FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 233880. * November 11, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. CHAROL PERALTA y ARCAMO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated November 11, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 233880 (People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee v. Charol Peralta y Arcamo, accused-appellant).
This is an Appeal 1 from the Decision 2 dated April 7, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 08180, which affirmed the Judgment 3 dated March 2, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 79 (RTC), which found herein accused-appellant Charol Peralta y Arcamo (Peralta) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002" for illegal delivery of dangerous drugs.
Antecedents
Peralta was charged with violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165. The accusatory portion of the information reads as follows:
That on or about the 9th day of July, 2015, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, without lawful authority did then and there willfully and unlawfully dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport, a dangerous drug, to wit: Two heat sealed transparent plastic sachets with zero point sixty one (0.61) gram of white crystalline substance containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
Upon arraignment, Peralta pleaded not guilty to the offense charged. 5 After pre-trial was terminated, trial on the merits ensued.
Version of the Prosecution:
On July 9, 2015, Police Officer III Richard Mabazza (PO3 Mabazza) was assigned as the Jail Officer of the day at the District Anti-Illegal Drugs (DAID) situated in Camp Karingal, Sikatuna Village, Quezon City. At around 11:15 in the morning, PO3 Mabazza noticed that a jail visitor, later on identified as Peralta, seemed uneasy and uncomfortable while in the waiting area of the precinct. Peralta was visiting an inmate, Joy Morta (Morta), who was detained in Camp Karingal. Morta was charged with violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165. When PO3 Mabazza observed that Peralta handed over a plastic bottle to Morta, he called the attention of Morta and immediately took the plastic bottle from her. 6
PO3 Mabazza testified that it is standard operating procedure at the precinct to check all items brought in by visitors intended for the detainees. PO3 Mabazza inspected the plastic bottle, which was a Johnson's Baby Powder bottle, and concealed inside were two (2) plastic sachets containing crystalline substance suspected to be shabu. PO3 Mabazza arrested Peralta and apprised her of her constitutional rights. He then marked the plastic sachets with markings "RM-CAP 1 7-9-15" and "RM-CAP 2 7-9-15." 7 After which, PO3 Mabazza called the attention of PO3 Alexander Padilla Delos Reyes (PO3 Delos Reyes), the police investigator, who prepared the inventory receipt, chain of custody form, request for laboratory examination, request for drug dependency examination and request for physical examination of Peralta. 8
PO3 Mabazza thereafter brought Peralta to the barangay hall of Barangay Botocan where an inventory was conducted in the presence of Barangay Kagawad Benjamin Eremano (Kagawad Eremano). PO3 Delos Reyes took photographs of the seized items at the DAID in Camp Karingal and in the barangay hall. PO3 Mabazza then brought the seized specimens to the crime laboratory for examination. 9
The laboratory examination conducted by forensic chemist Police Superintendent Bernardo Roque (P/Supt. Roque) revealed that the contents of the two plastic sachets marked as "RM-CAP 1 7-9-15" and "RM-CAP 2 7-9-15" tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. 10
The prosecution presented PO3 Mabazza as its witness during trial and dispensed with the presentation of P/Supt. Roque, the forensic chemist, and PO3 Delos Reyes, the investigating officer, after the parties entered into stipulations on the respective testimonies of the latter witnesses. 11
Version of the Defense:
The defense presented Peralta as its lone witness.
Peralta claimed that she was arrested on July 28, 2015 at around 10:00 p.m. when she was visiting her brother-in-law's wife, Morta. Peralta alleged that a jail guard inspected her belongings, which was an eco-friendly reusable bag (eco bag) containing a blanket and a towel. 12 Allegedly, the jail guard brought her to a room, got her eco bag and left. When the jail guard came back and handed her the eco bag, she was surprised to find a bottle of baby powder inside. She maintained that the baby powder bottle was not hers and denied placing any baby powder bottle inside the eco bag when she went to Camp Karingal. She was later arrested for bringing a plastic bottle containing illegal drugs. Peralta further alleged that the police officers demanded P10,000.00 from her in exchange for her liberty. 13
The RTC Ruling
On March 2, 2016, the RTC rendered a judgment finding Peralta guilty as charged. The RTC held that the prosecution was able to prove with moral certainty that Peralta knowingly passed on the possession of dangerous drugs to Morta. The RTC also held that the chain of custody of the seized drugs was not broken. 14 The RTC declared that Peralta's defenses of denial and alibi failed to overcome the credible testimony of the police officers, who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner. 15
The fallo of the RTC judgment reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused CHAROL PERALTA y ARCAMO GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II, of Republic Act 9165. Accordingly, she is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).
The Branch Clerk of this Court is directed to immediately turn over to the Chief of the PDEA Crime Laboratory, the drug evidence in this case, consisting of two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance with markings "RM-CAP 1 7-9-15" and "RM-CAP 2 7-9-15," to be disposed of, in strict conformity with the provisions of R.A. 9165 and its implementing rules and regulations on the matter.
SO ORDERED. 16
The CA Ruling
On appeal before the CA, Peralta assailed the RTC decision and insisted on her innocence. Peralta claimed that the RTC erred in finding her guilty considering the invalidity of her warrantless arrest, the incredible and contrived testimony of PO3 Mabazza, and the evidentiary gaps in the chain of custody of the confiscated shabu.
The CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC and held that: (a) Peralta forfeited her right to invoke the irregularity of her arrest for failing to raise any objection before her arraignment; 17 (b) she was validly arrested without warrant since she was caught in flagrante delicto delivering 0.61 gram of shabu to Morta; 18 and (c) even if the marking and inventory of the seized items were not made in the presence of a Department of Justice (DOJ) and a media representative, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved by the apprehending officers. 19
The decretal portion of the now assailed CA decision reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Judgment dated March 2, 2016, of the RTC, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 79, Quezon City, in Criminal Case No. R-QZN-15-06407-CR is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 20
Aggrieved, Peralta appealed the case before the Court praying for her acquittal.
Issues
(a) Was the warrantless arrest valid?
(b) Was there breach in the chain of custody rule?
The Court's Ruling
On Peralta's warrantless arrest, it is fundamental in this jurisdiction that the question of the legality of her arrest should have been raised before her arraignment; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived. 21 Here, the record is bereft of any showing that Peralta questioned her arrest before her arraignment. In fact, she voluntarily submitted to the court's jurisdiction by entering a plea and by actively participating in the proceedings. The legality of an arrest only affects the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused, 22 and such defect was cured by Peralta's voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the trial court. As such, it is too late in the day for Peralta to raise this issue for the first time on appeal before the CA.
Nonetheless, Peralta's failure to timely question the validity of her warrantless arrest does not prevent her from assailing the admissibility of the seized drugs incidental to the warrantless arrest. 23
Now, to the crucial issue of this case: Was the chain of custody rule complied with by the apprehending officers?
Peralta was indicted on July 13, 2015 for illegal delivery of dangerous drugs. Thus, the applicable law is R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640.
Art. I, Sec. 3 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, defined delivery as "any act of knowingly passing a dangerous drug to another, personally or otherwise, and by any means, with or without consideration."
To convict Peralta of illegal delivery of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be proven: (1) the accused passed on possession of a dangerous drug to another, personally or otherwise, and by any means; (2) such delivery is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused knowingly made the delivery. 24 The delivery of dangerous drugs may be committed even without consideration. 25
The chain of custody rule, as embodied in Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by Sec. 1 of R.A. No. 10640, provides that:
SECTION 1. Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," is hereby amended to read as follows:
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 noncompliance 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.
xxx xxx xxx (emphases and underscoring supplied)
In the prosecution for the illegal delivery of dangerous drugs, the corpus delicti must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The identity of the dangerous drugs must be established with moral certainty since the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime. 26 Thus, in order to remove any unnecessary doubt as to the identity of the seized dangerous drugs, the prosecution must be able to prove that the illegal drug seized from the suspect/s is the very same substance offered in court as exhibit. 27 This is, in essence, the chain of custody rule.
As a general rule, the following links must be established in the chain of custody of the seized item/s: 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. 28
A judicious review of the records of this case reveals that the first and final links are breached.
The first link pertains to the marking, inventory and photographing of the seized drugs. Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, clearly requires that immediately after seizure and confiscation, the police officers must conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or his/her representative or counsel, as well as other required witnesses: an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service (NPS)or the media. Otherwise stated, an elected public official must be accompanied either by a representative from the NPS or the media. Moreover, in case of a warrantless arrest, as in this case, the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is more practicable. The purpose of the law in requiring witnesses is to prevent and deter against possible planting of evidence. 29
In the instant case, two breaches of mandatory procedure are apparent: firstly, police officers conducted the inventory at the Botocan barangay hall without explaining why it was not done at the office of the apprehending police officers, which is within the very compound of the Quezon City Police Headquarters at Camp Karingal, and secondly, there was no representative from the NPS or the media. The inventory was only witnessed by Kagawad Eremano.
The very purpose of requiring the presence of the insulating witnesses is to ensure the preservation of the identity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs. 30 While the absence per se of the required witnesses does not render the confiscated items inadmissible, R.A. No. 10640 requires that there be justifiable reasons for noncompliance thereof. In People v. Ramos, 31 this Court declared that the prosecution must not only allege and prove the reasons for absence of the insulating witnesses, but it must also convince the Court that the police officers exerted earnest efforts to secure the witnesses' attendance, and that under the given circumstance, their actions were reasonable. Mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact representatives from the DOJ or the media are unacceptable as justified grounds for the noncompliance of the law. 32
Here, PO3 Mabazza testified as follows:
Q: And there is also a signature above the name Benjamin Eremano?
A: Signature of barangay kagawad, sir.
Q: Why is it that there is no signature from the DOJ and the media?
A: There was no available DOJ personnel, sir. 33
The testimony of prosecution witness PO3 Mabazza failed to establish any acceptable explanation or justification why the presence of the representative from the DOJ or the media was not secured. In fact, PO3 Mabazza did not bother to secure the attendance of a media representative if, in fact, a DOJ personnel was unavailable.
Moreover, the fourth and final link of the chain of custody were not established with certainty. The fourth link pertains to the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drugs from the forensic chemist to the court. In this case, the prosecution dispensed with the testimony of forensic chemist P/Supt. Roque and the parties stipulated that he received the specimen from PO3 Mabazza and conducted an examination which yielded a positive result for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. After P/Supt. Roque's examination, he sealed the specimens and placed them in a bigger plastic sachet and turned them over to the evidence custodian, Police Officer I Junia Tuccad (PO1 Tuccad). It was further stipulated that P/Supt. Roque retrieved the specimens from PO1 Tuccad for their presentation in court. 34
However, evidence custodian PO1 Tuccad was not presented in court to testify on the handling, storage and preservation of the seized drugs while in his possession. In People v. Alon-Alon, 35 the Court held that the non-presentation of the evidence custodian is a clear disregard of the directive that every link in the chain of custody must testify, and describe the condition of the seized item when it was delivered, and the precautions taken to ensure its integrity.
In People v. Sorrera, 36 the Court acquitted therein accused-appellant for the prosecution's failure to prove how the seized drugs were handled after the forensic chemist examined them until they were presented in court. The Court held that the gap opened the seized drugs to the possibility of tampering and switching.
In People v. Ubungen37 and People v. Aquino, 38 this Court declared that the fourth link in the chain of custody cannot reasonably be established absent any testimony on the management, storage, and preservation of the seized dangerous drugs.
Indeed, strict compliance with the chain of custody rule must be observed as a precautionary measure against the sheer ease in planting of evidence. 39 Moreover, the severity of the penalties imposed in drug cases is more than enough reason to compel strict adherence to the chain of custody rule. It bears stressing that in this case, a miniscule amount of 0.61 gram of shabu was found inside a baby powder bottle, which was seized inside the jail visiting area after Peralta had undergone initial frisking and inspection of the jail guards before she was allowed inside the DAID premises. Notably, the inventory of the seized drugs was done at a barangay hall with a barangay kagawad as a lone witness when the arrest was done inside the compound of a police headquarters. The circumstances of the arrest and the irregular procedure conducted after the arrest raises some red flags necessitating a stringent review if indeed the chain of custody rule was complied with.
In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the prosecution failed to establish the following: (a) corpus delicti of the crime; (b) the unbrokenness of the chain of custody; and (c) justifiable reason/s for the noncompliance with the chain of custody rule. Since the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti are compromised, the Court is constrained to ACQUIT Peralta based on reasonable doubt. 40
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated April 7, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 08180 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Charol Peralta y Arcamo is hereby ACQUITTED of violation of Section 5 (Illegal Delivery of Dangerous Drugs), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640, on the ground of reasonable doubt.
The Court DIRECTS the Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for Women, Mandaluyong City to IMMEDIATELY RELEASE accused-appellant Charol Peralta y Arcamo from custody unless she is being held for some other lawful cause, and to submit his/her report on the action taken within five (5) days from receipt hereof.
Let entry of final judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
by:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
* Part of the Supreme Court Decongestion Program.
1.Rollo, pp. 26-27.
2.Id. at 2-25; penned by Associate Justice Marlene B. Gonzales-Sison, with Associate Justices Ramon Paul L. Hernando (now a Member of the Court) and Maria Filomena D. Singh, concurring.
3. CA rollo, pp. 58-63; penned by Presiding Judge Nadine Jessica Corazon J. Fama.
4.Id. at 58.
5.Id.
6.Id. at 59.
7.Id.
8.Id. at 59-60.
9.Id. at 60.
10.Id. at 58.
11.Id. at 58-59.
12.Id. at 60.
13.Id. at 60-61.
14.Id. at 62.
15.Id. at 63.
16.Id.
17.Rollo, p. 10.
18.Id. at 11-17.
19.Id. at 18-24.
20.Id. at 24.
21.People v. Cachola, 465 Phil. 477, 491 (2004).
22.People v. Alunday, 586 Phil. 120, 133 (2008).
23.Flores v. People, G.R. No. 247635, December 9, 2020.
24.People v. Maongco, 720 Phil. 488, 502 (2013).
25.People v. Arago, Jr., G.R. No. 233833, February 20, 2019.
26.People v. Briones, G.R. No. 239077, March 20, 2019.
27.People v. Villasis, G.R. No. 248606, July 7, 2020.
28.People v. Estabillo, G.R. No. 252902, June 16, 2021.
29.People v. Tanes, G.R. No. 240596, April 3, 2019.
30.People v. Sarabia, G.R. No. 243190, August 28, 2019, citing People v. Tomawis, 830 Phil. 385, 408-409 (2018).
31. 826 Phil. 981, 996-997 (2018), cited in People v. Lim, G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018.
32.People v. Bulda-Plata, G.R. No. 240538, June 16, 2021.
33.Rollo, p. 20.
34.Id. at 3-4.
35. G.R. No. 237803, November 27, 2019.
36. G.R. No. 251110, February 3, 2021.
37. 836 Phil. 888, 902 (2018).
38. G.R. No. 252460, June 14, 2021.
39.People v. Nazareno, G.R. No. 253653, June 16, 2021.
40.People v. Sangcupan, G.R. No. 220462, March 24, 2021.