FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 230914. November 23, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.PAG-ASA DIWA ZETA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 23, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 230914 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, versusPAG-ASA DIWA ZETA,accused-appellant.
After a careful review of the records of the case and the issues submitted by the parties, the Court REVERSES the Decision 1 dated September 28, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07793, which affirmed the Decision 2 dated September 16, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 127, Caloocan City, convicting accused-appellant Pag-asa Diwa Zeta (accused-appellant) for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, 3 in Criminal Case No. 88627. The Court acquits accused-appellant for failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
In cases involving dangerous drugs, the burden of the prosecution weighs heavily on the proof of the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti, which is the dangerous drug itself. 4 To discharge this burden, the prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized items and prove compliance with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. 5 Strict compliance with these requirements is mandatory, and any deviation therefrom must be acknowledged and explained or justified by the prosecution; otherwise, the integrity and credibility of the corpus delicti are tarnished and the claim that a violation of RA 9165 was committed by the accused becomes questionable. 6 CAIHTE
Section 21 requires of the members of the buy-bust team to comply with the following prescriptions: (1) the seized items must be inventoried and photographed immediately after seizure or confiscation; and (2) the physical inventory and photographing must be done in the presence of (a) the accused or his/her representative or counsel, (b) an elected public official, (c) a representative from the media, and (d) a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), all of whom shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
In this case, however, while the Inventory of Seized Evidence 7 was signed by Amante Villalobos, a barangay kagawad, Jimmy Mendoza, a radio reporter, and Assistant City Prosecutor Bartolome (ACP Bartolome), a representative from the DOJ; Agent Allan Capiral (Agent Capiral), the designated poseur-buyer, admitted in his testimony that only the barangay kagawad and the media representative were present during the physical inventory and photographing of the seized drugs at the barangay hall. ACP Bartolome, the representative from the DOJ, belatedly signed the inventory receipt when the buy-bust team met with him somewhere in the University of the Philippines. Relevant portions of Agent Capiral's testimony states:
Q. So you mean to say that ACP Bartolome was not in the Barangay Hall?
A. Only the two witnesses were present in Barangay Hall, ma'am. ACP Bartolome was the third witness.
Q. So let us be clear. When you conducted the inventory at the Barangay Hall, who are the only persons present in there?
A. Barangay official and Jimmy Mendoza, ma'am.
xxx xxx xxx
Q. So this ACP Bartolome, he was not there at the Barangay Hall?
A. Yes, ma'am. We went to him somewhere in UP.
xxx xxx xxx
Q. So, what did ACP Bartolome witnesses at UP, Diliman?
A. The items, ma'am.
Q. You only showed him the items, correct?
A. And the accused and the items, ma'am.
Q. He was never in the target place at Progreso Street, Bagong Bario, Caloocan City, correct?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. He was never in the Barangay Hall?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. You only went to him somewhere in UP?
A. Yes, ma'am. 8 (Emphasis supplied)
As can be gleaned from the foregoing, ACP Bartolome did not actually witness the physical inventory and photographing of the seized items. He was not present at the barangay hall when the police officers conducted an inventory of the confiscated drugs. ACP Bartolome was only made to sign the inventory receipt upon showing him the items listed therein. This is a clear violation of the requirements of Section 21. DETACa
In a plethora of cases, 9 the Court has repeatedly stressed that the presence of all the third-party witnesses at the time of the inventory and photographing is mandatory and the law imposes said requirement because their presence will guarantee "against planting of evidence and frame-up." 10 The presence of these disinterested witnesses will insulate "the apprehension and incrimination proceedings from any taint of illegitimacy or irregularity." 11
To make matters worse, the prosecution did not offer any explanation or justification on why the police officers failed to secure the presence of all the required witnesses during the inventory and photographing of the confiscated drugs. This unjustified deviation from the requirements of Section 21 cast reasonable doubt on the veracity of the contents of the inventory receipt as well as the legitimacy of the supposed buy-bust operations conducted against accused-appellant.
Accordingly, the Court holds that the totality of the evidence presented in this case does not support the finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The unexplained lapses in the requirements mandated by law puts into question the identity and integrity of dangerous drugs allegedly seized from accused-appellant. In other words, the prosecution in this case failed to prove the corpus delicti. Consequently, accused-appellant should be acquitted on the basis of reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal 12 is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated September 28, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07793 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Pag-asa Diwa Zeta is hereby ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to establish her guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless she is being lawfully held for another cause. Let an entry of judgment be issued immediately. HEITAD
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Superintendent of Correctional Institution for Women, City of Mandaluyong for immediate implementation. The said Superintendent is ORDERED to REPORT to this Court within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution the action she has taken.
SO ORDERED." Lopez, M., J., on official leave.
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. 2-26. Penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta with Associate Justices Jane Aurora C. Lantion and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela, concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 38-51. Penned by Judge Victoriano B. Cabanos.
3. 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."
4.People v. Labsan, G.R. No. 227184, February 6, 2019, 892 SCRA 112, 128.
5.People v. Supat, G.R. No. 217027, June 6, 2018, 865 SCRA 45.
6. See People v. Que, G.R. No. 212994, January 31, 2018, 853 SCRA 487.
7. Records, p. 18.
8. TSN, August 29, 2013, pp. 61-62.
9. See People v. Arellaga, G.R. No. 231796, August 24, 2020, accessed at <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/66340>; People v. Casilang, G.R. No. 242159, February 5, 2020, accessed at <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/66075>; Hedreyda v. People, G.R. No. 243313, November 27, 2019, accessed at <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/66031>; People v. Sta. Cruz, G.R. No. 244256, November 25, 2019, accessed at <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65946>; People v. Tomawis, G.R. No. 228890, April 18, 2018, 862 SCRA 131; People v. Calibod, G.R. No. 230230, November 20, 2017, 845 SCRA 370; People v. Sagana, G.R. No. 208471, August 2, 2017, 834 SCRA 225; and People v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 192432, June 23, 2014, 727 SCRA 113.
10.People v. Sagana, id. at 247.
11.Id.
12.Rollo, pp. 27-28.