THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 247973. June 30, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MERLITA SAMSON y CRUZ, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated June 30, 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 247973 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee v. MERLITA SAMSON y CRUZ, accused-appellant). — Strict adherence to the chain of custody rule removes any doubt as to the identity and evidentiary value of the seized illegal drugs. When the prosecution establishes an unbroken chain of custody, this Court will uphold the conviction.
The Court of Appeals elevated the records of this case to this Court in compliance with its Resolution, which gave due course to the Notice of Appeal filed by accused-appellant Merlita Samson y Cruz (Samson). The Court of Appeals 1 and the Regional Trial Court 2 found Samson guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
In 2015, Samson was charged with the sale and possession of illegal drugs, in violation of Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165. 3 The Informations read:
"That on or about the 21st day of September 2015, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, without lawful authority did, then and there willfully, unlawfully sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport, or act as broker in the said transaction, one zero three point one three (103.13) grams of white crystalline substance containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law." 4
"That on or about the 21st day of September 2015, in Quezon City, Philippines the said accused, without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in her possession and control one zero zero seven point nine eight (1007.98) grams of white crystalline substance containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
Contrary to Law." 5
On arraignment, Samson pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged. Trial followed. 6
The prosecution presented SPO1 Roel Hamor (SPO1 Hamor) and SPO2 Sandino Rodriguez (SPO2 Rodriguez). 7 The testimonies of Forensic Chemist Anamelisa Bacani (Forensic Chemist Bacani) and SPO1 Joselito Gagaza (SPO1 Gagaza) were dispensed with after being included in the parties' stipulation. 8
According to the prosecution, on September 20, 2015, at around 11:00 p.m., the Quezon City Police District received a tip from an informant implicating Samson in drug peddling. 9 A buy-bust team was immediately formed, composed of SPO1 Hamor and SPO2 Rodriguez, among others. 10 SPO1 Hamor was assigned to act as a poseur-buyer while SPO2 Rodriguez was designated as immediate back-up. 11
The informant then contacted Samson, who agreed to sell P200,000.00 worth of shabu. 12 They were scheduled to meet at Hilltop Street corner Araneta Avenue, Barangay Tatalon, Quezon City the following morning. 13
At 4:00 a.m. the following day, Samson met the informant, who introduced SPO1 Hamor as the buyer. 14 SPO1 Hamor then gave Samson the payment, who, in turn, handed one piece of transparent plastic bag containing white crystalline substance. 15
SPO1 Hamor then scratched his head as signal to the team that the transaction was consummated. 16 SPO2 Rodriguez immediately approached Samson and arrested her. 17 After frisking her, he recovered the marked money and another transparent plastic bag also containing a white crystalline substance. 18 They then proceeded to mark, inventory, and photograph the seized items in the presence of Kagawad Alexis Reynaldo Santos (Kagawad Santos) and media representative Jope Pelerio (Pelerio). 19 acEHCD
Thereafter, Samson was brought to the Quezon City Police District Office. Meanwhile, investigator SPO1 Gagaza prepared the Request for Laboratory Examination, among other documents. 20 The seized items were submitted by SPO1 Hamor and SPO2 Rodriguez to the crime laboratory. 21 Forensic Chemist Bacani confirmed that she received the Request for Laboratory Examination and the specimen, which later tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. 22 Afterwards, she submitted the Chemistry Report and turned over the specimen to the court. 23
On the other hand, Samson denied the allegations. 24 She claimed that on September 21, 2015, she was waiting for her husband by the bridge along Quezon Avenue when two persons approached her. 25 They asked her to bring out goods which she denied having knowledge or possession. 26 Irked by her response, they took her inside a car and drove along Quezon Avenue for hours. 27 Afterwards, they brought her to Camp Karingal where she was detained. 28
The Regional Trial Court found Samson guilty of the charges. 29 The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the court finds the accused Merlita Samson GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of crimes charged against her.
In Criminal Case No. R-QZN-15-08798, she is hereby sentenced to suffer a penalty of life imprisonment, and to pay a fine of five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00)[.]
In Criminal Case No. R-QZN-15-08799, she is hereby sentenced to suffer a penalty of life imprisonment, and to pay a fine of five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00)[.]
The Office-in-Charge of this court is directed to turn over to the Chief of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Crime Laboratory the subject drugs covered by Chemistry Report No. D-767-15 and to be disposed of in strict conformity with the provisions of R.A. 9165 and its implementing rules and regulations on the matter.
SO ORDERED. 30 (Emphasis in the original)
The trial court held that all elements of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs were established by the prosecution. 31
With respect to the charge of illegal sale, the trial court found that there was (1) identity of the buyer, seller, object of the sale, and the consideration, and (2) delivery of the drugs and its payment. 32 SPO1 Hamor positively identified Samson as the person who sold to him the white crystalline substance which was later identified as shabu. 33 The sale transaction was corroborated by SPO2 Rodriguez. 34
Similarly, the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs were proven, to wit: (1) Samson was in possession of dangerous drugs, (2) the possession was not authorized by law, and (3) she was freely and consciously aware of possessing the drugs. 35
As established by the prosecution, SPO2 Rodriguez recovered approximately one kilogram of shabu from Samson, who was not authorized to carry drugs. 36 Moreover, possession of dangerous drugs is prima facie evidence of knowledge of its possession, which Samson failed to controvert. 37
Further, the trial court found that the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs seized were preserved. 38 It gave credence to SPO1 Hamor and SPO2 Rodriguez's testimonies which established that the drugs were immediately marked, inventoried, and photographed at the place of seizure and in the presence of Kagawad Santos and Pelerio, as evidenced by the inventory receipt and pictures. 39 The seized items were later turned over to Forensic Chemist Bacani. 40
Moreover, the trial court held that the police officers are presumed to have regularly performed their duties absent contrary evidence. 41 On the other hand, Samson failed to show any ill motive on the part of the police officers to testify falsely against her. To add, her denial was not supported by evidence. 42 Thus, between the prosecution and the defense, the trial court gave more credence to the testimony of the prosecution. 43
Aggrieved, Samson appealed to the Court of Appeals. She argued that the prosecution failed to establish all elements of illegal sale and the integrity and identity of the drugs were not preserved. 44 She contended that SPO1 Hamor was not a poseur-buyer but a mere delivery man of the marked money, thus, he has no personal knowledge of the sale. 45
The Court of Appeals denied the appeal. 46 Thus, SDHTEC
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated November 10, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 216, of Quezon City is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED. 47 (Emphasis in the original)
The Court of Appeals held that the sale transaction was established. 48 While the informant arranged their meeting, it was SPO1 Hamor who transacted with Samson. 49 SPO1 Hamor clearly narrated how he handed the marked money to Samson in exchange for the drugs. 50 That he is not the one who contacted Samson to order the drugs is immaterial. 51
Moreover, the Court of Appeals ruled that the chain of custody of the seized drugs was unbroken. 52 After the drugs were seized, they were immediately marked, inventoried, and photographed at the place of the arrest in the presence of Samson, an elected local official, and a media representative. 53 SPO1 Hamor and SPO2 Rodriguez handled the drugs until it was turned over to the Forensic Chemist, who subsequently turned them over to the trial court. 54
Samson filed her Notice of Appeal. 55 This Court noted the records of the case and notified the parties to file their supplemental briefs. 56 Both parties manifested that they would no longer file their supplemental briefs. 57
In the Brief for the Accused-Appellant, 58 accused-appellant maintains that SPO1 Hamor's testimony is mere hearsay because he is not privy to the transaction. 59 SPO1 Hamor had no participation in the sale except to deliver the marked money. 60 She asserts that it was the informant who contacted her and bought the drugs. 61
Moreover, accused-appellant alleges that the chain of custody is broken because the first, second, and third links of the chain are unaccounted for. 62 First, the drugs were only marked with the date and initials of SPO1 Hamor and SPO2 Rodriguez. There was no marking as to the time, date, and place where the drug was seized; thus, it is highly probable that the drugs were mixed-up with other drugs. 63
Second, there was no physical turnover of the seized drugs from the apprehending officers to the case investigator as SPO1 Hamor merely showed the seized items to investigator SPO1 Gagaza. 64
Third, as a result of the missing second link, there is no turnover of the seized drugs from the investigating officer to the Forensic Chemist. 65 Moreover, Forensic Chemist Bacani allegedly turned over the drugs to an unknown evidence custodian who was not presented to testify in court. 66
Accused-appellant further claims that the seized drugs were not properly handled because they were not placed in an evidence bag. 67 This puts into question the integrity and evidentiary value of the items seized. 68 Lastly, she asserts that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot favor the prosecution because the acts of SPO1 Hamor and SPO2 Rodriguez are patently irregular. 69
On the other hand, the Solicitor General, on behalf of the People of the Philippines, submits 70 that the prosecution has established accused-appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 71 The elements of illegal sale of drugs were sufficiently proven by the prosecution. 72 The testimonies of SPO1 Hamor and SPO2 Rodriguez satisfactorily established the identities of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration of the sale, and the delivery of the drugs and payment. 73
Moreover, plaintiff-appellee claims SPO1 Hamor has personal knowledge of the sale. 74 He was part of the buy-bust team where he was designated as the poseur-buyer. 75 At the actual sale, he was the one who bought the drugs from accused-appellant. 76 The confidential informant only facilitated the transaction and their presentation before the court is not indispensable because the testimony is merely corroborative. 77
Similarly, plaintiff-appellee says the prosecution sufficiently established all elements of illegal possession. 78 Accused-appellant was found is possession of a plastic bag of shabu. 79 The possession was not legally authorized and it shows that she freely and consciously possessed the drugs. 80
Plaintiff-appellee asserts that there is an unbroken chain of custody. 81 SPO1 Hamor and SPO2 Rodriguez testified that after they apprehended accused-appellant, they immediately marked, inventoried, and photographed the drugs at the place of arrest and in the presence of an elected official and media representative. 82 On the same day, they turned over the seized drugs to SPO1 Gagaza and later, they turned over the drugs to the crime laboratory. 83 After the laboratory examination, Forensic Chemist Bacani then submitted the drugs to the trial court. 84 These are supported by the Inventory Receipt, Chain of Custody Form, and the Turn Over of Confiscated/Seized Evidence. 85
Lastly, plaintiff-appellee claims that accused-appellant's defense of denial and frame up cannot prosper. 86 Accused-appellant, who bears the burden of showing irregularity in the conduct of the police officers, failed to offer any evidence in her favor. 87
The issue for this Court's resolution is whether or not accused-appellant Merlita Samson y Cruz is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale and illegal possession of drugs. Subsumed under this issue is whether or not the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved. AScHCD
I
The elements of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs are: (1) "the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration;" and (2) "the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefore." 88
In the crime of illegal sale of drugs, there must be a delivery of the drugs to the poseur-buyer and the seller's receipt of the marked money. 89 The prosecution must establish the consummation of the sale, together with the presentation of the drug in court as evidence. 90
On the other hand, the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs are: (1) "the actual possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug"; (2) "possession is not authorized by law"; and (3) "the accused freely or consciously possessed the . . . drug." 91
The mere possession of a prohibited drug creates a prima facie proof of knowledge of possession or animus possidendi. 92 Accused bears the burden to prove that they have no knowledge of the drug's possession. 93
The prosecution has established all elements of the crimes.
Anent the charge of sale of drugs, the identities of the buyer and seller were proven. In his testimony, SPO1 Hamor identified accused-appellant as the seller front whom he purchased approximately 100 grams of shabu. 94 Moreover, there was an actual sale when SPO1 Hamor handed to accused-appellant the marked money in exchange for the shabu. 95
Accused-appellant contends that the confidential informant is the actual buyer and not SPO1 Hamor, who merely delivered the money. 96 We disagree.
As ruled by the Court of Appeals, the confidential informant merely facilitated the transaction. 97 The informant was only instructed to contact accused-appellant and arrange the meet up, but eventually, it was SPO1 Hamor who transacted with accused-appellant. Moreover, the sale was consummated through SPO1 Hamor when he gave the money to accused-appellant and when he received the drugs from her. 98
The elements for possession of dangerous drugs were likewise established by the prosecution. Based on the testimony of SPO2 Rodriguez, after he arrested accused-appellant, he recovered from her another plastic bag containing approximately one kilogram of white crystalline substance, which was later confirmed to be shabu. 99 Accused-appellant's possession was not shown to be legal and she failed to dispute that she freely possessed the drugs. 100
II
In prosecution of drug cases, the corpus delicti is the dangerous drug itself. 101 The identity of the dangerous drug must be established to secure a conviction. 102 It is crucial that the drugs allegedly seized are the very same objects tested in the laboratory and later submitted in court. 103 This is because drugs are not easily distinguished. 104 In People v. Jaafar, we explained:
Narcotic substances are not readily identifiable. To determine their composition and nature, they must undergo scientific testing and analysis. Narcotic substances are also highly susceptible to alteration, tampering, or contamination. It is imperative, therefore, that the drugs allegedly seized from the accused are the very same objects tested in the laboratory and offered in court as evidence. The chain of custody, as a method of authentication, ensures that unnecessary doubts involving the identity of seized drugs are removed. 105 (Citations omitted)
To establish the identity of the drugs, the prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of custody. 106
Chain of custody is the "duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs . . . from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction." 107 The "record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition." 108
In Mallillin v. People, 109 this Court underscored the importance of compliance with this rule. Thus:
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. 110 (Citations omitted)
An unbroken chain of custody removes doubt on the identity of the evidence by tracing the movements of the seized drugs from the accused, to the police, to the forensic chemist, and to the court. 111
The chain of custody is comprised of four crucial links, to wit: (1) the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and (4), the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court. 112
The chain of custody requirement, which is further reflected in Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended, guarantees the integrity of the seized drugs. In People v. Holgado: 113
Compliance with the chain of custody requirement provided by Section 21, therefore, ensures the integrity of confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered drugs and/or drug paraphernalia in four (4) respects: first, the nature of the substances or items seized; second, the quantity (e.g., weight) of the substances or items seized; third, the relation of the substances or items seized to the incident allegedly causing their seizure; and fourth, the relation of the substances or items seized to the person/s alleged to have been in possession of or peddling them. Compliance with this requirement forecloses opportunities for planting, contaminating, or tampering of evidence in any manner. 114
Every link in the chain must be accounted for from the time it was seized from the accused until it is presented before the court. 115 Strict compliance with the chain of custody rule is even more demanded in cases where only a miniscule amount of drugs were allegedly seized from the accused. 116 We further explained in Holgado: AcICHD
While the miniscule amount of narcotics seized is by itself not a ground for acquittal, this circumstance underscores the need for more exacting compliance with Section 21. In [Mallillin] v. People, this court said that "the likelihood of tampering, loss or mistake with respect to an exhibit is greatest when the exhibit is small and is one that has physical characteristics fungible in nature and similar in form to substances familiar to people in their daily lives." 117 (Citation omitted)
Nevertheless, in other cases where strict compliance is impossible or impracticable, deviations may be excused as long as (1) there is justifiable ground and (2) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs are properly preserved. 118
In this case, there is an unbroken chain of custody.
Based on the prosecution's narration, after the sale was consummated, SPO2 Rodriguez approached accused-appellant and recovered from her the marked money and the drugs. 119 Immediately, SPO1 Hamor and SPO2 Rodriguez marked, inventoried, and photographed the seized drugs in the presence of witnesses Kagawad Santos and media representative Pelerio. 120
The first link is clearly established. The same goes for the second and third links.
As determined by the trial and appellate courts, SPO1 Hamor and SPO2 Rodriguez turned over the drugs to Forensic Chemist Bacani after the marking and inventory. 121 This is evidenced by the Request for Laboratory which identifies SPO1 Hamor and SPO2 Rodriguez as the officers who delivered the specimen to Forensic Chemist Bacani. 122 As stipulated by the parties before the trial court, Forensic Chemist Bacani conducted the laboratory examination and she later turned over the specimen to the court. 123
Thus, there is an unbroken chain of custody from the time of seizure of the drugs up until they were brought to the court. The strict conformity to the custody requirements removes any doubt as to the identity and evidentiary value of the seized items.
On the other hand, accused-appellant's unsubstantiated defense of denial and frame up fails against the overwhelming evidence of the prosecution. Her bare denial falters over the positive testimony of the prosecution's witnesses and evidence.
Having successfully established the elements of the crimes and the identity of the dangerous drugs, the conviction of the accused-appellant stands.
WHEREFORE, the Appeal is DISMISSED. The February 21, 2019 Decision of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CR-HC No. 10119 is AFFIRMED. Accused-appellant Merlita Samson y Cruz is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged against her.
In Criminal Case No. R-QZN-15-08798, she is sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment, and to pay a fine of P500,000.00.
In Criminal Case No. R-QZN-15-08799, she is sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment, and to pay a fine of P500,000.00.
SO ORDERED." (Rosario, J., designated additional Member per Special Order No. 2833.)
By authority of the Court:
MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) RUMAR D. PASIONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-10. The February 21, 2019 Decision was penned by Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser and concurred in by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Associate Justice Rafael Antonio M. Santos of the Court of Appeals Manila, Sixth Division.
2. CA rollo, pp. 46-59. The November 10, 2017 Decision in Criminal Case Nos. R-QZN-15-08798-CR and R-QZN-15-08799-CR was penned by Presiding Judge Alfonso C. Ruiz II of the Regional Trial Court Branch 216, Quezon City.
3.Rollo, p. 4.
4.Id.
5.Id.
6.Id.
7. CA rollo, p. 46.
8.Id.
9.Rollo, p. 5.
10.Id.
11.Id.
12.Id.
13.Id.
14.Id.
15.Id.
16.Id.
17.Id.
18.Id.
19.Id. at 6.
20. CA rollo, p. 49.
21.Id. at 55.
22.Id. at 49.
23.Id.
24.Rollo, p. 6.
25.Id.
26.Id.
27.Id.
28.Id.
29. CA rollo, pp. 46-59.
30.Id. at 58.
31.Id. at 51-52.
32.Id. at 51.
33.Id.
34.Id.
35.Id. at 52.
36.Id. at 53.
37.Id.
38.Id. at 55.
39.Id.
40.Id.
41.Id. at 57.
42.Id.
43.Id.
44.Rollo, p. 8.
45.Id.
46.Id. at 3-10.
47.Id. at 10.
48.Id. at 8.
49.Id.
50.Id. at 9.
51.Id.
52.Id.
53.Id.
54.Id. at 9-10.
55.Id. at 11.
56.Id. at 16.
57.Id. at 19, 25.
58. CA rollo, pp. 30-43.
59.Id. at 34-37.
60.Id.
61.Id. at 37.
62.Id. at 38.
63.Id. at 38-39.
64.Id. at 39.
65.Id.
66.Id.
67.Id. at 40.
68.Id.
69.Id. at 40-41.
70.Id. at 69-100.
71.Id. at 78.
72.Id. at 79.
73.Id. at 80-85.
74.Id. at 84.
75.Id.
76.Id.
77.Id. at 86.
78.Id. at 87.
79.Id. at 88.
80.Id. at 89.
81.Id.
82.Id. at 91.
83.Id.
84.Id.
85.Id.
86.Id. at 94.
87.Id.
88.People v. Sanchez, 828 Phil. 242, 254 (2018) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
89.People v. Hong Yen E and Tsien Tsien Chua, 701 Phil. 280, 285 (2013) [Per J. Abad, Third Division].
90.People v. Meneses y Cano, G.R. No. 233533, June 30, 2020 <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/66228> [Per C.J. Peralta, First Division].
91.People v. Sanchez, 828 Phil. 212, 254-255 (2018) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
92.People v. Eda, 793 Phil. 885, 898 (2016) [Per J. Peralta, Third Division].
93.Id.
94. CA rollo, p. 51.
95.Id. at 51-52.
96.Id. at 34-37.
97.Rollo, p. 8.
98.Id. at 8-9.
99.Id. at 53.
100.Id.
101.People v. Jaafar, 803 Phil. 582 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
102.Id.
103.Id.
104.Id.
105.Id. at 591.
106.Id.
107. Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, series of 2002, Sec. 1 (b).
108. Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 01-02, Sec. 1 (b).
109. 576 Phil. 576-594 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
110.Id. at 587.
111.People v. Garcia, 599 Phil. 416, 434 (2009) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
112.People v. Nandi, 639 Phil. 134, 144-145 (2010) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].
113. 741 Phil. 78-101 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
114.Id. at 93.
115.People v. Saragena, 817 Phil. 117, 146 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
116.People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78-101 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
117.Id. at 99.
118.People v. Abdulah, G.R. No. 243941, March 11, 2020 <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/66117> [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
119. CA rollo, p. 48.
120.Id.
121.Id. at 55, 110.
122.Id. at 110.
123.Id. at 111.