SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 253300. November 24, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. ROLANDO REYES y ORIO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated24 November 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 253300(People of the Philippines v. Rolando Reyes y Orio). — This is an appeal 1 from the Decision 2 dated September 13, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09317 affirming with modification the Joint Decision 3 dated May 10, 2017 of Branch 227, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Quezon City in Criminal Case Nos. Q-09-160292, Q-09-160293, and Q-09-160294 finding Rolando Reyes y Orio (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 5, 4 11, 5 and 12, 6 in relation to Section 14, 7 Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. 8
The Antecedents
In three Informations, accused-appellant was charged with violation of Sections 5, 11, and 12, in relation to Section 14, Article II of RA 9165. The accusatory portions state:
Q-09-160292 (Violation of Sec. 12)
That on or about the 10th day of August 2009, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused not being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession and control two (2) pieces aluminum foil/strips, intended to be used as paraphernalia for smoking, consuming, administering, ingesting, any prohibited drug in violation of said law.
Contrary to law.
Q-09-160293 (Violation of Sec. 11)
That on or about the 10th day of August 2009, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, not being authorized by law to possess or use any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession and control zero point zero three (0.03) gram of white crystalline substance, containing Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride which gave positive result to the test for dangerous drug. CAIHTE
Contrary to law.
Q-09-160294 (Violation of Sec. 5)
That on or about the 10th day of August 2009, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused without lawful authority did then and there willfully, and unlawfully sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport[,] or act as broker in the said transaction, zero point zero three (0.03) gram of white crystalline substance containing Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride which gave positive result to the test for a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law. 9
When arraigned, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges. 10
Trial ensued. 11
Version of the Prosecution
The prosecution established that on the evening of August 9, 2009, the Anti-Illegal Drugs Unit of Quezon City Police Station 1 received an information from a confidential informant about the illegal drug activities of alias Merlie and Roly (later identified as accused-appellant) in Barangay Lourdes, Quezon City. Thereafter, the police officers conducted a test-buy on the suspects. They were able to buy from Merlie and accused-appellant two plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance. After a laboratory examination, the contents of the plastic sachets yielded a positive result for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. 12
The following day, at around 7:30 p.m., the police officers successfully conducted a buy-bust operation against accused-appellant wherein, Police Officer 1 Nurdi Mursidi (PO1 Mursidi), designated as the poseur-buyer, successfully bought and recovered from accused-appellant one plastic sachet containing 0.03 gram of suspected shabu. Thus, the police officers arrested accused-appellant. PO1 Mursidi conducted a body search on accused-appellant and recovered from the latter another plastic sachet containing 0.03 gram of suspected shabu, two aluminum foil strips, two lighters, and a cellphone. 13 Thereafter, PO1 Mursidi marked the seized items in their vehicle. 14 To avoid a commotion, the police officers brought accused-appellant and the seized items to the barangay hall where they conducted an inventory in the presence of a barangay kagawad. After which, they brought the seized items to the crime laboratory where, after a laboratory examination, the contents of the seized items tested positive for shabu. 15
Version of the Defense
In defense, accused-appellant denied the accusations against him. He maintained that there was no buy-bust operation that took place and that the items purportedly bought and recovered from him were merely planted. 16
The RTC Ruling
In the Joint Decision 17 dated May 10, 2017, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 5, 11, and 12, in relation to Section 14, Article II of RA 9165. Accused was sentenced, as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. Q-09-160292 (Illegal Possession of Drug Paraphernalia), "to suffer the penalty of imprisonment from six (6) months and one (1) day as minimum to three (3) years as maximum and to pay a fine of [P10,000.00]";
2. In Criminal Case No. Q-09-160293 (Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs), "to suffer the penalty of imprisonment from twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to fifteen (15) years as maximum and to pay a fine of [P300,000.00]"; and
3. In Criminal Case No. Q-09-160294 (Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs), "to suffer the penalty of [l]ife imprisonment and to pay a fine of [P500,000.00]." 18
The RTC ruled that all the elements of the offenses charged were duly established and that the prosecution was able to prove substantial compliance with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 despite the fact that only an elected barangay official was present to witness the inventory. 19
Undaunted, accused-appellant filed an appeal. 20
The CA Ruling
In the assailed Decision, the CA affirmed with modification the RTC Joint Decision convicting accused-appellant of violation of Sections 5, 11, and 12, in relation to Section 14, Article II of RA 9165. It modified the penalty imposed in Criminal Case No. Q-09-160294 for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs ruling that accused-appellant is not eligible for parole. 21
Hence, the instant appeal. 22
Issue
The issue in the case is whether the guilt of accused-appellant for violation of Sections 5, 11, and 12, in relation to Section 14, Article II of RA 9165 has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Our Ruling
The appeal is meritorious.
In criminal cases, the Constitution, under Section 14 (2), Article III, guarantees that an accused is presumed innocent until his guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. This guilt must be founded on the strength of the prosecution's evidence, not on the weakness of the defense. 23
For a successful prosecution for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, the following elements must be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and consideration of the sale; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. 24
On the other hand, to successfully prosecute a case for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, the following elements must be established: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. 25
Similarly, a violation of Illegal Possession of Paraphernalia is deemed consummated the moment the accused is found in possession of said articles without the necessary license or prescription. 26 DETACa
Jurisprudence provides that in drug cases, it is essential that the identity of the seized drug/paraphernalia be established with moral certainty. 27 Thus, in order to remove any doubts on such identity, the prosecution has to show an unbroken chain of custody over the seized items. 28 Accordingly, it must be able to account for each link in the chain of custody over the dangerous drug/paraphernalia from the moment of seizure up to its presentation in court as evidence of the corpus delicti. 29 The failure of the prosecution to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti renders the evidence for the State insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and, hence, warrants an acquittal. 30
In People v. Sipin, 31 the Court reiterated the links that must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust operation, to wit: (1) the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officers; (2) the turn-over of the illegal drug seized to the investigating officer; (3) the turn-over by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and (4) the turn-over and submission of the illegal drug from the forensic chemist to the court. 32
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, 33 a representative each 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. 34
In the instant case, the buy-bust operation was conducted in 2009 or prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640. Thus, the charges are covered by the three-witnessrule under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165.
Records reveal that the buy-bust team failed to strictly comply with the three-witnessrule. Specifically, no representatives from the media and DOJ were present during the alleged inventory and photography of the shabu and paraphernalia allegedly seized from accused-appellant. From this fact alone, the police officers already deviated from the requirements outlined in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 thereby rebutting the presumption of the regularity in the performance of their duties. Evidently, there is already a significant break in the very first link in the chain of custody which exposed the seized drug/paraphernalia to the possibility of planting, switching, and tampering. Simply stated, there is no evidence that the narcotic substance and the paraphernalia which constitute the corpus delicti of the offenses charged exist.
While as a rule, strict compliance with the foregoing requirements is mandatory, a deviation may be allowed only if the prosecution discharges its burden of justifying the police officers' non-compliance 35 based on the following requisites that must concur: (1) the existence of "justifiable grounds" allowing departure from the rule on strict compliance; and (2) the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team. 36 Moreover, the police officers must also convince the Court that they exerted earnest efforts to comply with the mandated procedure, and that under the given circumstance, their actions were reasonable. 37
A judicious scrutiny of the instant case reveals that the police officers failed to exert earnest efforts to comply with the witness requirement under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. To recall, the police officers in the case were able to conduct a test-buy one day before the alleged buy-bust operation. Likewise, the buy-bust operation against accused-appellant was well planned. Still, despite having a considerable time to do so, the police officers failed to secure the attendance of representatives from the DOJ and the media to witness the inventory and photography of the seized items as required by law. Worse, the prosecution, too, failed to offer any single explanation for the glaring breach in the prescribed procedure.
Finally, the Court noticed that the police officers failed to execute and present a chain of custody form. Thus, there is no clear evidence as to the identities of the officers who handled the two sachets of shabu and drug paraphernalia allegedly seized from accused-appellant and when these were transferred from one hand to another.
In the case, the prosecution witnesses failed to account for the regular flow of the chain of custody — how the sachets of shabu and paraphernalia were received, who kept them for custody, where they were kept, and their condition while in the possession of the evidence custodian up to the presentation in court. The multiple breaks in the chain of custody of the evidence cast serious doubt as to their identity and integrity. 38 Thus, the guilt of accused-appellant is placed in serious doubt.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated September 13, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09317 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Rolando Reyes y Orio is hereby ACQUITTED.
The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City is ORDERED to: (a) cause the immediate release of Rolando Reyes y Orio, unless he is being held in custody for some other lawful reason; and (b) inform the Court of the action taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution. aDSIHc
Copies of this Resolution must be furnished the Chief of the Philippine National Police and the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for their information.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED." (HERNANDO, J., on official leave.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. CA rollo, pp. 128-129.
2.Rollo, pp. 3-26; penned by Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybañez with Associate Justices Maria Filomena D. Singh and Tita Marilyn B. Payoyo-Villordon, concurring.
3. CA rollo, pp. 46-55; penned by Presiding Judge Elvira D.C. Panganiban.
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. Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. — 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 possess any dangerous drug in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof[.]
6. Section 12. Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs. — The penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and a fine ranging from Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) to Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess or have under his/her control any equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting or introducing any dangerous drug into the body[.]
7. Section 14. Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs during Parties, Social Gatherings or Meetings. — The maximum penalty provided for in Section 12 of this Act shall be imposed upon any person, who shall possess or have under his/her control any equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body, during parties, social gatherings or meetings, or in the proximate company of at least two (2) persons.
8. CA rollo, p. 54.
9.Id. at 46-47.
10.Rollo, p. 5.
11.Id. at 6.
12. CA rollo, p. 31.
13.Id.
14.Rollo, p. 9.
15. CA rollo, p. 51.
16.Rollo, p. 10.
17. CA rollo, pp. 46-55.
18.Id. at 54.
19.Id. at 53.
20.Id. at 11.
21.Id. at 25-26.
22. CA rollo, pp. 128-129.
23.Constantino v. People, G.R. No. 225696, April 8, 2019.
24.People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 238339, August 7, 2019, citing People v. Unisa, 674 Phil. 89, 108 (2011).
25.People v. Punzalan, 773 Phil. 72, 90 (2015), citing People v. Lagahit, 746 Phil. 896, 907-908 (2014).
26.People v. Ching, 819 Phil. 565, 576 (2017).
27.Id.
28.Id.
29.People v. Rivera, G.R. No. 252886, March 15, 2021.
30.Matabilas v. People, G.R. No. 243615, November 11, 2019, citing People v. Gamboa, 833 Phil. 1055 (2018).
31. 833 Phil. 67 (2018).
32.Id. at 81.
33. 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 which took effect on August 7, 2014.
34.Sayson v. People, G.R. No. 249289, September 28, 2020. See also People v. Alconde, G.R. No. 238117, February 4, 2019.
35.People v. Addin, G.R. No. 223682, October 9, 2019.
36.Dizon v. People, G.R. No. 239399, March 25, 2019.
37.Ramos v. People, G.R. No. 233572, July 30, 2018.
38.People v. Mamuyac, G.R. No. 234035, August 19, 2019.