FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 246473. June 14, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. JAIME PINSON, JR. y CASTILLEJO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 14, 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 246473 (People of the Philippines v. Jaime Pinson, Jr. y Castillejo).
After careful review of the records, the Court resolves to GRANT the appeal. The August 13, 2018 Decision 1 and November 29, 2018 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09584 which affirmed the March 10, 2017 Judgment 3 of the Regional Trial Court of Tuguegarao City, Cagayan, Branch 5 (RTC), finding Jaime C. Pinson, Jr. (appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of the Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. No. 9165)4 for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Antecedents
An Information 5 charging appellant with violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 was filed before the RTC, which reads:
That on March 27, 2012, in the City of Tuguegarao, Province of Cagayan, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the [appellant] JAIME PINSON, JR. y CASTILLEJO @ 'Ute', without authority of law and without any permit to sell, transport, deliver, and distribute dangerous drugs, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, sell and distribute one (1) piece of heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.01 gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, commonly known as 'shabu,' a dangerous drug to IO1 JOHN ANGELO S. ASCO, who acted as a poseur buyer; that when the poseur buyer handed to the [appellant] the agreed purchase price of the dangerous drug in the amount of P500.00 which was previously marked and used as buy-bust money consisting of a one (1) piece Php500.00 peso-bill bearing Serial No. L800006, the [appellant], in turn, handed the heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing the dangerous drug to the said poseur-buyer, and this led to the apprehension and arrest of the [appellant] and the recovery of the genuine Php500.00 peso-bill buy bust money from his possession, control, and custody at his residence at No. 1 Maura St., corner Rizal St., Centro 09, this City, by members of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), Regional Office No. 02, Camp Adduru, this city; that the buy-bust operation led to the confiscation of the dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. Trial then ensued.
The RTC summarized the prosecution's version as follows:
In the morning of 27 March 2012, the Confidential Informant of the PDEA informed the office that a certain 'Ute' of Barangay Centro 9 was selling shabu and was looking for buyers. A buy-bust team was created by SO2 Romarico Pagulayan as Team Leader, IO1 John Angelo Asco as Poseur Buyer, IO1 Walter Bucad as immediate back up and others. IO1 Asco was given the buy-bust money which was a genuine P500.00 bill already marked bearing serial number L800006 and recorded at the PDEA blotter. Likewise, the agreed pre-arranged signal to confirm that the transaction was completed was when IO1 Asco would remove his bull cap. In the afternoon of that same day, IO1 Asco and the CI proceeded to Paseo Reale while IO1 Bucad and the rest of the buy-bust team proceeded in another vehicle following that of Asco and the CI. Upon reaching Paseo Reale, the CI contacted [alias] Ute and told him that he has a friend who was going to buy shabu worth P500.00. The CI and Ute agreed to go [to] the residence of [Ute]. x x x Following discreetly were the rest of the team. Ute was waiting for them and when they arrived, IO1 Asco and the CI were invited inside the house of Ute. When inside, Ute asked from IO1 Asco the money, thus the poseur buyer handed to Ute and [sic] pre-marked P500.00 genuine bill. In exchange, Ute handed to IO1 Asco a [heat-sealed] transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance suspected to be shabu and upon confirming its contents, IO1 Asco went to the gate of the house of Ute and removed his bull cap. The rest of the team then rushed to the house and arrested Ute who was identified as Jaime Pinson, Jr. y Castillejo. When frisked, IO1 Bucad recovered from the body of the [appellant] the buy-bust money and 1 unit Nokia cellular phone. 6
Appellant, on the other hand, denied the charges. He denied that a buy-bust operation was conducted. 7 He further claimed that IO1 Asco and IO1 Bucad were not among the officers who entered his house and that he just saw them at the PDEA office. 8 CAIHTE
The RTC Judgment
On March 10, 2017, the RTC rendered judgment finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, the Court renders judgment finding the [appellant], JAIME PINSON, JR., y CASTILLEJO, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sec. 5, 1st paragraph of Art. II, R.A. No. 9165 and sentences him, in accordance with law to suffer x x x LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine in the amount of five hundred thousand (P500,000.00) pesos.
xxx xxx xxx
SO ORDERED. 9 (emphases supplied)
Appellant filed a motion for reconsideration, but his motion was denied. He then appealed before the CA.
The CA Ruling
On appeal to the CA, appellant argued that the prosecution failed to prove compliance with the provisions of R.A. No. 9165, to wit: (1) the inventory of the seized items was not made at the place of arrest; 10 (2) the alleged seized item was pocketed by IO1 Asco and that marking thereof was not immediately made; 11 (3) inventory was made before the witnesses arrived; 12 (4) testimony as to the conduct of inventory was self-serving as no witnesses thereto were presented to testify, and that photographs were not admitted by the RTC; 13 (5) there was no testimony to show that the integrity of the item seized was preserved; 14 and (6) there were inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses. 15
On August 13, 2018, the CA issued the assailed decision denying the appeal and affirming the RTC. It ruled that the prosecution was able to clearly recount how the buy-bust operation was conducted, and the eventual submission of the subject sachet of shabu was made part of its evidence. 16 The CA stressed that where the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, and in this case, their testimonies as well, the findings of the trial court are not to be disturbed unless the consideration of certain facts of substance and value which have been plainly overlooked might affect the result of the case.
Further, contrary to appellant's claim that the prosecution failed to comply with Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165, the CA found, based on the records, that the requirements provided therein were complied with. First, the physical inventory was evidenced by the Inventory of Seized Properties/Items which was signed by the representatives from the media and the DOJ as proof that they were present when the inventory was carried out. 17Second, photographs of the appellant, together with the item seized from him, and with the aforementioned representatives from the public and private sectors as witnesses, were taken at the PDEA Office. 18Finally, within less than six (6) hours from the time the plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance was taken from appellant, the same was forwarded to the PDEA, Regional Office 2 for qualitative examination where the specimen tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. 19
The CA reiterated that strict compliance with Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 is not necessary "as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team." 20 Here, from the time the shabu was seized from appellant, up to its delivery to the crime laboratory for chemical examination, and until its presentation in evidence before the RTC, the integrity of the said item was preserved. 21 Appellant miserably failed to discharge his burden of proving that the evidence was tampered with to overcome the presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers and the presumption that the public officers properly discharged their duties. 22
Aggrieved, appellant moved for reconsideration. However, his motion was denied. Hence, the present appeal. DETACa
The Issue
Whether or not the CA correctly upheld the conviction of appellant for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under R.A. No. 9165.
The Court's Ruling
The appeal is meritorious.
In this case, the prosecution failed to show an unbroken chain of custody. It failed to prove compliance with the first link requiring marking, inventory and photographing of the evidence. Prosecution testimony showed that the unmarked seized sachet of suspected shabu was kept inside IO1 Asco's pocket from the time of its seizure until the team arrived at the PDEA office. 23 Records also revealed that the marking, inventory, and photographing of the evidence were done at the PDEA office in the presence of only the appellant, and DOJ and media representatives. No barangay official was present. The buy-bust team did not exert diligent efforts in securing the presence of an elective official as established by the prosecution's testimony that they invited a barangay official only after the arrest of the appellant. 24 Further, per cross-examination testimony of IO1 Asco, the DOJ and media representatives only arrived at the PDEA office about two (2) hours after the arrival of the buy-bust team and the appellant. 25 The inventory was taken only at the time the arresting officers and appellant arrived at the PDEA office, while insulating witnesses arrived two (2) hours thereafter.
Although physical inventory and photographing are allowed to be done at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team, the presence of insulating witnesses at or near the place of seizure/arrest is not to be dispensed with. Unfortunately, the prosecution undoubtedly failed to secure the witnesses' presence at the place of entrapment against appellant without any valid justification. The purpose of the law in requiring their presence at the time of arrest and/or seizure, which is to protect against any possible planting, contamination or alteration, was not achieved. It bears emphasis that the presence of the required witnesses at the time of the apprehension and inventory is mandatory, and that the law imposes the said requirement because their presence serves an essential purpose. 26
Jurisprudence is replete with cases where the Court emphasized that the presence of third-party witnesses is imperative, not only during the physical inventory and taking of pictures, but also during the actual seizure of the items. The requirement of conducting the inventory and taking of photographs "immediately after seizure and confiscation" necessarily means that the required witnesses must also be present during the seizure or confiscation. 27
In People v. Sipin, 28 the Court emphasized that:
The prosecution bears the burden of proving a valid cause for non-compliance 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.29 (citations omitted, emphasis supplied)
In this case, the prosecution failed to prevent a showing of any perceived deviation in its handling and custody of the sachet containing 0.01 gram of suspected shabu. Compliance with Sec. 21's chain of custody requirements ensures the integrity of the seized items. Noncompliance with them tarnishes the credibility of the corpus delicti around which prosecutions under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act revolve. 30 The identity of the corpus delicti must, in itself, be proven with moral certainty. When the same is jeopardized by noncompliance with Sec. 21, critical elements of the offense of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs remain wanting. It follows then, that this noncompliance justifies an appellant's acquittal. 31 The Court, in People v. Que, 32 stressed that:
What is critical in drug cases is not the bare conduct of inventory, marking, and photographing. Instead, it is the certainty that the items allegedly taken from the accused retain their integrity, even as they make their way from the accused to an officer effecting the seizure, to an investigating officer, to a forensic chemist, and ultimately, to courts where they are introduced as evidence. Hence, the four (4) links were underscored in Nandi: first, from the accused to the apprehending officers; second, from the apprehending officers to the investigating officers; third, from the investigating officers to the forensic chemists; and fourth, from the forensic chemists to the courts. The endpoints of each link (e.g., the accused and the apprehending officer in the first link, the forensic chemist and the court in the fourth link) are preordained, their respective existences not being in question. What is prone to danger is not any of these end points but the intervening transitions or transfers from one point to another.
Section 21(1)'s requirements are designed to make the first and second links foolproof. Conducting the inventory and photographing immediately after seizure, exactly where the seizure was done, or at a location as practicably close to it, minimizes, if not eliminates, room for adulteration or the planting of evidence. The presence of the accused, or a representative, and of third-party witnesses, coupled with their attestations on the written inventory, ensures that the items delivered to the investigating officer are the items which have actually been inventoried. 33 (citation omitted, emphases supplied)
Thus, for failure of the prosecution to show absence of any doubt in the identity of the corpus delicti, appellant's acquittal based on reasonable doubt is in order. aDSIHc
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The August 13, 2018 Decision and November 29, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09584 which affirmed the March 10, 2017 Judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Tuguegarao City, Cagayan, Branch 5, finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, appellant Jaime Pinson, Jr. y Castillejo is hereby ACQUITTED of the offense charged. The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is ORDERED to cause his IMMEDIATE RELEASE unless he is being lawfully held in custody for any other reason. Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Director General, Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City. The said Director General is ORDERED to REPORT to this Court within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution the action he has taken.
The appellant's compliance with the Resolution dated October 7, 2020, submitting two (2) hard copies and a soft copy of his Manifestation dated May 25, 2020, is NOTED.
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 Stephen C. Cruz, with Presiding Justice Romeo F. Barza and Associate Justice Carmelita Salandanan Manahan, concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 106-107.
3.Id. at 28-38; penned by Judge Jezarene C. Aquino.
4.Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.
5.Rollo, p. 4.
6.Rollo, pp. 5-6; CA rollo, pp. 28-29.
7.CArollo, p. 36.
8.Id.
9.Rollo, p. 6; CA rollo, p. 38.
10.CA rollo, pp. 22-23.
11.Id. at 23.
12.Id.
13.Id. at 24.
14.Id.
15.Id. at 26.
16.Rollo, p. 8.
17.Id. at 10.
18.Id. at 10-11.
19.Id. at 11.
20.Id.
21.Id. at 14.
22.Id. at 15.
23. TSN, April 4, 2013, pp. 30 & 35.
24.Id. at 32.
25.Id. at 35-36.
26.People v. Claudel, G.R. No. 219852, April 3, 2019.
27.People v. Que, 824 Phil. 882, 911 (2018).
28. 833 Phil. 67 (2018).
29.Id. at 92.
30.People v. Que, supra at 896.
31.Id. at 898.
32.Id.
33.Id. at 909.