SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 255745. September 12, 2022.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.CARLITO PARIDO y PEPITO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 12, 2022 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 255745 (People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee v. Carlito Parido y Pepito, accused-appellant). — Assailed in this ordinary appeal 1 is the Decision 2 dated December 13, 2019 of` the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11416, which affirmed the Joint Decision 3 dated June 7, 2018 of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 127 (RTC) in Criminal Case Nos. C-93571 (15) and C-93572 (15), finding accused-appellant Carlito Parido y Pepito (Parido) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Safe and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, respectively defined and penalized under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, 4 otherwise known as the 'Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.'
The Facts
This case stemmed from two (2) Informations 5 filed before the RTC, charging Parido with the aforesaid crimes, the accusatory portions of which read:
Criminal Case No. C-93571(15)(For Violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165)
That on or about the 26th day of January, 2015 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, trade, deliver and give away to PO2 LEMERY GALANG, who posed as buyer, METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE, otherwise known as "Shabu" weighing 5.41 grams, knowing the same to be such; accused Carlito Parido y Pepito receiving the buy bust money from said PO2 Lemery Galang, after delivering to the latter one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet, later marked as "LG-CP 1-26-15 (BUY BUST)," with signature. aScITE
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Criminal Case No. C-93572(15)(For Violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165)
That on or about the 26th day of January, 2015 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control four (4) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets each later marked as "LG-CP1 1-26-15 (RECOVERED) with signature," "LG-CP2 1-26-15 (RECOVERED) with signature," "LG-CP3 1-26-15 (RECOVERED) with signature," & "LG-CP4 1-26-15 (RECOVERED) with signature" containing METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE (Shabu) weighing 0.27 gram, 0.33 gram, 0.29 gram & 0.32 gram, which when subjected for laboratory examination gave POSITIVE result to the tests for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in gross violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
The prosecution alleged that at around 11:00 a.m. of January 25, 2015, a confidential informant (CI) tipped the operatives of the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Group (SAID-SOTG) of the Caloocan City Police Station that a certain individual called 'Lito,' later on identified as Parido, was selling shabu in Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City. Thus, the SAID-SOTG organized a buy-bust operation in coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency. Police Officer 2 Lemery Galang (PO2 Galang) was designated as the poseur-buyer, with the rest of the team serving as perimeter back-up and security. The operatives proceeded to the target area in the morning of January 26, 2015. 6
At the target area, Parido arrived onboard his tricycle and parked in front of Clover Inn Motel along Caloocan. PO2 Galang approached Parido and asked him if he was 'Lito,' to which the latter confirmed and said 'Oo kosa, kumpleto ba pera mo?' to which PO2 Galang replied, 'Oo pare ito yung seven thousand. Nasaan yung order ko?' After the exchange of the marked money and the prohibited drugs, PO2 Galang introduced himself as a police officer and arrested Parido. During the arrest, PO2 Galang apprised Parido of his constitutional rights and the nature of the accusations against him. He then frisked Parido as part of the standard operating procedure and searched the areas of the tricycle where he recovered four (4) additional plastic sachets of suspected shabu. 7
At the place of the arrest, PO2 Galang marked the plastic sachets he purchased from Parido as well as those which he recovered from the tricycle. Thereafter, the team brought Parido and the seized items to the precinct for the conduct of inventory and the taking of the photographs, which were done in the presence of Parido, the police operatives, and a media representative. Thereafter, PO2 Galang turned over the seized items to Police Officer 2 Raymond Hernandez (PO2 Hernandez) for the accomplishment of necessary requests and other reportorial requirements. PO2 Hernandez then personally delivered the seized items to Philippine National Police-Northern Police District Crime Laboratory for testing. The seized items were received by Police Officer 2 Ruel Montero (PO2 Montero) and was then forwarded to Police Chief Inspector Lourdes Cejes 8 (PO2 Cejes) of the Valenzuela City Crime Laboratory. After the conduct of a qualitative examination, the seized items tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. 9 After placing her own markings on the specimens and conducting the examination, PCI Cejes sealed the items and turned over the specimens to PO2 Montero where she retrieved them and presented the same in court. 10 ATICcS
In defense, Parido vehemently denied the charges against him. He argued that while in queue in the tricycle terminal at RSG 1 Town Homes, Mandaluyong City, a van arrived and the persons onboard introduced themselves as police officers, frisked him, and took P400.00 from him. Thereafter, he was boarded in the vehicle. He alleged that his live-in partner saw what had happened and was likewise made to board the vehicle. They were then brought to Max's Restaurant, 10th Avenue, Caloocan City, where his partner was released to produce P1,000,000.00. With his partner failing to return, he was charged for violations of Sections 5, 11, and 26 of RA 9165. 11
The RTC Ruling
In a Joint Decision 12 dated June 7, 2018, the RTC found Parido guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged. Accordingly, he was sentenced as follows: (a) for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, he was sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine in the amount of P500,000.00; and (b) for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, he was sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months, as maximum, and to pay a fine in the amount of P300,000.00. 13
The RTC ruled that the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt the elements of the crimes of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, considering that: (a) Parido was caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu through a buy-bust operation conducted by the Caloocan City SAID-SOTG; and (b) after Parido's arrest, his tricycle was frisked and more plastic sachets containing shabu were recovered from him. Moreover, the RTC found that the police officers were able to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs seized from him, considering that there is an unbroken chain of custody from the time PO2 Galang received the item from Parido and the recovery of the four (4) other sachets up until its presentation in court. 14
Aggrieved, Parido appealed to the CA.
The CA Ruling
In a Decision 15 dated December 13, 2019, the CA affirmed the RTC ruling. 16 In affirming the RTC's findings, the CA held that the prosecution had established all the elements of the crimes charged, and that the integrity had evidentiary value of the plastic sachets seized from Parido were preserved through an unbroken chain of custody. The CA likewise held that the seizure of the four (4) plastic sachets from the warrantless search was justified considering that they were found in a box, which was within the immediate control of Parido at the time he was arrested for selling shabu. 17
Hence, this appeal. 18
The Issue Before the Court
The issue before the Court is whether or not Parido is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, respectively defined and penalized under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165.
The Court's Ruling
The appeal is meritorious. cSEDTC
At the outset, it must be stressed that in criminal cases, 'an appeal throws the entire case wide open for review and the reviewing tribunal can correct errors, though unassigned in the appealed judgment, or even reverse the trial court's decision based on grounds other than those that the parties raised as errors. The appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and renders such court competent to examine records, revise the judgment, appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law. 19
Guided by the foregoing consideration, the Court is constrained to acquit Parido of the crimes charged, as will be explained below.
In cases of violation of 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.' 20 To obviate any unnecessary doubts on the identity of the dangerous drugs, the prosecution has to show an unbroken chain of custody over the same. It must be able to account for each link in the chain of custody over the dangerous drug, from the moment of seizure up to its presentation in court as evidence of the corpus delicti. 21 Failing to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti renders the evidence for the State insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and hence, warrants an acquittal. 22
In this regard, case law instructs that there are four (4) links in the chain of custody of the purported drugs confiscated from the accused, namely: 'first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.' 23 Notably, an unjustified deviation from any of the links in the chain of custody shall be sufficient to produce an acquittal on the ground that the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti had not been adequately preserved. 24
As regards the first link of the chain of custody, it is required that the inventory and taking of photographs of the seized items '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, 25 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 National Prosecution Service (NPS) or the media. The law requires the presence of these witnesses primarily 'to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence.' 26
It bears stressing that 'compliance with the chain of custody procedure is strictly enjoined as the same has been regarded not merely as a procedural technicality but as a matter of substantive law.' 27 Thus, in the case of People v. Lim, 28(Lim), the Court En Banc definitively held that the prosecution has the positive duty to demonstrate observance with the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended, in such a way that it must acknowledge and justify any perceived deviations therefrom. 29 AaCTcI
In cases of non-compliance with the witnesses requirement, Lim further instructs that 'it must be alleged and proved that the presence of the required witnesses to the physical inventory and photography of the seized drugs was not obtained due to reason/s, such as: (a) their attendance was impossible because the place of arrest was a remote area; (b) 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; (c) the elected official themselves were involved in the punishable acts sought to be apprehended; (d) 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 (e) 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. 30Finally, Lim further mandates that the prosecution must prove that the arresting officers had exerted earnest efforts to secure the attendance of the witnesses, as sheer statements that a representatives were unavailable without so much as an explanation on whether serious attempts were employed to look for other representatives, are to be regarded as a flimsy excuse.31
In this case, a closer scrutiny of the records would show that the prosecution's witnesses testified that only a media representative was present during the inventory and taking of photographs of the seized drugs. 32 This is further supported by the Receipt of Physical Inventory 33 form dated January 26, 2015, which only shows the signature of the media representative. 34 Moreover, an arduous examination of the case records, including the transcripts of the testimonies and exhibits presented and offered in court, reveals that the prosecution failed to acknowledge this glaring deviation from the witness requirement, much more justify and show why they were only able to secure the attendance of the media representative without any explanation on why they failed to look for an elected public official to witness the conduct of the inventory and taking of photographs of the seized items in compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640.
Thus, and in view of the complete and unjustified non-compliance with the chain of custody rule, particularly the witness requirement, the Court is therefore constrained to conclude that the integrity and evidentiary value of the items purportedly seized from Parido had been compromised. Perforce, Parido's acquittal from the crimes charged is warranted.
FOR THESE REASONS, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated December 13, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11416 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Carlito Parido y Pepito is ACQUITTED of the crimes charged.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ORDERED to: (a) cause the immediate release of accused-appellant Carlito Parido y Pepito, unless he is being lawfully 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.
Let copies of this Resolution 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 immediately.
SO ORDERED." (Leonen, SAJ, on official leave; Lazaro-Javier, J., Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2909 dated September 9, 2022). SDHTEC
By authority of the Court:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MA. CONSOLACION GAMINDE-CRUZADADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. See Notice of Appeal dated January 21, 2020; rollo, pp. 26-27.
2. Id. at 4-25. Penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao (now a Member of the Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon A. Cruz and Gabriel T. Robeniol.
3. CA rollo, pp. 55-74. Penned by Presiding Judge Victoriano B. Cabanos.
4. 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,' approved on June 7, 2002.
5. Records, pp. 2-3 and 43-44.
6. Id. at 6.
7. Id. at 6-7.
8. 'Lourdeliza' some parts of the rollo.
9. Id. at 7.
10. CA rollo, p. 59.
11. Id. at 67.
12. Id. at 55-74.
13. Id. at 74.
14. Id. at 69-72.
15. Rollo, pp. 4-25.
16. Id. at 25.
17. Id. at 9-25.
18. See Notice of Appeal dated January 21, 2020; rollo, pp. 26-27.
19. See People v. Bernardo, G.R. No. 242696, November 11, 2020; citing Arambulo v. People, G.R. No. 241834, July 24, 2019.
20. See Saban v. People, G.R. No. 253812, June 28, 2021; citations omitted.
21. See People v. Villalon, Jr., G.R. No. 249412, March 15, 2021; citing People v. Ching, 819 Phil. 565, 576 (2017).
22. See People v. Gamboa, 833 Phil. 1055, 1072 (2018); citing People v. Umipang, 686 Phil. 1024, 1039-1040 (2012).
23. People v. Que, 824 Phil. 882, 895 (2018); citing People v. Nandi, 639 Phil. 134, 144-145 (2010).
24. See People v. Villalon, Jr., supra.
25. 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.
26. See Saban v. People, supra note 20.
27. See id.; citing People v. Miranda, 824 Phil. 1042, 1059 (2018).
28. 839 Phil. 598 (2018).
29. See id. at 661; citing People v. Sipin, 833 Phil. 67, 92 (2018).
30. People v. Lim, supra note 28, at 663; citing People v. Sipin, id. at 93.
31. Id., citing People v. Ramos, 826 Phil. 981, 998-999 (2018).
32. TSN, September 3, 2015, p. 26.
33. Exhibits 'P' and 'P-1,' folder of exhibits, p. 196.
34. Id. See also CA rollo, p. 91.