SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 241628. October 13, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. RODRIGO QUINTO y MESODIEL, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated13 October 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 241628 (People of the Philippines v. Rodrigo Quinto y Mesodiel). — This is an appeal 1 from the Decision 2 dated January 30, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08405 which modified the Joint Decision 3 dated April 27, 2016 of Branch 41, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Dagupan City in Criminal Case Nos. 2011-0632-D and 2011-0633-D. The CA affirmed the conviction of Rodrigo Quinto y Mesodiel (accused-appellant) for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, but acquitted accused-appellant for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11, Article II of the same Act.
Accused-appellant was charged in two (2) Informations as follows:
Criminal Case No. 2011-0632-D:
That on or about 11:00 o'clock in the morning of October 14, 2011 in Barangay Banaoang, Mangaldan, Pangasinan, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally possess, sell and deliver to a poseur-buyer policeman, one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as "shabu," weighing 0.048 gram, in exchange of Five Hundred Pesos (Php500.00), Philippine Currency, without authority to do so.
Contrary to Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165. 4
Criminal Case No. 2011-0633-D:
That on or about 11:00 o'clock in the morning of October 14, 2011 in Barangay Banaoang, Mangaldan, Pangasinan, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and criminally have in his possession, custody and control ten (10) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet of methamphetamine hydrochloride with an aggregate weight of 0.42 gram without authority to do so.
Contrary to Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165. 5
When arraigned, accused-appellant entered a plea of not guilty to the charges. After the termination of the pre-trial, trial on the merits ensued. 6
Version of the Prosecution
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) presents the prosecution's version of facts as follows:
At 10:30 A.M. of October 14, 2011, Police Superintendent (P/Supt.) Mateo Casupang of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Mangaldan Police Station, Mangaldan Pangasinan, instructed PO2 Junas Sembrano, PO2 Ronald Estayo, Police Officer 1 (PO1) Dante Mangonon and PO1 Terry Briones to conduct a buy-bust operation against appellant. PO2 Estayo was designated as the poseur-buyer and tasked to buy drugs from appellant using marked money worth P500.00. On the other hand, PO2 Sembrano, PO1 Mangonon and PO1 Briones were assigned as back-up.
At 11:00 A.M. of the same day, the team, together with their confidential asset, proceeded to Brgy. Banaoang in Mangaldan and positioned themselves at strategic places. After a few minutes, appellant arrived on board a pedaled tricycle. PO2 Estayo was thereafter introduced to appellant by the confidential asset as a buyer of shabu.
PO2 Estayo then handed to appellant the rolled marked money, and in exchange, appellant handed to him one (1) heat-sealed plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. Immediately thereafter, PO2 Estayo removed his cap and scratched his head, a pre-arranged signal that the transaction had been completed. The other police officers rushed to the scene and placed appellant under arrest.
Upon PO2 Sembrano's instruction to appellant to empty his pockets, the following were found: (1) ten (10) pieces of heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance suspected to be shabu; (2) one (1) pair of scissors; (3) one (1) disposable lighter; (4) one (1) ballpen with rolled aluminum foil inserted inside; (5) one (1) match box; (6) five (5) aluminum foils; (7) one (1) talk and text sim card [sic]; and (8) one (1) black wallet. At the scene, the police took photos of the items and prepared the confiscation receipt. CAIHTE
They then proceeded to the police station, where the items were turned over to PO[2] Petilla and where the seized sachets were marked as follows: (a) "RQE1" for the sachet subject of the sale; and (b) "JNS1" to "JNS10" for the sachets recovered by PO2 Sembrano.
Later, PO2 Estayo and Sembrano proceeded to the PNP Crime Laboratory in Urdaneta City, Pangasinan for the examination of the specimen they recovered from appellant. The specimens were received by PSI Emetrio M. Macaraeg.
The laboratory examination conducted by Forensic Chemist Emelda Bessara Roderos on the sachets seized yielded positive results for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu, a dangerous drug. 7
Version of the Defense
Accused-appellant denied the charges against him. He posited that on October 14, 2011, at around 11:00 a.m., he was on board a pedicab on his way to his cousin's house in Purok 8, Barangay Banaoang. Suddenly, Police Officer I Dante Mangonon, accompanied by Police Officer II Junas Sembrano (PO2 Sembrano), PO2 Ronald Estayo (PO2 Estayo), and PO1 Terry Briones, stopped the pedicab. The police officers then bodily searched accused-appellant and the driver of the pedicab. Nothing illegal was found in accused-appellant's person, but the police officers brought him to the Barangay Captain Mamerta C. Dizon (Brgy. Capt. Dizon). 8
At the house of Brgy. Capt. Dizon, one of the police officers took pictures of accused-appellant near a table with several items on top. At that point, accused-appellant heard Brgy. Capt. Dizon ask the police officers why he was arrested when he did nothing wrong. After the police officers talked to Brgy. Capt. Dizon, the latter did not complain anymore. 9
After the photography, the police officers brought accused-appellant to the police station at the Municipal Hall of Mangaldan where he was interrogated. On the same day, at around 3:00 p.m., the police officers brought him to Urdaneta City where his urine sample was taken. Thereafter, they brought him to the police station where he was detained. 10
The Ruling of the RTC
On April 27, 2016, the RTC rendered a Joint Decision as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Rodrigo Quinto Mesodiel GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 2011-0632-D for selling and delivering shabu weighing 0.048 gram in violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act 9165, and pursuant to law, he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and fine of P500,000.00.
In Criminal Case No. 2011-0633-D, the court likewise finds the accused Rodrigo Quinto y Mesodiel GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Possession of Shabu, a dangerous drug, weighing 0.42 gram in violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act 9165 and pursuant to law, he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and fine of Three Hundred Thousand (P300,000.00).
xxx xxx xxx
SO ORDERED. 11
The RTC ruled that there was substantial compliance with the chain of custody rule and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized shabu were preserved. 12
Accused-appellant appealed to the CA. 13
The Ruling of the CA
On January 30, 2018, the CA affirmed the RTC Decision but modified it. It found that the charge of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the CA acquitted accused-appellant of the crime of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165. The CA disposed of the case as follows: HEITAD
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is PARTLY GRANTED. The Joint Decision dated April 27, 2016 of the RTC, Branch 41 of Dagupan City is AFFIRMED with modification. Accused-appellant Rodrigo Quinto y Mesodiel is ACQUITTED of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the crime charged in Criminal Case No. 2011-0633-D on the ground of reasonable doubt.
SO ORDERED. 14
Hence, this appeal before the Court.
The Issue
The issue before the Court is whether the CA erred in affirming accused-appellants' conviction for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 in Criminal Case No. 2011-0632-D.
The Court's Ruling
The Court grants the appeal.
At the outset, it bears emphasis that the CA acquitted accused-appellant of violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 because the police officers committed errors in the handling and marking of the items found from accused-appellant's possession after he was frisked. However, the CA affirmed the conviction for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 after finding that the illegal item sold was properly marked at the place of arrest.
It is worthy to note that in the respective decisions of the RTC and the CA, there is no mention of the witness requirement under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. The courts below completely glossed over the issue.
The elements of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 are as follows: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. 15
For a successful prosecution of the offense of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, not only must the prosecution establish the above elements; it is equally essential that the identity of the dangerous drug be established with moral certainty 16 considering that the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the corpusdelicti of the offense. 17
Thus, the prosecution must be able to account for each link of the chain of custody from the moment the drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as evidence of the crime. 18 As part of the chain of custody procedure, the law requires, interalia, that the marking, physical inventory, and photography of the seized items be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation. 19
The law further requires that the inventory and photography be done in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: (a) if prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640 20 — a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official; or (b) if after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640 — an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media. 21
In cases where strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure is not possible, the seizure and custody of the seized items will not be rendered void if the prosecution satisfactorily proves that there is justifiable ground for the deviation and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. 22 Further, noncompliance with the witness requirement may be permitted if the prosecution proves that the apprehending officers exerted genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of the required witnesses, albeit the latter failed to appear. 23
After a review of the records of the case, the Court finds that the prosecution utterly failed to prove the corpusdelicti of the offense charged as it failed to demonstrate that the police officers observed the requirements mandated by Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. The violations charged were purportedly committed on October 14, 2011 when RA 9165 was not yet amended by RA 10640. Thus, the three-witness rule applies.
In the case, there was a deviation from the witness requirement under RA 9165. It appears that only an elected official witnessed the inventory. The Confiscation Receipts 24 were signed by PO2 Estayo, PO2 Sembrano and Brgy. Capt. Dizon. The other required witnesses, i.e., a representative from the media and the DOJ, were not present to witness the inventory of the seized items.
Furthermore, the rule requires that the inventory sheet must be signed by the accused or his or her representative along with the three required witnesses. Here, neither accused-appellant nor his representative signed the confiscation receipt/inventory sheet. ATICcS
Nothing in the records shows that the prosecution or the police officers provided justification for the noncompliance with the three-witness rule. Further still, the records do not show that the prosecution offered a plausible explanation as to why there were no representatives from the media and the DOJ. Neither was it proven that the police officers exerted genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of these witnesses. This deviation was completely left unjustified by the prosecution.
The Court cannot merely gloss over the glaring lapse committed by the police officers especially when the shabu allegedly seized from accused-appellant amounted to only 0.048 gram. The Court has highlighted the need to ensure the integrity of the seized drugs in the chain of custody when only a minuscule amount of drugs had been allegedly seized from the accused. 25
Considering that the marking and inventory of the allegedly seized drugs were highly questionable, there is no assurance that the sachet of shabu tested in the laboratory and presented in court was the same sachet of dangerous drug allegedly confiscated from accused-appellant. Evidently, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized sachet of shabu had not been preserved.
In fine, reasonable doubt exists in the present case. As the quantum of proof required for the conviction of accused-appellant for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 has not been met, his acquittal is therefore in order.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. Accused-appellant Rodrigo Quinto y Mesodiel is hereby ACQUITTED of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 in Criminal Case No. 2011-0632-D.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City is ORDERED to (a) cause the immediate release of Rodrigo Quinto y Mesodiel, unless he is being held in custody for any other lawful reason; and (b) inform the Court of the action taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED." (PERLAS-BERNABE, S.A.J., on official leave; HERNANDO, J., no part due to prior action in the Court of Appeals; ZALAMEDA, J., designated additional member per Raffle dated February 24, 2020).
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. See Notice of Appeal dated February 27, 2018, rollo, pp. 18-19.
2. Id. at 2-17; penned by Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr. (now a retired Member of the Court), with Associate Justices Elihu A. Ybañez and Pedro B. Corales, concurring.
3. CA rollo, pp. 78-89; penned by Presiding Judge Emma M. Torio.
4. Rollo, pp. 2-3.
5. Id. at 3.
6. Id.
7. CA rollo, pp. 111-113.
8. Rollo, p. 6.
9. Id.
10. Id.
11. CA rollo, p. 89.
12. Id. at 88.
13. See Notice of Appeal dated May 2016, id. at 13-14.
14. Rollo, p. 17.
15. People v. Crispo, 828 Phil. 416, 429 (2018).
16. People v. Santos, G.R. No. 243627, November 27, 2019.
17. People v. Viterbo, 739 Phil. 593, 601 (2014).
18. People v. Año, 828 Phil. 439, 448 (2018), citing People v. Viterbo, id. and People v. Alagarme, 754 Phil. 449, 460 (2015).
19. People v. Gabunada, G.R. No. 242827, September 9, 2019.
20. 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, and became effective on August 7, 2014.
21. People v. Gabunada, supra.
22. People v. Almorfe, 631 Phil. 51, 60 (2010).
23. People v. Gabunada, supra note 19.
24. Records, pp. 21-22.
25. People v. Del Mundo, 818 Phil. 575, 588 (2017), citing People v. Jaafar, 803 Phil. 582, 595 (2017).