FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 252701. December 2, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.HERNANDO QUIMOSING y VERGARA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated December 2, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 252701 — People of the Philippines v. Hernando Quimosing y Vergara
We acquit.
Appellant Hernando Quimosing y Vergara was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165) or Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs committed on December 2, 2016. Thus, RA 9165, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640 (RA 10640) 1 which took effect on August 7, 2014 governs the disposition of the present case.
Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended, prescribes the standard in preserving the corpus delicti in illegal drug cases, viz.:
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: ScHADI
(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. (Emphasis supplied)
In illegal drugs cases, the drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense. On this score, the prosecution is tasked to establish that the substance illegally possessed by the accused is the same substance presented in court. The chain of custody requirement performs this function by ensuring that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. It came to fore due to the unique characteristics of illegal drugs which render them indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution, by accident or otherwise. 2
To ensure the integrity of the seized drug, the prosecution must account for each link in its chain of custody: (1) the seizure and marking of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and (4) the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court. 3
Foremost, we stress that the presence of the insulating witnesses during the inventory and photograph of the seized item is the first requirement to ensure the preservation of the identity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs. The absence of the required witnesses puts serious doubt as to the integrity of the first link. 4 While the absence per se of the required witnesses does not render the confiscated items inadmissible, the law requires the prosecution to sufficiently explain the non-compliance with the witness requirement and to show that earnest efforts were exerted to secure their attendance. 5 In Paras v. People, 6 citing People v. Sarip7 and People v. Ramos, 8 we said:
Earnest effort to secure the attendance of the necessary witnesses must also be proven as held in Ramos, thus:
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 witness 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 non-compliance. 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 fully 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 the 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. (Emphases supplied) HSCATc
Here, the police admitted that only barangay captain Genaro Corpuz was present during the inventory of the seized items. But no explanation was offered on why a Department of Justice (DOJ) representative or media representative was not present; nor the efforts exerted by the police to secure their attendance. In a long line of cases, 9 the Court acquitted the accused for failure of the apprehending team in securing the presence of the insulating witnesses. We find no reason to deviate from these rulings.
Another. The Receipt and Inventory of Property Seized 10 did not contain the signature of the "accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized" as required in Section 21 of RA 9165. In People v. Banding, 11 the Court ruled that the failure of the accused to sign the inventory receipt cast doubt that the dangerous drug allegedly seized from the accused was the same drug delivered for documentation. Verily, this lapse tainted the integrity of the drugs seized from appellant.
While the law enforcers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties, this presumption cannot prevail over the constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent. The presumption is destroyed when the performance of duty is tainted with irregularities, 12 as in this case.
We reiterate that the provisions of Section 21 of RA 9165 embody the constitutional aim to prevent the imprisonment of an innocent man. This Court cannot tolerate the lax approach of law enforcers in handling the very corpus delicti of the crime. Hence, appellant must be acquitted of the charges against him given the prosecution's failure to prove an unbroken chain of custody. 13
A final note. We have oft emphasized that law enforcers should not trifle with the legal requirement to ensure the integrity in the chain of custody of seized dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia. This is especially true when only a miniscule amount of dangerous drugs is alleged to have been taken from the accused. 14 The miniscule amount of the drug involved in this case should have impelled the police officers to faithfully comply with the law. Trial courts should thoroughly take into consideration the factual intricacies of the cases involving violations of RA 9165. The courts must employ heightened scrutiny, consistent with the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt, in evaluating cases involving miniscule amounts of drugs for these can be readily planted and tampered. 15
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals' Decision dated August 27, 2019 and Resolution dated January 14, 2020 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10398 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Hernando Quimosing y Vergara is ACQUITTED in Criminal Case No. 18737 and is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless he is being lawfully held for another cause. Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City for immediate implementation. He is directed to report to this Court his compliance within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution. IDTSEH
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. 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."
2.De Guzman v. People, G.R. No. 246327, January 13, 2021.
3.Jocson v. People, G.R. No. 199644, June 19, 2019.
4.People v. Aranas, G.R. No. 247550, April 28, 2021.
5.Paras v. People, G.R. No. 250415, April 28, 2021.
6.Id.
7. G.R. No. 231917, July 8, 2019.
8. 826 Phil. 981, 996-997 (2018).
9.Sarip v. People, supra; People v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 233535, July 1, 2019; People v. Lagota, G.R. No. 248201, September 8, 2020; People v. Mazo, G.R. No. 242273, November 23, 2020.
10. Exhibit E, record, p. 17.
11. G.R. No. 233470, August 14, 2019.
12. See People v. Aranas, supra.
13.Id.
14. See Tuano v. People, 788 Phil. 283, 287 (2016).
15.People v. Balubal, G.R. No. 234033, July 30, 2018.