People v. Saavedra y Liwa

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 258302. July 27, 2022.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.JIMMY SAAVEDRA y LIWA and OHMAR LI y MANTIQUILLA, accused-appellants.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 27, 2022which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 258302 (People of the Philippines v. Jimmy Saavedra y Liwa and Ohmar Li y Mantiquilla). — This is an appeal 1 filed by accused-appellants Jimmy Saavedra y Liwa (Jimmy) and Ohmar Li y Mantiquilla (Ohmar) assailing the January 29, 2021 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 13617. The CA affirmed the Joint Judgment 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 79 of Quezon City which found accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of crimes charged under Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 4 or the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002" in Criminal Case Nos. R-QZN-19-08528-CR, R-QZN-19-08533-CR, and R-QZN-19-08534-CR.

In Criminal Case No. R-QZN-19-08528-CR, accused-appellants were charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 under the following Information:

That on or about the 7th day of May, 2019 in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, conspiring together, confederating with each other, and mutually helping one another 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 brokers in the said transaction, one (1) transparent plastic sachet with marking BB-RA-JS-1 05-07-19 containing zero point zero three (0.03) gram of white crystalline substance, which was found to be positive to the test for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 5

In Criminal Case No. R-QZN-19-08533-CR, Jimmy was charged with violation of Sec. 11, Art. II of RA 9165, allegedly committed as follows:

That on or about the 7th day of May, 2019 in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named 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, four (4) transparent plastic sachets, with markings:

BB-RA-JS-2 05-07-19 containing zero point seventeen (0.17) gram

BB-RA-JS-3 05-07-19 containing zero point zero nine (0.09) gram

BB-RA-JS-4 05-07-19 containing zero point twelve (0.12) gram

BB-RA-JS-5 05-07-19 containing zero point sixty-five (0.65) gram

with a total net weight of one point zero three (1.03) grams of white crystalline substance, which was found to be positive to the test for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 6

In Criminal Case No. R-QZN-19-08534-CR, Ohmar was also charged with violation of Sec. 11, Art. II of RA 9165 under the following Information:

That on or about the 7th day of May, 2019 in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named 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, five (5) transparent plastic sachets with markings: CAIHTE

BB-RA-OL-1 05-07-19 containing zero point thirteen (0.13) gram

BB-RA-OL-2 05-07-19 containing zero point eighteen (0.18) gram

BB-RA-OL-3 05-07-19 containing zero point sixty-five (0.65) gram

BB-RA-OL-4 05-07-19 containing two point sixteen (2.16) grams

BB-RA-OL-5 05-07-19 containing four point sixty-four (4.64) grams

with a total net weight of seven point seventy-six (7.76) grams of white crystalline substance, which was found to be positive to the test for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 7

During arraignment, accused-appellants entered their pleas of not guilty to the crimes charged. The other accused in other related cases pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of violation of Sec. 12, Art. II of RA 9165. 8 Subsequently, joint trial on the merits commenced.

Version of the Prosecution

The prosecution presented Police Corporal Richard Alvarado (PC Alvarado) to prove the charges against the accused. 9 During pre-trial, the prosecution and defense agreed to stipulate on the testimonies of Police Staff Sergeant Conde Turqueza (PSgt. Turqueza) and Police Lieutenant Colonel Rhea Fe Alviar (PLtCol Alviar), thereby dispensing with their presentation in court. 10

On May 6, 2019, at around 10:00 p.m., the Station Drug Enforcement Unit (SDEU) of the Quezon City Police District (QCPD) Police Station 3, received a report from a confidential informant that a certain Jimmy and Ohmar were engaged in the illegal sale of drugs in the area of Gajoudo Dantes Compound, Barangay Unang Sigaw, Quezon City. Consequently, a buy-bust operation was planned against Jimmy and Ohmar, and a briefing was conducted. A Coordination Form and Pre-Operational Report were prepared for the operation. 11

As the poseur-buyer, PC Alvarado received two P100.00 bills with serial numbers NCC245225 and JB511022 to be used as buy-bust money, which he marked with his initials, "RMA-1" and "RMA-2." 12 At around 5:15 a.m. of May 7, 2019, PC Alvarado and PC Reponte, together with the confidential informant, headed to the residence of accused-appellant Jimmy at Gajoudos Compound, Barangay Unang Sigaw, Quezon City for the operation. 13 While in the area, the confidential informant contacted Ohmar through mobile phone to inform him that he was already in the vicinity. 14

Upon their arrival at Jimmy's house at around 5:30 a.m., PC Alvarado saw accused-appellants' other co-accused, namely Rommel Buela, Marlon Joaquin, Marilou Quiatchon, and Rosal Boral inside the house, who were holding shiny plastic materials containing suspected shabu. The confidential informant introduced PC Alvarado and PC Reponte to Jimmy as buyers of shabu. At that time, Jimmy was accompanied by accused-appellant Ohmar. Jimmy asked PC Alvarado and Police Corporal Rogelio Reponte (PC Reponte) how much shabu they intended to purchase, and the latter answered, "Halagang dos lang," which meant P200.00. PC Alvarado handed the buy-bust money to Jimmy, and the latter placed it in his left front pocket. In exchange, Jimmy brought out a green coin purse, and he took out from it a plastic sachet of white crystalline substance, which he gave to PC Alvarado. 15

At that instance, PC Alvarado removed his baseball cap to signal the consummation of the drug deal. PC Alvarado and PC Reponte introduced themselves to the accused as police officers. PC Alvarado immediately arrested the accused-appellants and frisked them. PC Alvarado seized from Jimmy the latter's green coin purse, which contained four plastic sachets of white crystalline substance. 16 On the other hand, PC Alvarado confiscated from Ohmar's right front pocket a coin purse which contained five plastic sachets of white crystalline substance. A digital weighing scale was also confiscated from Ohmar's left front pocket. 17

The purchased and seized drugs were marked at the place of arrest, and in the presence of accused-appellants, Barangay Kagawad Milagros Salgado, and media representative Alex Mendoza. 18 PC Alvarado placed his markings "BB-RA-JS-1 05-07-19" on the plastic sachet of white crystalline substance which he confiscated from Jimmy, and the markings "BB-RA-JS-2," "BB-RA-JS-3," "BB-RA-JS-4," "BB-RA-JS-5," and "BB-RA-JS-6," respectively, on the four plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance, and the green coin purse containing them which was also seized from Jimmy after PC Alvarado frisked him. 19 PC Alvarado also put his markings "BB-RA-OL-1 05-07-19," "BB-RA-OL-2 05-07-19," "BB-RA-OL-3 05-07-19," "BB-RA-OL-4 05-07-19," BB-RA-OL-5 05-07-19," and "BB-RA-OL-6 05-07-19," respectively, on the five plastic sachets of white crystalline substance and digital weighing scale which he seized from Ohmar. 20 An Inventory Receipt was prepared at the area of arrest, which was signed by the barangay kagawad and media representative. Photographs were also taken during the conduct of the inventory. 21

After inventory of the seized items and while in possession thereof, PC Alvarado proceeded to the police station with PC Reponte and accused-appellants. PC Alvarado and PC Reponte presented the purchased and seized drugs to PSgt. Turqueza, the investigator assigned to the case, and the latter prepared the Referral Letter for the inquest of the accused, Joint Sworn Affidavit of Apprehension, Request for Laboratory Examination, Inventory Receipt, and Chain of Custody Form, among others. 22 DETACa

The purchased and seized drugs consisting of 14 heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance with corresponding markings were later turned over by PC Alvarado and PC Reponte to the forensic chemist on duty of the QCPD Crime Laboratory, PLtCol Alviar, along with the Request for Laboratory Examination. 23 Thereafter, PLtCol Alviar conducted a qualitative examination on the specimens submitted to her, which all tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. PLtCol Alviar prepared Chemistry Report No. D-1278-19 containing her findings. 24 Subsequently, she placed the specimens she examined in a transparent plastic bag, sealed it with masking tape, and placed the markings "D-1278-19 7 May 2019 RFDCA" and her signature thereon. 25

PLtCol Alviar turned over the sealed specimens to the evidence custodian of their office, Police Officer 2 Junia Tuccad (PO2 Tuccad), who placed them in the evidence room of the QCPD Crime Laboratory. Thereafter, pursuant to the subpoena she received, PLtCol Alviar retrieved from PO2 Tuccad the sealed specimens in the same condition when she turned them over to her, and she submitted them to the court on July 3, 2019. 26

Version of the Defense

The defense presented accused-appellants as witnesses. According to the defense, on May 7, 2019 at around 11:00 p.m., Jimmy who worked as a market porter was at Motor Town Market in Balintawak, Quezon City. He was about to go to Rivertown Market with his cart when three police officers approached and informed him that they will ask him some questions. The police officers then told Jimmy to name persons who were selling illegal drugs, to which he replied that he did not know who these persons were. 27 Thereafter, the police officers instructed Jimmy to leave his cart in the area. Afraid, Jimmy obeyed and he was boarded on a motorcycle, then brought to a house located inside Gajoudo Dantes Compound, where he saw several other arrested persons named Marlon, Bebe, and Yannia, whom he had never met before that evening. 28

On the other hand, Ohmar was arrested at around 1:00 a.m. of May 7, 2019 while he was on his way home from a videoke bar. He was already near the gate of his house in Balintawak, Quezon City when four individuals called him out. They instructed Ohmar to approach them, which he obeyed. 29 They then asked Ohmar where he lived and where he was going. Ohmar replied that he was on his way to his residence and that he came from a videoke bar. They then told Ohmar to go with them. Ohmar resisted, prompting one of the four individuals to box his stomach and grab his shoulder. Thereafter, they brought Ohmar to the house of someone he knew by the name of Rommel. Inside Rommel's house, Ohmar saw several arrested persons, among them, his co-accused. 30 Ohmar was made to stay in a corner of the house with the other arrested persons. 31

The accused-appellants and the other arrested persons were made to stay inside the house while their apprehenders waited for someone. The apprehenders of the accused proceeded to search the house. After a while, a barangay kagawad arrived. The accused and the other arrested persons were brought out of the house at around 7:00 a.m. of the following day. Afterwards, the accused were brought to the QCPD Police Station 3, where they were detained. 32

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

In its October 1, 2019 Joint Judgment, 33 the RTC judged accused-appellants guilty of the crimes charged. The dispositive portion of the RTC's Decision reads, in part:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

1. In Criminal Case No. R-QZN-19-08528-CR, accused JIMMY SAAVEDRA y LIWA and OHMAR LI y MANTIQUILLA are hereby found GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and they are hereby each sentenced to suffer life imprisonment, and to pay a fine of Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00);

xxx xxx xxx

6. In Criminal Case No. R-QZN-19-08533-CR, accused JIMMY SAAVEDRA y LIWA is hereby found GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and he is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months as maximum, and to pay a fine of Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00); and

7. In Criminal Case No. R-QZN-19-08534-CR, accused OHMAR LI y MANTIQUILLA is hereby found GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and he is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of twenty (20) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to life imprisonment as maximum, and to pay a fine of Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00).

xxx xxx xxx

SO ORDERED. 34

The trial court observed that the prosecution clearly (a) established the presence of all of the elements of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs and conspiracy between accused-appellants in commission of the said crime, (b) established the presence of all of the elements for Illegal Possession of a Dangerous Drug against both accused-appellants, and (c) the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs sold by and found in the possession of the accused-appellants had not been compromised. 35 aDSIHc

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

Undeterred, accused-appellants appealed their conviction before the CA. 36 Upon review, the CA denied the appeal and affirmed the October 1, 2019 Joint Judgment of the RTC. 37 The appellate court maintained that the prosecution proved all four links in the chain of custody of the seized contraband and all elements of the crimes charged. 38

Hence, this appeal. 39

Issue

The issue in this case is whether accused-appellants are guilty of Illegal Sale and Possession of shabu.

Our Ruling

The appeal is impressed with merit.

To sustain a conviction for Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, the prosecution must establish the following elements:

In actions involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must first be established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took place and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.

On the other hand, in prosecutions for illegal possession of a dangerous drug, it must be shown that (1) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug, (2) such possession is not authorized by law, and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug. Similarly, in this case, the evidence of the corpus delicti must be established beyond reasonable doubt. 40

For the prosecution of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs to prosper, the corpus delicti must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime. Thus, the identity of the drugs seized should be established with moral certainty. 41 To remove any doubt as to the identity of the seized dangerous drugs, the prosecution must be able to prove that the illegal drug seized from the suspects is the very same substance adduced in court. 42

The chain of custody rule performs this Function as it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. 43 In this regard, Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended, prescribes the required procedure in preserving the corpusdelicti in illegal drug cases. Section 21 provides, in part:

SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the persons from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall he required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, That the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures: Provided, finally, That noncompliance of these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items.

In relation to the foregoing, the prosecution must establish the following links in the chain of custody: (a) the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer, (b) the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer, (c) the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination, and (d) the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court. 44

We focus on the fourth link.

More often than not, crime laboratories have an evidence custodian to whom the forensic chemist hands over the seized evidence for safekeeping after forensic examination until its identification in court. If the chemist turns over the drug specimen to an evidence custodian after conducting the forensic examination, the safekeeping measures employed and precautions undertaken by the evidence custodian after the qualitative examination must also be established to account for the fourth link in the chain of custody. 45 Absent evidence on how the evidence custodian handled and stored the seized item before the same was retrieved for presentation in court, an acquittal is in order. 46 ETHIDa

In light of the foregoing, the fourth link in the chain of custody was not satisfactorily established. In establishing the fourth link, the parties simply stipulated on PLtCol Alviar's compliance with safekeeping measures to preserve the seized items' integrity while it was in her custody, PO2 Tuccad's receipt of the sealed specimens from PLtCol Alviar, PO2 Tuccad's act of placing the specimens in the evidence room of the QCPD Crime Laboratory upon receipt, and PLtCol Alviar's retrieval of the sealed specimens and her submission of the sealed specimens to the court. However, the parties did not stipulate on the safekeeping measures adopted by PO2 Tuccad as the evidence custodian after PLtCol Alviar turned over the custody of the seized items to the former following the qualitative examination. 47 Neither did the prosecution present PO2 Tuccad's testimony in court, or otherwise account for any measures she took to maintain the integrity of the specimens from the time the specimens were placed in the evidence room of the QCPD Crime Laboratory. Absent any evidence or stipulation on how the seized drugs were handled while the specimens were in the evidence room, the fourth link in the chain of custody could not be deemed established to a moral certainty.

Verily, the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs in violation of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. If the chain of custody procedure has not been complied with, or no justifiable reason exists for its noncompliance, it is the Court's duty to overturn the verdict of conviction. 48 Accordingly, the acquittal of accused-appellants is in order.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The assailed January 29, 2021 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 13617 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellants Jimmy Saavedra y Liwa and Ohmar Li y Mantiquilla are ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. They are ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless they are confined for any other lawful cause.

Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Director General, Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City for immediate implementation. Furthermore, the Director General is DIRECTED to report to this Court the action he has taken within five days from receipt of this Resolution.

Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 21-23; Notice of Appeal dated August 23, 2016.

2. Id. at 9-28. Penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela and concurred in by Associate Justices Nina Marilyn B. Payoyo-Villordon and Raymond Reynold R. Lauigan.

3. Id. at 31-43. October 1, 2019 Joint Judgment penned by Presiding Judge Nadine Jessica Corazon J. Fama.

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. Records, pp. 3-4.

6. Id. at 13-14.

7. Id. at 15-16.

8. Id. at 89-90.

9. TSN, August 23, 2019, pp. 1-28.

10. Records, pp. 99-104.

11. Records, pp. 59-60; TSN, August 23, 2019, pp. 3, 5.

12. Records, p. 57; TSN, August 23, 2019, p. 4.

13. Records, pp. 59-60; TSN, pp. 5-6.

14. Records, p. 32.

15. TSN, August 23, 2019, pp. 7-8.

16. Id. at 8-14.

17. Id. at 15-17.

18. Id. at 17-19.

19. Id. at 10-14.

20. Id. at 14-17.

21. Records, pp. 46, 55-56; TSN, August 23, 2019, pp. 14, 17-20.

22. Records, pp. 32-37, 46-47; TSN, August 23, 2019, pp. 20-21.

23. Records, pp. 101-102, 214-215; TSN, August 23, 2019, pp. 21-22.

24. Records, pp. 39 and 101-102.

25. Id. at 102.

26. Id.

27. TSN, August 28, 2019, pp. 2-4.

28. Id. at 5-6.

29. TSN, August 29, 2019, p. 4.

30. Id. at 3, 5-6.

31. Id. at 6.

32. TSN, August 28, 2019, pp. 5-6; TSN, August 29, 2019, pp. 6-7.

33. Rollo, pp. 32-43.

34. Id. at 42.

35. Id. at 38-40.

36. Records, pp. 277-278.

37. Rollo, p. 27.

38. Id. at 20-27.

39. Id. at 21-23.

40. People v. Soriano, G.R. No. 242828, February 10, 2021, citing People v. Morales, 630 Phil. 215, 228 (2010).

41. People v. Pasiona, G.R. No. 247820, October 14, 2020.

42. Id.

43. People v. Arellaga, G.R. No. 231796, August 24, 2020.

44. De Guzman v. People, G.R. No. 246327, January 13, 2021, citing People v. Gayoso, 808 Phil. 19, 30 (2017).

45. People v. Evasco, G.R. No. 252698, November 11, 2021.

46. People v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 252327, June 28, 2021, citing People v. Posos, G.R. No. 226492, October 2, 2019.

47. Records, p. 109.

48. People v. Bombasi, G.R. No. 230555, October 9, 2019, citing People v. Año, 828 Phil. 439, 453 (2018).