THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 240661. December 6, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. NOEMI PANGAN y ANINON, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated December 6, 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 240661 (People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Noemi Pangan y Aninon, Accused-Appellant.) — This resolves the Appeal filed by accused-appellant Noemi Pangan y Aninon (appellant), assailing the Decision 1 dated 28 February 2018 rendered by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09068. The CA affirmed the Decision 2 dated 24 January 2017 of Branch 23, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila in Criminal Case No. 15-318380-81, convicting appellant for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165.
Antecedents
Separate Information for violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165 were filed against appellant before the RTC, the accusatory portions of which state:
Criminal Case No. 15-31830
That on or about, July 14, 2015, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused not having been authorized by law to sell, trade, deliver, transport or distribute any dangerous drug, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell to a police officer/poseur-buyer one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet marked as "NPA" containing (0.163) ZERO POINT ONE SIX THREE gram of white crystalling substantace n containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, commonly known as "SHABU," a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law.3
Criminal Case No. 15-31830
That on or about, July 14, 2015, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused not having been authorized by law to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in her possession and under her custody and control two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets with markings and recorded net weights, to wit:
"NPA-1" containing (0.159) ZERO POINT ONE FIVE NINE gram
"NPA-2" containing (0.210) ZERO POINT TWO ONE ZERO gram
Or with a total net weight of (0.369) ZERO POINT THREE SIX NINE gram of white crystalling substantnce n containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, commonly known as "SHABU," a dangerous drug
Contrary to law.4
Upon arraignment, appellant, assisted by counsel de oficio, pleaded "not guilty" to the charges. 5 After termination of the pre-trial, trial on the merits ensued. 6
Version of the Prosecution
In the morning of 14 July 2015, a regular confidential informant (RCI) went to the Manila Police District Station 9 and relayed information to its superintendent, Aquino B. Oliva, concerning the illicit drug activities of one alias Noemi, later identified as herein appellant, in Malate, Manila. 7 A preoperation report was prepared. After obtaining an authority to operate from the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), a buy-bust team was constituted, with a Major Salisi as team leader and PO3 Wilfredo De Leon (PO3 De Leon) as the designated poseur-buyer. 8
The buy-bust team proceeded to the target area on Zapanta Street, Brgy. 733, Malate, Manila and saw appellant in the act of peddling shabu. 9 PO3 De Leon and the RCI approached appellant and inquired if she had shabu to sell to him, to which the latter replied in the affirmative. After handing over the marked money, appellant gave PO3 De Leon a plastic sachet containing suspected shabu in exchange. PO3 De Leon made the pre-arranged signal and, along with the rest of the buy-bust team, proceeded to arrest appellant after informing her of her rights. EcTCAD
Upon frisking, PO3 De Leon found two more plastic sachets in appellant's possession. The seized items were marked and photographed as "NPA" and "NPA-1" and "NPA-2." The buy-team went to the barangay hall where Barangay Chairperson Jigs Raga witnessed the inventory and thereafter brought appellant to the Ospital ng Maynila for drug testing. 10
PO3 De Leon turned over the seized items to PO2 Arvin Elma (PO2 Elma), who then prepared the request for laboratory examination and brought the items to the crime laboratory of Manila Police District. The same was received by PCI Elisa R. Arturo (PCI Arturo) who issued Chemistry Report No. D-675-15, confirming that all three plastic sachets seized from appellant yielded positive for shabu. She then turned over the evidence to the RTC. 11
Version of the Defense
The defense maintained that on the day and time of apprehension, police officers with firearms and dressed as civilians arrived at the home of appellant and told her to come with them for verification at the police station. The police then instructed her to call her family to come up with money in exchange for her release. She was later detained. 12
Appellant also insisted that PO3 De Leon brought out a sachet of shabu and several P100 bills, and asked her to point to the same. Two days after her arrest, she was brought to the barangay hall where the barangay chairperson signed the inventory.
Ruling of the RTC
On. 14 January 2017, the RTC issued its Decision, finding appellant guilty of violating Sections 5 and 11 of RA 9165. The dispositive portion of the said Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused NOEMI PANGAN y ANINON is found GUILTY, beyond reasonable doubt of the offenses for which she was charged. Accordingly, the court renders verdict as follows, to wit:
In Criminal Case No. 15-318380, for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act 9165, NOEMI PANGAN y ANINON, is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00);
In Criminal Case No. 15-318381, for violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act 9165, NOEMI PANGAN y ANINON, is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of Twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to Fourteen (14) years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00).
The three (3) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance with markings "NPA," "NPA-1," and "NPA-2," subject matter of these cases, are ordered destroyed pursuant to existing rules. Const de oficio. 13
The RTC ruled that the prosecution successfully established the guilt of appellant beyond reasonable doubt for both charges. Moreover, the prosecution was able to prove that the chain of custody over the evidence was unbroken, and a barangay official was present to witness the inventory. According to the trial court, the defense of denial cannot overcome the positive testimony of the prosecution witnesses.
Ruling of the CA
The CA denied appellant's appeal and affirmed the findings of the RTC. The decretal portion of the Decision of the CA dated 28 February 2018 provides:
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The assailed January 24, 2017 Decision of the Manila Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, in Criminal Case Nos. 15-318380 and 15-318831 finding the herein accused-appellant Noemi Pangan y Aninon guilty for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, is hereby AFFIRMED. No costs.
SO ORDERED. 14
Hence, the instant appeal.
Issue
The sole issue in this case is whether or not the CA erred in affirming the ruling of the RTC which found appellant guilty of violating Sections 5 and 11, RA 9165. HSAcaE
Ruling of the Court
The Court finds merit in this appeal.
"In every prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must establish the following elements: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took place; and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence." 15 "As to the illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following elements should be ascertained: (1) the accused was in possession of dangerous drugs; (2) such possession was not authorized by law; and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of dangerous drugs." 16
"In both the illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the corpus delicti is the seized drug itself. The prosecution must satisfy the court that the drug confiscated from the accused is the same drug presented in court as evidence. It can establish this by maintaining an unbroken chain of custody of the seized illegal drug." 17
Section 21 (a) of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, 18 prevailing at the time of the alleged commission of the offenses, provides:
SECTION 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 drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory 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;
xxx xxx xxx
From the records, it appears that the chain of custody was not preserved for the following reasons:
First, while the marking and taking of photographs were done at the place of apprehension, the inventory was conducted only at the barangay hall. In People v. Tomawis (Tomawis), 19 the Court ruled that the phrase "immediately after seizure and confiscation" means that "the physical inventory and photographing of the drugs were intended by the law to be made immediately after, or at the place of apprehension. If this is not practicable, the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) allows that the inventory and photographing be done as soon as the buy-bust team reaches the nearest police station or the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team." 20
Second, only one of the two required witnesses, or the Barangay Chairperson as an elected public official, was present during the inventory. The representative from the media or the Department of Justice, was conspicuously absent.
Third, the sole witness to the inventory was merely called in after appellant's apprehension. In Tomawis, the Court maintained that the three (3) required witnesses should already be physically present at the time of apprehension — a requirement that can easily be complied with by the buy-bust team considering that the buy-bust operation is, by its nature, a planned activity.
And fourth, the prosecution failed to offer any reasons to justify the deviation from the required procedure under RA 9165 and its IRR. To stress, "it is incumbent upon the prosecution to account for the witnesses' 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." 21 Similarly, no explanation was likewise given why the inventory was not done immediately at the place of apprehension.
The courts are called to be mindful in resolving drug cases, especially in cases when the specimen seized is minuscule in amount. In this case, the items seized only weighed an aggregate of 0.532 gram. Considering this, the same is highly susceptible to planting, tampering or switching.
"Indeed, establishing every link in the chain of custody is crucial to the preservation of the integrity, identity, and evidentiary value of the seized illegal drug. Failure to demonstrate compliance with even just one of these links creates reasonable doubt that the substance confiscated from the accused is the same substance offered in evidence, as in this case." 22
Verily, the failure of the prosecution to prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti, the seized items themselves, have been preserved warrants the acquittal of appellant. HESIcT
WHEREFORE, the premises considered, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated 28 February 2018 rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09068, affirming the Decision 23 dated 24 January 2017 of Branch 23, Regional Trial Court of Manila in Criminal Case No. 15-318380-81, convicting appellant for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Noemi Pangan y Aninon is hereby ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. She is ordered to be IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless she is confined for any other lawful cause.
The Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for Women is DIRECTED to report the action taken to this Court 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.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-18; penned by Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante, and concurred in by then Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr., now a retired member of this Court, and Associate Justice Maria Elisa Sempio Diy.
2. CA rollo, pp. 50-58; penned by Presiding Judge Caroline Rivera-Colasito.
3.Id. at 50.
4.Id. at 50-51.
5.Id. at 51.
6.Id. at 51 to 53.
7.Rollo, p. 4, CA Decision.
8.Id.
9.Id.
10.Id.
11.Id. at 4 to 5.
12.Id. at 5.
13. CA rollo, p. 58, RTC Decision.
14.Rollo, pp. 16-17.
15.People v. Abdulah, G.R. No. 243941, 11 March 2020 [Per J. Leonen].
16. See People v. Suating, G.R. No. 220142, 29 January 2020 [Per J. Leonen].
17.Pimentel v. People, G.R. No. 239772, 29 January 2020 [Per J. Leonen].
18. Took effect on 07 August 2014; see People v. De Dios, G.R. No. 243664, 22 January 2020 [Per SAJ Perlas-Bernabe].
19. 830 Phil. 385 (2018) [Per J. Caguioa].
20.Id.
21.Saban v. People, G.R. No. 253812, 28 June 2021 [SAJ Perlas-Bernabe].
22.People v. Villalon, Jr., G.R. No. 249412, 15 March 2021 [SAJ Perlas-Bernabe].
23. CA rollo, pp. 50-58; penned by Presiding Judge Caroline Rivera-Colasito.
nNote from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document. "crystalling substantace" should be " crystalline substance."
nNote from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document. "crystalling substantace" should be " crystalline substance."