SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 248424. November 17, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. JERWIN PADAYAO y DELA CRUZ @ "BUKOL",accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 17 November 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 248424 (People of the Philippines v. Jerwin Padayao y Dela Cruz @ "Bukol"). — This is an Appeal 1 from the Decision 2 dated March 29, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09640 affirming the Judgment 3 dated May 16, 2017 of Branch 164, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Pasig City in Criminal Case Nos. 21164-D and 21165-D finding Jerwin Padayao y Dela Cruz @ Bukol (accused-appellant) guilty of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Antecedents
Accused-appellant was charged before the RTC with violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165 in the following Informations: 4
Criminal Case No. 21164-D
On or about April 2, 2016, in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, not being lawfully authorized to sell, possess or otherwise use any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and give away to PO2 Michael A. Palattao, a poseur-buyer, one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.04 gram of white crystalline substance and marked as "A(1MAP/JERWIN/04/02/16, with signature) which was found positive to the test for [m]ethamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of the said law.
Contrary to [l]aw. 5
Criminal Case No. 21165-D
On or about April 2, 2016, in Pasig City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and under his custody and control, eight (8) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets with the following markings and recorded net weights, to wit:
xxx xxx xxx
with a total weight of 0.32 grams, signed and marked by PO2 Michael A. Palattao, which were found positive to the test for [m]ethamphetamine [h]ydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of the said law.
Contrary to [l]aw. 6
When arraigned, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the offenses charged. 7
Joint trial ensued. 8
Version of the Prosecution
The prosecution established that on April 2, 2016, the police operatives of the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Group (SAID-SOTG) of the Pasig City Police Station received a tip from a confidential informant about the rampant illegal drug activities of accused-appellant at Sitio Tambakan, Barangay San Miguel, Pasig City. Acting on the tip, the police operatives formed a buy-bust operation against accused-appellant. During the operation, the police operatives recovered nine plastic sachets containing shabu from accused-appellant. Subsequently, accused-appellant was arrested. 9 SCaITA
Team leader Police Officer III Allan Caponga (PO3 Caponga) contacted the barangay and the media and requested them to send their respective representatives. While waiting for the arrival of the witnesses, PO2 Michael A. Palattao (PO2 Palattao), the designated poseur-buyer, marked the seized items. In the meantime, a media person called the police operatives and told them that she could not go to the place of the commission of the crime. Thus, the buy-bust team proceeded to the barangay hall of Barangay San Miguel, Pasig City. Thereat, they conducted the inventory and photographing of the seized items in the presence of Barangay Kagawad Randy Cruz. Thereafter, they brought the seized items to the crime laboratory which, after examination, tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu. 10
Version of the Defense
Accused-appellant, for his part, asserted that on April 2, 2016, at around 3:00 p.m., he and his six-year-old child were at his house at Barangay Sagad, Pasig City. After hearing a knock on the door, and upon seeing Bong and Jeffrey Canlas alias "Epok," he opened the door. Bong told him to go with them. When he questioned them, "Epok" got agitated, poked a gun at him, and ordered him to go with them. Both men brought him to a motor pool and later on to the SAID-SOTG office. Thereafter, the police officers brought him to Mandaluyong City for a drug test, then to Rizal Medical Center for physical examination, and finally back to the motor pool. At that point PO3 Caponga asked him to pinpoint a person who is engaged in selling illegal drugs. When he was unable to do so, PO3 Caponga uttered, "Bahala ka hindi ka makakauwi. Wala kang pamalit ulo."11 PO3 Caponga then took out from a drawer several sachets of shabu, placed them on the table, and told him that they will be used as evidence against him. 12
Ruling of the RTC
In the Judgment 13 dated May 16, 2017, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165. 14
Ruling of the CA
In the Decision 15 dated March 29, 2019, the CA affirmed the RTC. It held, among others, that the absence of a representative from the National Prosecution Service (NPS) or the media to witness the inventory and photographing of the seized items is not fatal in the prosecution of the cases considering that it was still able to show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved. 16
Thus, the appeal before the Court.
Issue
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt accused-appellant's guilt for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165.
The Court's Ruling
The appeal is meritorious.
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. 17 The elements of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165, meanwhile, are: (a) the accused was in possession of an item or object identified as a prohibited drug; (b) such possession was not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. 18
To successfully prosecute the crimes of Illegal Sale or Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, it is imperative (1) that the prosecution establish the above elements, and (2) that the identity of the dangerous drug be established with moral certainty. 19 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. 20
As part of the chain of custody procedure, the law requires, inter alia, that the marking, physical inventory, and photographing of the seized items be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation. 21 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, 22 which became effective on August 7, 2014, 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, an elected public official and a representative of the NPS or the media. 23
The procedure on the chain of custody must be strictly observed. 24 However, in cases where strict compliance therewith is not possible, the seizure and custody of the seized items will not be rendered void if the prosecution satisfactorily proves that there is justifiable ground for the deviation, and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. 25 With respect to the witness requirement, non-compliance 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. 26
The two-witness rule under RA 10640 applies as the offenses were committed after the amendment of RA 9165. aTHCSE
In the case, there was a deviation from the witness requirement under RA 10640. As established below, the inventory of the seized items was witnessed only by a barangay kagawad. There was no representative from the NPS or the media. The Court is not convinced that the police officers' act of contacting the witnesses and not doing anything else to secure the presence of all the required insulating witnesses is a "sufficient effort." The act was simply perfunctory. No efforts were exerted to assure the presence of the insulating witnesses. Thus, the prosecution's unjustified failure to comply with the two-witness requirement created a doubt as to the integrity and evidentiary value of the allegedly seized drugs. 27
In People v. Crisostomo, 28 the Court pronounced that:
The Court has repeatedly stressed that the presence of the required insulating witnesses at the time of the inventory is mandatory. Under the law, the presence of the insulating witnesses is a high prerogative requirement, the non-fulfillment of which casts serious doubts upon the integrity of the corpus delicti itself — the very prohibited substance itself — and for that reason imperils the prosecution's case. 29
The quantity involved in the case is minuscule; 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. 30
Considering the foregoing, the Court finds that the prosecution failed to prove the corpus delicti of the offenses and an unbroken chain of custody of the allegedly seized illegal drugs. Accordingly, the Court is constrained to overturn accused-appellant's conviction.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated March 29, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09640 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Jerwin Padayao y Dela Cruz @ Bukol is ACQUITTED of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City for immediate implementation. The Director General is ORDERED to: (a) cause the immediate release of accused-appellant Jerwin Padayao y Dela Cruz @ Bukol, unless he is being held in custody for any other lawful reason; and (b) inform the Court of the action taken within five 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. 2855 dated November 10, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 24-25.
2.Id. at 3-22; penned by Associate Justice Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin with Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Ramon A. Cruz, concurring.
3. Records, pp. 100-108; penned by Presiding Judge Jennifer Albano Pilar.
4. Records, pp. 1-6.
5.Id. at 1.
6.Id. at 4-5.
7.Rollo, p. 6.
8.Id.
9.Id. at 8-9.
10.Id. at 9-10.
11.Id. at 10-11.
12.Id.
13. Records, pp. 100-108.
14.Id. at 108.
15.Rollo, pp. 3-22.
16.Id. at 21.
17.People v. Crispo, 828 Phil. 416, 429 (2018).
18.Id.
19.People v. Santos, G.R. No. 243627, November 27, 2019.
20. See 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 (2015).
21. See People v. Gabunada, G.R. No. 242827, September 9, 2019.
22. 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 became effective on August 7, 2014.
23.People v. Gabunada, supra.
24.People v. Sendad, G.R. No. 242025, November 20, 2019.
25. See People v. Almorfe, 631 Phil. 51, 60 (2010).
26.People v. Gabunada, supra.
27.People v. Vistro, G.R. No. 225744, March 6, 2019.
28. G.R. No. 252488 (Notice), May 12, 2021.
29.Id.
30.Id.