THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 247324. May 12, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RODEL PADUGA y CABIGQUIZ, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated May 12, 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 247324 (People of the Philippines v. Rodel Paduga y Cabigquiz). — The instant case is an Appeal 1 from the Decision 2 dated January 31, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01808-MIN, which affirmed the Consolidated Judgment 3 dated October 9, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Misamis Oriental, Branch 40 in Criminal Case Nos. 2014-1426 and 2014-1427 against accused-appellant Rodel Paduga y Cabigquiz (appellant) for violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
Factual Antecedent
In this case, appellant was charged with violations of Section 5 (illegal sale) and Section 11 (illegal possession), Article II of RA 9165 in two (2) separate Information, as follows:
Criminal Case No. 2014-1426
That on or about November 23, 2014 at, more or less, 3:30 in the morning, at Malanang, Opol, Misamis Oriental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, for and in consideration of the buy-bust money, sell and deliver to the poseur-buyer one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.0246 gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug.
Contrary to and in violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act 9165.
Criminal Case No. 2014-1427
That on or about November 23, 2014 at, more or less, 3:30 in the morning, at Malanang, Opol, Misamis Oriental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction, of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to possess, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and knowingly, without being authorized by law, have in his possession and control two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets, all containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug, with a total net weight of 1.6145 gram[s].
Contrary to and in violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act 9165. 4
On arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged. In the ensuing trial, the parties entered into a stipulation of facts on the testimony of prosecution witness Police Senior Inspector Charity P. Caceres (Caceres) and admitted the following, inter alia: TEHIaD
1. The qualification of P/SI Caceres as an expert witness x x x;
2. The existence of the letter request for examination of the seized evidence dated 23 November 2014 x x x;
3. The existence of the transparent cellophane containing three heat-sealed sachets with white crystalline substance x x x;
4. Existence of the letter request for drug test of accused x x x;
5. Existence and due execution of Chemistry Report No. D-522-2014 x x x;
6. Existence of the letter-request for ultra violet test dated 23 November 2014 x x x;
7. Existence and due execution of Chemistry Report No. C-58-2014 x x x;
8. That the specimens brought to court today by the witness x x x are the same specimens mentioned in Chemistry Report No. D-522-2014 x x x;
9. That P/SI Caceres received the letters and specimens together with officer Jalani x x x;
10. That P/SI Caceres has no personal knowledge as to the specific origin of the specimens which she examined x x x; and
11. That after conducting laboratory examination, she turned over the specimens to the evidence custodian and retrieved the same x x x. 5
The prosecution presented PO3 Amiel L. Villamor (Villamor), PO3 Jonathan Eduave (Eduave), and Barangay Kagawad Felix Fabroa (Fabroa) as witnesses. In their respective testimonies, it was established that in the morning of November 23, 2014, Villamor, Eduave, and other police officers conducted a buy-bust operation against appellant at the latter's residence in CITI Homes, Malanang, Opol, Misamis Oriental. Villamor, as the poseur-buyer, and the Confidential Informant (CI) went to appellant's residence and saw him standing in front of the gate. The CI told appellant that they wanted to buy shabu. When asked how much by appellant, Villamor answered P300.00. Appellant then pulled out a sachet and gave it to Villamor, and in return, appellant received the marked money. After the exchange, Villamor declared his authority while Eduave, who was less than 10 meters outside of appellant's residence, hurriedly went inside and arrested appellant. 6
Fabroa, who was then on patrol, was called by the police officers to witness the body search on appellant. Villamor recovered two more sachets of suspected shabu upon frisking appellant. At the scene, the police officers initially marked the sachets and prepared a seizure receipt in the presence of appellant, Fabroa, and Barangay Police Jeffrey Pakino (Pakino). 7 Due to poor lighting, the police officers brought appellant and the seized items to the police station to conduct the marking and inventory, again in the presence of Fabroa and Pakino. 8
Villamor prepared the letter requests for the laboratory examination on the suspected shabu, the conduct of an ultraviolet powder test on the marked money, and a drug test on appellant. The letter-requests and the seized items were delivered by Villamor himself to the PNP Crime Laboratory on the same day of the operation and were received by Caceres. The examination conducted by Caceres on the seized items confirmed the presence of shabu. Appellant's drug test likewise tested positive for the presence of shabu. Also, the presence of ultraviolet fluorescent powder on the marked money and on the hands of appellant was confirmed upon testing. 9
For his defense, appellant claimed that the police officers of the Opol Police Station falsely imputed the charges against him and planted the shabu as evidence. Appellant stated that he usually served as a poseur-buyer in recovery operations for stolen vehicles, but returned to driving delivery trucks as he did not receive any payment for his part in the said operations. 10
Appellant testified that he was awakened by a call from Villamor in the early morning of November 23, 2014, informing him that they will fetch him from his house to take part in an operation to recover a stolen vehicle. As soon as appellant went outside, he was suddenly arrested by police officers and Villamor accused him of selling shabu. Appellant suspected that Villamor held a grudge against him for not taking part in the anti-carnapping operations. Appellant further claimed that he heard Eduave tell Villamor to get the shabu that they will plant as evidence, and afterwards saw Villamor drive his motorcycle to get the shabu and return 30 minutes later. 11
Ruling of the RTC
In a Consolidated Judgment 12 dated October 9, 2017, the RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt in both Criminal Case Nos. 2014-1426 (illegal sale) and 2014-1427 (illegal possession). For Criminal Case No. 2014-1426, appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine of P500,000.00. For Criminal Case No. 2014-1427, appellant was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment for 12 years anal one (1) day as minimum to 12 years and two (2) days as maximum, and ordered to pay a fine of P300,000.00. 13
The RTC held that the prosecution had sufficiently established the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs — which are: (i) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (ii) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereto. The RTC also found that the elements of illegal possession of prohibited drugs were duly established by the prosecution. 14
Anent the appellant's claim that the shabu was merely planted by the police officers, the RTC upheld the presumption of regularity in the performance of the police officers' duties in the absence of substantial evidence to show any improper motive on their part. 15
Ruling of the CA
The CA affirmed the Consolidated Judgment of the RTC in its now assailed Decision, but modified the penalty of imprisonment imposed for the charge of illegal possession of shabu to 12 years and one (1) day as minimum to 14 years and eight (8) months as maximum in accordance with the Indeterminate Sentence Law. 16
In finding that the chain of custody has been duly established, the CA noted that the seized items were inventoried and marked in the presence of appellant at the police station. Relying on Villamor's testimony, the CA was satisfied with the justification given by the police officers that the place of arrest was dim such that the marking and inventory had to be done or completed at the police station immediately afterwards. Furthermore, Villamor's testimony that he was in possession of the seized shabu from the place of arrest up to the police station was not controverted by appellant. The CA also did not heed the defense given by appellant as he did not offer any evidence that the police officers had been improperly or maliciously motivated in effecting his arrest. 17 DETACa
Through the present Appeal, appellant impugns his conviction on both charges for failure of the prosecution to duly establish an unbroken chain of custody and questions the identity and integrity of the seized shabu as evidence against him. In particular, appellant argues that the failure of the police officers to mark the sachets of shabu immediately upon confiscation presents gaps in the chain of custody and casts doubt on the identity of the shabu presented in court as evidence. 18
Our Ruling
The Appeal is granted. The records are bereft of any proof that the police officers tried to comply, or at least offered a justifiable ground for non-compliance, with the provisions of RA 10640, particularly on the required presence of two witnesses stated thereunder.
In cases for illegal sale and/or illegal possession of dangerous drugs under RA 9165, 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 crime. 19 In order to establish the identity of the dangerous drug with moral certainty, 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 photography of the seized items be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation of the same. In this regard, case law recognizes that "marking upon immediate confiscation contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team." 21 In the same manner, the saving clause under the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) for RA 9165 — which was later adopted into law under RA 10640 — authorizes "substantial compliance" in the procedure on custody and handling of the seized drugs provided that the prosecution satisfactorily proves that: (i) there was justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (ii) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved. 22
Here, the prosecution was able to provide a justifiable ground for marking the seized sachets of shabu and conducting an inventory hereof at the police station through Villamor's testimony that the place of arrest was dim and poorly lit. This fact was duly established in open court with every opportunity given to appellant to disprove through cross-examination or submission of countervailing evidence, yet he failed to do so.
However, despite providing a good reason for conducting the marking and inventory of the seized items at a place other than the place of arrest, the prosecution was not able to prove compliance with the rule on required witnesses provided under RA 10640, which amended Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 on July 15, 2014. Considering that the crimes charged against appellant were committed on November 23, 2014, it is necessary for the prosecution to abide by the mandatory policy for establishing the chain of custody laid down in the amending law.
As explained by the Court in People v. Lim, 23 the present rule requires the presence of two witnesses, namely: (i) an elected public official; and(ii) a representative from either the National Prosecution Service or the media. Thus, it is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that the presence of two witnesses to the physical inventory and photography of the illegal drug seized was not obtained due to reason/s such as:
(1) their attendance was impossible because the place of arrest was a remote area; (2) their safety during the inventory and photograph of the seized drugs was threatened by an immediate retaliatory action of the accused or any person/s acting for and in his/her behalf; (3) the elected official themselves were involved in the punishable acts sought to be apprehended; (4) earnest efforts to secure the presence of a DOJ or media representative and an elected public official within the period required under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code prove futile through no fault of the arresting officers, who face the threat of being charged with arbitrary detention; or (5) time constraints and urgency of the anti-drug operations, which often rely on tips of confidential assets, prevented the law enforcers from obtaining the presence of the required witnesses even before the offenders could escape. 24
In case of non-compliance with the provisions of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 as amended, it has been held in People v. Ramos25 that earnest efforts to secure the attendance of the required witnesses must be proven in order to maintain the admissibility of the seized items, viz.: TaDCEc
It is well to note that the absence of these required witnesses does not per se render the confiscated items inadmissible. However, a justifiable reason for such failure or a showing of any genuine and sufficient effort to secure the required witnesses under Section 21 of RA 9165 must be adduced. In People v. Umipang, the Court held that the prosecution must show that earnest efforts were employed in contacting the representatives enumerated under the law for "a sheer statement that representatives were unavailable without so much as an explanation on whether serious attempts were employed to look for other representatives, given the circumstances is to be regarded as a flimsy excuse." Verily, mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses are unacceptable as justified grounds for noncompliance. These considerations arise from the fact that police officers are ordinarily given sufficient time — beginning from the moment they have received the information about the activities of the accused until the time of his arrest — to prepare for a buy-bust operation and consequently, make the necessary arrangements beforehand knowing full well that they would have to strictly comply with the set procedure prescribed in Section 21 of RA 9165. As such, police officers are compelled not only to state reasons for their non-compliance, but must in fact, also convince the Court that they exerted earnest efforts to comply with the mandated procedure, and that under the given circumstances, their actions were reasonable. 26 (Emphases supplied; citations omitted)
In the present case, the apparent lack of any justifiable ground in not complying with the required witnesses, much less any allegation that the police had exerted earnest efforts in securing the same, compels the Court to set aside the findings of the courts a quo as regards the integrity and admissibility of the seized drugs due to non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, as amended.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated January 31, 2019 of the Court of Appeals its CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01808-MIN finding accused-appellant Rodel Paduga y Cabigquiz guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 in Criminal Case Nos. 2014-1426 and 2014-1427 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, Rodel Paduga y Cabigquiz is ACQUITTED of the crime charged.
The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City is ORDERED to: (a) cause the immediate release of Rodel Paduga y Cabigquiz, unless he is 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. Copies shall also be furnished to the Police General of the Philippine National Police and the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for their information.
Let entry of judgment be issued.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) RUMAR D. PASIONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 13-14. Notice of Appeal dated March 1, 2019.
2.Id. at 4-12. Penned by Associate Justice Oscar V. Badelles, with Associate Justices Evalyn M. Arellano-Morales and Florencio M. Mamauag, Jr., concurring.
3. CA rollo, pp. 41-50. Rendered by Presiding Judge Ma. Corazon B. Gaite-Llanderal.
4.Id. at 41-42.
5.Id. at 42-43.
6.Id. at 43-45.
7.Id. at 44-46.
8.Rollo, p. 5.
9.Id. at 5-6.
10. CA rollo, p. 46.
11.Id. at 46-47.
12.Supra note 3.
13. CA rollo, pp. 49-50.
14.Id. at 47-48.
15.Id. at 48-49.
16.Rollo, p. 11.
17.Id.
18.Id. at 8-9.
19.People v. Corral, G.R. No. 233883, January 7, 2019, citing People v. Crispo, 828 Phil. 416, 429 (2018).
20. See People v. Santos, G.R. No. 243627, November 27, 2019, citing People v. Año, 828 Phil. 439, 448 (2018).
21.Matabilas v. People, G.R. No. 243615, November 11, 2019, citing People v. Mamalumpon, 767 Phil. 845, 855 (2015).
22.Supra note 19, citing People v. Almorfe, 631 Phil. 51, 60 (2010).
23. G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018.
24.Id., citing People v. Reyes, 830 Phil. 619, 633 (2018).
25. 826 Phil. 981 (2018).
26.Id. at 996-997.