SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 240222. July 7, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.NOEL PONTANARES y ESPIRITU a.k.a. "BURDADO", CRIZALDO OBORZA y QUEJADA a.k.a. "CRIS", and ROSTY VILLAS y LAPNO a.k.a. "GRACE", accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated07 July 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 240222 (People of the Philippines v. Noel Pontanares y Espiritu a.k.a. "Burdado," Crizaldo Oborza y Quejada a.k.a. "Cris," and Rosty Villas y Lapno a.k.a. "Grace"). — The subject of this appeal are the convictions of Noel Pontanares y Espiritu (Noel) for Illegal Sale and Possession of Dangerous Drugs, and Crizaldo Oborza y Quejada (Crizaldo) and Rosty Villas y Lapno (Rosty) for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, assailing the November 23, 2017 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08429, 1 which affirmed the findings of the Pasig City Regional Trial Court, Branch 164 (RTC).
We acquit.
In Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, the seized drugs itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense, and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction. 2 Thus, it is essential to ensure that the substance recovered from the accused is the same substance offered in court. 3 Here, records reveal a broken chain of custody. The offense was committed on April 2, 2015, after the effectivity of the amendatory law, Republic Act No. 10640. 4 Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended, 5 outlines the post-seizure procedure for the custody and disposition of seized drugs. The law mandates that the officer taking initial custody of the seized drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct the physical inventory of the same and take a photograph in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom the 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 (NPS) or the media who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. The law requires the presence of these witnesses primarily to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence. 6
In this case, the inventory and photograph of the confiscated items were made without the required insulating witnesses. Only the accused — Noel, Crizaldo, Rosty — and Kagawad Johndowee Mojica were present. PO1 Randy Sanoy admitted that he did not call for any representative of the NPS nor recall if someone from the buy-bust team called for a representative from the media, thus:
Q: You did not call for any representative from DOJ when you marked the evidence at the place where you said you arrested the accused Cris. Is that correct?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: You did not try to call a representative from media? CAIHTE
A: We summoned a representative from the media, but no one was able to arrive, ma'am.
Q: It was not you who called the representative from media?
A: No, ma'am.
Q: Did you see your companion called (sic) for representative from media?
A: I cannot recall, ma'am.
Q: So, you don't have personal knowledge whether your companion or your other cooperative called for a representative from media?
A: Yes, ma'am. 7
We stress that the presence of the insulating witnesses is a vital requirement to ensure the preservation of the identity and evidentiary value of the seized drug. 8 In People v. Arellaga, 9 we ruled that the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti had been compromised when the mandatory witnesses were absent during the inventory of the seized items. Similarly, in People v. Santos, 10 mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses, are unacceptable as justified grounds for non-compliance.
Moreover, the buy-bust team failed to show that the integrity of the evidence had all along been preserved in the chain of custody. We note the links in the movement and custody of the seized drugs: (1) the confiscation and marking of the specimen seized from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the turnover of the seized item by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) the investigating officer's turnover of the specimen to the forensic chemist for examination; and (4) the submission of the item by the forensic chemist to the court. 11
We focus on the fourth link in the chain, which presents a discontinuity in the custody over the seized items. It is settled that in case of stipulation by the parties to dispense with the attendance and testimony of the forensic chemist, it should be clearly demonstrated that the forensic chemist took precautionary steps in order to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item, viz.: (1) the forensic chemist received the seized article as marked, properly sealed, and intact; (2) she resealed it after examination of the content; and (3) she placed her own marking on the same to ensure that it could not be tampered pending trial. 12 In People v. Leaño, 13 the accused was acquitted because the stipulated testimony of the forensic chemist was insufficient to prove that precautionary steps were taken by him as required by law, among other breaks in the chain of custody. Also, in People v. Rivera, 14 the accused was acquitted because there were no stipulations as to the manner the seized items were managed, stored, preserved or handled at the crime laboratory after it was examined by the forensic chemist; thus, the prosecution failed to establish the fourth link in the chain of custody. Here, the stipulations pertaining to the testimony of PSI Anghelisa S. Vicente did not mention that all the precautionary steps were taken to preserve the integrity of the seized items while they were in her possession.
The utter disregard of the required procedures created huge gaps in the chain of custody. The operatives failed to provide any justification showing that the integrity of the evidence had all along been preserved. The police officers did not describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the seized item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.
In sum, we find that a broken chain of custody militates against the conviction of appellants beyond reasonable doubt, as the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti were not preserved.
FOR THESE REASONS, the appeal is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals' Decision dated November 23, 2017 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08429 is hereby REVERSED. Noel Pontanares y Espiritu, Crizaldo Oborza y Quejada, and Rosty Villas y Lapno are ACQUITTED in Criminal Case Nos. 20137-D, 20138-D, 20139-D and 20140-D, and are ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless they are being lawfully held for another cause.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City for immediate implementation. The Director is likewise ORDERED to REPORT to this Court the action taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED." (Lopez, J.Y., J., designated additional Member per Special Order No. 2822 dated April 7, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-11; penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao with the concurrence of Associate Justices Pedro B. Corales and Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob.
2.People v. Crispo, 828 Phil. 416, 436-437 (2018); People v. Sanchez, 827 Phil. 457, 472-473 (2018); People v. Magsano, 826 Phil. 947, 964-965 (2018); People v. Manansala, 826 Phil. 578, 586 (2018); People v. Miranda, 824 Phil. 1042, 1055-1054 (2018); People v. Mamangon, 824 Phil. 728, 741 (2018); and People v. Partoza, 605 Phil. 883, 891 (2009).
3.People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 30-31 (2017); and Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 593 (2008).
4. Entitled "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 July 15, 2014, states that it shall "take effect fifteen (15) days after its complete publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation." Verily, a copy of the law was published on July 23, 2013 in the respective issues of "The Philippine Star" (Vol. XXVIII, No. 359, Philippine Star Metro section, p. 21) and the "Manila Bulletin" (Vol. 499, No. 23; World News section, p. 6); hence, R.A. No. 10640 became effective on August 7, 2014. See OCA Circular No. 77-2015 dated April 23, 2015.
5. The provision was amended by Republic Act No. 10640, and reads:
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:
xxx xxx xxx
N.B. Prior to the amendment, the required witnesses were representatives from the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official.
6.People v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 236304, November 5, 2018.
7. TSN, October 6, 2015, p. 12.
8.People v. Flores, G.R. No. 241261, July 29, 2019; People v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 233535, July 1, 2019; and People v. Maralit, G.R. No. 232381, August 1, 2018.
9. G.R. No. 231796, August 24, 2020.
10. G.R. No. 243627, November 27, 2019.
11.People v. Bugtong, 806 Phil. 628, 638-639 (2018).
12.People v. Leaño, G.R. No. 246461, July 28, 2020; citing People v. Ubungen, 836 Phil. 888 (2018).
13.Id.
14. G.R. No. 252886, March 15, 2021.