SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 232387. December 1, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. RICHIE REYES y SAN JUAN, WILFREDO REYES y GAYO and JAMES BAUTISTA y GRAJO, ACCUSED; JAMES BAUTISTA y GRAJO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 01 December 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 232387 (People of the Philippines v. Richie Reyes y San Juan, Wilfredo Reyes y Gayo and James Bautista y Grajo, accused; James Bautista y Grajo, accused-appellant). — Challenged in this appeal 1 is the January 20, 2017 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07573 which affirmed the January 15, 2014 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 64, Makati City:
(a) convicting accused Wilfredo Reyes y Gayo (Wilfredo) and Richie Reyes y San Juan (Richie) in Criminal Case No. 08-1389 of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, 4 otherwise known as the·"Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002''; sentencing each of them to suffer life imprisonment, and to pay a fine of P500,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency;
(b) convicting Richie in Criminal Case No. 08-1390 of violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165, sentencing him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 12 years and one day to 15 years of imprisonment, and to pay a fine of P400,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; and
(c) convicting accused-appellant James Bautista y Grajo (James) in Criminal Case No. 08-1391 of violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165, sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty of 12 years and one day to 15 years of imprisonment, and to pay a fine of P400,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
The Antecedents:
James was charged with violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 in Criminal Case No. 08-1391; Wilfredo and Richie with violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 in Criminal Case No. 08-1389; and accused Richie with violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 in Criminal Case No. 08-1390, under three separate Informations which allege:
a) Criminal Case No. 08-1389 against Wilfredo and Richie
That on or about the 19th day of August 2008, in the City of Makati, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and both of them mutually helping and aiding one another, without being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, give away, distribute and deliver zero point zero three (0.03) gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), which is a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
b) Criminal Case No. 08-1390 against Richie
That on or about the 19th day of August 2008, in the City of Makati, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being lawfully authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession direct custody and control a total weight of zero point zero nine (0.09) gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) which is a dangerous drugs, in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 6
c) Criminal Case No. 08-1391 against James
That on or about the 19th day of August 2008, in the City of Makati, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being lawfully authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession direct custody and control zero point zero three (0.03) gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) and zero point thirty nine (0.39) gram of dried marijuana fruiting tops which are dangerous drugs, in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 7
Upon arraignment, James, Wilfredo, and Richie entered pleas of "not guilty" to the crimes charged. 8 During the pre-trial conference, the prosecution and the defense entered into the following stipulations:
1. The genuineness and due execution of the Final Investigation Report dated August 21, 2008 prepared by PO2 Jaime C. Orante, Jr. with the condition that the said police officer has no personal knowledge as to the circumstances of the arrest of the accused;
2. The genuineness and due execution of the Affidavit of Attestation prepared by PO2 Jaime C. Orante, Jr. with the condition that the said police officer has no personal knowledge as to the circumstance of the arrest of the herein accused;
3. The genuineness and due execution of Physical Science Report No. D-333-08S prepared by Forensic Chemist Abraham Verde Tecson on the condition that he has no personal knowledge from whom the subject specimen was confiscated;
4. The expertise of Forensic Chemist Tecson as the one who prepared the said Physical Science Report;
5. That there was a Request for Laboratory Examination dated August 18, 2008 prepared by PO2 Jaime C. Orante for the examination of the evidence submitted in the said request. 9
The testimonies of Police Officer (PO) 2 Renie Aseboque (PO2 Aseboque) and Police Senior Inspector (PSI) Abraham Verde Tecson (PSI Tecson) were dispensed with 10 after the prosecution and defense stipulated that: (1) PO2 Aseboque coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) and signed the Spot Report, 11 and that he had no personal knowledge on how the accused were arrested or how the items were confiscated; 12 and (2) PSI Tecson prepared Physical Science Report No. D-335-08S, 13 but that he had no personal knowledge from whom the drug items were confiscated. 14
Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued. The prosecution presented the testimonies of Special Agent (SA) 2 Eugenio Dizer (SA2 Dizer), 15 a Makati Anti-Drug Abuse Council (MADAC) operative, and PO1 Michael Acedera (PO1 Acedera). 16 On the other hand, the defense presented Richie, Wilfredo and James as witnesses. 17
Version of the Prosecution:
On August 19, 2008, PO2 Aseboque planned a buy-bust operation against a certain "Yama Reyes" who was later identified as Wilfredo. SA2 Dizer was designated as the poseur-buyer and was given three P100 bills as buy-bust money which were marked with "C-3" on top of the serial number. On the other hand, PO2 Aseboque and PO1 Acedera were designated as the immediate back-up personnel. 18
At around 7:00 p.m. the buy-bust team proceeded to Barangay Valenzuela, Makati City. PO2 Aseboque and PO1 Acedera strategically positioned themselves where they could see the transaction. Then, SA2 Dizer went to Teresa Street where he saw Wilfredo in front of his house conversing with two individuals, who were later identified as Richie and James. SA2 Dizer approached Wilfredo and said "Pre, kuha ulit ako," to which the latter replied, "Akin na pera mo."19
While SA2 Dizer was transacting with Wilfredo, Richie was at the same time handing James with a small heat-sealed plastic sachet also containing a white crystalline substance. Wilfredo then asked Richie "Tapos ka na ba dyan?"20 then instructed Richie to give SA2 Dizer a small heat-sealed plastic sachet also containing a white crystalline substance. Thereafter, SA2 Dizer gave Wilfredo the buy-bust money. 21
After the transaction, SA2 Dizer executed the pre-arranged signal, i.e., throwing his cigarette. He then introduced himself as a law enforcer and arrested Richie. PO2 Aseboque and PO1 Acedera then rushed to the scene and assisted SA2 Dizer in arresting Wilfredo and James. 22
SA2 Dizer confiscated from Richie four heat-sealed plastic sachets containing a white crystalline substance, one of which was marked with his initials "E.D." The other three confiscated items were marked by SA2 Dizer with "C3", "C-3-1", and "C-3-2". On the other hand, PO1 Acedera recovered from Wilfredo the buy-bust money, consisting of three P100.00 bills, and from James, one plastic tea bag containing suspected marijuana fruit tops marked as "James," and one small heat-sealed plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance marked as "James-1", and P200.00. 23
Thereafter Wilfredo, Richie, and James were brought to the barangay hall of Valenzuela, Makati City, and later to the police station where the seized items were turned over 24 to PO2 Jaime Orante, Jr., (PO2 Orante, Jr.) who prepared the requests 25 for laboratory examination and drug tests. Then, PO2 Orante, Jr. turned over the seized items to Rheus Buluran (Buluran), a MADAC Cluster 3 operative, who, together with SA2 Dizer, delivered the items to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory for examination. 26 The results showed tli.at the confiscated five heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets with markings "E.D.," "C-3," "C-3-1," "C-3-2" and "James-1" containing a white crystalline substance yielded positive for methamphetaminehydrochloride or shabu, while the other plastic sachet marked with "James" tested positive for marijuana.27
Version of the Defense:
Richie testified that at around 6:30 to 7:00 p.m. of August 19, 2008, he was cooking dinner and drinking at the house of his uncle, Wilfredo, at No. 1018 Teresa Street, Rizal Village, Barangay Valenzuela, Makati City, when several armed individual in civilian attire barged in looking for a certain "Boy." He told them that he did not know any person of such name. However, they took his postal identification card and money. 28
Afterwards, he and Wilfredo were brought outside and shown P100.00 bills, a plastic sachet containing "tawas," and a document. He denied ownership of the money and plastic sachet and insisted that it was his first time seeing them. Handcuffed, he and Wilfredo were boarded into a green van and brought to the barangay hall where photographs of the money and plastic sachets were taken. Thereafter, they were brought to the police station and detained. At around 10 p.m., a certain individual later identified as James was likewise detained with them. 29 Wilfredo denied the charges against him and corroborated Richie's testimony. 30
For his part, James testified that at around 5:30 p.m. of August 19, 2008, he went to Parañaque with his wife to sell his motorbike. They went home at around 9 p.m. Later, at around 10 p.m., he received a call from his friend and former neighbor, Richie, who asked him to go to his house because he wanted to sell his motorbike. James agreed and boarded a taxi going to Richie's house in Valenzuela, Makati City. 31
Upon arrival at Richie's place, five to 10 armed individuals in civilian attire forced him to alight from the taxi and board into a van. He was brought to the MADAC office where he was detained together with Wilfredo and Richie. He had no knowledge as to why he was arrested but he was informed that plastic sachets containing illegal drugs were recovered from his bag. After several hours, they were brought to the Ospital ng Makati for a drug test. He refused to undergo testing without the presence of his lawyer and relatives, but he was punched by a police officer. 32
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:
On January 15, 2014, the RTC rendered a Decision 33 convicting Wilfredo, Richie, and James as charged. The dispositive portion of the RTC's Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. 08-1389, finding the accused Richie Reyes y San Juan and Wilfredo Reyes y Gayo, GUILTY of the charge for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 and sentencing each of them to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (Php500,000.00) without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency;
2. In Criminal Case No. 08-1390, finding the accused Richie Reyes y San Juan, GUILTY of the charge for violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 and sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fifteen (15) years of imprisonment and to pay a fine of FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (400,000.00) without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; and
3. In Criminal Case No. 08-1391, finding the accused JAMES BAUTISTA y GRAJO, GUILTY of the charge for violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 ,and sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fifteen (15) years of imprisonment and to pay a fine of FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (400,000.00) without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
SO ORDERED. 34
Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
Wilfredo, Richie, and James filed an appeal 35 before the CA but only James filed an appellant's brief. 36 Hence, the CA dismissed Wilfredo and Richie's appeal for failure to file their respective briefs despite notice pursuant to Section 8, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court. 37
On January 20, 2017, the CA rendered its Decision denying James' appeal and affirming the RTC's judgment of conviction for violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165. 38 The dispositive portion of the appellate court's Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The assailed Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Br. 64 is AFFIRMED. Costs against the Accused-Appellant James Bautista y Grajo.
SO ORDERED.39
The CA ruled that the prosecution has duly established James' guilt beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165. Finding that the prosecution sufficiently proved all the elements of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs through documentary and testimonial evidence. 40 It held that credence should be given to the testimonies of the police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner unless there is evidence to the contrary. Likewise, the CA found that the defense failed to show any ill motive or malicious intent on the part of the police officers to impute such a serious crime that would put in jeopardy the life and liberty of an innocent person such as James. 41 The CA also found the alleged inconsistencies cited by James to be too trivial, immaterial, and inconsequential to affect the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. 42 Besides, both SA2 Dizer and PO1 Acedera explained that they could no longer recall the exact details of what actually transpired on August 19, 2008 given the passage of time and numerous cases they have handled. 43
Aggrieved, James appealed to the Court.
Issues
With James and the People adopting their respective briefs filed before the CA, 44 the issues for consideration of the Court are:
I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FINDING THE TESTIMONY OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES INCONSISTENT, FLAWED, AND INCREDIBLE.
II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT JAMES BAUTISTA GUILTY OF VIOLATION OF SECTION 11, ARTICLE II OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165 DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
III
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT JAMES BAUTISTA DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO ESTABLISH THE INTEGRITY AND IDENTITY OF THE SEIZED ITEMS BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. 45
Arguments of the Defense:
James argues that the testimonies of prosecution witnesses were tainted with inconsistencies which cast doubt on his culpability for the crime charged. 46
First, SA2 Dizer testified that there was no confidential informant (CI) present during the briefing and buy-bust operation. However, this contention was contradicted by PO1 Acedera who affirmed the presence of the CI during the briefing and the buy-bust operation. 47
Second, SA2 Dizer testified during direct examination that after marking, he turned over the confiscated items to the investigator PO2 Orante, Jr. However, during cross examination, he presented another version by stating that the confiscated items were turned over to a certain Eduardo Monteza, the team leader of the Cluster 3 of MADAC who prepared the Spot Report. 48
Third, SA2 Dizer firmly avowed that the confiscated items were turned over by PO2 Orante, Jr. to Buluran, who then delivered them to the PNP Crime Laboratory. However, on cross examination, he contradicted himself by claiming that he had no knowledge how Buluran received and handled the confiscated items before their delivery to the PNP Crime Laboratory. 49
Fourth, SA2 Dizer affirmed that there were four plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance and one plastic sachet containing marijuana seized from Richie, Wilfredo, and James. He recalled that three sachets containing a white crystalline substance were recovered from Richie while the other two, (one plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance and one plastic sachet containing marijuana), were recovered from James. However, when confronted about the Spot Report, he declared that there were actually four, and not three, plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance that were seized from Richie. 50
Lastly, PO2 Acedera testified that he confiscated only one plastic sachet containing marijuana from James. However, when confronted with the Joint Affidavit of Arrest, 51 he testified that he also recovered another plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance. 52
James argues that the foregoing inconsistencies should be considered as they touched upon substantial and significant matters which affect the credibility of the witnesses and cast a doubt as to his culpability to the crime charged. 53 Even assuming that the items were seized from him, the RTC erred when it ruled that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. He contends that the prosecution failed to establish with moral certainty the chain of custody of the confiscated items from the moment of their seizure until they were offered as evidence in court. 54 It also failed to establish the identity of the person who marked the items allegedly seized from him. 55 James also argued that as per the Joint Affidavit of Arrest, 56 it cannot be determined who between SA2 Dizer and PO1 Acedera marked the items allegedly confiscated from him. SA2 Dizer testified that he marked all the items confiscated from James, 57 while PO1 Acedera averred that SA2 Dizer marked the items recovered from appellant. However, PO1 Acedera also later alleged that he was the one who marked the plastic sachet containing marijuana and not SA2 Dizer. 58
Lastly, James argues that the prosecution failed to establish that the confiscated items were immediately photographed after seizure. No representative from the media and Department of Justice (DOJ) was present during the conduct of the inventory.
Arguments of the Prosecution:
The People, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), contends that the purported inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses do not affect the chain of custody of the seized items as both testimonies of SA2 Dizer and PO1 Acedera coincide on material points. 59 Any error on the recollection of the minutest details in their operations is justified by the lapse of several years before they took the witness stand. The OSG contends that even with the alleged inconsistencies, all the elements of Illegal Sale and Possession of Dangerous Drugs have been established by the prosecution. 60
As to who marked the items confiscated from James, the OSG opines that SA2 Dizer clearly confirmed during direct examination that he recovered the seized items from appellant and marked the same. 61 Hence, there is no compelling circumstance that would raise any doubt as to the identity, integrity, and evidentiary value of the seized items, The OSG argues that the integrity of evidence is presumed to be preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will or proof that the evidence has been tampered with, which appellant failed to prove. 62
Our·Ruling
After due consideration, We resolve to reverse and set aside the judgment of conviction of James based on reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed to: (a) strictly adhere with the procedural requirements under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 or offer any justifiable grounds for such omission; and (b) establish an unbroken chain of custody of the confiscated items from James.
The appeal is primarily anchored on the irregularity of the procedures conducted by the police officers in handling the items seized from James from the time of confiscation until the presentation thereof before the RTC. 63 Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of RA 9165 requires that:
a. The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory 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, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
Strict compliance with the prescribed procedure is required because of the illegal drug's unique characteristic rendering it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration, or substitution either by accident or otherwise. 64 It is of utmost importance in the prosecution of Illegal Sale and Possession of Dangerous Drugs that the corpus delicti or the body of the crime, i.e., the identity and integrity of confiscated illicit drugs, must be preserved. Hence, strict compliance of the procedure laid down under RA 9165 is required as the failure to adhere with the same raises a doubt on the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated items from the accused. As held in People v. Balibay: 65
[A]ny apprehending team having initial custody and control of said drugs and/or paraphernalia, should immediately after seizure and confiscation, have the same physically inventoried and photographed in the presence of the accused, if there be any, and or his representative, who shall be required to sign copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. The failure of the agents to comply with such a requirement raises a doubt whether what was submitted for laboratory examination and presented in court was actually recovered from the appellants. It negates the presumption that official duties have been regularly performed by the PAOC-TF agents.66 (Emphasis supplied.)
Nonetheless, Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) offers some flexibility in complying with the express requirements under paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, thus:
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory 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, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official 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, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly observed by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items. (Emphasis supplied.)
The above saving clause, however, applies only where the prosecution acknowledged the procedural lapses and thereafter cited justifiable grounds as well as established the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized had been preserved. 67
In the present case, the police officers failed to take photographs of the seized items in the presence of James or his representative or counsel, or in the presence of a representative from the media, DOJ personnel, and elected public official who shall be required to sign copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. Only a barangay elected official was present during the conduct of the inventory and no justification was offered for the absence of the media personnel and DOJ representative during the inventory, and the failure to take photographs of the confiscated items.
A review of the testimony of SA2 Dizer and PO1 Acedera reveals that they did not contact or recall having contacted any media representative and DOJ personnel. Although SA2 Dizer averred that they took photographs of the seized items, the prosecution failed to offer the same as evidence. As testified by SA2 Dizer:
Q: In the briefing, you no longer discussed about coordinating with the member of the DOJ or the MEDIA, correct?
A: No, Sir.
Q: As a matter of practice, you don't do this?
A: No, Sir.
Q: Are you familiar with the procedures under 9165?
A: Yes, Sir, but it is needed that we should be able 10 contact with the barangay official.
Q: You agree with me, Mr. witness, that this operation was planned, correct?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: And despite knowing the requirements laid down by the law that the inventory receipt should be witnesses by a member of the MEDIA or from the DOJ, a member of the barangay, you did not comply to this?
A: No more, Sir. We only contacted the barangay official and we usually do that every time we conduct the buy-bust operation.
Q: So, that's the standard procedure notwithstanding the mandates of the law?
A: "Hindi, Sir, kailangan may mga ano/"
Q: But that's not the usual procedure that your office would do, correct?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: Of course, there was also no picture taken during the arrest?
A: There were photos taken but I don't know who held those photos, Sir.
Q: But those photos were not given as evidence, correct? Were not submitted to the Honorable Prosecutor for evidence marking?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: So, you just want this court to believe that there were pictures taken?
A: Yes, Sir. 68
On the other hand, PO1 Acedera could not recall whether any photographs of the seized items were taken or whether the media and DOJ representative were contact to witness and sign the inventory, to wit:
ATTY. PUZON
In this operation, did you take any pictures considering that it was already planned because of the test buy previously conducted?
WITNESS
I cannot recall, sir.
ATTY. PUZON
Do you remember if you asked any media or representative of the DOJ to witness the operation?
WITNESS
I cannot recall, sir. 69
Clearly, the police officers failed to strictly comply with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 and its IRR or offer any valid justification for its non-compliance. In People v. Umipang, 70 the Court declared that the prosecution must show that earnest efforts were employed in contacting the representatives under the law. Mere statements that the representatives are not available without any explanation on whether serious attempts were employed to look for other representatives given the circumstance will not suffice and is unacceptable. Thus, the prosecution must not only state the reasons for non-compliance but should also convince the court that it exerted earnest efforts to comply with the mandated procedure and that the actions of the police officers were reasonable under the given circumstance. 71
There must be actual compliance with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 and its IRR. 72 The failure to do so is tantamount to a failure to establish corpus delicti which is a crucial element of the crimes charged. 73 In a prosecution for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under RA 9165, the State carries the heavy burden of proving not only the elements of the offense, but also to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti. 74 Failure in such would render the evidence for the State as insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 75 The procedure laid down in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 is a matter of substantive law and cannot be simply brushed aside as a procedural technicality or ignored as an impediment to the conviction of illegal drug suspects. 76 Hence, the CA erred when it affirmed the finding of the RTC that the prosecution sufficiently proved the corpus delicti despite the glaring irregularities committed by the police officer in complying with RA 9165 and its IRR, and their failure to offer any justifiable grounds for their non-compliance.
In addition, the prosecution must necessarily prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items had been preserved in an unbroken chain of custody from the time of their confiscation until they were presented in court as evidence, which it failed to do so in the case at bar.
Section 1 (b) of the IRR explains the chain of custody rule as follows:
"Chain of Custody'' means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition.
In order to prove an unbroken chain of custody, the testimony about every link in the chain must clearly show that every person who handled the same would admit as to how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received, and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. 77 Hence, the following links must be established: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover of the illegal drug seized to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court. 78
A perusal of the records of the case shows that the prosecution failed to establish that the seized items presented in evidence were the very same items seized from James.
First and Second Links in the
SA2 Dizer narrated that the items seized, i.e., one plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance, and one plastic sachet containing marijuana, were confiscated from James and turned-over to him by PO1 Acedera. Then, he immediately marked them with "James" and "James-1," respectively. A review of the testimony of SA2 Dizer states:
PROS. PAGGAO:
There are two other sachets mentioned in your affidavit and they were marked "James" and "James-1." I'm showing you Exhibits "U" and "V", will you kindly tell the court how are they related to those mentioned in your affidavit?
WITNESS:
These were the ones recovered by PO1 Acedera from James, Sir.
PROS. PAGGAO:
How do you know that Acedera recovered those from James?
WITNESS:
Because I was near them, Sir.
PROS. PAGGAO:
After these items were confiscated/recovered, where were these particularly marked?
WITNESS:
At the place of the buy-bust operation Kagawad Suner was also with us at that time.
PROS. PAGGAO:
Who marked all these sachets?
WITNESS:
I, Sir.79 (Emphasis supplied.)
However, PO1 Acedera contradicted the testimony of SA2 Dizer and testified that he himself marked the items he confiscated from appellant James and turned them over to investigator PO2 Orante, Jr. and not to SA2 Dizer as averred by the latter, to wit:
PROS. PAGGAO
Now, you mentioned that you confiscated from James this Exhibit U, a sachet of alleged marijuana, after you confiscate this from James, to whom did you turn over this item?
WITNESS
To the investigator, sir.
PROS. PAGGAO
Now, you mentioned that this was marked by — not by you, but by Eugenio Dizer, how did Dizer·come into possession of this item?
WITNESS
I was the one who marked the marijuana, sir.
PROS. PAGGAO
Okay. And again, to whom did you turn over the item marked as James?
WITNESS
To the investigator. After we prepared the inventory in this area.
PROS. PAGGAO
What about the other items marked, would you know to whom were they turned over?
WITNESS
To the investigator, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
ATTY. PUZON
Who marked the items?
WITNESS
Dizer and me, I was the one who marked the marijuana, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
ATTY. PUZON
Did you confiscate anything from James, the one you arrested?
WITNESS
Yes, sir.
ATTY. PUZON
What did you confiscate from him?
WITNESS
The small sachet of marijuana, sir.
ATTY. PUZON
Just the marijuana?
WITNESS
Yes, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
PROS. PAGGAO
Affidavit, Your Honor, before he answers the question, Your Honor. For the record, Your Honor, I am showing the affidavit of the witness, Your Honor, particularly paragraph 6. So, may I request that the witness base his answer on the —
WITNESS
I also recovered a small plastic sachet of shabu, sir.
ATTY. PUZON
So, again, you are changing your answer because you cannot remember?
WITNESS
Yes, sir, because it was a long time ago already 2008.
xxx xxx xxx
PROS. PAGGAO
Just a few questions, Your Honor. On direct examination, Mr. Witness, you·mentioned that you recovered an item marked as James, which is Exhibit U from accused James, and also on cross-examination, you said that you also confiscated another item marked as James-1, Exhibit V, will you kindly tell the Court if this Exhibit V is the one you recovered also from James?
WITNESS
Yes, sir, this is the one.
PROS. PAGGAO
Earlier you mentioned during the direct that you turned over Exhibit U, the sachet of alleged marijuana, directly to the investigator on this case. Now, pertaining to this Exhibit V, which is James-1, to whom did you turn over this item?
WITNESS
To the investigator, sir, to Orante.80 (Emphasis supplied)
Clearly, there were material inconsistencies between SA2 Dizer and PO1 Acedera's testimonies as to who marked the seized items recovered from James and to whom the same were turned over after their confiscation. Although SA2 Dizer personally witnessed the transaction between Richie and James, it bears stressing that he was not the one who confiscated the subject items from the latter. 81 In fact, SA2 Dizer confirmed that it was PO1 Acedera who at arrested James and confiscated one plastic sachet of shabu and another plastic sachet of marijuana. 82
The contradiction as to who marked these seized items creates a doubt on the identity of the items confiscated from James. Marking is the affixing on the dangerous drugs or related item by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his initials or signature or other identifying signs, immediately upon arrest. 83 The rationale behind this is to set apart as evidence the dangerous drugs or related items from other materials from the time of confiscation until their disposal·to forestall switching, planting or contamination. 84 Hence, the marking immediately upon confiscation or recovery of the dangerous drugs or related items is indispensable in the preservation of their integrity and evidentiary value. 85
Although the items seized from James were marked immediately at the place of arrest, the contradicting claims of SA2 Dizer and PO1 Acedera as to who between them marked the items seized from James tainted the chain of custody of the confiscated dangerous drugs. The importance of the marking cannot be underestimated as without it, there would be no parameter to set the confiscated drugs apart from other evidence or related items seized, especially as in this case, wherein there were other dangerous drugs confiscated from Wilfredo and Richie.
PO1 Acedera's unwavering testimony that he marked the items seized from James materially contradicted the testimony of SA2 Dizer that he marked the same after PO1 Acedera's confiscation thereof. Plainly, this is not a trivial matter or minute detail that can easily be brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality. The inconsistency or breach of procedure significantly affects the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti.
Moreover, PO1 Acedera was consistent in both direct, cross, and re-direct examinations that he turned over the items seized from James to the investigator PO2 Orante, Jr. Again, this is inconsistent with the testimony of SA2 Dizer who averred that PO1 Acedera handed him the items seized from James. Evidently, the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody as there is a doubt as to who had custody of the items seized from appellant after their confiscation. The uncertainty of the identities of the individuals who marked and had actually taken custody of the seized items effectively broke the chain of custody which thus taints the integrity of the sachets of shabu and marijuana presented before the court, These lapses create a reasonable doubt as to whether the two plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance and marijuana presented before the RTC were the ones confiscated from appellant.
Third and Fourth Links in the
As to the turnover of the seized items to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination, SA2 Dizer testified that PO2 Orante, Jr. prepared the request for laboratory examination and turned over the same to Buluran. In turn, Buluran, together with SA2 Dizer, went to the PNP Crime Laboratory and delivered the seized items, including those recovered from Wilfredo and Richie, to a certain PO1 Vilar the next day or on August 20, 2008, to wit:
PROS. PAGGAO
The inventory also mentions here received by pertaining to the items subject of the inventory, PO2 Jaime C. Orante, Jr. How is he related to the investigator to whom you turned over the subject drug items among others?
WITNESS
He is the investigator to whom I turned over the items, Sir.
PROS. PAGGAO
Do you know what he did with those items afterwards?
WITNESS
Request slip was made to crime lab, Sir.
PROS. PAGGAO
Request for what?
WITNESS
Request for laboratory examination, Sir.
PROS. PAGGAO
And how do you know that he prepared the request for laboratory examination?
WITNESS
Because I was present at the office that time, Sir.
xxx xxx xxx
PROS. PAGGAO
Who was with you when the items were brought to the crime lab?
WITNESS
Me and the team leader of Cluster 3, Sir.
xxx xxx xxx
PROS. PAGGAO
And who was in possession of the drug items when they were delivered to the crime lab?
WITNESS
"Rheus Buluran, kasama po kami."
PROS. PAGGAO
How did the drug items happen to be in possession of Rheus Buluran?
WITNESS
Because he was the one who gave the items to the officer in charge of the crime lab, Sir.
PROS. PAGGAO
From whom did he get the items?
WITNESS
From PO2 Jaime Orante, investigator on case.
PROS. PAGGAO
And how do you know that really happened?
WITNESS
I was present that night, Sir. 86
Sections 3 and 6, paragraph 8 of Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) Resolution No. 2, Series of 2003, (Implementing Rules and Regulations Governing Accreditation of Drug Testing Laboratories in the Philippines) require laboratory personnel to document the chain of custody each time specimen is handled or transferred until its disposal. The said regulation also requires identification of the individuals in this part of the chain.
In this case, the Request for Laboratory Examination 87 showed that a certain PO1 Vilar received the seized items from Buluran. Thereafter, the same were examined by forensic chemist PSI Tecson and yielded positive results for methamphetamine hydrochloride, for items marked as "E.D.", "C-3", "C-3-1", and "C-3-2'' confiscated from Richie, and·"James-1" from James. Meanwhile the item marked "James" confiscated from appellant was found positive for marijuana.
However, the prosecution failed to establish the manner as to how the seized items were handled before they came into the possession of PSI Tecson. It must be recalled that the RTC dispensed with the testimony of PSI Tecson in view of the stipulations entered into by the parties. Jurisprudence provides that in case the testimony of the forensic chemist is dispensed with, it should be stipulated that he or she observed the precautionary measures to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items: (a) that the forensic chemist received the seized article as marked, properly sealed, and intact; (b) that he or she resealed it after examination of the content; and (c) that he or she placed his or her own marking on the same to ensure that it could not be tampered pending trial. 88
Unfortunately, the prosecution failed to show how the seized items were handled after their turn over by Buluran to PO1 Vilar, and how PSI Tecson came into the possession of the seized items marked "E.D.," "C-3," "C-3-1," "C-3-2," "James-1," and "James.'' Also, the stipulations failed to state that PSI Tecson resealed the seized items after the examination thereof. Further, no testimonial or documentary evidence was presented to show how PSI Tecson kept the seized items while in his custody after the laboratory examination until they were presented in court. The stipulations of the parties regarding PSI Tecson's testimony lacked information regarding the safekeeping of the seized items to ensure that there was no change in their condition and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession thereof. Absent any testimony regarding the management, storage, and preservation of the seized items after its qualitative examination, the fourth link in the chain of custody of the seized items could not be reasonably established. 89
The totality of the substantial lapses committed by the police officers in not strictly complying with the procedures laid down under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 and its IRR, and their failure to provide justifiable grounds for such lapses, as well as the failure of the prosecution to establish every link in the chain of custody of the items seized from James until their presentation before the court, create a reasonable doubt that the seized items were the very same ones offered in evidence. We cannot overemphasize the importance of the procedures laid down in RA 9165 and its IRR and the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated illegal drugs through an unbroken chain of custody. The prosecution's considerable failure to comply with the said rules warrants the acquittal of James based on reasonable doubt.
Effect of James's Acquittal on
Notably, accused Richie and Wilfredo did not file an appeal before this Court. Their appeal before the CA was dismissed for failure to file their respective briefs. This notwithstanding, We deem it proper to acquit Richie and Wilfredo of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165 in Criminal Case Nos. 08-1389 and 08-1390.
Well-settled is the rule that a favorable judgment shall inure to the benefit of a co-accused. Section 11, Rule 122 of the Rules of Court provides:
Section 11. Effect of appeal by any of several accused. —
(a) An appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter.
''[A]n appeal in a criminal proceeding throws the whole case open for review of all its aspects, including those not raised by the parties." 90 Thus, Richie and Wilfredo should benefit from James's acquittal despite the dismissal of their appeal before the CA.
Arguably, Richie and Wilfredo were charged under separate Informations for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165 in Criminal Case Nos. 08-1389 and 08-1390, in contrast with appellant James who was charged only of violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 in Criminal Case No. 08-1391. However, it bears noting that the confiscated items from Wilfredo, Richie, and James sprung from the same buy-bust operation on August 19, 2008. Evidently, the seized items from Richie and Wilfredo were handled in the same manner as the seized items from James. Hence, the seized items suffered the same defects in the chain of custody as the police officers failed to substantially comply with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, namely: (a) the absence of the media personnel and DOJ representative in the physical inventory and taking of photographs of the seized items; (b) absence of the photographs of the seized items from the accused; (c) the failure of the prosecution to establish the fourth link of the chain of custody; and (d) the failure to provide justifiable reasons for its procedural lapses.
Therefore, considering that: (a) the evidence against James are inextricably linked with the·evidence against Richie and Wilfredo; and (b) the prosecution failed to prove strict compliance with the procedures laid down in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 or provide justifiable grounds for such procedural lapses, We likewise acquit accused Richie and Wilfredo in light of Section 11 (a), of Rule 122 of the Rules of Court. Clearly, a favorable finding of acquittal in favor of James should also benefit Richie and Wilfredo.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The January 20, 2017 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07573 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE based on reasonable doubt. Appellant James Bautista y Grajo is ACQUITTED of the crime charged.
Pursuant to Section 11 (a), Rule 122 of the Rules of Court, accused Wilfredo Reyes y Gayo and Richie Reyes y San Juan are likewise ACQUITTED of the charges against them.
The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City is ORDERED to immediately RELEASE them from custody, unless they are being held for some other lawful cause. The Director General is DIRECTED to immediately implement this Resolution and to inform this Court of the action he/she has taken within five days from receipt thereof.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED." (JJ. Lopez, designated additional Member vice J. Gaerlan per November 15, 2021 raffle; J. Dimaampao, on official leave.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. CA rollo, pp. 145-148.
2.Id. at 121-137. Penned by Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizzaro and concurred in by Associate Justices Samuel H. Gaerlan (now a Member of the Court) and Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla.
3. Records, pp. 458-466. Penned by Judge Gina M. Bibat-Palamos.
4. Entitled AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on June 7, 2002.
5.Id. at 2.
6.Id. at 7.
7.Id. at 11.
8.Id. at 118.
9.Id. at 129.
10.Id. at 253.
11.Id. at 330.
12.Id.
13.Id. at 27.
14.Id. at 252.
15.Rollo, p. 6.
16.Id.
17.Id.
18. CA rollo, pp. 125-126.
19.Id. at 126.
20.Rollo, p. 7.
21. CA rollo, p. 126.
22.Id.
23.Id. at 126-127.
24.Rollo, p. 8.
25.Id.
26.Records, p. 461.
27.Id. at 27.
28. CA rollo, p. 128.
29.Rollo, p. 9.
30. CA rollo, p. 128.
31.Id. at 128-129.
32.Id.
33. Records, pp. 458-466.
34.Id. at 465-466.
35. CA rollo, pp. 29-33.
36.Id. at 46-72.
37.Id. at p. 130.
38.Id. at 136.
39.Id.
40.Id. at 132.
41.Id. at 133.
42.Id. at 134.
43.Id. at 135.
44.Rollo, pp. 34-39 & 42-46.
45. CA rollo, pp. 48-49.
46.Id. at 57.
47.Id. at 57-58.
48.Id. at 58-59.
49.Id. at 59-60.
50.Id. at 60-61.
51. Records, pp. 16-17.
52. CA rollo, pp. 61-62.
53.Id. at 63.
54.Id.
55.Id. at 65.
56. Records, pp. 16-17.
57. CA rollo, pp. 65-66.
58.Id. at 67-68.
59.Id. at 102-103.
60.Id. at 102-104.
61.Id. at 105.
62.Id. at 106.
63.Id. at 55-56.
64.People v. Kamad, 624 Phil. 289, 301-302 (2010), citing People v. Robles, G.R. No. 177220, April 24, 2009.
65. 742 Phil. 746, 757-758 (2014), citing People v. Lim, 435 Phil. 640 (2002).
66.People v. Lim, id. at 659-660.
67.People v. Capuno, 655 Phil. 226, 240-241 (2011).
68. TSN, April 13, 2011, pp. 51-53.
69. TSN, September 21, 2011, p. 134.
70. 686 Phil. 1024, 1052 (2012).
71.People v. Cabrellos, G.R. No. 229826, July 30, 2018, citing People v. Crispo, 828 Phil. 416, 436 (2018).
72.People v. Saragena, 817 Phil. 117, 132 (2017), citing People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78, 94 (2014).
73.Id., citing Lescano v. People, 778 Phil. 460, 470 (2016).
74.People v. Cabrellos, supra, citing People v. Gamboa, 833 Phil. 1055, 1072 (2018), citing People v. Umipang, supra note 69 at 1039-1040.
75.Id.
76.Id., citing People v. Macapundag, 807 Phil. 234, 244 (2017) People v. Umipang, supra note 69 at 1038.
77.People v. Capuno, supra note 66 at 241-242 (2011), citing People v. Obmiranis, 594 Phil. 561, 570-571 (2008).
78.People v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 235658, June 22, 2020, citing People v. Kamad, 624 Phil. 289 (2010) and People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212 (2015).
79. TSN, April 13, 2011, pp. 14-15.
80. TSN, September 21, 2011, pp. 126-146.
81. CA rollo, pp. 60-63.
82.Id.
83.People v. Lumaya, 827 Phil. 473, 489 (2018), citing People v. Ismael, February 20. 2017.
84.Id.
85.Id. at 489-490.
86. TSN, April 13, 2011 pp. 17-20.
87. Records, p. 24.
88.People v. Ubungen, 836 Phil. 888, 901 (2018), citing People v. Pajarin, 654 Phil. 461, 466 (2011).
89.Id.
90. People v. Valdez, et al., 703 Phil. 519 (2013).