THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 247823. July 4, 2022.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. KOSAIN PINTO y RAKAMANIS, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 4, 2022, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 247823 (People of the Philippines v. Kosain Pinto y Rakamanis). — Challenged in this instant Appeal is the Decision1 dated 23 October 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 08927, which affirmed the Decision 2 dated 8 August 2016 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Markina City, Branch 263, finding accused-appellant Kosain Pinto y Rakamanis a.k.a. "Nards" (Pinto) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165. 3
This Appeal has its precursor in three separate Informations 4 filed before the RTC charging Pinto and Jenelyn Edra (Edra) with the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, as well as of maintenance of a den where a dangerous drug is used or sold, 5 the inculpatory averments of which read:
Criminal Case No. 2014-4568-D-MK
That on or about the 9th day of December 2014, in the City of Marikina, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused-appellant, conspiring and confederating with each other, without being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell to PO3 Junar O. Olveda, the poseur-buyer, two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets each containing 1.0 gram and 0.42 gram (marked as KP-BB 12/09/14) of white crystalline substance which gave positive result to the test for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 6
Criminal Case No. 2014-4569-D-MK
That on or about the 9th day of December 2014, in the City of Marikina, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused-appellant, conspiring and confederating with each other, without being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly maintain in a den located at Blk. 29 Ampalaya St., Tumana, this city, wherein Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or 'shabu,' a dangerous drug, is stored for illegal purposes, distributed and/or sold, in violation of the above-cited law. CAIHTE
CONTRARY TO LAW. 7
Criminal Case No. 2014-4570-D-MK
That on or about the 9th day of December 2014, in the City of Marikina, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused-appellant, conspiring and confederating with each other, without being authorized by law to possess or otherwise use any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in their possession, direct custody and control twenty-six (26) plastic sachets, containing white crystalline each subsequently marked and weighed as follows:
A-3- ("KP-1A 12/09/14") 0.10 gram
Which all gave positive result to the tests for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW." 8
Upon arraignment, Pinto pled not guilty 9 to all the charges.
During the pre-trial conference, the parties entered into a stipulation of facts, viz.:
1. That both accused-appellant KOSAIN PINTO y RAKAMANIS, a.k.a. 'Nards' and JENELYN EDRA y TANGONAN who are present in court, are the same accused named in the Informations;
2. That the incidents subject matter of these cases happened within the territorial jurisdiction of this court;
3. The expertise of witness PCI Margarita M. Libres;
4. That PIC Libres received the evidence from PO3 Junar Olveda as evidenced by the Request for Lab Exam on Seized Evidence;
5. That after receiving the pieces of evidence, PCI Libres conducted a qualitative examination on all specimens submitted by PO3 Olveda, the results of which are indicated in the Physical Science Report No. MCSO-D-156-14 and the conclusion of said examination stated in the conclusion portion that specimens A-1 to A-28, A-29-23 and B gave positive result to the test for the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug;
6. That PCI Libres received the specimens from PO3 Olveda described in the Chain of Custody Form;
7. That after conducting the examination, PCI Libres put all the pieces of evidence inside a brown paper bag provided by her and sealed the paper bag with the stapler and put the marking MCSO-D-156-14 and her signature and initials on it;
8. That specimens A-25 to A-29 were heat-sealed when received by the forensic chemist;
9. That PCI Margarita Libres has no personal knowledge as to the source of the specimens;
10. That after the examination of the specimens indicated in the Lab Exam Report, PCI Libres submitted the same to an evidence custodian;
11. That it was the Forensic Chemist who marked the twenty-three (23) open plastic sachets contained in specimen A-29;
12. That the Forensic Chemist did not weigh the representative sample that she used in the examination of the specimens;
13. That the forensic chemist needed at least 0.1 gram of each specimen to conduct the examination;
14. That after the examination, the forensic chemist did not weigh the specimens;
15. That the forensic chemist also used a process known as "Thin Layer Chromatography";
16. And that the process is only 99% accurate. 10
Thereafter, trial on the merits forthwith ensued.
The prosecution 11 endeavored to establish the following factual milieu:
On 8 December 2014, a confidential informant (CI) of the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Group (SAID-SOTG) of the Marikina City Police Station relayed the information that a certain Nards, who turned out to be Pinto, was engaged in selling illegal drugs at No. 29 Ampalaya St., Barangay Tumana, Marikina City. HEITAD
Acting upon the information, the Chief of the SAID, Police Chief Inspector Jerry Flores (PCI Flores), instructed the group of Police Officer (PO) 3 Junar Olveda (PO3 Olveda) to conduct a surveillance operation against Pinto. Based on their monitoring, they were able to confirm the veracity of the report, observing that there were people going in and out of Pinto's house.
On 9 December 2014, PCI Flores formed a buy-bust team designating PO3 Olveda as the poseur-buyer. He was then given a one-thousand-peso (P1,000.00) bill and five one-hundred-peso (P100.00) bills with serial numbers UG734960; and UE535420, UP578703, E445918, XN933182 and HN066963, respectively. 12 PO1 Rubelyn Opelac (PO1 Opelac), aside from preparing the pre-operational report and coordinating with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, 13 was assigned as the immediate back-up of PO3 Olveda.
Around 7:15 p.m., the team proceeded to the target area. Thereat, PO3 Olveda and the CI walked towards Pinto's house while the other members positioned themselves strategically nearby. Upon reaching the house, PO3 Olveda and the CI knocked the door. Somebody then asked, "SINO YAN?" The CI replied: "ANDYAN BA SI NARDS? KUKUHA SANA KAMI." 14 A female person, later on identified as Edra, opened the door. Then, they heard a male voice saying, "PAPASUKIN MO NA SILA DITO." 15
When PO3 Olveda and the CI were inside the house, PO3 Olveda saw a male person who, while seated on a bed, was repacking something which looked like shabu. The CI told Pinto: "BOSS NARDS, KUKUHA KAMI NG HALAGANG 1-5 (PHP1,500.00) PERO HATIIN MO SA DALAWANG KASA PARA TIG-ISA KAMI NG AKING KASAMA." 16 Pinto answered, "WALANG PROBLEMA, AKIN NA BAYAD NYO." 17 Thereupon, he brought out two pieces of plastic sachets containing suspected shabu from a black pouch and gave them to PO3 Olveda who placed the same in his left pocket. Posthaste, PO3 Olveda handed the P1,500.00 buy-bust money to Pinto. When the transaction was consummated, PO3 Olveda immediately made the pre-arranged signal by pressing his cellular phone so as to make a missed call to PCI Flores.
Thenceforth, the buy-bust team rushed to the scene and entered the door which was ajar. PO3 Olveda introduced himself to Pinto as a police officer, instructed PO1 Opelac to arrest Edra, and informed both Pinto and Edra of their constitutional rights.
Ensuingly, PO3 Olveda marked the two pieces of plastic sachets containing suspected shabu which he bought from Pinto with "KP-BB 12/09/14" and made the following markings on the other seized items:
1. One (1) piece Black Pouch marked as "KP-1 12/09/14". x x x
2. Twenty-Two (22) pieces heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing White Crystalline substance suspected as Shabu marked as "KP-1A 12/09/14" to "KP-1V1 12/09/14" consecutively. x x x
3. One (1) piece Plastic Box color Green marked as "KP-2 12/09/14".
4. Four (4) pieces Open transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance suspected as Shabu marked as "KP-2A 12/09/14" to "KP-2D 12/09/14". x x x
5. Twenty-three (23) pieces Open transparent plastic sachet with traces of suspected shabu marked as "KP-2E 12/09/14". x x x
6. One (1) pack of Empty transparent plastic sachet marked as "KP-2F 12/09/14". x x x
7. One (1) piece Improvised needle marked as "KP-2G 12/09/14". x x x
8. One (1) unit Digital weighing scale marked as" KP-3 12/09/14". x x x
9. Two (2) pieces Scissors marked as "KP-4 12/09/14". x x x
10. Two (2) pieces Disposable Lighter color white marked as "KP-5 12/09/14". x x x
11. One (1) piece Wooden Board marked as "KP-6 12/09/14". x x x 18
The marking and the inventory 19 of the seized items were made in the presence of City Councilor Ronnie Acuna, Vice Mayor Jose Fabian Cadiz, and Cesar Barquilla of Remate, a media representative. Photographs 20 thereof were taken.
Subsequently, Pinto and Edra were brought to the office of the SAID-SOTG for documentation and then to the Amang Rodriguez Memorial Medical Hospital for medical examination. Thereafter, they were transported to the Eastern Police District Crime Laboratory for drug testing. Meanwhile, PO3 Olveda turned over the confiscated items to PCI Margarita Libres 21 (PCI Libres), the forensic chemist, for laboratory examination.
The laboratory examination of the seized contraband yielded the following results:
Physical Science REPORT NO. MCSO-D-156-14
SPECIMEN SUBMITTED:
One (1) black pounch (sic) with marking "KP-1 12/09/14" containing the following:
A-1 and A-2 Two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets masking taped together with marking "KP-BB 12/09/14" containing 1.0 gram and 0.42 gram of white crystalline substance respectively.
Twenty eight (28) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets each containing white crystalline substance with the following makings and recorded net weights:
CONTINUATION OF SPECIMEN(S) SUBMITTED:
A-3- ("KP-1A 12/09/14")-0.10 gram A-15- ("KP-1M 12/09/14")-0.12 gram22
xxx xxx xxx
FINDINGS:
Qualitative examination conducted on the above-stated specimens A-1 to A-28, A-29-1 to A-29-23 and B gave POSITIVE result to the tests for the presence of Methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. x x x
CONCLUSION: ETHIDa
Specimens A-1 to A-28, A-29-1 to A-29-23 and B contain Methaphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. x x x 23
Refuting the imputations hurled against them, Pinto and Edra proffered a divergent version of facts. Pinto avowed that on 9 December 2014, and together with a small child, he was eating at his relatives' house when five police officers forcefully entered. They asked him if he knew a certain person called Nards. When he replied in the negative, he was brought to the police station for drug testing, along with another individual whom he did not know. Afterwards, they were detained. He was not even informed of the charges filed against him. 24
For her part, Edra avouched that on 9 December 2014, she was at the house of Pinto's relatives to get the money which he would give her. Suddenly, five police officers barged into the house by destroying the door. They were looking for a certain Nards. She and Pinto told them that they did not know him. However, the police officers insisted that Pinto was Nards. As it happened, both she and Pinto were arrested and brought to the precinct for drug testing. She learned of the charges against her only after she was detained.
After trial, the RTC rendered a Decision dated 8 August 2016, the fallo of which reads —
WHEREFORE, above evaluation considered, the court finds accused JENELYN EDRA y TANGONAN NOT GUILTY of the charges against her for failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of said accused beyond reasonable doubt.
With respect to Criminal Case No. 2014-4569, violation of Section 6, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, accused-appellant KOSAIN PINTO y RAKAMANIS is hereby declared NOT GUILTY, for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
However, this court finds accused-appellant KOSAIN PINTO y RAKAMANIS GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). He is sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT.
He is likewise ordered to pay the fine of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00) for the said offense.
Likewise, this court finds accused-appellant Kosain Pinto y Rakamanis GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). He is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of TWENTY (20) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY to LIFE IMPRISONMENT.
He is likewise ordered, for this case, to pay the fine of FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P400,000.00) as penalty for said offense.
The Jail Warden of the Marikina City Jail is hereby ordered to release accused JENELYN EDRA y TANGONAN immediately, unless being held for some other lawful cause/s.
SO ORDERED. 25
Aggrieved, Pinto interposed an appeal to the CA, which, in the impugned Decision, 26 found no cogent reason to reverse the RTC's finding of conviction for both illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
Maintaining that he must be exculpated, Pinto seeks refuge before this Court via the present Appeal. 27 He intransigently asseverates that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Given that the buy-bust team did not comply with the requirements in Section 21 of RA No. 9165, there was a failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody. cSEDTC
The Appeal carries weight and conviction.
It is rudimentary that in illegal drugs cases, the drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense. The prosecution is, therefore, tasked to establish that the substance illegally possessed or sold by the accused is the same substance presented in court. 28 Put simply, the core issue in every indictment for illegal sale or possession of dangerous drugs revolves around the strict observance of the chain of custody rule since compliance therewith determines the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti. 29
In the case at bench, Pinto was charged with Illegal Sale and Possession of Dangerous Drugs, defined and penalized under Sections 5 and 11, respectively, of Article II of RA No. 9165. In both cases, as the confiscated drugs constitute the very corpus delicti of the offenses, 30 the fact of their existence is crucial to sustain a judgment of conviction. It is essential, therefore, that the identity and integrity of the seized drugs be established with moral certainty. To do this, each link to the chain of custody must be accounted for. 31
Upon this point, RA No. 9165 prescribes the chain of custody requirements for the safeguarding and custody of items seized in a buy-bust operation. Complying with the rigid measures as provided in Section 21 thereof ensures the preservation of evidentiary value and integrity of the seized items.
Here, the Informations averred that the crimes charged were committed on 9 December 2014. The governing law, therefore, is RA No. 10640, 32 amending RA No. 9165. Section 1 of R.A. 10640, amending Section 21, Article II of RA No. 9165 sets forth the mandatory procedural safeguards in the preservation of the corpus delicti, viz.:
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 person/s 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.
As adumbrated above, these provisions embody the chain of custody rule. They are the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of the seized drugs at each stage from the time of seizure or confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory, to safekeeping and their presentation in court for identification and destruction. This record includes the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized items, the date and time when the transfer of custody was made in the course of the items' safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and their final disposition. 33
Generally, there are four links in the chain of custody of the seized illegal drug that must be established: (1) its seizure and marking, if practicable, from the accused, by the apprehending officer; (2) its turnover by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) its turnover by the investigating officer to the forensic chemist for examination; and, (4) its turnover by the forensic chemist to the court. 34
After a sedulous examination of the hard evidence on record, this Court finds and so holds that serious gaps occurred in the first, second, and fourth links of the chain of custody of the seized drugs thereby casting doubt on the integrity of the seized items.
Break in the first link —
Pivotal in proving the chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or other related items immediately after they have been seized from the accused. "Marking" means the placing by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initials and signature on the items seized. Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link; hence, it is vital that the seized contraband be immediately marked because the succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. The marking of the evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of the criminal proceedings, thus, preventing switching, planting or contamination of evidence. 35
Moreover, to prevent switching or contamination, the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) Guidelines of RA 9165 define marking as the "placing by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initial and signature on the item/s seized." 36
Plain as day, PO3 Olveda deviated from the foregoing rules. The records tellingly disclose that in marking the sachets of shabu, he used the initials of Pinto instead of his own. 37
Concededly, marking may also be made by affixing on the dangerous drugs or related items by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer other identifying signs in the presence of the apprehended violator immediately upon arrest. Verily, as long as the apprehending officer makes a mark which segregates the seized items from all other similar or related evidence, it is sufficient compliance with the first link of the chain of custody rule. 38 SDAaTC
Still and all, the Court finds no substantial compliance with the first link in this case. The three copies of the Inventory of Evidence which the prosecution submitted as evidence reveal —
INVENTORY OF EVIDENCE
xxx xxx xxx
|
QUANTITY |
DESCRIPTION |
x x x |
|
TWO (2) PCS. |
HEAT-SEALED TRANSPARENT PLASTIC SACHET CONTAINING WHITE CRYSTALLINE SUBSTANCE SUSPECTED AS SHABU MARKED AS "KP-BB 12/09/14" |
|
|
TWENTY TWO (22) PCS. |
HEAT-SEALED TRANSPARENT PLASTIC SACHET CONTAINING WHITE CRYSTALLINE SUBSTANCE SUSPECTED AS SHABU MARKED AS "KP-1A 12/09/14 TO "KP-1V 12/09/14" |
|
|
FOUR (4) PCS. |
OPEN TRANSPARENT PLASTIC SACHET CONTAINING WHITE CRYSTALLINE SUBSTANCE SUSPECTED AS SHABU MARKED AS "KP-2A 12/09/14" TO "KP-2D 12/09/14" 39 |
|
|
xxx xxx xxx |
|
TWENTY THREE (23) PCS. |
OPEN TRANSPARENT WHITE CRYSTALLINE SUBSTANCE CONTAINING OF TRACES WHITE CRYSTALLINE SUBSTANCE SUSPECTED OF SHABU MARKED AS KP-2D 12/09/14 |
|
|
ONE (1) PC. |
OPEN TRANSPARENT PLASTIC SACHET CONTAINING WHITE CRYSTALLINE SUBSTANCE SUSPECTED AS SHABU MARKED AS "KP-2E 12/09/14" 40 |
|
|
xxx xxx xxx |
|
TWENTY THREE (23) PCS. |
OPEN TRANSPARENT PLASTIC SACHET CONTAINING WHITE CRYSTALLINE SUBSTANCE SUSPECTED AS SHABU MARKED AS "KP-2D 12/09/14" |
|
|
ONE (1) PC. |
OPEN TRANSPARENT PLASTIC SACHET CONTAINING WHITE CRYSTALLINE SUSPECTED AS SHABU 41 |
|
From the foregoing, it is evident that PO3 Olveda purportedly marked the 23 pieces of open transparent plastic sachets with "KP-2D 12/09/14". However, in the Memorandum 42 requesting for laboratory examination on the seized evidence, these pieces of evidence are shown to be marked differently, thusly —
A. Two (2) pieces of Heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance suspected as Shabu marked as "KP-BB 12/09/14"
B. One (1) pc. Black pouch marked as "KP-1 12/09/14"
C. Twenty Two (22) pieces of Heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing White Crystalline substance suspected as Shabu marked a "KP-1A 12/09/14" to "KP-1V 12/09/14" respectively
D. One (1) pc. Plastic Box Color Green marked as "KP-2 12/09/14"
E. Four (4) pieces open transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance suspected as Shabu marked as "KP-2A 12/09/14" to "KP-2D 12/09/14"
F. Twenty Three (23) pieces open transparent plastic sachet with traces suspected shabu marked as "KP-2E 12/09/14"43
This matter of marking the subject sachets by PO3 Olveda became more doubtful when, during the pre-trial conference, the parties entered into a stipulation of facts stating, inter alia, that it was the Forensic Chemist who marked all the twenty-three open plastic sachet contained in specimen A-29. 44
The records are bereft of any explanation on the part of the prosecution anent such discrepancy in the marking. Moreover, the prosecution failed to propound plausible reason why there were two sets of 23 pieces of open transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance suspected as shabu both marked as KP-2D 12/09/14 as well as two one-piece open transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance suspected as shabu, one marked as "KP-2E 12/09/14" and the other, unmarked. acEHCD
This being so, the prosecution demonstrated no compliance with the requisite standard of marking of seized drugs and other related items as outlined under the rules. Whence, such haphazard way of marking tainted the integrity and evidentiary value of all the pieces of evidence supposedly confiscated from Pinto.
Breach in the second link —
A perusal of the Chain of Custody Form 45 shows that after the buy-bust operation, PO3 Olveda turned over the confiscated items to PCI Libres, the forensic chemist. On this score, it bears emphasis that the absence of the investigating officer per se does not affect the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti so long as the transfer of custody is accounted for. 46
However, PO3 Olveda professed that he turned over the subject pieces of evidence to an investigating officer, i.e., a certain SPO1 Salcedo. 47 Given this avowal, it behooved the prosecution to present SPO1 Salcedo or at the very least, to stipulate on how he handled the seized items to preserve its evidentiary value. Sans his testimony, a break in the link came down the pike.
Crucial gap in the fourth link —
Anent the fourth link, it is of paramount necessity that the forensic chemist testifies on the details pertaining to the handling and analysis of the dangerous drug submitted for examination, i.e., when and from whom the dangerous drug was received; what identifying labels or other things accompanied it; description of the specimen; and the container it was in. Further, the forensic chemist must also identify the name and method of analysis used in determining the chemical composition of the subject specimen. 48
In cases where the parties agree to dispense with the attendance and testimony of the forensic chemist, then the parties must stipulate that (a) the forensic chemist received the seized article as marked, properly sealed, and intact; (b) he/she resealed it after examination of the contents; and (c) he/she placed his/her own marking on the same to ensure that it could not be tampered pending trial. Absent such stipulations, the fourth link cannot be established, thus, resulting in acquittal/s. 49
In the case at bench, the parties opted to dispense with the testimony of PCI Libres and stipulated —
xxx xxx xxx
4. That PCI Libres received the evidence from PO3 Junar Olveda as evidenced by the Request for Lab Exam on Seized Evidence;
xxx xxx xxx
6. That PCI Libres received the specimen from PO3 Olveda described in the Chain of Custody Form;
7. That after conducting the examination, PCI Libres put all the pieces of evidence inside a brown paper bag provided by her and sealed the paper bag with the stapler and put the marking MCSO-D-156-14 and her signature and initials on it;
8. That specimens A-25 to A-29 were heat-sealed when received by the forensic chemist; x x x 50
It cannot be stressed enough that the aforesaid stipulations showing measures which PCI Libres ostensibly undertook to ensure the preservation of the integrity of said evidence, are wanting of any proof that she received the seized articles "as marked, properly sealed, and intact." In actual fact, the Court observed that in the request for laboratory examination of the seized items, "Twenty-Two (22) pieces of Heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing White Crystalline substance suspected as Shabu marked a 'KP-1A 12/09/14' to 'KP-1V 12/09/14' respectively" 51 were supposed to have been delivered by PO3 Olveda and received by PCI Libres. However, a scrutiny of Physical Science Report No. MCSO-D-156-14 divulges that only 21 sachets thereof were subjected to examination. This ineluctably constitutes a major breach in the chain of custody which places the integrity of the confiscated evidence in dubiety.
Moreover, records evince that after PCI Libres conducted the examination of the confiscated items, she turned it over to an evidence custodian. 52 Regrettably, however, there was no effort on the part of the prosecution to present the evidence custodian, or to even identify the person. Consequently, the manner of handling and storing the seized evidence by the evidence custodian while the said person's custody is unknown to the Court which renders its integrity and evidentiary value doubtful. 53
With the foregoing discourse, this Court finds and so holds that such breaches in the chain of custody of the seized illegal drugs blow to smithereens the prosecution evidence. Thence, the integrity of the corpus delicti is tainted and the pieces of evidence for the State is rendered insufficient to prove the guilt of appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, his acquittal is in order. 54
WHEREFORE, the Appeal is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated 23 October 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. C.R-HC No. 08927 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Kosain Pinto y Rakamanis is ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt. He is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention unless he is confined for some other lawful cause. HSAcaE
The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City is DIRECTED to IMPLEMENT this Resolution immediately and to REPORT to this Court the action taken hereon within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution. Copies shall also be furnished the Police General of the Philippine National Police and the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for their information.
The Regional Trial Court of Marikina City, Branch 263, is DIRECTED to turn over the seized sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride to the Dangerous Drugs Board for proper disposal in accordance with law.
Let an entry of judgment be ISSUED immediately.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. CA Rollo, pp. 102-114. Penned by Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr. with Associate Justices Ramon A. Cruz and Germano Francisco D. Legaspi, concurring.
2. Records, pp. 272-279. Penned by Presiding Judge Armando C. Velasco.
3. AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS ACT OF 1972 AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR AND OTHER PURPOSES. Approved on 7 June 2002.
4. Records, pp. 3, 28 and 53-54.
5. Section 6, Article II of RA No. 9165.
6.Id. at 3.
7.Id. at 28.
8.Id. at 53-54.
9.Id. at pp. 80-81.
10.Id. at pp. 85-86.
11. Sinumpaang Salaysay, id. at 207-209; TSN, 4 June 2015, pp. 3-41; 16 September 2015, pp. 3-18.
12. Records, pp. 20 and 204.
13.Id. at 199-200.
14. Sinumpaang Salaysay, id. at 207.
15.Id.
16.Id.
17.Id.
18.Id. at 208.
19.Id. at 201-203.
20.Id. at pp. 204-206.
21. PCI Libres' testimony was dispensed with. See Pre-Trial Order, id. at 86.
22. Dorsal portion, id. at 197.
23.Id. at 197.
24. TSN, 22 March 2016, pp. 4-9.
25. Records, p. 279.
26.Supra note 1.
27.Rollo, p. 121.
28.People v. Sorrera, G.R. No. 251110, 3 February 2021.
29. See People v. Dizon, G.R. No. 223562, 4 September 2019.
30. See People v. Areola, Jr. y Casica, G.R. No. 251919, 12 May 2021.
31. See People v. Cuevas y Martinez, 842 Phil. 709, 716 (2018).
32. 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 15 July 2014 and appears to have taken effective on 7 August 2014. See People v. De Dios, G.R No. 243664, 22 January 2020.
33.People v. Nocum y Manalo, G.R. No. 239905, 20 January 2021.
34. See Malmis y Regale v. People, G.R. No. 248676, 18 November 2021.
35. See People v. Ledesma y Villanueva, G.R. No. 248996, 1 December 2021.
36.Id.
37.Supra note 14.
38.People v. Ebreo y Cueto, G.R. No. 252568, 11 November 2021.
39. Records, p. 201.
40.Id. at 202.
41.Id. at 203.
42.Id. at 196.
43.Id. at p. 196.
44.Id. at 86.
45.Id. at p. 198.
46. See People v. Almayda y Selfides, G.R. No. 227706, 11 November 2021.
47. TSN, 4 June 2015, pp. 36-37.
48. See People v. Rivera y Suarez, G.R. No. 252886, 15 March 2021.
49.Id.
50. Records, pp. 85-86.
51.Id. at 196.
52.Id. at 86.
53. See People v. Evasco y Gestiada, G.R. No. 252698, 11 November 2021.
54. See People v. Pasiona y Lamagna, G.R No. 247820, 14 October 2020.