THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 248785. October 7, 2020.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.JOHN JOSEPH ROMERO y GIANAN, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 7, 2020, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 248785 (People of the Philippines v. John Joseph Romero y Gianan). — This is an appeal seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision 1 dated June 19, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08439. The assailed Decision affirmed the Judgment 2 dated June 29, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Virac, Catanduanes, Branch 43, finding accused-appellant John Joseph Romero y Gianan (Romero) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
Facts of the Case
The whole story started from a debt owed by accused Romero to Barangay Tanod Edgar Rodriguez (Brgy. Tanod Rodriguez), also known as "Gagal," in the amount of P6,000.00, which according to the prosecution, could not be paid by the accused in cash, so he offered to pay in "items," suspected by Barangay Captain Noe Custodio (Brgy. Capt. Custodio), who received the message from the accused, that the "items" were illegal drugs, and it is even unbelievable that the volume/weight of illegal drugs/shabu allegedly to be delivered by accused to Brgy. Tanod Rodriguez as payment is 0.094 gram, the street value of which is certainly not P6,000.00. 3
Romero was initially charged 4 with violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 and he pleaded not guilty upon arraignment. 5 However, during the prosecution's initial presentation of evidence, Brgy. Capt. Custodio testified that Barangay Tanod Edgar Rodriguez (Brgy. Tanod Rodriguez; Gagal) was in possession of the plastic sachet at the time of Romero's arrest. 6 Hence, the Information was amended to change the charge from Illegal Possession to Illegal Delivery. The accusatory portion of the Amended Information 7 reads as follows:
That on or about the 07:50 o'clock in the evening of September 19, 2013 particularly inside the cottage located within the premises of Sunshine City Music Bar, Barangay San Vicente, Virac, Catanduanes, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named accused, without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously deliver, give away, hand over to Edgar Rodriguez y Teves, as payment for the accused's indebtedness to Edgar Rodriguez y Teves in the amount of Six Thousand Pesos (Php6,000.00), one (1) pc. small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance, which when subjected to laboratory examination tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as "SHABU" with a gross weight of 0.094 gram; to the damage and prejudice of the public.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 8 (Underscoring supplied)
The case for violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 was dismissed by the RTC in an Order 9 dated December 4, 2013. AHCETa
Romero moved to quash the Amended Information contending that the substitution and/or amendment of the original Information resulted in double jeopardy. 10 The RTC denied the Motion to Quash and recalled its Order dated December 4, 2013. 11
When arraigned on the Amended Information, Romero pleaded not guilty to the crime charged against him. 12 During pre-trial conference, the following were stipulated: (1) Romero personally knows Brgy. Capt. Custodio of Barangay San Vicente, Virac, Catanduanes; (2) Romero has the cellphone number of Brgy. Capt. Custodio; (3) Romero sends text messages to Brgy. Capt. Custodio; (4) Romero knows Brgy. Tanod Rodriguez; (5) Romero went to Sunshine City Music Bar on September 19, 2013; (6) Romero was arrested while he was at Sunshine City Music Bar; (7) photographs were taken while Romero was at Sunshine City Music Bar; (8) Romero was brought to EBMC on September 19, 2013; (9) Romero did not suffer physical injuries during his warrantless arrest; (10) Romero was present during the inventory taking; and (11) Romero refused to sign the inventory of the items seized. 13
Trial on the merits then ensued.
The prosecution presented: (1) PCI Josephine Macura Clemen (PCI Clemen); (2) PO1 Lennon Manlangit (PO1 Manlangit); (3) PO1 Carlo Agawa (PO1 Agawa); (4) PO2 Eric Deo Custodio (PO2 Custodio); (5) PO2 Jick Zafe (PO2 Zafe); (6) PO3 Ruel Robles (PO3 Robles); (7) Erwin Usero; (8) Brgy. Tanod Rodriguez; and (9) Brgy. Capt. Custodio as its witnesses. 14 On the other hand, Romero testified on his own behalf. 15
The prosecution's evidence established that on September 14, 2013 at 5:00 p.m., Brgy. Tanod Rodriguez 16 approached Brgy. Capt. Custodio 17 to record in the barangay blotter his act of taking five roosters from Romero. Brgy. Tanod Rodriguez disclosed that Romero owed him P6,000.00 and the latter failed to pay on the day he promised. 18 The five roosters — which served as collateral and not as payment — were left at Brgy. Capt. Custodio's house. 19 On September 15, 2013 at 9:58 a.m., Romero recorded in the barangay blotter an entry claiming that the subject roosters got lost in the afternoon of September 14, 2013. At 12:45 p.m. of the same day, Brgy. Capt. Custodio handed the five roosters to PO3 Robles. 20
On September 19, 2013 at 6:08 p.m., Brgy. Capt. Custodio received a text message from Romero asking about Brgy. Tanod Rodriguez which read, "Kap asain tabi si Gagal, mihilingan kami"21 (where is Gagal, we were supposed to see each other). Later on at 7:05 p.m., Romero sent another text message to Brgy. Capt. Custodio which said, "Ipahapot daa kay Gagal kung gusto niya ng bayad."22 (ask Gagal if he wants payment). The last text message also mentioned "items," but Brgy. Capt. Custodio did not ask Romero what those items were. Brgy. Capt. Custodio assumed that Romero was referring to drugs when he texted "items." 23
Brgy. Capt. Custodio went to PO2 Custodio's home and showed PO2 Custodio, his cousin, the text messages. After reading the text messages, PO2 Custodio told Brgy. Capt. Custodio that he will help apprehend Romero. PO2 Custodio called PO2 Dario Gregorio (PO2 Gregorio) for assistance 24 since he is involved in police operations against illegal drugs. 25
PO2 Custodio and PO2 Gregorio went to Camp Francisco Camacho (Camp Camacho) to consult with Provincial Director Eduardo Chavez, who was, at that time, conversing with Legal Officer Atty. Villana of the Police Regional Office V. Atty. Villana advised PO2 Custodio and PO2 Gregorio that they could validly arrest Romero since the latter's act will fall under illegal delivery of dangerous drugs. 26 PO2 Gregorio called PO3 Robles and informed him that they will conduct an entrapment operation for an illegal drug activity. 27 PO2 Gregorio texted PO2 Zafe regarding the same matter. 28 PO2 Zafe proceeded to Camp Camacho to fetch PI Rogelio Hernandez (PI Hernandez) and PO3 Sharmy Destura (PO3 Destura). 29 The three of them headed to Barangay San Vicente to join the entrapment team composed of PO2 Custodio, PO2 Dario, and PO3 Robles. 30
PO3 Robles, PO2 Gregorio, and PO2 Custodio went to the latter's home and coordinated the entrapment operation with Brgy. Capt. Custodio and Brgy. Tanod Rodriguez. 31 After multiple exchanges of text messages between Brgy. Capt. Custodio and Romero, they agreed to meet that night at the Sunshine City Music Bar. 32
PO3 Robles, PO2 Gregorio, PO2 Custodio, Brgy. Capt. Custodio, and Brgy. Tanod Rodriguez proceeded to the target area. 33 PO3 Robles, PO2 Gregorio, and PO2 Custodio occupied the red-lit cottage No. 3, while Brgy. Capt. Custodio and Brgy. Tanod Rodriguez occupied the yellow-lit but dim-lit adjacent cottage No. 2. 34 Meanwhile, the group of PO2 Zafe, PI Hernandez, and PO3 Destura was advised by PO3 Gregorio to standby at Barangay San Vicente's plaza near the church since Romero was already on his way to Sunshine City Music Bar. 35 PO3 Robles, PO2 Gregorio, PO2 Custodio, Brgy. Capt. Custodio, and Brgy. Tanod Rodriguez each ordered a bottle of beer while waiting for Romero to arrive. 36
Brgy. Capt. Custodio received a text message from Romero that he was already at Sunshine City Music Bar. Brgy. Capt. Custodio stepped out of Cottage No. 2 and met Romero. Brgy. Capt. Custodio brought Romero inside Cottage No. 2 and told the latter and Brgy. Tanod Rodriguez to settle their problem. Brgy. Tanod Rodriguez asked Romero for the payment and in response, Romero brought out a small plastic sachet and handed it to Brgy. Tanod Rodriguez. After taking the small plastic sachet, Brgy. Tanod Rodriguez asked Brgy. Capt. Custodio to turn on a flashlight to illuminate the object. Brgy. Tanod Rodriguez uttered, "Kulang man ini sa utang mo"37 (this is insufficient to pay your debt) and to which Romero replied, "Dagdagi ngani"38 (add more).
Romero tried to retrieve the small plastic sachet but Brgy. Tanod Rodriguez refused to give it back. 39 Brgy. Capt. Custodio stepped out of the cottage and said, "Iyo na, mara na"40 (it is alright now, let us go) to signal the police officers who were waiting at the adjacent cottage. 41 PO3 Robles went inside the cottage No. 2 and Brgy. Tanod Rodriguez showed him the small plastic sachet. 42 PO3 Robles helped Brgy. Tanod Rodriguez arrest Romero and informed Romero of his constitutional rights under the Miranda Doctrine. 43 ScHADI
PO2 Zafe received a text message from PO2 Gregorio saying, "Positive na."44 Assuming that the suspect was already apprehended, PO2 Zafe, PI Hernandez, and PO3 Destura went to Sunshine City Music Bar. After arriving thereat, PI Hernandez instructed PO2 Zafe to get the camera from PO2 Custodio so PO2 Zafe could take photographs. 45
Brgy. Kagawads Nenita Francisco (Francisco) and Imelda Tabuzo (Tabuzo), Department of Justice (DOJ) representative Susan A. Sta. Rosa (Sta. Rosa), and media representative Ramil Soliveres (Soliveres) arrived at the crime scene. 46 In their presence, Brgy. Tanod Rodriguez marked the small plastic sachet with his signature above his name. 47 PO3 Robles had himself bodily searched first, then proceeded to frisk Romero and found in his possession: (1) a camera; (2) a ballpen; and (3) a cellular phone. 48 Thereafter, Romero together with the seized drug and non-drug items were brought to the Virac Municipal Police Station (VMPS). 49 A Receipt/Inventory of Property Seized was prepared at the Virac Municipal Police Station and signed by the following individuals as witnesses: (a) Brgy. Tanod Rodriguez and (b) PO3 Robles as Arresting/Seizing Officers, and Brgy. Kagawads (a) Francisco and (b) Tabuzo, (c) DOJ representative Sta. Rosa, (d) media representative Soliveres, and (e) Brgy. Capt. Custodio. 50
Brgy. Tanod Rodriguez, PO3 Garcia of the VMPS, and Romero went to Camp Camacho. At 1:15 in the morning of September 20, 2013, Brgy. Tanod Rodriguez handed the (a) letter request for laboratory examination and (b) small plastic sachet he received from Romero to PO1 Lennon Manlangit (PO1 Manlangit) of the Catanduanes Provincial Crime Laboratory Office. 51 PO1 Manlangit also received the letter request for Romero's drug test from PO3 Garcia and he assisted Romero in taking the latter's urine sample. 52 At 6 o'clock in the morning, PO1 Manlangit handed to PO1 Agawa two long brown envelopes respectively marked as (1) DTC-10-2013 S: Romero John Joseph y Gianan RP: Virac MPS and (2) D-15-2013 S: Romero John Joseph y Gianan RP: Virac MPS. 53 PO1 Agawa delivered the same envelopes to PCI Clemen at the Regional Crime Laboratory Office at Camp Simeon, Legazpi City at 11:40 in the morning. 54 After conducting the requested laboratory examinations, PCI Clemen found that: (1) the contents of the small plastic sachet yielded positive 55 for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug; and (2) Romero's urine sample tested positive 56 for the presence of methamphetamine metabolite, also a dangerous drug.
For his part, Romero admitted that he went to Sunshine City Music Bar at 7:45 p.m. of September 19, 2013 because Brgy. Capt. Custodio texted him to go there so they could talk. Brgy. Capt. Custodio met Romero near the bar's entrance, placed his arm around Romero's shoulder, and brought Romero to Cottage No. 2. As he entered the cottage, Romero noticed Brgy. Tanod Rodriguez seated inside and drinking liquor. Brgy. Tanod Rodriguez asked outright for Romero's payment of the P6,000.00 he owed him. Romero replied that he did not bring with him money since he already informed Brgy. Tanod Rodriguez that he would pay the morning after. When pressed by Brgy. Tanod Rodriguez for not bringing money for payment, Romero just left the cottage without saying anything. 57
Brgy. Capt. Custodio followed Romero. While Romero was seated on his motorcycle, Brgy. Capt. Custodio placed his arms around Romero and told Romero to go back inside cottage No. 2 so they can talk some more. When they entered the cottage, Brgy. Capt. Custodio prodded Romero to talk with Brgy. Tanod Rodriguez. Brgy. Capt. Custodio left the cottage but Romero and Brgy. Tanod Rodriguez did not speak to each other. 58
Romero noticed, however, that Brgy. Tanod Rodriguez kept on looking around. Suddenly, Brgy. Capt. Custodio and PO2 Gregorio entered the cottage with PO2 Gregorio handcuffing Romero. Romero asked PO2 Gregorio what he did wrong but PO2 Gregorio told him to stop talking and keep silent. Romero relayed that Brgy. Tanod Rodriguez showed to Brgy. Capt. Custodio a sachet of shabu from his right hand and that he heard Brgy. Tanod Rodriguez say to PO2 Gregorio, "This is the payment for me." 59 Brgy. Tanod Rodriguez, Brgy. Capt. Custodio, and PO2 Gregorio stepped out of the cottage and left Romero with PO3 Robles. After two hours, a media representative, a DOJ representative, and police officers entered the cottage. Thereafter, Romero was brought to the VMPS. 60
Romero shared that the five roosters were taken by Brgy. Capt. Custodio and Brgy. Tanod Rodriguez since they were mad at him for failing to pay his P6,000.00 indebtedness. He reported the taking incident to the Virac police. On cross-examination, Romero stated that the five roosters were eventually returned to his brother, their rightful owner. Romero revealed during clarificatory questioning by the RTC that: (a) he meant to mortgage his motorcycle in order for him to pay his outstanding loan; but (b) Brgy. Capt. Custodio texted him that he can also pay with an "item." 61
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
On June 29, 2016, the Virac, Catanduanes RTC rendered a Decision 62 finding Romero guilty and he was sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00. 63
The RTC ruled that the prosecution presented convincing evidence that Romero delivered to Brgy. Tanod Rodriguez a piece of plastic sachet containing shabu. This is the same drug specimen which was examined in the laboratory and subsequently presented, identified, and testified to in court. Even if Brgy. Tanod Rodriguez went to Brgy. Capt. Custodio's home and got a rubber hand to tie his pocket wherein he placed the seized item, the RTC declared that the integrity and evidentiary value of the specimen seized from accused-appellant were preserved. The RTC explained that Brgy. Tanod Rodriguez is considered an agent of authority under the Revised Penal Code and the Local Government Code. As such, Brgy. Tanod Rodriguez enjoys the presumption of regularity in the performance of his duty in the absence of proof to the contrary. The RTC disregarded Romero's defense of denial and took account of the text messages exchanged between him and Brgy. Capt. Custodio. 64 aICcHA
Aggrieved, Romero appealed his conviction to the CA. In his Brief, 65 Romero alleged that Brgy. Tanod Rodriguez's testimony is filled with "irregularities, lies, and material inconsistencies." 66 Romero's filing of a complaint for theft of the five roosters against Brgy. Tanod Rodriguez could have motivated the latter to falsely testify against Romero. Romero argued that Brgy. Tanod Rodriguez's reason for leaving the cottage — to allegedly look for a string or band to tie his pocket — is flimsy and contrary to human conduct and experience. Allowing Brgy. Tanod Rodriguez to leave Cottage No. 2 unescorted by police officers gave him the opportunity to manipulate, substitute the seized item, and secure the real illegal drug to justify Romero's illegal arrest. Romero added that if Brgy. Tanod Rodriguez's purpose was to immediately protect and preserve the integrity of the seized evidence, Brgy. Tanod Rodriguez should have: (1) left the same to the police officers; and (2) not gone out unescorted by police officers when he went to Brgy. Capt. Custodio's home. 67
Romero noted that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions by public officials does not apply to Brgy. Tanod Rodriguez because of the prosecution's failure to present substantial evidence that he was a barangay tanod at the time of the incident. Romero highlighted that Brgy. Tanod Rodriguez did not declare in his Affidavit of Arrest that he was a barangay tanod of Brgy. San Vicente. 68
Romero averred that the absence of a certification under oath in Chemistry Report No. D-015-2013 69 — in violation of paragraph 3, Section 21 of R.A. 9165 70 renders the report fatally defective and without evidentiary value to prove the corpus delicti in the present case. 71
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), appearing for the prosecution, stated that the RTC upheld the police officers' testimonies since they gave a straightforward narration of the circumstances that led to accused-appellant's arrest and the subsequent confiscation of the shabu. The RTC had the distinct advantage of observing the demeanor and conduct of witnesses during trial. The OSG claimed that it is too late for Romero to question Brgy. Tanod Rodriguez's authority to arrest him. Brgy. Tanod Rodriguez's authority is irrelevant to the elements of the crime committed by Romero. The OSG pointed out that Romero already admitted that he knows Brgy. Tanod Rodriguez during pre-trial. For the OSG, what is important is that the prosecution was able to prove the elements of the crime charged. 72
The OSG averred that in the absence of evidence suggesting ill motive on the police officers' part or deviation from the regular performance of their duties, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner. The police officers were able to substantially comply with the chain of custody rule. The OSG asserted that Romero's failure to question the police officers' non-compliance with the procedure laid out in Section 21 of R.A. 9165 before the RTC bars him from raising this issue on appeal. 73
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
In its Decision 74 dated June 19, 2018, the CA affirmed the Decision of the RTC. The CA found that all of the elements of delivery of dangerous drugs were established. Romero knowingly handed to Brgy. Tanod Rodriguez, without authority of law, a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance which tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. The CA declared that the prosecution was able to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the subject drug from the time Brgy. Tanod Rodriguez seized it from Romero, until it was transported to the Regional Crime Laboratory Office in Legazpi City for PCI Clemen's forensic examination. No evidence was presented that the persons who successively took custody of the item lost track of the same while it was in their respective possession and control. 75
The CA agreed with the RTC that since Rodriguez was a barangay tanod at the time of the incident, he enjoys the presumption that he regularly performed his duty absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. The CA asserted that PCI Clemen fully complied with paragraph 3, Section 21 of R.A. 9165 since she issued Chemistry Report No. D-15-2013 with the requisite solemn and affirmation within 24 hours of her receipt of the seized item. The CA reasoned that even if there was no oath, it is not fatal to the prosecution's case since it sufficiently showed that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug was duly established. 76
The CA stated that Romero's defense of denial, which was unsupported and unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, cannot overcome the prosecution's positive and affirmative testimonial evidence. The CA concluded that absent any proof of ill will or malice on the part of the police officers, their testimonies are entitled to belief. 77
With the CA's denial 78 of accused-appellant's Motion for Reconsideration, 79 Romero filed a Notice of Appeal. 80 Both the OSG and Romero manifested that they will no longer file any supplemental brief. 81 EHaASD
Issue
The sole issue to be determined is whether the prosecution established accused-appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for illegal delivery of a dangerous drug under R.A. 9165.
Ruling of the Court
The appeal is meritorious.
This Court repeats that "an appeal in criminal cases opens the entire case for review, and it is the duty of the reviewing tribunal to correct, cite, and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned." 82 "The appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and renders such court competent to examine records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law." 83
To successfully prosecute illegal delivery of dangerous drugs, it must be proven that: (1) the accused passed on possession of a dangerous drug to another, personally or otherwise, and by any means; (2) such delivery is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused knowingly made the delivery. "Worthy of note is that the delivery may be committed even without consideration." 84
In drug cases, the dangerous drug seized from the accused constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense. 85 Thus, it is of utmost importance that the integrity and identity of the seized drug must be shown to have been duly preserved. "The chain of custody rule performs this function as it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed." 86
An accused shall only be convicted of the crime charged once it has been established with certainty that the "drugs examined and presented in court were the very ones seized." 87 To satisfy this requirement, the procedure under Section 21 88 of R.A. 9165 must be complied with. This provision was later amended by R.A. 10640 which took effect in 2014. Since the offense charged was allegedly committed on September 19, 2013, the apprehending team is required to conduct immediately a physical inventory and to photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused or from whom the items were seized, or his/her representative or counsel, as well as required witnesses, namely: a representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official. "This must be so because with the very nature of anti-narcotics operations, the need for entrapment procedures, the use of shady characters as informants, the ease with which sticks of marijuana or grams of heroin can be planted in pockets of or hands of unsuspecting provincial hicks, and the secrecy that inevitably shrouds all drug deals, the possibility of abuse is great." 89
In People v. Manabat, 90 this Court reaffirmed its ruling in People v. Tomawis91 that "the presence of the three witnesses must be secured not only during the inventory but more importantly at the time of the warrantless arrest. It is at this point in which the presence of the three witnesses is most needed, as it is their presence at the time of seizure and confiscation that would belie any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drug." 92 The purpose of the law in having these witnesses is to prevent or insulate against the planting of drugs. They are required to be at or near the intended place of arrest so they can readily witness the inventory and photograph-taking of the drugs "immediately after seizure and confiscation." 93
The prosecution failed to show that the entrapment team strictly complied with the procedure and neither did it justify the entrapment team's non-compliance.
The entrapment team failed to explain why the DOJ and media representatives, and the elected public officials were not present during Romero's warrantless arrest nor did it show that earnest efforts were in fact exerted to secure or obtain their presence or attendance at that time given that: (1) PO2 Gregorio knew how to conduct drug operations; 94 and (2) part of the entrapment operation are two barangay officials who could have easily coordinated with their colleagues. Brgy. Capt. Custodio disclosed that he secured the presence of Brgy. Kagawads Francisco and Tabuzo only after Romero's arrest 95 despite knowing already where he can find them. 96 Brgy. Tanod Rodriguez revealed that they stayed for a long time at Sunshine City Music Bar because they had to wait for the media representative to arrive. 97 The entrapment team could have easily gathered beforehand the required witnesses, considering that drug operations are, by their nature, a planned activity.
The chain of custody is established by testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered in evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe 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. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. 98
These links should be established in the chain of custody of the confiscated item: 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 by the investigating officer of the illegal drug 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. 99
The prosecution failed to prove the identity of the corpus delicti because of broken links in the chain of custody. 100 DaIAcC
The first crucial link in the chain of custody starts with the seizure from Romero of the dangerous drug and its subsequent marking. Under the law, such marking should have been done immediately after confiscation and in the presence of the accused or his/her representative. While it is true that the item presented in court bore the name of Brgy. Tanod Rodriguez (Edgar) and the numbers 19 9 13, 101 Brgy. Tanod Rodriguez revealed during his direct examination that he left with the "yet-to-be" marked plastic sachet and went to Brgy. Capt. Custodio's home after Romero's arrest. 102 This circumstance was confirmed by prosecution witnesses PO2 Custodio 103 and PO3 Robles 104 during their respective cross-examinations. "A failure to mark at the time of taking of initial custody imperils the integrity of the chain of custody that the law requires." 105 Coupled with PO3 Robles' admission 106 that he did not frisk or bodily search Brgy. Capt. Custodio and Brgy. Tanod Rodriguez at any time prior to Romero's arrival at Sunshine City Music Bar, the evils sought to be prevented by the immediate marking of the seized contraband — switching, planting, or contamination of evidence — are very much present.
The prosecution, likewise, failed to account for the second link of the chain which refers to the transfer of the seized drug by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer. "Usually, the police officer who seizes the suspected substance turns it over to a supervising officer, who will then send it by courier to the police crime laboratory for testing. This is a necessary step in the chain of custody because it will be the investigating officer who shall conduct the proper investigation and prepare the necessary documents for the developing criminal case. Certainly, the investigating officer must have possession of the illegal drugs to properly prepare the required documents." 107
In the present case, the identity of the investigating officer is unknown. Conspicuously, Brgy. Capt. Custodio and Brgy. Tanod Rodriguez gave conflicting accounts on what happened with the plastic sachet recovered from Romero when they were at the police station. Brgy. Capt. Custodio testified on cross-examination that Brgy. Tanod Rodriguez placed the plastic sachet on top of a table but he cannot recall which police officer took it. 108 On the other hand, Brgy. Tanod Rodriguez declared during his cross-examination that he never brought out the plastic sachet from his pocket when he was at the VMPS. 109 These revelations, when taken in light of the several other lapses in the chain of custody that attend the case, raise doubts as to whether the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized illegal drug had been preserved.
In fine, the prosecution's sweeping guarantees as to the identity and integrity of the seized drug will not secure a conviction. 110 "While 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 and it cannot by itself constitute proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of regularity is merely just that — a mere presumption disputable by contrary proof and which when challenged by evidence cannot be regarded as binding truth." 111
All told, with a doubtful entrapment operation and the lapses committed by the prosecution in handling the specimen, the guilt of the accused is not proven with moral certainty.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated June 19, 2018 and the Resolution dated February 13, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08439 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant John Joseph Romero y Gianan is ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt, and is ORDERED to be IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless he is being lawfully held for another cause.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. The said Director is DIRECTED to report the action taken to this Court, within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Edwin D. Sorongon; rollo, pp. 3-23.
2. Penned by Presiding Judge Lelu P. Contreras; CA rollo, pp. 25-42.
3. Records, pp. 456-458.
4.Id. at 1.
5.Id. at 33, 36.
6.Id. at 106-107; TSN dated December 3, 2013, pp. 58-63.
7.Id. at 108.
8.Id.
9.Id. at 110.
10.Id. at 123.
11.Id. at 140.
12.Id. at 150, 155-156.
13.Id. at 58-59.
14. CA rollo, p. 28.
15.Id. at 38.
16. TSN dated March 11, 2014, p. 5. He served as a barangay tanod during Brgy. Capt. Custodio's term of office — from January 2010 until November 2013.
17. TSN dated December 3, 2013, p. 5. Custodio served as barangay captain from January 2010 until November 2013.
18.Id. at 8-9.
19.Id. at 10-11.
20.Id. at 12-13.
21.Id. at 17.
22.Id. at 20.
23.Id. at 20-21.
24.Id. at 22.
25. TSN dated April 29, 2014, p. 13.
26. TSN dated April 28, 2014, pp. 57-58.
27. TSN dated May 21, 2014, p. 8.
28. TSN dated May 19, 2014, p. 10.
29.Id. at 11.
30.Id.
31. TSN dated April 28, 2014, p. 59.
32.Id. at 59-61.
33.Id. at 61-62.
34.Id. at 64-65, TSN dated March 12, 2014, p. 21
35. TSN dated May 19, 2014, p. 12.
36. TSN dated December 3, 2013, p. 26; TSN dated April 28, 2014, p. 66.
37. TSN dated December 3, 2013, p. 28.
38.Id.
39. TSN dated March 11, 2014, p. 25.
40. TSN dated December 3, 2013, p. 28.
41.Id.
42. TSN dated March 21, 2014, p. 12.
43.Id. at 13-14.
44. TSN dated May 19, 2014, p. 12.
45.Id. at 12-14.
46. TSN dated March 21, 2014, p. 15.
47. TSN dated March 12, 2014, p. 31.
48. TSN dated May 21, 2014, p. 15.
49. Records, p. 14; TSN dated December 3, 2013, p. 29.
50.Id. at 19-20; TSN dated December 3, 2013, pp. 29-31.
51. TSN dated March 10, 2014, pp. 36-37.
52.Id. at 44.
53.Id. at 50-51.
54.Id. at 52-53.
55. Records, pp. 360-361.
56.Id. at 363.
57. TSN dated February 16, 2016, pp. 4-6.
58.Id. at 6-7.
59.Id. at 9.
60.Id. at 8-11.
61.Id. at 11-15.
62.Supra note 2.
63. CA rollo, p. 42.
64.Id. at 38-41.
65.Id. at 20-24.
66.Id. at 22.
67.Id. at 23.
68.Id.
69. Records, p. 360.
70. Section 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. — x x x.
xxx xxx xxx
(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done under oath by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued within twenty-four (24) hours after the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of the dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not allow the completion of testing within the time frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided, however, That a final certification shall be issued on the completed forensic laboratory examination on the same within the next twenty-four (24) hours;
xxx xxx xxx
71. CA rollo, p. 23.
72.Id. at 67-70.
73.Id. at 69-75.
74.Supra note 1.
75.Rollo, pp. 12-15.
76.Id. at 20-21.
77.Id. at 21-22.
78. Penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Edwin D. Sorongon; CA rollo, pp. 111-114.
79.Id. at 105-106.
80.Id. at 123-124.
81.Rollo, pp. 32, 37.
82.Rivac v. People, 824 Phil. 156,166 (2018).
83.Id.
84.People v. Maongco, 720 Phil. 488, 502 (2013).
85.People v. Guzon, 719 Phil. 441, 451 (2013).
86.Fajardo v. People, 691 Phil. 752, 758-759 (2012).
87.People v. Ramos, G.R. No. 225325, August 28, 2019, citing People v. Nandi, 639 Phil. 134, 142 (2010).
88. Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the 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;
xxx xxx xxx.
89.People v. Santos, Jr., 562 Phil. 458, 471 (2007), citing People v. Tan, 401 Phil. 259, 273 (2000).
90. G.R. No. 242947, July 17, 2019.
91. 830 Phil. 385 (2018).
92.Id. at 409; underscoring supplied.
93.Id.
94. TSN dated April 28, 2014, p. 54.
95. TSN dated December 3, 2013, p. 29.
96.Id. at 48.
97. TSN dated March 11, 2014, pp. 25-26.
98.People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 30-31 (2017), citing Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 587 (2008).
99.People v. Nandi, 639 Phil. 134, 144-145 (2010).
100.People v. Carlit, 816 Phil. 940, 952-953 (2017).
101. TSN dated March 10, 2014, p. 15.
102. TSN dated April 28, 2014, p. 30.
103. TSN dated April 29, 2014, pp. 11-12.
104. TSN dated June 2, 2014, p. 7.
105.People v. Zakaria, 699 Phil. 367, 381 (2012).
106. TSN dated May 21, 2014, p. 42.
107.People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 235 (2015).
108. TSN dated December 3, 2013, p. 50.
109. TSN dated March 12, 2014, p. 37.
110.People v. Hementiza, 807 Phil. 1017 (2017), citing People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78 (2014).
111.Id., citing People v. Sabdula, 733 Phil. 85 (2014).