People v. Salom y Ngo

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 256837. August 8, 2022.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.MICHAEL SALOM y NGO @ 'BURUG', accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 8, 2022which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 256837 (People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Michael Salom y Ngo @ 'Burug,'Accused-Appellant). — Assailed in this ordinary appeal 1 is the Decision 2 dated November 9, 2020 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10002 which affirmed in toto the Joint Judgment 3 dated November 17, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 79 (RTC) in Criminal Case Nos. R-QZN-17-11573-CR and R-QZN-17-11574-CR, finding accused-appellant Michael Salom y Ngo (Salom) guilty of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, as defined and penalized under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, otherwise known as the 'Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,' 4 respectively. cHDAIS

The Facts

This case stemmed from an Information 5 filed before the RTC charging Salom with the aforesaid crimes, the accusatory portions of which read:

Criminal Case No. R-QZN-17-11573-CR(Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs)

That on or about the 22nd day of September 2017, Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, without any authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession and control the following dangerous drugs to wit: zero point zero two (0.02) gram, zero point zero two (0.02) gram, zero point zero two (0.02) gram, zero point zero three (0.03) gram, zero point zero three (0.03) gram, zero point zero five (0.05) gram, zero point zero four (0.04) gram, zero point zero two (0.02) gram, zero point zero four (0.04) gram/all with a total net weight of zero point [twenty-seven] (0.27) gram of white crystalline substance containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drugs (sic). 6

Criminal Case No. R-QZN-17-11574-CR(Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs)

That on or about the 22nd day of September 2017, Quezon City, Philippines, said accused, without lawful authority did then and there willfully and unlawfully sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport, or act as broker in said transaction a dangerous drug, to wit: zero point zero four (0.04) gram of white crystalline substance containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. 7

The prosecution alleged that at around 5:00 p.m. of September 22, 2017, the Quezon City Police District Station 7 (QCPD Station 7) organized a buy-bust operation against an alias 'Burug,' later identified as Salom, who was reported by a confidential informant (CI) to be engaged in illegal drug activities. Police Officer (PO) 1 Ritzelda Juan (PO1 Juan) was designated as the poseur-buyer, while Senior Police Officer (SPO) 2 Silveriano Marcedonio (SPO2 Marcedonio) was appointed as backup. After the briefing, the buy-bust team proceeded to the area of operation at Sumanan Alley, near corner 18th Avenue, Barangay San Roque, Cubao, Quezon City. Upon arrival thereat, the CI spotted Salom, who was standing by the alley. The CI and PO1 Juan then approached Salom and expressed their intent to buy drugs. Salom then pulled out from his left front pocket a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance and handed it over to PO1 Juan, who in turn, gave the former P500.00. Once the transaction was consummated, PO1 Juan performed the pre-arranged signal and effected an arrest on Salom. After Salom's arrest, PO1 Juan frisked him and recovered from him nine (9) more plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance. PO1 Juan then took custody of the seized items and performed the marking and inventory of the same in the presence of Salom and Barangay Kagawad Ramil Singson (Brgy. Kgd. Singson), while SPO2 Marcedonio took photographs of the foregoing events. 8

Thereafter, the buy-bust team took Salom and the seized items to QCPD Station 7 where PO1 Juan turned over said items to the investigator, SPO1 Errol Tejares (SPO1 Tejares), for documentation. After the preparation of the documents, SPO1 Tejares turned over the seized items and the documents to PO1 Juan, who then delivered the same to the QCPD Station 10 Crime Laboratory. The documents and seized items were then received by Police Chief Inspector Bernardo Roque (PCI Roque), who after conducting qualitative examination on the same, confirmed their contents to be methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu, a dangerous drug. After the examination, PCI Roque sealed the drug specimens and placed them in a bigger transparent sachet which he sealed with a masking tape and accordingly marked. He then turned over the specimens to the evidence custodian of the crime laboratory, PO1 Junia Tuccad (PO1 Tuccad). Pursuant to the subpoena issued by the RTC, PCI Roque retrieved the specimens from PO1 Tuccad in the same condition as when he first turned them over, and presented them to the RTC during trial. 9

In defense, Salom vehemently denied the charges against him. He maintained that on the date and time of his arrest, he was driving his brother's tricycle and was on his way to remit the tricycle's boundary. Once he arrived at his brother's house, two (2) police officers suddenly embraced him, cuffed him, and pressed his body against a wall. The police officers then allegedly took out plastic sachets containing shabu, as well as the purported buy-bust money, placed them on the ground, instructed Salom to face the sachets, then took photographs. He was then brought to QCPD Station 7 where he was told to admit that he was in possession of the sachets. 10

The RTC Ruling

In a Joint Judgment 11 dated November 17, 2017, the RTC found Salom guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged. Accordingly, he was sentenced as follows: (a) for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, he was sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment, and a fine in the amount of P500,000.00; and (b) for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs he was sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months, as maximum, and a fine in the amount of P300,000.00. 12

The RTC ruled that the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt the elements of the crimes of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, considering that: (a) Salom was caught in flagrante delicto to be selling shabu through a buy-bust operation conducted by the QCPD Station 7; and (b) after Salom's arrest, he was frisked and more plastic sachets containing shabu were recovered from him. Moreover, the RTC found that the police officers were able to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs seized from him, despite the absence of a Department of Justice (DOJ) representative or a media representative during the conduct of inventory and taking of photographs of the same. According to the RTC, such deviation from the chain of custody rule will not result in acquittal as long as there is a showing of an unbroken chain of custody of the seized items from the moment of seizure up to the time they were brought to the crime laboratory. 13 ISHCcT

Aggrieved, Salom appealed to the CA.

The CA Ruling

In a Decision 14 dated November 9, 2020, the CA affirmed the RTC ruling in toto. Essentially affirming the RTC's findings, the CA held that the prosecution had established all the elements of the crimes charged, and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the plastic sachets seized from Salom were preserved through an unbroken chain of custody. According to the CA, the police officers' non-compliance with the witness requirement was justified as they attempted to secure the presence of representatives from the DOJ and the media but they failed to appear. 15

Hence, this appeal.

The Issue Before the Court

The issue before the Court is whether Salom is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, as defined and penalized under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165.

The Court's Ruling

The appeal is meritorious.

At the outset, it must be stressed that 'in criminal cases, an appeal throws the entire case wide open for review and the reviewing tribunal can correct errors, though unassigned in the appealed judgment, or even reverse the trial court's decision based on grounds other than those that the parties raised as errors. 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.' 16

Guided by the foregoing consideration, the Court is constrained to acquit Salom of the crimes charged, as will be explained below.

In cases of violation of RA 9165, it is essential that the identity of the dangerous drug be established with moral certainty, considering that the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime. 17 To obviate any unnecessary doubts on the identity of the dangerous drugs, the prosecution has to show an unbroken chain of custody over the same. It must be able to account for each link in the chain of custody over the dangerous drug, from the moment of seizure up to its presentation in court as evidence of the corpus delicti. 18 Failing to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti renders the evidence for the State insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and, hence, warrants an acquittal. 19

In this regard, case law instructs that there are four (4) links in the chain of custody of the purported drugs confiscated from the accused, namely: '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.' 20 Notably, an unjustified deviation from any of the links in the chain of custody shall be sufficient to produce an acquittal on the ground that the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti had not been adequately preserved. 21

As regards the first link of the chain of custody, it is required that the inventory and taking of photographs of the seized items 'be done in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: (a) if prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, a representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official; or (b) if after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service (NPS) or the media. The law requires the presence of these witnesses primarily to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence.' 22

It bears stressing that compliance with the chain of custody procedure is strictly enjoined as the same has been regarded not merely as a procedural technicality but as a matter of substantive law. 23 Thus, in the case of People v. Lim (Lim), 24 the Court En Banc definitively held that the prosecution has the positive duty to demonstrate observance of the chain of custody rule under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, as amended, in such a way that it must acknowledge and justify any perceived deviations therefrom. 25 CAacTH

In cases of non-compliance with the witnesses requirement, Lim further instructs that it must be alleged and proved that the presence of the required witnesses to the physical inventory and photography of the seized drugs was not obtained due to reason/s, such as: (a) their attendance was impossible because the place of arrest was a remote area; (b) 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; (c) the elected official themselves were involved in the punishable acts sought to be apprehended; (d) 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 (e) 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. 26Finally, Lim further mandates that the prosecution must prove that the arresting officers had exerted earnest efforts to secure the attendance of the witnesses, as sheer statements that representatives were unavailable without so much as an explanation on whether serious attempts were employed to look for other representatives are to be regarded as a flimsy excuse.27

In this case, PO1 Juan and SPO2 Marcedonio admitted that they deviated from the strict compliance with the witness requirement when they conducted the inventory and taking of photographs absent any representatives from either the DOJ or the media. In an attempt to justify this deviation, they argued that 'an attempt was made to secure the presence of the required witnesses, albeit they failed to appear.' 28 However, and following Lim, such attempt, without explanation as to how they exerted earnest efforts or seriously attempted to secure said witnesses or other representatives, is a flimsy excuse which cannot justify their deviation from the witness requirement.

Thus, and in view of the complete and unjustified non-compliance with the chain of custody rule, particularly the witness requirement, the Court is therefore constrained to conclude that the integrity and evidentiary value of the items purportedly seized from Salom have been compromised. Perforce, Salom's acquittal from the crimes charged is warranted.

FOR THESE REASONS, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated November 9, 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10002 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Michael Salom y Ngo is ACQUITTED of the crimes charged.

The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is ORDERED to: (a) cause the immediate release of accused-appellant Michael Salom y Ngo, unless he is being lawfully held in custody for any other lawful reason; and (b) inform the Court of the action taken within five (5) days from receipt of this ruling.

Let copies of this Resolution be furnished to the Chief of the Philippine National Police and the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for their information.

Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.

SO ORDERED." (Lopez, J., J., recused himself from the case due to prior action in the Court of Appeals; Zalameda, J., designated additional Member per Raffle dated June 10, 2022. Lopez, M., J., on official leave)

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. See Notice of Appeal dated December 1, 2020, rollo, p. 3.

2.Id. at 6-20. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Jhosep Y. Lopez (now a Member of the Court) and Alfredo D. Ampuan.

3.Id. at 22-32. 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. Not attached to the rollo.

6.Rollo, pp. 6-7.

7.Id. at 7.

8.Id. at 7-8.

9.Id. at 8-9.

10.Id. at 9.

11.Id. at 22-32. Penned by Presiding Judge Nadine Jessica Corazon J. Fama.

12.Id. at 59-60.

13. See id. at 25-32.

14.Id. at 6-20.

15.Id. at 11-19.

16. See People v. Bernardo, G.R. No. 242696, November 11, 2020, citing Arambulo v. People, G.R. No. 241834, July 24, 2019. See also Sindac v. People, 794 Phil. 421, 527 (2016).

17. See Saban v. People, G.R. No. 253812, June 28, 2021, citations omitted.

18. See People v. Somira, G.R. No. 252152, June 23, 2021; People v. Racal, G.R. No. 238870, October 6, 2021; and Fernandez v. People, G.R. No. 254320, July 5, 2021.

19. See Saban v. People, supra.

20.People v. Que, 824 Phil. 882, 895 (2018), citing People v. Nandi, 639 Phil. 134, 144-145 (2010).

21. See People v. Villalon, Jr., G.R. No. 249412, March 15, 2021.

22.Saban v. People, supra.

23.Id., citing People v. Miranda, 824 Phil. 1042 (2018).

24. 839 Phil. 598 (2018).

25. See id., citing People v. Sipin, 833 Phil. 67 (2018).

26.People v. Lim, supra, citing People v. Sipin, id.

27.Id., citing People v. Ramos, 826 Phil. 981 (2018).

28. See rollo, p. 15.