FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 244677. June 23, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.EMERSON PEREZ y HUERTE ALIAS "GALMAN", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 23, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 244677 — (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee v. EMERSON PEREZ y HUERTE alias "GALMAN," accused-appellant). — This is an ordinary appeal under Rule 122 of the Rules of Court, as amended, seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision 1 dated July 19, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09479. The said issuance affirmed the March 31, 2017 Decision 2 issued by Branch 87 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Rosario, Batangas in Criminal Case Nos. 2013-958 and 2013-959 which, in turn, found Emerson Perez y Huerte alias "Galman" (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Antecedents
Accused-appellant was indicted of the crimes charged by virtue of two separate Informations dated February 25, 2013, the accusatory portions of which read as follows:
Criminal Case No. 2013-958
That on or about the 23rd day of February, 2013, at around 4:30 o'clock in the afternoon, at Barangay Coliat, Municipality of Ibaan, Province of Batangas, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law, did then and there willfully and unlawfully have in his possession, custody and control one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet referred to as Specimen A-2 ("EHP-2") in Chemistry Report No. BD-098-2013, containing methamphetamine hydrochloride commonly known as "shabu," weighing 1.66 grams, a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law. 3
Criminal Case No. 2013-959
That on or about the 23rd day of February, 2013, at around 4:30 o'clock in the afternoon, at Barangay Coliat, Municipality of Ibaan, Province of Batangas, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law, did then and there willfully and unlawfully sell, deliver and give away one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet referred to as Specimen A-1 ("EHP-1") in Chemistry Report No. BD-098-2013, containing methamphetamine hydrochloride commonly known as "shabu," weighing 0.05 gram, a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law. 4
Upon arraignment, accused-appellant, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty to the offenses charged. 5 Thereafter, pre-trial ensued, followed by trial on the merits.
Version of the prosecution
The evidence for the prosecution established that in the morning of February 23, 2013, Police Inspector Ricaredo D. Dalisay (PInsp. Dalisay) informed Police Officer 3 Ryan Arellano Pagcaliwagan (PO3 Pagcaliwagan), intelligence operative and member of the municipal anti-illegal drug task force of the Ibaan Municipal Police Station, to inform the latter that they were going to conduct a buy-bust operation on accused-appellant 6 who was in their drug watch list. 7 Thus, a buy-bust team was organized, headed by PInsp. Dalisay and composed of PO3 Willy Hernandez (PO3 Hernandez), PO3 Celester Diola Delgado (PO3 Delgado), and PO3 Pagcaliwagan. 8 Accordingly, the Ibaan Municipal Police Station sent a Coordination Form 9 and a Pre-Operational Report 10 to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) through electronic mail. 11 PO3 Delgado was designated as poseur-buyer and given a P500.00 bill containing the initials "CDD" as marked money. 12 On the other hand, PO3 Pagcaliwagan was assigned as photographer. 13
At around 4:30 in the afternoon, the buy-bust operation was conducted, resulting in accused-appellant's arrest. CAIHTE
Two heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing suspected shabu were confiscated from accused-appellant. One sachet weighing 0.05 gram was purportedly sold by accused-appellant to PO3 Delgado who, thereafter, marked the same with the letters "EHP-1"; the other sachet weighing 1.66 grams, marked by PO3 Delgado as "EHP-2," was recovered from accused-appellant's possession. 14 PO3 Delgado likewise prepared a Receipt/Inventory of Property Seized 15 which was signed by barangay councilors Rodrigo Pasia, Marciano Delgado, and Nelson Ebora, and media representative Lito Rendora. 16 Photographs 17 of the operation, including the confiscated items, 18 were taken by PO3 Pagcaliwagan. 19 Accused-appellant was then brought to the police station.
PO3 Delgado then accomplished a Chain of Custody Form 20 and turned over the seized items to the duty investigator, Senior Police Officer 1 Geronimo A. Sanchez. 21 A Request for Laboratory Examination 22 of the contents of the said plastic sachets was made by Police Senior Inspector Jose Ostonal Naparato, Jr. 23 Chemistry Report No. BD-098-2013, 24 which was prepared by Police Senior Inspector and Forensic Chemist Herminia Carrandang Llacuna, found that both plastic sachets contained methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
Version of the defense
Professing innocence, accused-appellant vehemently denied the charges against him. He asserted that on February 23, 2013, he was participating in a cockfight being held at the Balagtas Complex in Balagtas, Batangas. 25 Thereafter, his cousin, Marlon Perez, gave him a phone call, telling accused-appellant to go outside of the Batangas Complex because someone riding in a yellow car was there to meet him. 26 Accused-appellant left the cockpit arena and upon arriving at the side of the road, PO3 Hernandez alighted from a yellow car and pushed accused-appellant into the said vehicle. 27 Inside the yellow car, three unidentified persons took all of accused-appellant's personal belongings 28 and took him to the Ibaan Municipal Police Station. 29 Afterwards, accused-appellant was brought in front of his house in Barangay Coliat, Ibaan, Batangas where he was photographed, along with the purported evidence against him. 30 He was then formally investigated and handcuffed by the police officers at the scene. 31
The RTC Ruling
On March 31, 2017, the RTC rendered a Decision finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged. The trial court decreed that the prosecution was able to establish the unbroken chain of custody in the handling of the seized plastic sachets containing shabu, which prevails vis-à-vis accused-appellant's defenses of denial and frame-up. Thus:
WHEREFORE, this Court finds:
1. In Criminal Case No. 2013-95[9], accused Emerson Perez y Huerte, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for violating (sic) Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 and sentences him to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000) without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency;
2. In Criminal Case No. 2013-958, accused Emerson Perez y Huerte, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for violating (sic) Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 and sentences him to suffer the penalty of TWELVE YEARS AND ONE DAY to FOURTEEN YEARS of imprisonment and pay a fine of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P300,000) without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
The methamphetamine hydrochloride used as evidence in these cases are hereby ordered confiscated to be turned over to the proper authorities for disposition.
SO ORDERED. 32
Undaunted, accused-appellant interposed an appeal 33 with the CA contending, inter alia, that the prosecution failed to establish the unbroken chain in the custody of the seized items containing shabu.
The CA Ruling
On July 19, 2018, the CA rendered the herein assailed Decision affirming the trial court's ruling. The appellate court found that albeit the police officers' failure to strictly follow the mandate of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, they nevertheless were able to substantially comply with the rules on preserving the chain of custody of the confiscated items.
The CA disposed as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated March 31, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 87, Rosario, Batangas, in Criminal Case Nos. 2013-958 and 2013-959, finding accused-appellant Emerson Perez y Huerte GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Article II, Section 5 (Sale of Dangerous Drugs) and Section 11 (Possession of Dangerous Drugs) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 34
Hence, the present recourse.
On September 26, 2018, the CA issued a Minute Resolution 35 giving due course to the Notice of Appeal 36 filed by accused-appellant, thereby ordering the elevation of the records of the instant case to this Court.
In a Resolution 37 dated June 10, 2019, this Court noted the records of the case forwarded by the CA. The parties were then ordered to file their respective supplemental briefs, should they so desire, within 30 days from notice.
On August 27, 2019, accused-appellant, through the Public Attorney's Office, filed a Manifestation (In Lieu of Supplemental Brief) 38 stating that he would no longer file a supplemental brief because all of his contentions have been exhaustively ventilated in the Appellant's Brief 39 that he submitted to the CA. On September 19, 2019, the Office of the Solicitor General filed a similar Manifestation and Motion 40 on behalf of the People.
The Court now resolves the instant case.
The Issue
Whether or not the CA erred in affirming accused-appellant's conviction.
The Ruling of the Court
The appeal is meritorious.
In order to convict a person charged with the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Article II, Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165, the prosecution is required to prove the following elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. 41
On the other hand, for a successful prosecution of an offense for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must establish the following elements: (a) the accused was in possession of an item or object identified as a prohibited drug; (b) such possession was not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. 42
As a general rule, 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. 43 The only way by which the State could lay the foundation of the corpus delicti is to establish beyond reasonable doubt the illegal sale or illegal possession of the dangerous drug by preserving the identity of the drug offered as evidence against the accused. The State does so only by ensuring that the drug presented in the trial court was the same substance bought from the accused during the buy-bust operation or recovered from his possession at the moment of arrest. 44 Thus, it is of utmost importance that the integrity and identity of the seized drugs must be shown to have been duly preserved. 45
In People v. Jaafar, 46 the Court explained further:
Narcotic substances are not readily identifiable. To determine their composition and nature, they must undergo scientific testing and analysis. Narcotic substances are also highly susceptible to alteration, tampering, or contamination. It is imperative, therefore, that the drugs allegedly seized from the accused are the very same objects tested in the laboratory and offered in court as evidence. The chain of custody, as a method of authentication, ensures that unnecessary doubts involving the identity of seized drugs are removed. (Citations omitted)
It is the obligation of the prosecution to establish the chain of custody for evidence sent to testing laboratories — that is, to establish "the identity and integrity of physical evidence by tracing its continuous whereabouts." 47 Indeed, the trial court requires a more stringent foundation "entailing a 'chain of custody' of the item with sufficient completeness to render it improbable that the original item has either been exchanged with another or been contaminated or tampered with." 48 The prosecution must introduce sufficient proof so that a reasonable juror could find that the items seized are in "substantially the same condition" as when they were seized. 49 The government need only show that "it took reasonable precautions to preserve the original condition of the evidence." 50
The following links should be established in the chain of custody of the confiscated item: 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. 51 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. 52 DETACa
In relation to the chain of custody rule, Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165 states:
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 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 (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof[.] (Emphasis supplied)
Under the said provision, the physical inventory and taking of photographs of the seized items must be witnessed by three insulating witnesses (i.e., an elected public official, a representative from the media, and a representative from the Department of Justice [DOJ]). They must also sign the inventory and be given copies of the same. 53 The law requires these three insulating witnesses to ensure that the chain of custody rule is observed and thus, remove any suspicion of tampering, switching, planting, or contamination of evidence which could considerably affect a case. 54
In the seminal case of People v. Lim, 55 this Court stressed the importance of the presence of the three insulating witnesses and ruled that where they are absent, the prosecution must allege and prove the reasons for their absence and likewise show that earnest efforts were made to secure their attendance. 56 Thus:
The Court stressed in People v. Vicente Sipin y De Castro:
The prosecution bears the burden of proving a valid cause for noncompliance with the procedure laid down in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended. It has the positive duty to demonstrate observance thereto in such a way that during the trial proceedings, it must initiate in acknowledging and justifying any perceived deviations from the requirements of law. Its failure to follow the mandated procedure must be adequately explained, and must be proven as a fact in accordance with the rules on evidence. It should take note that the rules require that the apprehending officers do not simply mention a justifiable ground, but also clearly state this ground in their sworn affidavit, coupled with a statement on the steps they took to preserve the integrity of the seized items. Strict adherence to Section 21 is required where the quantity of illegal drugs seized is miniscule, since it is highly susceptible to planting, tampering or alteration of evidence.
It must be alleged and proved that the presence of the three witnesses to the physical inventory and photograph of the illegal drug seized was not obtained due to reason/s such as:
(1) their attendance was impossible because the place of arrest was a remote area; (2) 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; (3) the elected official themselves were involved in the punishable acts sought to be apprehended; (4) 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 (5) 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.
Earnest effort to secure the attendance of the necessary witnesses must be proven. People v. Ramos requires:
It is well to note that the absence of these required witnesses does not per se render the confiscated items inadmissible. However, a justifiable reason for such failure or a showing of any genuine and sufficient effort to secure the required witnesses under Section 21 of RA 9165 must be adduced. In People v. Umipang, the Court held that 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 noncompliance. 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 such, 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 circumstances, their actions were reasonable. 57
In the case at bar, the physical inventory and taking of photographs of the seized items were not witnessed by a representative from the DOJ. No explanation for his/her absence was ever adduced by the prosecution. Neither has the prosecution shown that earnest efforts were made to ensure the presence of the said witness.
Since there was no representative from the DOJ present at that time, the required witnesses rule was not complied with. 58 The appellate court erred in finding that the apprehending police officers were able to substantially comply with the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.
In People v. Barte, 59 the Court so declared:
When there is failure to comply with the requirements for proving the chain of custody in the confiscation of contraband in a drug buy-bust operation, the State has the obligation to credibly explain such noncompliance; otherwise, the proof of the corpus delicti is doubtful, and the accused should be acquitted for failure to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Under the circumstances, the breaches committed by the police officers, left unacknowledged and unexplained by the State, militate against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt against accused-appellant, as the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti have been compromised. 60 The Court is constrained to rule that accused-appellant's acquittal on both charges is in order. 61
Indeed, our Constitution declares that the maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty, and property, and the promotion of the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy. 62 Corollary to this is the principle that the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and this by the most convincing evidence constituting proof beyond reasonable ground. 63 Mere suspicion of the guilt of the accused, no matter how strong, should not sway judgment against him/her. 64 No person should be subjected to punishment unless the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of every fact necessary to constitute the crime charged. 65 Those who are supposed to enforce the law are not justified in disregarding the rights of the individual in the name of order. Order is too high a price for the loss of liberty. 66
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated July 19, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09479 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. For failure on the part of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, accused-appellant Emerson Perez y Huerte alias "Galman" is ACQUITTED of the crimes charged in Criminal Case Nos. 2013-958 and 2013-959. He is ORDERED immediately RELEASED from detention unless he is being detained for some other lawful cause.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections for immediate implementation and to report the action he has taken to this Court within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately. aDSIHc
SO ORDERED."
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. 3-16; penned by Associate Justice Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla with Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas-Peralta and Amy C. Lazaro-Javier (now a Member of this Court), concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 57-79; rendered by Presiding Judge Rose Marie J. Manalang-Austria.
3. Records (Criminal Case No. 2013-958), p. 1.
4. Records (Criminal Case No. 2013-959), p. 1.
5.Id. at 33.
6. TSN, September 16, 2014, pp. 5-6. Testimony of PO3 Ryan Arellano Pagcaliwagan.
7. TSN, February 19, 2014, p. 4. Testimony of PO3 Celester Diola Delgado.
8. TSN, September 16, 2014, p. 7. Testimony of PO3 Ryan Arellano Pagcaliwagan.
9. Records (Criminal Case No. 2013-959), p. 11.
10.Id. at 12.
11. TSN, February 19, 2014, pp. 5-6. Testimony of PO3 Celester Diola Delgado.
12.Id. at 4.
13. TSN, September 16, 2014, p. 7. Testimony of PO3 Ryan Arellano Pagcaliwagan.
14. TSN, May 6, 2014, p. 4. Testimony of PO3 Celester Diola Delgado.
15. Records (Criminal Case No. 2013-959), p. 14.
16. TSN, May 6, 2014, pp. 5-6. Testimony of PO3 Celester Diola Delgado.
17. Records (Criminal Case No. 2013-959), p. 24.
18.Id. at 23.
19. TSN, September 16, 2014, pp. 18-19. Testimony of PO3 Ryan Arellano Pagcaliwagan.
20. Records (Criminal Case No. 2013-959), p. 15.
21. TSN, May 6, 2014, p. 10. Testimony of PO3 Celester Diola Delgado.
22. Records (Criminal Case No. 2013-959), p. 17.
23. TSN, May 6, 2014, p. 11. Testimony of PO3 Celester Diola Delgado.
24. Records (Criminal Case No. 2013-959), p. 22.
25. TSN, August 18, 2015, pp. 4-5. Testimony of Emerson Perez y Huerte alias "Galman."
26.Id. at 5-6.
27.Id. at 6.
28.Id. at 7.
29.Id. at 9.
30.Id. at 9-10.
31.Id. at 11-12.
32. CA rollo, p. 79.
33.Id. at 37-54.
34.Rollo, p. 15.
35. CA rollo, p. 171.
36.Id. at 164-165.
37.Rollo, pp. 22-23.
38.Id. at 24-28.
39. CA rollo, pp. 37-55.
40.Rollo, pp. 29-32.
41.People v. Manabat, G.R. No. 242947, July 17, 2019.
42.People v. Quijano, G.R. No. 247558, February 19, 2020.
43.People v. De Dios, G.R. No. 243664, January 22, 2020.
44.People v. Nepomuceno, G.R. No. 216062, September 19, 2018.
45.People v. Ubungen, 836 Phil. 889, 897 (2018).
46. 803 Phil. 582, 591 (2017).
47.Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009).
48.United States v. Cardenas, 864 F. 2d 1528 (1989).
49.United States v. Harrington, 923 F. 2d 1371 (1991).
50.United States v. Prieto, 549 F. 3d 513 (2008).
51.People v. Nandi, 639 Phil. 134, 144-145 (2010).
52.People v. Flores, G.R. No. 241261, July 29, 2019.
53.People v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 233535, July 1, 2019.
54.People v. Crispo, 828 Phil. 416, 434 (2018).
55. G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018.
56.People v. Manansala, G.R. No. 229509, July 3, 2019.
57.People v. Lim, supra note 55.
58.People v. Laway, G.R. No. 227741, March 27, 2019.
59. 806 Phil. 533, 536 (2017).
60.People v. Haya, G.R. No. 230718, September 16, 2020.
61.People v. Dela Torre, G.R. No. 238519, June 26, 2019.
62.People v. Dumanjug, G.R. No. 235468, July 1, 2019.
63.People v. Macasinag, 255 Phil. 279, 280-281 (1989).
64.People v. Claro, 808 Phil. 455, 468 (2017).
65.United States v. White, 569 F. 2d 263 (1978).
66.People v. Aminnudin, 246 Phil. 424, 435 (1988).