FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 252892. July 28, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.ANTONIO SANTIAGO y PONCE, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated July 28, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 252892 (People of the Philippines v. Antonio Santiago y Ponce)
We acquit.
In drug related cases, the State bears the burden not only of proving the elements of the offense but also the corpus delicti itself. 1 The dangerous drug seized from an accused constitutes such corpus delicti. It is, thus, imperative for the prosecution to establish that the identity and integrity of the dangerous drug were duly preserved in order to sustain a verdict of conviction. 2 It must prove that the dangerous drug seized from the accused is indeed the substance offered in court with the same unshakeable accuracy as that required to sustain a finding of guilt. 3
Appellant was arrested on June 19, 2016 and subsequently charged with violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165. Thus, the applicable law is RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640. Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended, prescribes the standard in preserving the corpus delicti in illegal drug cases, viz.:
xxx xxx xxx
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 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." (emphases supplied)
xxx xxx xxx
The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 further mandates: CAIHTE
Section 21. x x x
(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: x x x Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements underjustifiable 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; (emphases and underscoring supplied)
xxx xxx xxx
It is essential that the identity of the seized drug be established with moral certainty. In order to obviate any unnecessary doubts on such identity, the prosecution must show an unbroken chain of custody. 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. 4
The prosecution must, thus, account for each link in its chain of custody: 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. 5
The chain of custody rule emerged as a potent safeguard against any possible tampering, alteration, or substitution, either by accident or otherwise, the usually indistinct and not readily identifiable form of illegal drugs. 6
Here, there is glaring evidence of the multiple violations of the chain of custody, thus, raising serious doubt on the identity and evidentiary value of the confiscated drugs that were presented in evidence:
The first link refers to the seizure and marking which must be done immediately at the place of the arrest. It includes the physical inventory and taking of photograph of the seized items which should be done in the presence of the accused or his/her representative or counsel, together with an elected public official, a representative from the media, and a representative from the DOJ. The presence of these insulating witnesses is vital as it forecloses the pernicious practice of planting of evidence. 7
Here, the first link of the chain of custody had been breached early on.
The prosecution established that the seized items were marked immediately at the place of arrest. After marking, the arresting team proceeded to the police station for the inventory. The inventory was done in the presence of appellant and Barangay Tanod Team Leader Lauro Rosales. A representative from the National Prosecution Service (NPS) or media, however, was conspicuously absent during the inventory. The prosecution did not even acknowledge that the arresting officers were not able to secure the attendance of these witnesses as required by RA 9165.
It bears emphasis that the absence of a NPS or media representative does not per se render the confiscated items inadmissible. However, a justifiable reason for such failure or a showing of any genuine and sufficient effort to secure the required witnesses under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 must be adduced. 8 Even a general statement that a witness is not available would not suffice. People vs. Rodriguez9 elucidates:
In People v. Lim, the Court emphasized the importance of the presence of the three insulating witnesses during the physical inventory and the photograph of the seized items. And in case of their absence, the Court ruled that the prosecution must allege and prove the reasons for their absence and convince the Court that earnest efforts were made to secure their attendance. The Court explained —
Earnest effort to secure the attendance of the necessary witnesses must be proven. People v. Ramos requires:
It is well to note that the absence of these required witnesses does not per se render the confiscated items inadmissible. However, a justifiable reason for such failure or a showing of any genuine and sufficient effort to secure the required witnesses under Section 21 of RA 9165 must be adduced. In People v. Umipang, the Court held that the prosecution must show that earnest efforts were employed in contacting the representatives enumerated under the law for 'a sheer statement that representatives were unavailable without so much as an explanation on whether serious attempts were employed to look for other representatives, given the circumstances is to be regarded as a flimsy excuse.' Verily, mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses are unacceptable as justified grounds for noncompliance. These considerations arise from the fact that police officers are ordinarily given sufficient time — beginning from the moment they have received the information about the activities of the accused until the time of his arrest — to prepare for a buy-bust operation and consequently, make the necessary arrangements beforehand knowing full well that they would have to strictly comply with the set procedure prescribed in Section 21 of RA 9165. As such, police officers are compelled not only to state reasons for their non-compliance, but must in fact, also convince the Court that they exerted earnest efforts to comply with the mandated procedure, and that under the given circumstances, their actions were reasonable.
Here, the prosecution did not even acknowledge the absence of the required insulating witnesses, nay, even attempted to offer a justifiable reason why the presence of a representative from the NPS or media was not secured for the purpose of witnessing the inventory of the seized drugs. With more reason that it should not be expected for the prosecution to specify the earnest efforts exerted to secure such presence, as there would surely be none to offer.
To make matters worse, the only witness present during the inventory was not even qualified to act as such. Section 21 requires the attendance of an elected public official during the inventory of the seized drugs. Here, only a barangay tanod witnessed the inventory. The Court held in People vs. Miranda10 that a barangay tanod is not an elected public official. The presence of barangay tanod Rosales, therefore, does not satisfy the requirement in Section 21 on the presence of insulating witnesses.
Another irregularity in the first link of the chain of custody lies in the execution of the certificate of inventory.
Section 21 of RA 9165 requires that the copies of the inventory should be signed by all of the following persons: (a) accused or his/her representative or counsel, (b) an elected public official, (c) a representative from the media, and (d) a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ). 11
Record bears the Inventory of Seized Properties/Items 12 which was not signed by appellant or by his counsel or representative. The prosecution failed to acknowledge the defect, much less, provided a justification why appellant was not able to sign the same. Concededly, Section 21 of the IRR of RA 9165 provides 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. For this provision to be effective, however, the prosecution must first (1) recognize any lapse on the part of the police officers and (2) be able to justify the same. 13 As stated, however, the prosecution failed to even recognize the procedural lapse committed by the police officers in not making appellant sign the inventory and failed even more so in not offering a justifiable ground for appellant's failure to sign the same. This procedural infirmity, sans any valid explanation from the prosecution militates against a finding of guilt against appellant as the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti would have been compromised. 14
As for the third and fourth links, the prosecution and defense stipulated on the respective proposed testimonies of the officer who received the items at the crime laboratory and the forensic chemist who did the chemical examination on them. Case law requires that the stipulation on the proposed testimonies of these witnesses must contain vital pieces of information that satisfies the requirement of the chain of custody rule. People v. Miranda explains: DETACa
xxx xxx xxx
In People v. Pajarin, the Court ruled that in case of a stipulation by the parties to dispense with the attendance and testimony of the forensic chemist, it should be stipulated that the forensic chemist would have testified that he had taken the precautionary steps required to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item, thus: (1) that the forensic chemist received the seized article as marked, properly sealed, and intact; (2) that he resealed it after examination of the content; and (3) that he placed his own marking on the same to ensure that it could not be tampered with pending trial. (Emphasis supplied)
Here, the parties' stipulation to dispense with the testimony of the forensic chemist did not contain the vital pieces of information required in Cabuhay: i.e., Insp. Mangalip received the seized drugs as marked, properly sealed, and intact; Insp. Mangalip resealed the drug items after examination of the content; and, Insp. Mangalip placed his own marking on the drug items — thus leaving a huge gap in the chain of custody of the seized drugs. People v. Ubungen emphasized that stipulation on the testimony of a forensic chemist should cover the management, storage, and preservation of the seized drugs. 15
xxx xxx xxx
Here, the parties' stipulation with regard to the testimonies of Police Officer 1 Reynaldo Wanawan (PO1 Wanawan) and forensic chemist PCI Lourdeliza Cejes (PCI Cejes) merely covered the following details: (1) turnover of the seized drugs by PO3 Diego and receipt thereof by PO1 Wanawan; (2) after receipt, PO1 Wanawan turned over the specimen to PCI Cejes for examination; (3) PCI Cejes conducted an examination of the specimen; (4) the result of the examination was reduced into writing in Chemistry Report No. D-0461-16; and (5) PCI Cejes signed the Chain of Custody Form. The stipulations did not cover any vital piece of information pertaining to the management, storage, and preservation of the illicit drugs when they came into the hands of the forensic chemist until their presentation in court. It has been held that absent any testimony regarding the management, storage, and preservation of the illegal drug allegedly seized after its qualitative examination, the fourth link in the chain of custody of the said illegal drug could not be reasonably established. 16
It was also not established during trial who brought the items to court for presentation in evidence as the stipulations did not cover this equally important detail. The Court held in People v. Alboka17 that the prosecution's failure to show who brought the seized items before the trial court was considered a serious breach of the chain-of-custody rule.
The Court, however, clarified that under varied field conditions, strict compliance with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 may not always be possible. 18 In fact, the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 offers a saving clause allowing leniency whenever justifiable grounds exist which warrant deviation from established protocol so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. 19
The saving clause cannot, however, come into play here. For the prosecution failed to recognize the procedural missteps committed by the police officers involved in the chain of custody nor attempted to even offer reasonable justifications for such lapses. To repeat, the prosecution did not acknowledge that the police officers failed to secure the attendance of a NPS or media representative during the inventory, nor was appellant made to sign or acknowledge the certificate of inventory. Worse, there was no justification offered at all for such failure. Too, it was not concretely established how the seized drugs were preserved by the officer who received them at the crime laboratory, how the forensic chemist managed, stored, and preserved the seized drugs after examination and before their presentation in court, and who brought the seized items to the trial court for presentation in evidence. In fine, the prosecution's failure to prove with resolute accuracy that the dangerous drugs presented in court as evidence against appellant were those actually seized from him, and the justifiable ground for noncompliance with Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165, heavily weigh against a finding that the guilt of appellant was proven beyond reasonable doubt. 20
The Court notes that the amounts of drugs involved here are miniscule, i.e., 0.06 and 0.08 gram, respectively. In Lescano vs. People, 21 the court reminded that the law enforcers should not trifle with the legal requirement to ensure integrity in the chain of custody of seized dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia. This is especially true when only a miniscule amount of dangerous drugs is alleged to have been taken from the accused, thus, can be readily planted and tampered.
In People vs. Marcelo, 22 a case involving only 0.02 and 0.03 gram of shabu allegedly sold by appellant, it was held that "the Court cannot simply overlook the procedural lapses committed by the police officers. Current jurisprudence has highlighted the need to ensure the integrity of seized drugs in the chain of custody when only a minuscule amount had been allegedly seized from the accused."
Suffice it to state that the presumption of regularity of performance of official duty cannot apply as it stands only when no reason exists in the records by which to doubt the regularity of the performance of official duty. 23 The presumption cannot substitute for compliance and mend the broken links. For it is a mere disputable presumption that cannot prevail over clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. And here, the presumption was sufficiently overturned by compelling evidence on record of the breach of the chain of custody rule. 24
A final word. The burden of proving the guilt of an accused rests on the prosecution, which must rely on the strength of its own evidence and not on the weakness of the defense. When moral certainty as to culpability hangs in the balance, acquittal on reasonable doubt becomes a matter of right, irrespective of the reputation of the accused who enjoys the right to be presumed innocent until the contrary is shown. 25
ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated February 28, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC 08826, is REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. Appellant Antonio Santiago y Ponce is ACQUITTED of violations of Section 5 and Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended, in Criminal Case No. 799-V-16 and Criminal Case No. 800-V-16, respectively. The Court further DIRECTS the Director of the Bureau of Corrections: a) to cause the immediate release of Antonio Santiago y Ponce from custody unless he is being held for some other lawful cause; and b) to inform the Court of the action taken within five (5) days from notice. aDSIHc
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. See People v. Calates, 829 Phil. 262, 269 (2018).
2. See Calahi v. People, 820 Phil. 886, 894 (2017), citing People v. Casacop, 778 Phil. 369 (2016) and Zafra v. People, 820 Phil. 886 (2012).
3. Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document. Missing Footnote Text.
4. See People vs. Ching, 819 Phil. 565, 576 (2017).
5.People v. Plaza, 878 SCRA 231, 248 (2018).
6.People v. Dizon, G.R. No. 223562, September 4, 2019.
7. See People v. Luna, 828 Phil. 671, 688-689 (2018).
8. See People v. Gamboa, 833 Phil. 1055, 1071 (2018).
9. G.R. No. 213760, July 1, 2019.
10. G.R. No. 218126, July 10, 2019.
11. See People vs. Manabat, G.R. No. 242947, July 17, 2019.
12. Record, p. 13.
13.Id. at 14.
14.Id. at 15.
15.People vs. Danilo Miranda, G.R. 218126, July 10, 2019 (citations omitted).
16.Rollo, p. 14.
17. See 826 Phil. 487, 508 (2018).
18. See People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214, 234 (2008).
19.Rollo, p. 14.
20. See People v. Ferrer, 832 Phil. 527, 548-549 (2018).
21. See 778 Phil. 460.
22. G.R. No. 228893, November 26, 2018.
23. See People v. Luna, supra note 7.
24. See People v. Martin, G.R. No. 231007, July 1, 2019.
25.Id. at 20.