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City is ORDERED to: a) IMMEDIATELY RELEASE accused-appellant from custody unless he is being held for some other lawful cause; and b) SUBMIT a report on the action taken within five (5) days from receipt of notice.
Let an entry of final judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 19-20.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Zenaida T. Laguilles, with Associate Justices Stephen C. Cruz (Chairperson) and Rafael Antonio M. Santos concurring; id. at 3-18.
3. See People v. Manansala, G.R. No. 228825, July 28, 2020; People v. Alon-Alon, G.R. No. 237803, November 27, 2019; People v. Zapanta, G.R. No. 230227, November 6, 2019; People v. Vertudes, G.R. No. 220725, October 16, 2019; People v. Advincula, G.R. No. 201576, July 22, 2019; People v. Omamos, G.R. No. 223036, July 10, 2019; People v. Royol, G.R. No. 224297, February 13, 2019; People v. Espejo, G.R. No. 240914, March 13, 2019; People v. Saidamen Olimpain Mama, G.R. No. 237204, October 1, 2018.
4.People v. Silayan, G.R. No. 229362, June 19, 2019, citing People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 29 (2017).
5.People v. Baculio, G.R. No. 233802, November 20, 2019, citing Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 587 (2008).
6. 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 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. x x x.
7.Fuentes y Garcia v. People, G.R. No. 228718, January 7, 2019. (Italics and emphasis in the original.)
8. TSN, June 13, 2016, p. 12.
9.People v. Cadiente, G.R. No. 228255, June 10, 2019.
10. CA rollo, pp. 89-90.
11. See People v. Angeles, G.R. No. 224223, November 20, 2019.
12. See People v. Balbarez, G.R. No. 246999, July 28, 2020; People v. Burdeos, G.R. No. 218434, July 17, 2019; People v. Laway, G.R. No. 227741, March 27, 2019; People v. Frias, G.R. No. 234686, June 10, 2019; People v. Malazo, G.R. No. 223713, January 7, 2019; People v. Torio, G.R. No. 225780, December 3, 2018; People v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 225061, October 10, 2018.
13. See People v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 235658, June 22, 2020; People v. Tulod, G.R. No. 227993, September 25, 2019; People v. Victoria, G.R. No. 238613, August 19, 2019; People v. Dela Torre, G.R. No. 225789, July 29, 2019; People v. Cabuhay, 836 Phil. 903 (2018); People v. Ubungen, 836 Phil. 888 (2018).
14. Records, p. 77.
15.People v. Ambrosio, G.R. No. 234051, November 27, 2019, citing People v. Pajarin, 654 Phil. 461, 466 (2011).
16.Supra note 13, at 902.
17. See People v. Diamante, G.R. No. 231980, October 9, 2019.
18. G.R. No. 223036, July 10, 2019.
19.Id., citing People v. Luna, 828 Phil. 671, 699 (2018).