People v. Piamonte y Victorino

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 251568. September 29, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. ALFREDO PIAMONTE y VICTORINO, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated September 29, 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 251568 (People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee v. Alfredo Piamonte y Victorino, accused-appellant).

This Appeal 1 seeks to reverse and set aside the September 3, 2019 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 11456. The CA affirmed the March 28, 2018 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court of San Fernando City, La Union, Branch 29 (RTC), in Criminal Case No. 11290, finding Alfredo Piamonte y Victorino (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

Antecedents

Accused-appellant was indicted for violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, in an information, the accusatory portion of which reads:

That on or about the 16th day of November 2015, in the Municipality of Bacnotan, Province of La Union, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously for and in consideration of the sum of ONE THOUSAND PESOS (P1,000.00), with Serial Number BA149188, sell and deliver one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing methamphetamine hydrochloride otherwise known as "shabu," weighing ZERO POINT ZERO SIX HUNDRED TWENTY TWO (0.0622) gram, to poseur buyer PO3 Adonis M. Bayan, without first securing the necessary permit, license or prescription from the proper government agency. 4

During his arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges. After pre-trial was terminated, trial on the merits ensued.

Evidence for the Prosecution

The prosecution presented as witnesses Police Officer III Adonis Bayan (PO3 Bayan), Police Officer III Dennis Riñon (PO3 Riñon), Police Officer II Ferdinand Langit (PO2 Langit), Barangay Captain Rubelyn Mengaracal (Barangay Capt. Mengaracal), and Forensic Chemist Police Inspector Maria Joana Ang (FC Ang).

On November 16, 2015, the Bacnotan Police Station in La Union, through Senior Police Officer I Edward Almirol (SPO1 Almirol), received a report from a confidential informant (CI) about the illegal drug activities of a certain alias Fred (later on identified as accused-appellant), along the seashore of Barangay Cabarsican. Acting on the information, Chief of Police Fredelix Marron formed a buy-bust team consisting of PO3 Bayan as the poseur-buyer, PO3 Riñon as the arresting officer, and SPO1 Almirol, PO3 Peralta, 5 Police Officer III Philip Fontanilla (PO3 Fontanilla), and Police Officer II Pabio Gaudia (PO2 Gaudia) as backup operatives. PO3 Bayan prepared one (1) P1,000.00 bill as buy-bust money and marked it with his initials, "AMB-1." The buy-bust team also coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) and prepared the pre-operation report and coordination forms. Meanwhile, the CI informed the buy-bust team that he had arranged a transaction with accused-appellant that same afternoon. Thus, the buy-bust team proceeded to the target area. 6

Upon the team's arrival at the seashore of Barangay Cabarsican, PO3 Bayan and the CI walked closer to the target area while the rest of the team strategically positioned themselves nearby. Accused-appellant approached PO3 Bayan and the CI and asked the latter for the money they had agreed on. The CI told accused-appellant that it was his companion, PO3 Bayan, who intended to buy shabu. After PO3 Bayan showed accused-appellant the P1,000.00 bill, the latter brought out from his pocket a plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance. Accused-appellant handed the plastic sachet to PO3 Bayan and simultaneously received the buy-bust money. PO3 Bayan kept the plastic sachet containing the suspected shabu in his sling bag and removed his bull cap to signal to the buy-bust team the consummation of the crime. 7

PO3 Riñon arrested accused-appellant as soon as the rest of the buy-bust team reached the crime scene. PO3 Bayan conducted a body search upon accused-appellant and recovered the buy-bust money and another P100.00 bill. PO3 Bayan placed the confiscated items and the plastic sachet he had purchased from accused-appellant on top of a plywood as they waited for the arrival of the mandatory witnesses. 8

Thereafter, Barangay Capt. Mengaracal, Barangay Kagawad Crescencio Balubar, Jr. (Kagawad Balubar), and media representative John Patrick Soriano (Mr. Soriano), arrived at the place of arrest. After showing the witnesses the plastic sachet he bought and the items he seized from accused-appellant, PO3 Bayan marked the sachet with "AMB-2, 11-6-15." He conducted the inventory and took photographs of the seized items in their presence. The buy-bust team then brought accused-appellant to the Bacnotan District Hospital for medical examination, then to the Bacnotan Police Station where he was finally detained. PO3 Bayan remained in possession of the seized items during the inventory and en route to the hospital and the police station. 9

Upon their arrival at the police station, PO2 Gaudia prepared the Chain of Custody Form, Police Report, and Request for Laboratory Examination, with PO3 Bayan still in custody of the plastic sachet and the other items seized from accused-appellant. Afterwards, PO3 Bayan proceeded to the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory and turned over the plastic sachet to PO2 Langit who, in turn, immediately handed the plastic sachet to FC Ang for the forensic examination. After her examination on the contents of the plastic sachet, FC Ang confirmed in her Chemistry Report No. D-405-2015 that the white crystalline substance contained in the sachet was positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. Thereafter, FC Ang marked the specimen with "D-405-2015 MJA" and placed it inside a small brown envelope that she sealed with a masking tape. FC Ang gave the envelope to Police Officer III Jose Bucasas (PO3 Bucasas), the evidence custodian, and retrieved the same for presentation and identification in court. 10

Evidence for the Defense

The defense presented accused-appellant as its sole witness. He denied the charges against him and claimed that he was framed by the police officers on November 16, 2015.

At around 12:00 noon of that day, accused-appellant was on his way home with his wife and two children when they decided to drop by at a store in Bulala, Bacnotan. While at said store, a certain Danny called accused-appellant from the other side of the road and asked for his contact number as the latter was interested in renting accused-appellant's tricycle. Accused-appellant gave Danny his number and then went home with his family. 11

Later that day, Danny called him up and requested to be fetched at Barangay Cabarsican. While he was on his way to fetch Danny, accused-appellant was flagged down by some police officers, namely PO3 Riñon, SPO1 Almirol, PO3 Bayan, PO2 Gaudia, PO3 Fontanilla, and PO3 Peralta. PO3 Riñon asked him where he was going. Accused-appellant answered that he was on his way to fetch somebody. Suddenly, PO3 Riñon pointed a gun at accused-appellant who asked what he did wrong. PO3 Riñon ignored him and merely instructed him to alight from the tricycle and to remove his jacket. PO3 Riñon grabbed his jacket and searched it, but found nothing. Thereafter, the police officers brought accused-appellant to a vacant lot where they threatened and forced him to remove his clothes while insisting that he had something illegal in his possession. Accused-appellant, however, denied the police officers' accusations. PO3 Riñon then directed accused-appellant to put on his clothes and to check his jacket. Accused-appellant refused at first but SPO1 Almirol fired a shot and pointed a gun at him. Afraid for his life, he searched his jacket and found a small plastic sachet inside that was not there before. Accused-appellant felt helpless and could only cry out of fear. Thereafter, two barangay officials and a media representative arrived, and he was brought to the police station. 12

The RTC Ruling

In its March 28, 2018 Decision, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

Wherefore, premises duly considered, the court finds the accused Alfredo Piamonte guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. 9165 and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (PHP500,000.00) and to pay the costs. The period of his preventive imprisonment shall be credited in his favor. The sachet of shabu subject of the case is confiscated in favor of the government. The Branch Clerk of Court is directed to transmit the same to the PDEA for proper disposition.

SO ORDERED. 13

The RTC ruled that the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs were duly established by the prosecution through the testimonies of PO3 Bayan and PO3 Riñon. Their combined testimonies showed that it was accused-appellant who sold PO3 Bayan the sachet containing white crystalline substance, which later on tested positive for shabu, in exchange for P1,000.00. According to the RTC, the prosecution also duly established the chain of custody of the corpus delicti. PO3 Bayan marked, inventoried, and photographed the plastic sachet and the seized items at the place of arrest in the presence of accused-appellant, Barangay Capt. Mengaracal, Kagawad Balubar, and Mr. Soriano. PO3 Bayan remained in possession of the seized items from the place of arrest until he finally turned it over to PO3 Langit of the Crime Laboratory, who immediately submitted the specimen to FC Ang. Thereafter, FC Ang conducted an examination on the contents of the plastic sachet. She secured the specimen after her examination by marking it with her own initials and placing it inside a brown envelope. FC Ang gave the envelope to PO3 Bucasas for safekeeping and only retrieved it for presentation and identification in court. FC Ang testified that the specimen she brought to court bore the markings that she made after examining its contents.

Not in conformity, accused-appellant appealed the RTC's judgment of conviction before the CA.

The CA Ruling

In its September 3, 2019 Decision, the CA affirmed the conviction of accused-appellant of the crime charged. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

FOR THESE REASONS, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated 28 March 2018 rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 29, City of San Fernando, La Union in Criminal Case No. 11290 is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED. 14

The CA upheld the finding of the RTC that all the elements of the crime were adequately established by the prosecution and that there was an unbroken chain of custody. It opined that the integrity of the seized items is presumed to have been preserved because accused-appellant failed to show bad faith, ill will, or proof of tampering on the part of the police officers. Thus, the CA gave no credence to accused-appellant's defense of denial and frame-up in the face of a legitimate buy-bust operation conducted by the police officers.

Undaunted, accused-appellant filed the present appeal and posited the same lone assignment of error he previously raised before the CA, to wit:

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF VIOLATION OF SECTION 5, ARTICLE II OF R.A. NO. 9165 DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO ESTABLISH AN UNBROKEN CHAIN OF CUSTODY, WHICH RENDERS THE INTEGRITY OF THE ALLEGEDLY SEIZED DRUGS HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE. 15

In its June 22, 2020 Resolution, 16 the Court required the parties to submit their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desired. On November 16, 2020, accused-appellant filed his Manifestation (in lieu of Supplemental Brief), 17 and manifested that he was adopting his Brief for the Accused-Appellant 18 dated November 29, 2018, as his supplemental brief. The appellee, through the Office of the Solicitor General, averred in its Manifestation In Lieu of Supplemental Brief, 19 that it is adopting its Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee 20 dated April 10, 2019 and dispensing with the filing of a supplemental brief to avoid repetition of arguments.

Accused-appellant asserts that the police officers failed to comply with the chain of custody rule. First, the second link in the chain of custody was lacking. PO3 Bayan's act of merely exhibiting the seized items to PO2 Gaudia could not be sustained considering that an investigator should necessarily have possession of the seized items to perform his duty. Second, the fourth link was not duly established since FC Ang failed to testify on the manner she handled the specimen before, during, and after conducting the forensic examination. Lacking also was the evidence custodian's testimony on the manner he handled the specimen after receiving it from FC Ang for safekeeping. Third, the mandatory witnesses did not witness the buy-bust operation itself, which was short of the requirements under Sec. 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.

On the other hand, the appellee controverts accused-appellant's arguments and contends that the prosecution established the police officers' compliance with the chain of custody rule. PO3 Bayan marked, inventoried, and photographed the seized plastic sachet and other items at the place of arrest, as witnessed by accused-appellant himself, Barangay Capt. Mengaracal, Kagawad Balubar, and Mr. Soriano. PO3 Bayan remained in possession of the plastic sachet from the place of arrest until the turnover thereof to PO3 Langit of the Crime Laboratory. PO3 Langit immediately turned over the specimen to FC Ang, who conducted an examination thereon and found the contents positive for shabu. The fact that PO3 Bayan was in custody of the item from the marking until the turnover to PO3 Langit was not a break in the chain of custody, because the police officers ensured the preservation of the specimen's integrity and evidentiary value.

The Court's Ruling

The appeal is meritorious.

In illegal drugs cases, proving each link in the chain of custody — from the time of seizure of the drug from the accused until its presentation in court as evidence — is of paramount importance in establishing with moral certainty the identity and integrity of the seized drug. 21 The prosecution has the onus of proving every link in the chain, owing to the unique characteristic of illegal drugs, which render them indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution, by accident or otherwise. 22

Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, provides the guidelines relating to the custody and disposition of confiscated or seized dangerous drugs. Adherence to Sec. 21 is a crucial link in the chain of custody, as it particularly pertains to the conduct of inventory and taking of photographs of the confiscated or seized drugs in the presence of the mandatory witnesses. 23

In a catena of cases, 24 the Court categorically held that the presence of the mandatory witnesses must be secured at the time of apprehension of the accused and confiscation of the illegal drugs. In other words, they must not merely be witnesses to the conduct of the inventory and taking of photographs. Their insulating presence is most critical at the time of the warrantless arrest and seizure as it would exclude any doubt on the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drug, thus averting the evils of switching, "planting" or contamination of evidence. 25

In this case, Barangay Capt. Mengaracal, Kagawad Balubar, and Mr. Soriano only arrived after the apprehension of accused-appellant and the seizure of the contraband, to observe the marking of the plastic sachet and the conduct of the inventory of the seized items. They were not, however, witnesses to the actual conduct of the buy-bust operation or to accused-appellant's arrest and the subsequent confiscation of the illegal drugs. Thus, the very purpose of their presence as intended under Sec. 21 is not achieved, as their absence at the point of apprehension and seizure negated the credibility of the seizure of the illegal drug, which is the corpus delicti of the offense. As such, it could not be said with moral certainty that the shabu presented in court by FC Ang is the same shabu seized from accused-appellant by PO3 Bayan and PO3 Riñon.

The Court recognizes that perfect adherence is not always possible under varied field conditions. Hence, the saving clause under Sec. 21 may operate in case of deviations by the apprehending officers from the mandatory procedure provided therein: 26

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 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 [with] 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)

For the saving clause to apply, the prosecution must recognize the lapse or lapses committed by the apprehending officers, provide a justifiable ground therefor, and exhibit the earnest and reasonable efforts exerted by the apprehending officers to comply with Sec. 21. 27

Here, the prosecution manifestly failed to recognize the police officers' deviation from the mandatory procedure under Sec. 21, let alone give a credible explanation why the mandatory witnesses were not present at the time of accused-appellant's apprehension and the seizure of the illegal drugs. Thus, the mechanism of the saving clause cannot operate and doubt arises as to the identity of the seized illegal drugs.

Aside from the gap in the first link in the chain of custody, there was also a breach in the fourth link which further diminished the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized illegal drugs.

The fourth link in the chain of custody pertains to the turnover and submission by the forensic chemist of the seized illegal drugs to the court. If the chemist turns over the drug specimen to an evidence custodian after conducting the forensic examination, the manner by which the evidence custodian handled and stored the seized item while it was in his custody must also be shown and proved. 28

In the case at bar, PO3 Bucasas was not presented in court and was only named by FC Ang during her testimony in court as the evidence custodian to whom she turned over the drug specimen for safekeeping, and from whom she retrieved the same on the day she testified in court. FC Ang, however, did not testify on the measures taken by PO3 Bucasas to ensure proper handling and storage of the drug specimen from the time it was turned over to him until its presentation in court.

Absent any testimony on the management, storage, and preservation of the illegal drugs after the forensic examination, the fourth link in the chain of custody could not be reasonably established, warranting the acquittal of accused-appellant. 29

The Court is not unaware of the numerous drugs cases that resulted in acquittal in the recent years because of the more stringent application of the chain of custody rule and the procedure outlined under Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165. Thus, the Court emphasizes the importance of the adherence by the members of the Philippine National Police and the PDEA to the procedures and guidelines in handling confiscated or seized illegal drugs in order that their efforts against those engaged in illegal drug activities would not come to naught.

Corollary thereto, in case of justifiable deviations by the police officers from the mandatory procedure under Sec. 21, prosecutors have the bounden duty as well to clearly and convincingly establish during trial the justifiable grounds for such deviations and that reasonable efforts were exerted by the apprehending team to strictly comply with Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is GRANTED. The September 3, 2019 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 11456, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Alfredo Piamonte y Victorino is hereby ACQUITTED of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 on the ground of reasonable doubt and is ORDERED to be IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless he is being lawfully held for another cause.

Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City for immediate implementation. The said Director General is ordered to report to this Court the action he has taken within five (5) days from receipt hereof.

Let entry of 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

1.Rollo, pp. 14-15.

2.Id. at 3-13; penned by Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser, with Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin, concurring.

3. CA rollo, pp. 44-50; penned by Presiding Judge Asuncion Fikingas-Mandia.

4.Id. at 44.

5. First name not mentioned in the rollo.

6.Rollo, p. 4.

7.Id.

8.Id. at 5.

9.Id.

10.Id. at 5-6.

11.Id. at 6.

12.Id. at 6-7.

13. CA rollo, p. 50.

14.Rollo, p. 12.

15. CA rollo, p. 30.

16.Rollo, pp. 19-20.

17.Id. at 25-27.

18. CA rollo, pp. 28-43.

19.Rollo, pp. 30-32.

20. CA rollo, pp. 59-74.

21.People v. De Leon, G.R. No. 214472, November 28, 2018.

22.People v. Beran, 724 Phil. 788, 812 (2014).

23.People v. Alcuizar, 662 Phil. 794, 802-803 (2011).

24.People v. Mazo, G.R. No. 242273, November 23, 2020; People v. Arellaga, G.R. No. 231796, August 24, 2020; People v. Leaño, G.R. No. 246461, July 28, 2020; People v. Deliña, G.R. No. 243578, June 30, 2020; People v. Globa, G.R. No. 241251, December 10, 2019; People v. Tomawis, 830 Phil. 385, 405 (2018).

25.People v. Mendoza, 736 Phil. 749, 764 (2014).

26.People v. Globa, supra note 24.

27.People v. Reyes, 797 Phil. 671, 690 (2016).

28.People v. Aquino, G.R. No. 252460, June 14, 2021 (Notice); Izon v. People, G.R. No. 222509, March 3, 2021 (Notice).

29.People v. Sorrera, G.R. No. 251110, February 3, 2021 (Notice).