SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 247556. September 27, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.FERNANDO SACOCO y TUMAMAO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated27 September 2021which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 247556 (People of the Philippines v. Fernando Sacoco y Tumamao). — On appeal 1 is the October 30, 2018 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09295, affirming the March 7, 2017 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 13 of Laoag City, Ilocos Norte, in Criminal Case No. 15867-13 which found accused-appellant Fernando Sacoco y Tumamao (Sacoco) guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 5 (Illegal Sale), Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Antecedents:
The facts, as alleged by the prosecution, are as follows:
On March 1, 2014, at about 10:00 p.m., a confidential informant (CI) arrived at the Ilocos Norte Provincial Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Group (PAIDSOTG) office and informed Police Officer (PO) 2 Jackson Sugayen (PO2 Sugayen) that accused-appellant Sacoco was engaged in the sale of illegal drugs. 4 In turn, PO2 Sugayen relayed the information through a phone call to Philippine National Police (PNP) Police Senior Inspector Adriano Licudan, who directed the former to report the details to the chief of police, Police Chief Inspector Dominic Guerrero (PCI Guerrero). 5 Consequently, PO2 Sugayen, together with the CI, proceeded to the San Nicolas Police Station and informed PCI Guerrero of the matter. 6
At around 12:05 a.m. of March 2, 2014, and after verification of the information about the alleged seller, PCI Guerrero conducted a briefing and formed a buy-bust team. 7 He designated PO2 Sugayen as the poseur-buyer and gave him a P1,000.00 bill as marked money. 8 Thereafter, PO2 Sugayen marked the money with his initials "JBS." 9 PO2 Eric Macadangdang (PO2 Macadangdang) was also assigned as the arresting officer and back-up, while other members of the PNP San Nicolas Station served as back-up perimeter security. 10
Upon arrival at the target area, the CI sent a text message to Sacoco that they were already at the place of transaction where the latter arrived after a minute. 11 When the CI introduced PO2 Sugayen as a buyer of shabu, Sacoco immediately handed over two heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance to PO2 Sugayen in exchange for P1,000.00. 12 After the consummation of the transaction, PO2 Sugayen shouted, "Police!" and grabbed Sacoco's hand, 13 while PO2 Macadangdang immediately appeared and restrained Sacoco. 14 PO2 Macadangdang arrested Sacoco and informed him of his constitutional rights. 15 Subsequently, PO2 Sugayen conducted a body search on Sacoco and recovered a cellphone, P250.00, and the marked money. 16 Since it was dark at the place of arrest, the police officers took Sacoco to the police station, which was also only a few meters away. 17
Upon arrival at the station, PO2 Sugayen placed his markings 18 on the seized items and conducted an inventory 19 in the presence of Sacoco and barangay officials. 20 Photographs of Sacoco with the seized items were also taken. 21 Thereafter, PO2 Sugayen delivered the two plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination, 22 along with the Request for Dangerous Drug Examination 23 and Request for Drug Test Examination 24 that he prepared. 25 These were received by PO3 John Edwin Padayao, in the presence of Police Inspector Amiely Navarro (PSI Navarro), the forensic chemist in charge. 26 PSI Navarro performed a qualitative examination on the specimens and found them positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. 27
On March 2, 2014, an Information 28 was filed against Sacoco for violation of Section 5, Article II, of RA 9165, the accusatory portion of which reads:
That on or about March 2, 2014, at Brgy. 3, San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-mentioned accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell two (2)-piece heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as "shabu," a dangerous drug, weighing 0.0332 gram and 0.0253 gram with a street value of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) to police poseur-buyer, PO2 Jackson Sugayen, a member of the PAIDSOTG-Ilocos Norte without any authority or license from the appropriate government agency.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 29
During arraignment, Sacoco entered the plea of "not guilty." 30 Thereafter, trial ensued.
Sacoco denied the charge against him and claimed that the evidence against him was planted. He testified that on March 1, 2014 at about 7:00 p.m., he was having a drinking session in his house with Nolie Ramos (Nolie) and Kilo Tumamao. 31 After a while, Sacoco and Nolie decided to go to the San Nicolas public market to buy lechon manok for pulutan. 32 They boarded Nolie's motorcycle and reached the Gosing bridge when seven armed men, later identified as the police officers, suddenly pulled them over. 33 Sacoco was dragged from the motorcycle, pushed down to the ground, and kicked by the police officers. 34 The police officers told Sacoco that he had a gun tucked in his waist and frisked him. 35 After not finding any gun, they frisked his jacket for shabu but they also failed to recover anything even after Sacoco removed his clothes. 36 At that point, he no longer knew where Nolie went.
Thereafter, Sacoco was made to board a white vehicle and was taken to PCI Guerrero's apartment. 37 PCI Guerrero came out from his apartment and talked to the policemen, while Sacoco remained inside the car. 38 Shortly after, Sacoco fell asleep and was woken up by the police officers when they were already at the San Nicolas Police Station. 39
Upon arrival at the station, PO2 Macadangdang took Sacoco to an office. 40 Later on, PO2 Sugayen arrived and placed his bag on the table and took out a P1,000.00 bill, small plastic sachets, and a cellphone. 41 He also took out a pentel pen and masking tape, and wrote something on the items. 42 Afterwards, he asked PO2 Macadangdang to call barangay officials. When they arrived, PO2 Sugayen held the pentel pen and pretended to write on the items while their pictures were taken. 43
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:
In its March 7, 2017 Decision, 44 the RTC found Sacoco guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. Its fallo reads:
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby renders judgment finding accused Fernando Sacoco y Tumamao GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as charged of illegal sale of shabu as punished tmder Section 5, Art. II of Republic Act No. 9165 and is accordingly sentenced to suffer the penalty of Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00.
The two plastic sachets of shabu subject hereof are confiscated for proper disposition as the law prescribes.
SO ORDERED. 45
Aggrieved, Sacoco filed a notice of appeal 46 before the RTC.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
On October 30, 2018, the CA rendered its assailed Decision 47 denying the appeal. Its fallo reads: CAIHTE
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DENIED. 48
Discontented, Sacoco elevated the case before this Court. 49
Sacoco argues that the prosecution failed to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the alleged seized drug. He claims that the marking and inventory were not immediately done after seizure and confiscation. He also asserts that the inventory was conducted without the presence of a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the media. Moreover, he contends that there was no showing as to how the alleged illegal drugs were turned over from the forensic chemist to the court. 50 As such, he argues that the presumption of regularity in the performance of the police officers' duties cannot apply due to the irregularities in the chain of custody of the seized drugs. Lastly, he maintains that his defense of denial should have not been disfavored outright. 51
Contrariwise, the People, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), contends that Sacoco was caught in flagrante delicto selling dangerous drugs to PO2 Sugayen, who positively identified him as the seller during the buy-bust operation. 52 The OSG also contends that despite deviation from the chain of custody rule, the prosecution proved that the integrity of the evidence was preserved through PO2 Sugayen's testimony. 53 Lastly, the OSG asserts that Sacoco's defense of denial is merely self-serving and cannot be given greater weight than the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. 54
Issue
Whether or not Sacoco is guilty of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs.
Our Ruling
The appeal is meritorious.
To successfully prosecute the offense of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the following elements must be proven: (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. 55 What matters is proof that the sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited drug, as evidence of the corpus delicti. 56 In buy-bust operations, the receipt by the poseur-buyer of the dangerous drug and the corresponding receipt by the seller of the marked money consummate the illegal sale. 57
In the case at bar, the prosecution established all the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. PO2 Sugayen testified that he received shabu from Sacoco, who in turn, received the marked money as payment during the buy-bust operation. Indubitably, the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs was consummated. However, since the existence of the corpus delicti is essential to a judgment of conviction, the identity of the dangerous drug must likewise be clearly established. 58 We note that the prosecution failed in this regard.
To establish the identity of the seized drugs from the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the chain of custody must be proven. Chain of custody involves the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs from the time of seizure and confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory, safekeeping, and presentation in court for destruction. 59 Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 provides for the procedural safeguards in the seizure, custody, and handling of confiscated illegal drugs and/or paraphernalia.
RA 10640 60 amended Section 21 of RA 9165 on July 15, 2014. Since the alleged crime in the present case took place on March 2, 2014, or prior to its amendment, the old provisions shall apply. The pertinent portion of Section 21 reads:
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. (Emphasis supplied)
Furthermore, Section 21 (a) of the implementing rules and regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 provides:
(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 the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items[.] 61 (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, the foregoing mandate that the marking, photography, and inventory of the seized items be done immediately after seizure and confiscation of the items, and in the presence of the (1) the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel; (2) a representative from the media; (3) a representative from the DOJ; and (4) any elected public official. The presence of these insulating witnesses negates any suspicion of the evils of switching, planting or contamination of the evidence. 62
Contrary to the prosecution's claim, records show that the apprehending officers failed to adhere to the procedure laid down in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 and its IRR. During the marking, photography, and inventory of the seized items, only the accused and barangay officials were present. In his direct examination, PO2 Sugayen testified as follows:
Q: Why is it that it was at the police station where you marked the confiscated items and not at the place where you arrested them?
A: Because there is no sufficient illumination of the place and it is just only a few meters away from the police station, sir.
Q: So how did you bring him to the police station?
A: We walked on foot, sir.
Q: Now, you said you went to the police station to mark the items, what did you place on the two (2) plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance?
A: I put my markings JBS1 to JBS2 on the confiscated illegal drugs and JBS with the two (2) piece one hundred peso bills and the fifty peso bill I marked with JBS the cellphone, sir.
Q: After marking them what did you do next, if any?
A: During my marking, sir the barangay officials of Barangay 3 were present and when I listed the confiscated items in the inventory the barangay officials witnessed it and signed the inventory.
Q: Where was the accused when you were marking the confiscated items as well as when you made the inventory? aScITE
A: The accused Fernando Sacoco was present during that time, sir. 63
We note that the marking of seized items was done at the police station, and not at the place of arrest. However, in buy-bust operations, "marking upon immediate confiscation contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team." 64 Nevertheless, representatives from the media and the DOJ were absent when the marking, inventory, and photography of the seized items were conducted. While the Court allows substantial compliance with the mandated procedure, the prosecution must still prove: (1) a justifiable ground for non-compliance therewith; and (2) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. 65 In doing so, the arresting officers must clearly state such ground in their sworn affidavit, coupled with an explanation of the steps they took to preserve the integrity of the seized items. 66 In this regard, mere statements of unavailability of the witnesses given by the apprehending officers are not justifiable reasons for non-compliance with the requirement. 67
In People v. Sipin, 68 the Court held that the absence of one or more of the required witnesses must be justified due to reasons such as:
The prosecution never alleged and proved that the presence of the required witnesses was not obtained for any of the following reasons, such as: (1) their attendance was impossible because the place of arrest was a remote area; (2) their safety during the inventory and photograph of the seized drugs was threatened by an immediate retaliatory action of the accused or any person/s acting for and in his/her behalf; (3) the elected official themselves were involved in the punishable acts sought to be apprehended; (4) earnest efforts to secure the presence of a DOJ or media representative and an elected public official within the period required under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code prove futile through no fault of the arresting officers, who face the threat of being charged with arbitrary detention; or (5) time constraints and urgency of the anti-drug operations, which often rely on tips of confidential assets, prevented the law enforcers from obtaining the presence of the required witnesses even before the offenders could escape. 69 (Emphasis supplied)
In the instant case, the prosecution failed to justify the absence of the representatives from the media and DOJ during the marking, photographing, and inventory of the seized items. The sworn affidavits 70 and testimonies of PO2 Sugayen and PO2 Macadangdang are bereft of any explanation as to the absence of these witnesses, or that earnest efforts were made to secure their presence. Their failure to comply with the three-witness rule necessarily creates a gap in the chain of custody. Consequently, this casts doubt as to the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items and is fatal to the prosecution's case.
Furthermore, the prosecution's invocation of presumption of regularity in the apprehending officers' performance of duty cannot, by itself, overcome the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. 71 Generally, the testimonies of the police officers are afforded full faith and credit due to the aforementioned presumption. However, such is destroyed when the police officers' performance of their duties is tainted with failure to comply with the procedure and guidelines under the law. 72
The prosecution bears the burden of proving Sacoco's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own weight, and cannot rely on the weakness of the defense. 73 In this case, the prosecution failed to prove Sacoco's guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to the police officers' non-compliance with the three-witness rule.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The assailed October 30, 2018 Decision rendered by the Court of Appeals in in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09295 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Fernando Sacoco y Tumamao is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless he is 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 of the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to report to this Court the action he has taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED." (J. Caguioa designated as additional Member per Raffle dated October 12, 2020 vice J. Inting who recused due to prior action in the Court of Appeals.) DETACa
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 12-13.
2.Id. at 3-11; penned by Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser and concurred in by Associate Justices Pedro B. Corales and Pablito A. Perez.
3. Records, pp. 112-129; penned by Presiding Judge Philip G. Salvador.
4. TSN, November 25, 2014, pp. 4-5.
5.Id. at 5.
6.Id. at 6.
7. Affidavit of Poseur Buyer as Exhibit "A," records, p. 5.
8. TSN, November 25, 2014, p. 6.
9.Id.
10.Id. at 7.
11.Id. at 9.
12.Id. at 10-11.
13.Id. at 12.
14.Id. at 13.
15.Id. at 14.
16.Id.
17.Id. at 15.
18.Id.
19. Inventory on the Confiscated/Recovered/Seized Items as Exhibit "E," records, p. 11.
20. TSN, November 25, 2014, pp. 15-16.
21.Id. at 20-23; Exhibits "N-2" to "N-3," records, pp. 21.
22. TSN, November 25, 2014, p. 23.
23. Records, p. 12, Exhibit "M".
24.Id., Exhibit "I".
25. TSN, February 3, 2015, p. 3.
26.Id. at 4.
27.Id. at 5; Chemistry Report No. D-058-2014-IN as Exhibit "G," records, p. 13.
28. Records, pp. 1-2.
29.Id. at 1.
30.Id. at 41.
31. TSN, February 12, 2016, pp. 3-4.
32.Id. at 4.
33.Id. at 4-5; TSN, March 17, 2016, pp. 4-5.
34. TSN, February 12, 2016, p. 5.
35.Id.
36.Id. at 5-6.
37.Id. at 6-8.
38.Id. at 8.
39.Id. at 8-9.
40.Id. at 9.
41.Id. at 11.
42.Id. at 11-12.
43.Id. at 12-13.
44. Records, pp. 112-129.
45.Id. at 129.
46.Id. at 131-132.
47.Rollo, pp. 3-11.
48.Id. at 11.
49.Id. at 12-13.
50. CA rollo, pp. 48-53.
51.Id. at 55-58.
52.Id. at 103-105.
53.Id. at 107-123.
54.Id. at 123-125.
55.People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 29 (2017) citing People v. Alberto, 625 Phil. 545, 554 (2010) further citing People v. Dumlao, 584 Phil. 732, 739 (2009).
56.People v. De Guzman, 630 Phil. 637, 645 (2010).
57.Id. citing People v. Nazareno, 532 SCRA 630, 636-637 (2007).
58.People v. Jaafar, 803 Phil. 582, 591 (2017).
59.People v. Guzon, 719 Phil. 441, 451 (2013).
60. Entitled "an act to further the anti-drug campaign of the government, amending for the purpose Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the "comprehensive dangerous drugs act of 2002.""
61. Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165, Otherwise Known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," August 30, 2002.
62.People v. Mendoza, 736 Phil. 749, 764 (2014).
63. TSN, November 25, 2015, p. 15.
64.People v. Mamalumpon, 767 Phil. 845, 855 (2015), citing Imson v. People, 669 Phil. 262, 270-271 (2011).
65.People v. De Guzman, supra note 56 at 649.
66.People v. Saragena, 817 Phil. 117, 144 (2017).
67.People v. Ramos, 826 Phil. 981, 996 (2018).
68. 833 Phil. 67 (2018).
69.Id. at 93.
70. Records, pp. 5-8.
71.People v. De Guzman, supra note 56 at 655 citing People v. Santos, Jr., 562 Phil. 458 (2007).
72.Id. citing People v. Dela Cruz, 591 Phil. 259 (2008) citing People v. Santos, Jr., 562 Phil. 458 (2007).
73.Id. citing People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214 (2008).