SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 252545. July 7, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.JOEY PAGULAYAN y TAGUINOD, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated07 July 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 252545 (People of the Philippines v. Joey Pagulayan y Taguinod). — The Court NOTES the separate manifestations (in lieu of supplemental briefs) 1 of counsel for appellant Joey Pagulayan y Taguinod (appellant) dated March 9, 2021 and of the Office of the Solicitor General 2 dated March 10, 2021, both dispensing with the filing of supplemental briefs as all relevant issues were already exhaustively discussed in their respective briefs filed before the Court of Appeals.
Appellant waived
On the warrantless arrest of appellant, suffice it to state that any objection involving arrest or how the court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made before arraignment; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived. 3 The legality of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused, and any defect in the arrest may be deemed cured when he or she voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction of the trial court. 4 The accused's voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court and his or her active participation during the trial cure any defect or irregularity that may have attended his or her arrest. 5
Here, appellant did not raise any objection to his warrantless arrest before he got arraigned. He, in fact, voluntarily submitted to the court's jurisdiction by entering a plea of not guilty, and thereafter, actively participating in the trial. As it was, his present challenge against his warrantless arrest came too late in the day as he raised it only for the first time on appeal before the Court of Appeals. This belated stance certainly cannot undo his waiver and the consequent proceedings that took place below as well as the appellate proceedings before the Court of Appeals.
The failure of the accused though to timely object to the illegality of his or her arrest does not preclude him or her from questioning the admissibility of the evidence seized as an incident of the warrantless arrest. 6 Its inadmissibility is not affected when the accused fails to timely question the court's jurisdiction over his or her person. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused and the constitutional inadmissibility of evidence are separate and mutually exclusive consequences of an illegal arrest. 7
The chain of
In drug related cases, the State bears the burden not only of proving the elements of the offense but also the corpus delicti itself. 8 The dangerous drug seized from an accused constitutes such corpus delicti. It is thus imperative for the prosecution to establish that the identity and integrity of the dangerous drug were duly preserved in order to sustain a verdict of conviction. 9 It must prove that the dangerous drug seized from the accused is indeed the substance offered in court with the same unshakeable accuracy as that required to sustain a finding of guilt. CAIHTE
Appellant was arrested on July 11, 2016 and subsequently charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165). Thus, the applicable law is RA 9165, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640. Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended, prescribes the standard in preserving the corpus delicti in illegal drug cases, viz.:
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 persons 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 non-compliance 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." (emphasis supplied)
xxx xxx xxx
The Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 further mandates:
Section 21. (a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory 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, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: x x x Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements underjustifiable 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 of and custody over said items. (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
xxx xxx xxx
Generally, there are four (4) links in the chain of custody of the seized illegal drug: (i) its seizure and marking, if practicable, from the accused, by the apprehending officer; (ii) its turnover by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (iii) its turnover by the investigating officer to the forensic chemist for examination; and (iv) its turnover by the forensic chemist to the court. 10
The first link refers to the seizure and marking which must be done immediately at the place of the arrest. Too, it includes the physical inventory and taking of photograph of the seized items which should be done in the presence of the accused or his/her representative or counsel, together with an elected public official and a representative of the Department of Justice (DOJ) or the media.
Here, the first link of the chain of custody had already been breached early on.
At the outset, the marking was not done immediately after arrest and seizure of the specimen. In People v. Castillo, 11 the Court explained the importance of immediately marking the corpus delicti after seizure:
In People v. Saunar, this Court discussed the purpose of marking and emphasized that it is a separate requirement from inventorying and photographing:
Although the requirement of "marking" is not found in Republic Act No. 9165, its significance lies in ensuring the authenticity of the corpus delicti. In People v. Dahil:
[In] proving the chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or other related items immediately after they have been seized from the accused. "Marking" means the placing by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initials and signature on the items seized. Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link; hence, it is vital that the seized contraband be immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. The marking of the evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of the criminal proceedings, thus, preventing switching, planting or contamination of evidence. (emphasis supplied and citations omitted) DETACa
Here, the prosecution never offered any explanation why the marking was not immediately done at the place of arrest. Inexplicably, the police officers just decided to go to the house of one Vicente Canapi (Vicente). This breach is fatal because the prosecution did not even attempt to justify this deviation from the mandatory procedure. Indeed, 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 circumstance, their actions were reasonable."12 Meantime, the alleged corpus delicti remained unmarked and there is no testimony or evidence how Police Officer 3 Marlowe Lannu (PO3 Lannu), who was in custody of the plastic sachet, continued to ensure the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti before the actual marking, inventory, and photographing were finally done. In People v. Zanoria, 13 the Court said that "[e]ven if the transfer from the place of arrest to the police station may be justified, this is by no means a blanket authorization to be lackadaisical in the process. The risk of alteration, tampering, contamination, and substitution persists until the presentation of evidence in court. At every step of the way, police officers are expected to zealously adhere to precautions on chain of custody."
Verily, PO3 Lannu's failure to mark the sachet immediately after seizure already tainted the chain of custody. As a consequence, no amount of subsequent safety measures can cure this germinal defect.
Another break in the first link is that the inventory was done in the presence of appellant and three (3) elected officials, namely, OIC Punong Barangay Severino Baggayan, Kagawad Pedro Quizzagan and Kagawad Betty Taguba. The prosecution acknowledged that the police officers were not able to secure the presence of a representative from the media or DOJ as required by RA 9165, as amended. The prosecution though asserted that the police officers invited these representatives but they did not arrive. Notably, there were three (3) elected officials who witnessed the marking, inventory, and photographing, but this is not what the law requires. To repeat, the insulating witnesses must be an elected public official and a representative of the DOJ or the media. The police officers have no discretion to substitute these witnesses with others. In People v. Vertudes, 14 the Court frowned on such substitutions, thus:
It is thus obvious that the police failed to comply with the three-witnesses requirement under Section 21. Although there were two Barangay Tanods that were present at the Barangay Hall for the inventory and photography of the seized items, they are not the required witnesses contemplated by the law. It should be emphasized that the law requires the presence of an elected public official. A Barangay Tanod is not an elected official; they are merely appointed by the Sangguniang Barangay.
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. 15 Here, the Court is not convinced by the prosecution's excuses on why no representative either from the media or DOJ was present. The prosecution's explanation that both representatives, who remain unidentified, were invited but simply did not show up is not up to the 'earnest efforts' standard set by law.
Indeed, 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 non-compliance. 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 amended. As such, police officers are compelled not only to state the 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. 16
Anent the second link, PO3 Lannu did not testify on how he continued to ensure the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti after the actual marking, inventory, and photographing. He did not testify on how he handled the corpus delicti while transporting it from Vicente's house to the police station. He did not testify on how he handled the corpus delicti while he was at the police station and how long it took the police officers to prepare the paper work. Lastly, he did not testify on how he handled the corpus delicti while he was transporting it to the crime laboratory. Clearly, the prosecution's failure to address this gap in the chain of custody is disconcerting and, in effect, casts more doubt on the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti. aDSIHc
As for the third link, the same was likewise breached. A forensic chemist should testify that: (1) he or she received the seized article as marked, properly sealed, and intact; (2) he or she resealed it after examination of the content; and (3) he or she placed his or her own marking on the same to ensure that it could not be tampered with pending trial. 17 Here, PCI Mayra Madria Tulaun (PCI Tulaun) merely testified that after she received the letter-request and specimen, she did an examination on the specimen, the results of which, she reflected in her Chemistry Report No. D-164-2016. The essential information on how she handled the corpus delicti is conspicuously missing, thus, leading to a total dearth of evidence that the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti was preserved during the laboratory examination.
Lastly, the fourth link was not accounted for. The fourth link involves the submission of the seized drugs by the forensic chemist to the court when presented as evidence in the criminal case. 18 Here, there is no information on how PCI Tulaun safeguarded the seized item after the examination until it was presented in court.
True, the saving clause under Section 21 (a), Article II, RA 9165 IRR ordains that non-compliance with the prescribed requirement shall not invalidate the seizure and custody of the items provided such non-compliance is justified and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officers. 19 Here, the saving clause is not triggered for the prosecution failed to prove that the police officers' non-compliance with the prescribed procedure was justified and it is very clear that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items have already been tainted.
In sum, we find that the prosecution utterly failed to (1) prove the corpus delicti of the crime especially since the amount involved in this 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; 20 (2) establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs; and (3) offer any explanation why the Chain of Custody Rule was not complied with. Accordingly, the Court is constrained to acquit appellant based on reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated January 27, 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12485 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant JOEY PAGULAYAN y TAGUINOD is ACQUITTED in Criminal Case No. 18732.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City is ORDERED to a) immediately release JOEY PAGULAYAN y TAGUINOD from custody unless he is being held for some other lawful cause or causes; and b) submit a report on the action taken within five (5) days from notice.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED." (J. Lopez, J., designated additional member per Special Order No. 2822 dated April 7, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 24-25.
2.Id. at 28-30.
3. See Lapi v. People, G.R. No. 210731, February 13, 2019.
4.People v. Alunday, 586 Phil. 120, 133 (2008).
5. See People v. Bacla-An, 445 Phil. 729, 748 (2003).
6. See Homar v. People, 768 Phil. 195, 209 (2015).
7.Veridiano v. People, 810 Phil. 642, 654 (2017).
8.People v. Calares, 829 Phil. 262, 269 (2018).
9. See Calahi v. People, 820 Phil. 886, 894 (2017), citing People v. Casacop, 778 Phil. 369 (2018) and Zafra v. People, 686 Phil. 1095, 1108-1109 (2012).
10.People v. De Leon, G.R. No. 227867, June 26, 2019.
11. See G.R. No. 238339, August 07, 2019.
12. See People v. Labsan, G.R. No. 227184, February 06, 2019.
13. G.R. No. 226396, December 02, 2019.
14. G.R. No. 220725, October 16, 2019.
15.People v. Manansala, G.R. No. 229509, July 03, 2019.
16.People v. Ramos, 826 Phil. 981, 996-997 (2018).
17.People v. Cabuhay, 836 Phil. 903, 918 (2018).
18.People v. Bangcola, G.R. No. 237802, March 18, 2019.
19.People v. Frias, G.R. No. 234686, June 10, 2019.
20.People v. Pagsigan, G.R. No. 232487, September 03, 2018, 878 SCRA 545, 562.