FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 248244. October 19, 2022.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. JASMINE SALONGA y RAMOS AND MARILYN RAMOS y BUENAVENTURA, accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division issued a Resolution datedOctober 19, 2022which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 248244 (People of the Philippines v. Jasmine Salonga y Ramos and Marilyn Ramos y Buenaventura). — On appeal is the March 18, 2019 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09834, which affirmed the September 4, 2017 Judgment 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 98, Quezon City in Crim. Case No. R-QZN-17-00172-CR finding accused-appellants Jasmine Salonga y Ramos (Jasmine) and Marilyn Ramos y Buenaventura (Marilyn) guilty of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs in violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, 3 otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
The Antecedent Facts
On December 28, 2016, an Information 4 was filed against Jasmine and Marilyn for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs in violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of RA 9165, to wit:
That on or about the 27th day of December 2016, Quezon City, Philippines, said accused, conspiring together, confederating with and mutually helping each other, 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, zero point zero two (0.02) gram of white crystalline substance containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
Jasmine 6 and Marilyn 7 both pleaded "not guilty" during their arraignment. Trial on the merits thus ensued. CAIHTE
Version of the Prosecution
On December 27, 2016, around 7:00 p.m., Police Senior Inspector Ramon C. Aquiatan, Jr. (PSInsp. Acquiatan, Jr.), team leader of the Philippine National Police Station 7-Cubao Special Operation Task Group (SAID-SOTG) received an information from a confidential informant that Jasmine, also known as "Jasmin," was selling shabu at No. 120 C. Benitez St., Brgy. San Martin De Porres, Cubao, Quezon City. 8
Upon verification of the information, the Station Commander, Police Superintendent Rolando Balasabas (P/Supt. Balasabas) ordered PSInsp. Aquiatan, Jr. to conduct a buy-bust operation. PSInsp. Aquiatan, Jr. then formed a team composed of Police Officer 1 Romualdo Ramon Galera, Jr. (PO1 Galera, Jr.) as the poseur-buyer, and Police Officer 2 Christian De Guzman (PO2 De Guzman) as back-up. A P500.00-bill marked money was prepared. The team then coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). 9
At around 10:00 p.m. of the said date, the buy-bust team proceeded to the target area. Thereat, the confidential informant knocked on the door and was greeted by Jasmine who asked her what she wanted. The former replied, "Jasmin! Score sana kami." Jasmine instructed the confidential informant to wait outside. A few minutes later, she went out of the house with Marilyn. The confidential informant introduced PO1 Galera, Jr. to accused-appellants as the buyer. Jasmine asked PO1 Galera, Jr., "Magkano kukunin mo?" to which the latter replied, "Pwede lima lang?" PO1 Galera, Jr. then gave the marked money to Marilyn, who handed the same to Jasmine. Afterwards, Jasmine opened her black sling bag with several pieces of small plastic sachets, which contain white crystalline substance suspected to be shabu. She then gave one of the sachets to PO1 Galera, Jr. 10
Upon receipt of the item, PO1 Galera, Jr. scratched his head, which was the pre-arranged signal, indicating that the sale had already been consummated. He then introduced himself as a police officer and arrested Jasmine. PO1 Galera, Jr. marked the plastic sachet that was subject of the buy-bust operation as "RG/JS BUY BUST 12/27/16." He then frisked Jasmine and recovered from her possession the following items: (a) four pieces of plastic sachets, all containing white crystalline substances, which he marked as "RG/JS-1 12/27/16," "RG/JS-2 12/27/16," "RG/JS-3 12/27/16" and "RG/JS-4 12/27/16"; (b) one plastic clear box with blue cover containing several pieces of open-cut small plastic sachets with traces of white cyrstalline substance; and (c) the 1500.00-bill marked money.
On the other hand, PO2 De Guzman arrested Marilyn and recovered from her one small plastic sachet which also contained white crystalline substance, which he marked as "JCD/MR 12/27/16." 11
PO1 Galera, Jr. and PO2 De Guzman placed their respective markings on the seized items at the crime scene. The marking was conducted not only in the presence of both the accused, but also witnessed by Brgy. Kagawad Marciano Castillo, Jr. Initial documentation, taking of photographs and inventory were likewise made at the place of arrest and seizure. Afterwards, the buy-bust team brought accused-appellants, as well as the seized items, to the police station and presented them to the investigator on duty. 12
Accused-appellants and the seized items were subsequently brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory Office for examinations. Forensic chemist Police Chief Inspector Anamelisa Bacani (PCI Bacani) conducted a qualitative examination on the seized items, which yielded positive results for methamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as shabu, an illegal drug, as shown in Chemistry Report No. D-2368-16. 13 On the other hand, Chemistry Report No. QCDT-4895-16 and QCDT-4896-16 also revealed traces of shabu in the urine samples extracted from Jasmine and Marilyn. 14
Version of the Defense
Accused-appellants offered the defenses of denial and frame-up. On the night of the incident, six armed personalities entered their house and informed them that someone texted the police about the presence of shabu in their house. The police officers poked their guns at accused-appellants, and ordered them to surrender the illegal contraband in their possession. Accused-appellants denied having in possession of shabu. The law enforcers initially searched the house but found nothing. 15
Subsequently, accused-appellants were directed to go outside the house. While outside, they saw the police officers place the purported illegal items on a table inside the house. They were then brought back inside and showed the drugs purportedly seized from them. A barangay official then arrived, signed a piece of paper while photographs were being taken for inventory, and then left afterwards. Accused-appellants were then brought to the police station. 16
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
In its Judgment 17 dated September 4, 2017, the RTC found accused-appellants guilty of the crime charged. The trial court thus sentenced them both to life imprisonment and to pay a fine in the amount of P500,000.00, to wit:
WHEREFORE, finding both accused JASMIN SALONGA and MARILYN RAMOS GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Sec. 5, Art. II, R.A. (9165) and they are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00), and to pay a * the costs.
* Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document.
The two (2) accused who are presently detained shall be credited (sic) in full the period of his (sic) preventive imprisonment.
The recovered specimen with marking 'RG/JS BUY BUST 12/27/16 and containing 0.02 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride is ordered forfeited in favor of the government.
The buy bust money of one (1) piece of P500.00 bill with Serial No. UX410966 (Exhibit "U") is ordered forfeited in favor of the government.
Upon the finality of the Decision, the Branch Clerk of Court is directed to turn over the aforesaid evidence to the Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB), through the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) to be disposed of in accordance with law, and the receipt of transmittal shall be attached to the records of these two (2) cases. Likewise, the Branch Clerk of Court is directed to turn-over the aforesaid one (1) piece of P500.00 to the Bureau of National Treasury under proper receipt, the receipt to be attached to the records.
Furnish copies of this judgment the Office of the PNP Director General, as well as the Director of the DDB ad [sic] PDEA who are directed to render a report on the disposal of the subject drug evidence, within five (5) days from notice.
Both accused, Jasmine Salonga and Marilyn Ramos should be committed to the Women's Correctional Institution for Women in Mandaluyong City fo their detention in this case.
Finally, furnish copies of the judgment also the District Director of QCPD and the Station Commander PS-7, Cubao, QC. DETACa
SO ORDERED. 18
The RTC held that the prosecution sufficiently proved that accused-appellants conspired together in the commission of the crime charged. All the elements of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs were likewise duly proven. Accused-appellants successfully sold shabu in a plastic sachet to PO1 Galera, Jr., who acted as poseur-buyer, in a legitimate entrapment operation. The trial court also opined that the chain of custody remained unbroken thus the integrity of the drugs seized were duly preserved. 19
Aggrieved, accused-appellants appealed to the CA. They maintained that the procedures laid down in Sec. 21 of RA 9165 were not strictly followed. 20
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
In its March 18, 2019 Decision, 21 the CA affirmed the findings of the RTC, viz.:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED.
The assailed September 4, 2017, Judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 98 in Criminal Case No. R-QZN-17-00172-CR is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. No costs.
SO ORDERED. 22
The CA ruled that, as found by the RTC, the prosecution sufficiently established that accused-appellants conspired together in the illegal sale of shabu. Moreover, contrary to accused-appellants' claim, the apprehending officers duly complied with the chain of custody rule under Sec. 21, Art. II of RA 9165. Although neither a representative from the National Prosecution Service (NPS) or media was present at the time of the marking and inventory, the apprehending officers sufficiently explained that they tried to secure the presence of a representative of the media who, unfortunately, was indisposed.
On April 12, 2019, accused-appellants filed a Notice of Appeal, 23 which the CA gave due course in its May 15, 2019 Resolution. 24
Issue
The lone issue for resolution is whether the chain of custody remained unbroken. 25
Our Ruling
The Court acquits accused-appellants.
The drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the crime in illegal drugs cases. It is therefore imperative for the prosecution to prove that the seized drugs are the same as those presented before the court during trial. Thus, the prosecution must satisfactorily establish that the following links in the chain of custody were duly observed: first, the seizure and marking 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 by the forensic chemist to the court. 26
Accused-appellants were charged with selling 0.02 gram of shabu. Considering the miniscule amount of illegal drugs involved herein, the Court should be more circumspect in assessing its evidentiary value so as to determine if accused-appellants' conviction should be sustained. Tampering, loss, or mistake with respect to an exhibit is greatest when the exhibit is small and which has a physical characteristic that is fungible in nature and similar in form to substances familiar to people in their daily lives. 27 This Court's pronouncement in Mallillin v. People28 is instructive:
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into 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.
While testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard because it is almost always impossible to obtain, an unbroken chain of custody becomes indispensable and essential when the item of real evidence is not distinctive and is not readily identifiable, or when its condition at the time of testing or trial is critical, or when a witness has failed to observe its uniqueness. The same standard likewise obtains in case the evidence is susceptible to alteration, tampering, contamination and even substitution and exchange. In other words, the exhibit's level of susceptibility to fungibility, alteration or tampering — without regard to whether the same is advertent or otherwise not — dictates the level of strictness in the application of the chain of custody rule. 29 (Citations omitted)
Considering that the offense allegedly transpired on December 27, 2016, the applicable law is RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, 30 which states: aDSIHc
SECTION 1. Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," is hereby amended to read as follows:
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 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, 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. (Emphasis supplied)
Guided by the aforementioned rule, the apprehending team must immediately conduct a physical inventory and to photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, and the following required witnesses: (a) if prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, 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 NPS or the media. 31 The presence of the insulating witnesses ensures that the chain of custody rule has been complied with and removes any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence. 32
In People v. Lim, 33 We held that absence of the required insulating witnesses is only allowed in case of any recognized justifiable grounds:
(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. 34 (Emphasis Ours)
In case of non-observance of any of the procedural rules in the chain of custody, the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) 35 dictates that the apprehending officers must state in an affidavit their reasons for failing to comply with the procedure, and to narrate the steps they took to show substantial compliance, viz.: 36
A.1.10. Any justification or explanation in cases of noncompliance with the requirements of Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, shall be clearly stated in the sworn statements/affidavits of the apprehending/seizing officers, as well as the steps taken to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized/confiscated items. Certification or record of coordination for operating units other than the PDEA pursuant to Section 86 (a) and (b), Article IX of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 shall be presented. (Emphasis Ours.)
Here, no representative of the NPS or media was present to witness the inventory and taking of photograph of the seized illegal drugs. To recall, only a barangay kagawad, an elected public official, was present at that time. In the Affidavit of Arrest/Poseur Buyer 37 executed by PO1 Galera, Jr., he stated therein that their SAID-SOTG tried to contact a media reporter who was, unfortunately, indisposed, to wit:
14. That, affiant, together [with] PO2 Jerry Christian De Guzman initially marked the recovered pieces of evidence from a.k.a. "Jasmin" and a.k.a. "Baby" in the place of arrest, wherein Brgy. Kagawad Marciano Castillo Jr. of Brgy. San Martin De Porres, Cubao, Quezon City, arrived and witnessed the completion of the initial documentation, marking of evidence, photographs and inventory were made in the presence of all suspects and other witnesses, in compliance with Sec. 21 of Art. II of RA 9165. Our SAID-SOTG team leader tried to contact Mr. Clyte Ocampo, the representative from the media but said reporter was indisposed during that time. Thereafter, the suspects and the pieces of recovered evidence were all brought to PS-7, SAID-SOTG, in which SPO1 Jade R. Gavina attended the case. Afterwards, all suspects together with the recovered pieces of evidence where [sic] subsequently brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory Office located at EDSA, Kamuning, Quezon City for laboratory examination and drug test analysis in which yielded POSITIVE for the test of methamphetamine hydrochloride a dangerous drug by Forensic Chemist Anamelissa Sebido Bacani dated December 28, 2016. 38
PO1 Galera, Jr. reiterated his statement in the affidavit during the trial in this wise: ETHIDa
Q Where was the marking of the object evidence done, Sir?
A At the place of arrest, Ma'am.
Q How about the inventory, Sir, where was it done?
A Place of arrest, Ma'am.
Q Who were your witnesses during the inventory?
A Kagawad Marciano Castillo of Barangay San Martin De Porres, Ma'am.
Q So I am correct to say that you have no DOJ representative or a media representative during the inventory?
A Yes, Ma'am.
Q And I [am] also correct to say that you or any member or your team did not explain in your affidavit or any document why there was no media or DOJ rep. during the inventory?
A Our team leader tried to call member of media representative but failed to arrive at the said place, Ma'am. 39 (Emphasis Ours)
This is not the earnest effort expected from the apprehending officers in obtaining the presence of the insulating witnesses. Assuming that Mr. Clyte Ocampo, representative of the media who was called to witness the entrapment operation, was indeed unavailable, the buy-bust team should have invited other media members/reporters or a representative of the NPS who could have been available on the night of the incident. Surely, the apprehending officers would have known a number of media reporters or even prosecutors who have been a part of several police operations. Besides, a mere statement by the apprehending officers that the insulating witnesses are unavailable is not a justifiable reason for noncompliance with the requirement. 40 This is because the apprehending officers usually have sufficient time, from the moment they received information about the alleged illegal activities until the time of the arrest, to prepare for the entrapment operation that necessarily includes the procurement of the required witnesses. 41
All told, the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti had not been duly preserved. The noncompliance with the chain of custody rule without sufficient justification negates the presumption that the apprehending officers regularly performed their duties. 42 Considering that the chain of custody has been severely breached, accused-appellants are therefore entitled to an acquittal.
Once again, the Court salutes our law enforcers for their tenacity to eradicate drug crimes. However, the laws must still be observed to ensure an orderly and proper administration of justice. A rash act of vigilance weakens the criminal justice system with doubts and mistrust. 43
WHEREFORE, appeal is GRANTED. The March 18, 2019 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09834 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellants Jasmine Salonga y Ramos and Marilyn Ramos y Buenaventura 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 to the Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for Women, Bureau of Corrections, Mandaluyong City for immediate implementation. Furthermore, the Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for Women, is DIRECTED to report to this Court the action taken hereon within five days from receipt of this Resolution.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED."Lopez, J., designated additional Member per Raffle dated October 10, 2022 vice Zalameda, J., who recused due to prior participation in the CA.
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. 3-15. Penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (now a member of this Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Rodil V. Zalameda (now a Member of this Court) and Edwin D. Sorongon.
2. CA rollo, pp. 49-67. Penned by Presiding Judge Marilou D. Runes-Tamang, MNSA.
3. 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: June 7, 2002.
4. Records, pp. 1-2.
5.Id. at 1.
6.Id. at 35.
7.Id. at 36.
8.Rollo, p. 6.
9.Id.
10.Id. at 6-7.
11.Id. at 7.
12.Id. at 7-8.
13. Records, p. 12.
14.Id. at 13.
15.Rollo, pp. 8-9.
16.Id.
17. CA rollo, pp. 49-67.
18.Id. at 66-67.
19.Id. at 61-65.
20.Id. at 38-39.
21.Rollo, pp. 3-15.
22.Id. at 14-15.
23.Id. at 16-17.
24.Id. at 19.
25. CA rollo, pp. 38-39.
26.People v. Miranda, G.R. No. 218126, July 10, 2019, citing People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 231 (2015).
27.Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576 (2008).
28.Id.
29.Id. at 588-589.
30. Entitled "AN ACT TO FURTHER STRENGTHEN 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.'" Approved on July 15, 2014.
31.People v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 236304, November 5, 2018.
32.Id.
33. 839 Phil. 598 (2018).
34.Id. at 621-622.
35. Guidelines on the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640 (2015).
36. See People v. Pantallano, G.R. No. 233800, March 6, 2019.
37. Records, pp. 7-8.
38.Id. at 8.
39. TSN, August 10, 2017, pp. 7-8.
40.People v. Baluyot, G.R. No. 243390, October 5, 2020.
41.Id.
42.People v. Balibay, 742 Phil. 746, 757 (2014).
43. See People v. Pantallano, supra note 36.