SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 253606. June 23, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant,vs. CORAZON OLITA y MARZADA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 23 June 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 253606 (People of the Philippines v. Corazon Olita y Marzada). — The Court NOTES the Office of the Solicitor General's manifestation (in lieu of supplemental brief) dated February 26, 2021, in compliance with the Resolution dated November 23, 2020, stating that it shall no longer file its supplemental brief considering that all arguments and issues raised by accused-appellant have already been thoroughly discussed in its brief filed before the Court of Appeals (CA).
The conviction of Corazon Olita y Marzada (Corazon) for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs is the subject of review in this appeal assailing the Decision 1 dated October 3, 2019 of the CA in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10970, which affirmed the Decision 2 dated April 6, 2018 of the Regional Trial Court, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan, Branch 47 (RTC), in Criminal Case No. U-22932.
We acquit.
In Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, the contraband itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction. 3 Thus, it is essential to ensure that the substance recovered from the accused is the same substance offered in court. 4 The prosecution must satisfactorily establish the movement and custody of the seized drug through the following links: (1) the confiscation and marking of the specimen seized from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the turnover of the seized item by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) the investigating officer's turnover of the specimen to the forensic chemist for examination; and (4) the submission of the item by the forensic chemist to the court. 5 Here, the records reveal a broken chain of custody.
Notably, the alleged crime happened after Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 6 was amended by RA No. 10640. 7 Section 21, Article II of RA No. 9165, as amended, 8 outlines the post-seizure procedure for the custody and disposition of the seized drugs. The law mandates that the officer taking initial custody of the drug shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct the physical inventory of the same, and take a photograph thereof 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 (NPS) or the media who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory, and be given a copy thereof. The law requires the presence of these witnesses primarily to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence. 9
The prosecution proved that the sachet was first marked by the poseur-buyer, Police Officer 1 La Paz Melody Fair U. Mon (PO1 Mon), at the place of arrest with her initials "LMFM-1." 10 Later, at the police station, duty investigator Police Officer 2 Domingo A. Elegores, Jr. (PO2 Elegores) marked the sachet with his own initials and the date — "DAE 3-16-17." 11 When the sachet was delivered to the crime laboratory, Police Chief Inspector Myrna C. Malojo-Todeño (PCI Todeño), Forensic Chemist of the PNP Crime Laboratory Office in Lingayen, Pangasinan, received one heat-sealed plastic sachet marked with "LMFM," "3-16-17" and a signature. 12 Ostensibly, there are discrepancies in the marking of the evidence done by the arresting officer, the investigating officer, and the forensic chemist that engender doubt whether the drug presented in court was the same drug seized from the accused. The issue was not clarified by the testimonies of PO1 Mon 13 and PO2 Elegores, 14 or in the stipulation of facts executed by PCI Todeño. 15 The prosecution neither addressed, nor offered a reasonable justification for the apparent inconsistencies in the markings.
In People v. Ameril, 16 the Court held that an obvious discrepancy in the markings of the seized drugs, which were referred to using three different sets of markings, raised doubts on the identity of the corpus delicti. In People v. Hilario, 17 the integrity of the drugs was not preserved because the arresting officer could not positively identify which, between the two sachets of shabu, he seized and accordingly marked. Likewise, in People v. Cayas, 18 the failure of the prosecution to explain the discrepancies in the markings constitutes a major procedural lapse that is fatal to their case. Corollarily, lacking sufficient clarification regarding the markings of the seized drug, the prosecution failed to remove any suspicion of tampering, switching or planting of evidence.
Moreover, the inventory and photograph of the seized item was made without the required insulating witnesses. Pursuant to RA No. 10640, the inventory and photograph of the seized item must be witnessed by an elected public official and a representative of the NPS or the media. As found by the CA 19 and RTC, 20 the marking and inventory of the seized plastic sachet of shabu were conducted in the presence of the accused Corazon, and elected public officials, Barangay Kagawad Rio Joven Esteves, and Barangay Kagawad Wilfredo Ramos. There was no representative from the NPS nor the media. This non-compliance with the requirements of Section 21 may be permitted if the prosecution proves that the apprehending officers exerted genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of such witnesses, albeit they eventually failed to appear. 21 It is incumbent upon the prosecution to account for the witness' absence by presenting a justifiable reason therefor, or, at the very least, by showing that genuine and sufficient efforts were exerted by the apprehending officers to secure their presence. 22
Here, the operatives failed to provide any justification showing that the integrity of the evidence had all along been preserved. The police officers did not describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the seized item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. To be sure, the prosecution merely explained that after Corazon's arrest, PO2 Apolinario Mangsat "requested for back-up to coordinate with the DOJ, the media and Barangay Council for purposes of witnessing the inventory and marking" 23 but only barangay officials Esteves and Ramos came. In People v. Caray, 24 we ruled that the corpus delicti cannot be deemed preserved absent any acceptable explanation for the deviation from the procedural requirement of the chain of custody rule. Similarly, in Matabilas v. People, 25 sheer statements of unavailability of the insulating witnesses, without actual serious attempt to contact them, cannot justify non-compliance. With this, we hold that the utter disregard of the required procedures created a huge gap in the chain of custody.
Finally, we stress 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 woman. The Court cannot tolerate the lax approach of law enforcers in handling the very corpus delicti of the crime. 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. 26 Indeed, when the performance of duty is tainted with irregularities, such presumption is effectively destroyed. 27 All told, Corazon must be acquitted of the charge against her given the prosecution's failure to prove an unbroken chain of custody.
FOR THESE REASONS, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated October 3, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10970, which affirmed the findings of the Regional Trial Court of Urdaneta City, Pangasinan, Branch 47, in Criminal Case No. U-22932 for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs defined and penalized under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act. No. 9165, as amended, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Corazon Olita y Marzada is ACQUITTED, and is hereby ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless she 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., no part for having concurred in the assailed Court of Appeals' decision; Gaerlan, J., designated additional member per Special Order No. 2823-EE dated June 18, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-15. Penned by Associate Justice Stephen C. Cruz, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Jhosep Y. Lopez (now a member of the Court) and Tita Marilyn Payoyo-Villordon.
2. CA rollo, pp. 53-60. Penned by Presiding Judge Elizabeth L. Berdal.
3.People v. Crispo, 828 Phil. 416, 436-437 (2018); People v. Sanchez, 827 Phil. 457, 472-473 (2018); People v. Magsano, 826 Phil. 947, 964-965 (2018); People v. Manansala, 826 Phil. 578, 586 (2018); People v. Miranda, 824 Phil. 1042, 1055-1054 (2018); People v. Mamangon, 824 Phil. 728, 741 (2018); and People v. Partoza, 605 Phil. 883, 891 (2009).
4.People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 30-31 (2017); and Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 586-587 (2008).
5.People v. Bugtong, 826 Phil. 628, 638-639 (2018).
6. Entitled "AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on June 7, 2002.
7. 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, 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, 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. See OCA Circular No. 77-2015 dated April 23, 2015.
8. The provision was amended by RA No. 10640, which became effective on August 7, 2014, and reads:
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: x x x.
N.B. Prior to the amendment, the required witnesses were representatives from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ) and any elected public official.
9.People v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 236304, November 5, 2018, 884 SCRA 276, 286.
10. CA rollo, pp. 54-55.
11.Id. at 57.
12.Id. at 53-54.
13.Id. at 54-56.
14.Id. at 57.
15.Id. at 53-54.
16. G.R. No. 222192, March 13, 2019.
17. 823 Phil. 580 (2018).
18. 789 Phil. 70 (2016).
19.Rollo, pp. 11-12.
20. CA rollo, pp. 59-60.
21.People v. Flores, G.R. No. 241261, July 29, 2019; People v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 233535, July 1, 2019; and People v. Maralit, 838 Phil. 191, 208 (2018).
22.People v. Sendad, G.R. No. 242025, November 20, 2019.
23. CA rollo, p. 55.
24. G.R. No. 245391, September 11, 2019.
25. G.R. No. 243615, November 11, 2019.
26.Mallillin v. People, supra note 4, at 593; and People v. Cañete, 433 Phil. 781, 794 (2002).
27.People v. Dela Cruz, 589 Phil. 259, 272 (2008).