THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 239789. August 28, 2019.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. MERLINDA SOLIS-MONTENEGRO A.K.A. "LINDA SOLIS y ONRUBIA", appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 28, 2019, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 239789 (People of the Philippines vs. Merlinda Solis-Montenegro a.k.a. "Linda Solis y Onrubia"). — This is an appeal filed by Merlinda Solis-Montenegro a.k.a. Linda Solis 1 dated February 21, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08317, which affirmed the Judgment 2 dated May 19, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 79, in Criminal Case No. R-QZN-15-09887-CR, finding her guilty of illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
Appellant was charged in an Information with violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. No. 9165), otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, the inculpatory portion of which reads:
That on or about the 18th day of October 2015, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, without lawful authority, did then and there willfully, unlawfully sell, trade, administer, disperse, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport or act as broker in the said transaction, a dangerous drug, to wit: zero point zero seven (0.07) gram of white crystalline substance containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 3
On November 6, 2015, appellant, with the assistance of counsel, was arraigned, and pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.
Pre-trial ensued. Thereafter, trial on the merits commenced.
The prosecution presented Senior Police Officer 2 Corina Angeles (SPO2 Angeles) to prove the indictment of the appellant. It dispensed with the presentation of Police Chief Inspector Anamelisa Bacani (PCI Bacani) and Police Officer 1 Ricardo Sibayan (PO1 Sibayan) because both the prosecution and the defense had agreed to stipulate on their testimonies.
On the testimony of PCI Bacani, the parties stipulated as follows:
1. PCI Anamelisa Bacani is the Chief of the Chemistry Division of the Quezon City Police District Police Station 10, Crime Laboratory Office, EDSA, Kamuning, Quezon City;
2. On October 19, 2015, she received a Request for Laboratory Examination from SPO2 Corina Angeles, together with one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance, with markings "CA-LOS 10-19-15";
3. Upon receiving the request, she conducted a qualitative examination on the submitted specimen, and she found that they were POSITIVE for the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug;
4. She issued Initial Laboratory Report No. D-922-15, and Chemistry Report No. D-922-15;
5. After her examination, she sealed the specimen with a masking tape, placed her markings "D-922-15 'A' ASB," and placed the specimen in a bigger plastic sachet, sealed it with a masking tape, placed her markings "D-922-15 19 October 2015 ASB," and then she turned over the specimen to the evidence custodian, PO1 Junia Tuccad;
6. Pursuant to the subpoena issued by the Court, she retrieved from the evidence custodian, the bigger plastic sachet containing the specimen on December 7, 2015, for its presentation to the Court;
7. When opened in court, the bigger plastic sachet contained one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance with markings "CA-LOS 10-19-15," "D922-15 'A' ASB";
8. She can identify the specimen subject of her examination;
9. She has no personal knowledge as to the facts and circumstances of the arrest of the accused; and
10. She has no personal knowledge as to the source of the specimen turned over to her for examination. 4
On the testimony of PO1 Sibayan, the parties admitted the following stipulations, viz.:
1. PO1 Ricardo Sibayan, Jr. was the investigator who conducted an investigation of the case;
2. In the course of his investigation, SPO2 Corina Angeles presented to him, one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance, with markings "CA-LOS 10-18-15";
3. He prepared the following documents:
a. Referral Letter
b. Affidavit of Arrest
c. Coordination Form
d. Pre-Operation Report
e. Request for Laboratory Examination
f. Request for Physical Examination
g. Chain of Custody Form
h. Inventory Report
4. He took photographs of the accused, the buy-bust money, as well as, the specimen subject of the case;
5. He can identify the specimen, the accused, as well as, the specimen subject of his investigation;
6. He has no personal knowledge as to the facts and circumstances surrounding the arrest of the accused; and
7. He has no personal knowledge as to the source of the specimen turned over to him for investigation. 5
Evidence for the Prosecution
SPO2 Angeles testified that she has been a police officer for 15 years. On October 18, 2015, she was assigned to the Regional Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Group of Camp Bagong Diwa in Bicutan. On the same day, she was at the office when a confidential informant (CI) arrived and reported that a certain Linda, a.k.a. Mae Ann and Novie, was involved in an illegal drug activity somewhere along Isarog Street, Barangay La Loma, Quezon City.
SPO2 Angeles relayed the tip to their Chief, PCI Roberto Razon, Sr. (PCI Razon), who instructed them to prepare a Coordination Form 6 and Pre-Operation Report 7 for the conduct of a buy-bust operation. PCI Razon designated SPO2 Angeles as the poseur-buyer, and PO2 Jeffrey Dela Puerta and PO3 Joel Manaol (PO3 Manaol) as the back-up officers.
The team coordinated the Pre-Operation Report and Coordination Form with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). Thereafter, they prepared the buy-bust money consisting of two (2) pieces of One Hundred Peso (PhP100.00) bill. At around 11:30 p.m., the team, along with the CI, went to No. 17 Isarog Street, Barangay La Loma, Quezon City. Upon arrival at the area of operation, the CI sent a text message to alias Mae Ann. Shortly thereafter, appellant came out from her house. The CI introduced SPO2 Angeles to appellant as the buyer of shabu, saying, "Siya 'yung bibili ng item natin." 8 SPO2 Angeles handed the buy-bust money to appellant, who, in return, gave her a plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance.
As the pre-arranged signal, SPO2 Angeles called PO3 Manaol. The back-up officers immediately rushed to the area to arrest appellant. SPO2 Angeles confiscated from appellant's right hand the buy-bust money.
Further, SPO2 Angeles testified that, since typhoon Lando was raging at the time of the buy-bust operation, the team immediately brought appellant to the police station. She kept the plastic sachet in her possession while they were traveling to the police station. Upon arrival thereat, she placed her markings "CA-LOS 10-18-15" on the plastic sachet. Subsequently, PO1 Sibayan, the police officer on duty, prepared the Chain of Custody Form which was signed by SPO2 Angeles and PCI Bacani. 9 PO1 Sibayan also prepared an Inventory Report. 10 SPO2 Angeles clearly testified that the inventory was not conducted at the place of arrest because of the heavy rainfall caused by typhoon Lando at the time of the operation. Further, she admitted that because of the typhoon, they were not able to contact any representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), the media, or any elective official, who could witness the inventory. PO1 Sibayan also took photographs at the police station. Afterwards, they delivered the plastic sachet to the Crime Laboratory Office.
In connection with the arrest of appellant, SPO2 Angeles executed an Affidavit of Arrest. 11 She also identified appellant in open court, as well as the confiscated plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance with marking "CA-LOS 10-18-15." 12
On cross-examination, SPO2 Angeles testified that they did not exert efforts to conduct any prior surveillance, and that they immediately conducted a buy-bust operation against appellant, based only on the tip given to them by the CI. The CI accompanied and introduced her to appellant. SPO2 Angeles heard the CI telling appellant that someone wanted to buy drugs; and appellant offered to sell. After the buy-bust operation, the team immediately arrested appellant, who was informed of her constitutional rights. The Inventory Receipt and the Chain of Custody Form showed that the purchased drugs during the buy-bust operation were the same drugs brought to the police station. No elective official, any representative from the DOJ or the media witnessed the inventory. The Inventory Receipt contained only her name, but without her signature. There were no other witnesses to the inventory. The Pre-Operation Report stated three (3) names, one of which was appellant's name.
Evidence for the Defense
Appellant took the witness stand and testified that, on October 18, 2015, at around 9:00 p.m., she was taking care of her two (2) grandchildren when two (2) men suddenly opened the door of her house and barged in. Another man entered the house. Then, the three (3) men introduced themselves as police officers and proceeded to search the house. Inside the house were her two (2) children, a 27-year-old tricycle driver and a 22-year-old working student. The policemen pointed a gun at her son, Jomer. Appellant pleaded for the policemen not to disturb her son, but the plea was unheeded. The policemen searched Jomer's bag, but they did not find anything except his identification cards. They coerced Jomer to go with them. She told the policemen that Jomer was still a student, and thereafter, she decided to go with them instead of Jomer. She was brought outside of her house, and saw several vehicles in the area.
Appellant boarded one of the vehicles, and the policemen drove around for a while. Thereafter, the policemen drove to Maria Clara corner Mayon Street where they parked their vehicle. They lingered in the area for about an hour and, thereafter, she remembered that they went for a long drive. It turned out that she was brought to Camp Bagong Diwa in Bicutan. She was led inside a room where she stayed for a night. The following night, the policemen made her sit in front of a table, on top of which, she saw what appeared to be shabu. She did not know where the shabu came from, but she saw the policemen place it on top of the table. She was familiar with how shabu looked like because she had seen it in the news. She did not know anything about the charge against her; and that at the time of her arrest, she was helping her sister sell handicrafts.
Jomer, on the other hand, testified that, on October 18, 2015, at around 9:00 p.m., he just came home from school. He was resting with his mother (herein appellant), together with his girlfriend, and two (2) other brothers, when the policemen in plain clothes kicked the door of their house and barged in. One of the policemen, who was holding a gun, told them not to move. He tried to stand up, but the policemen poked a gun at him. The policemen talked to appellant, but he could not hear the conversation between them as he was in shock at that time, until he heard one of the policemen asking appellant to admit something. Appellant did not admit anything. Subsequently, the policemen brought appellant outside of their house and tried to handcuff her. He and his siblings pleaded to the policemen not to handcuff their mother. However, after appellant was brought outside of their house, Jomer no longer knew what happened to her. Also, Jomer said that the charge against his mother, i.e., illegal selling of drug, was untrue; and that at the time she was arrested, appellant had just finished cooking and was getting some rest.
Ruling of the RTC
On May 19, 2016, the RTC issued a Judgment, 13 the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused MERLINDA SOLIS-MONTENEGRO, GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of violation of Sec. 5, Art. II, of Republic Act 9165, and she is hereby sentenced to suffer life imprisonment, and to pay a fine of five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00).
The Branch Clerk of Court is directed to immediately turn over to the Chief of PDEA Crime Laboratory, the drug evidence in this case covered by Chemistry Report No. D-922-15, 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. 14 (Emphases in the original)
The RTC found that the prosecution was able to prove all the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. It held that the prosecution established that, on October 18, 2015, after coordinating with the PDEA, a valid buy-bust operation was conducted by SPO2 Angeles' team. It was further established that during the buy-bust operation, SPO2 Angeles purchased 0.07 gram of shabu from appellant in consideration of P200.00. SPO2 Angeles received a plastic sachet containing shabu from appellant after she gave appellant the marked buy-bust money, 15 and she positively identified appellant as the seller of shabu. 16 The prosecution likewise established the identity of the corpus delicti, and the fact that its integrity had been preserved. SPO2 Angeles positively identified the plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance with markings "CA-LOS 10-18-15" 17 as the one bought from appellant during the buy-bust operation. 18
Further, the RTC ruled that the failure of the arresting team to immediately mark and conduct an inventory of the subject drug at the place of arrest, and the absence of a representative from the media, DOJ, and a local elective official during the inventory, did not weaken the case of the prosecution. 19 The RTC ratiocinated that non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, particularly the marking, inventory, and the photography of the drugs confiscated and/or seized, would not render the drugs inadmissible in evidence. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. 20 The RTC reiterated that the integrity of the drug sold by appellant had been preserved.
Ruling of the CA
On February 21, 2018, the CA rendered the assailed Decision 21 which denied appellant's appeal and affirmed the RTC Decision.
Before the CA, appellant questioned her conviction contending that the police officers did not comply with the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 when they failed to immediately mark, inventory, and photograph the seized specimen at the place of arrest, and that the chain of custody was not established since the evidence custodian, PO1 Junia Tuccad (PO1 Tuccad), was not presented in court.
After considering the parties' submissions, the CA found untenable appellant's contention that the prosecution failed to prove the identity and integrity of the seized prohibited drug, since the provision of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was not strictly complied with. 22 The CA held that, in a number of cases, there is an implied judicial recognition of the difficulty of complete compliance with the chain of custody requirement; hence, substantial compliance is sufficient as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item are properly preserved by the apprehending officers. 23 Further, the CA ruled that appellant failed to present clear and convincing evidence to overturn the presumption that the buy-bust team regularly performed their duties; that she did not ascribe any improper motive on the part of the police officers to falsely accuse her of selling shabu that would cause her to be imprisoned for life. 24
Hence, this appeal.
Appellant claims that the police officers failed to properly mark, conduct an inventory, and take photographs of the seized plastic sachet containing shabu, in accordance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. In other words, the police officers completely failed to comply with the post-seizure requirements in accordance with the law.
Further, appellant maintains that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt an unbroken chain of custody because of its failure to present all the persons who handled and had custody of the plastic sachet containing shabu. The prosecution failed to present PO1 Tuccad as a witness considering that his testimony was indispensable in the determination of appellant's guilt because the seized item was in his sole custody and control for more than one (1) month.
Moreover, appellant avers that the saving clause provided under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 cannot be applied in the absence of any reasonable justification for the failure of the police officers to comply with the post-seizure requirements and preserve the identity of the seized item. Lastly, appellant claims that she had duly overcome the presumption of regularity in the exercise of the official duties granted in favor of the police officers.
Our Ruling
We find merit in the appeal.
In the instant case, appellant was charged with the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, as defined and penalized under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
To secure a conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the prosecution must establish the following elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and its consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. 25 What is important is that the sale of drugs actually took place, and that the object of the sale is properly presented as evidence in court and is shown to be the same drugs seized from the accused. 26
The dangerous drug seized from the accused constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense. Hence, it is of utmost importance that the integrity and identity of the seized drug must be shown to have been duly preserved. 27 Corollarily, the chain of custody rule performs the function of ensuring that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are minimized, if not altogether removed. 28
In other words, because the dangerous drug itself forms an integral and key part of the corpus delicti of the crime; it is, therefore, essential that the identity of the prohibited drugs be established beyond reasonable doubt. 29 The prosecution must be able to account for each link in the chain of custody over the dangerous drugs, from the moment they were seized from the accused up to the time they were presented in court as proof of the corpus delicti. 30
By definition, Section 1 (b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002 provides that:
b. "Chain of custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plants sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment at each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such 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 w[as] made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition[.] 31
The prosecution must identify the persons involved in handling the seized articles from confiscation up to their presentation as evidence. 32 Likewise, the prosecution should offer statements pertaining to each link of the chain "in such a way that every person who touched the illegal drugs would describe how and from whom they were received, where they were and what happened to them while in his or her possession, the condition in which he or she received them, and their condition upon delivery." 33
In People vs. Cervantes, 34 the Court ratiocinated further on the custodial chain process in this wise:
As a mode 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. In context, this would ideally include testimony about every link in the chain, from the seizure of the prohibited drug up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that everyone 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. 35 (Citation omitted)
Section 21 (1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 outlines the procedure on the chain of custody of confiscated, seized, or surrendered dangerous drugs, viz.:
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 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[.]
On the other hand, Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) 36 of R.A. No. 9165 provides the details as to the place of the inventory and photographing of the seized items, and includes therein a saving clause in case of non-compliance thereof, to wit:
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:
(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[.]
On July 15, 2014, R.A. No. 10640 was approved, amending Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, 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 person/s 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.
xxx xxx xxx
(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued immediately upon the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not allow the completion of testing within the time frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided, however, That a final certification shall be issued immediately upon completion of the said examination and certification[.]
The above provisions laid down the requirements in handling the seized dangerous drug, i.e., the physical inventory, photographing and signing of the same, as well as the time, the witnesses, and the place where the inventory and photographing should be done, after the arrest of the accused and seizure or confiscation of the dangerous drugs, thus:
(i) The initial custody requirements must be done immediately after seizure or confiscation;
(ii) The physical inventory and photographing must be done in the presence of the following persons, who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof:
a. the accused or his representative or counsel;
b. elected public official; and
c. representative of the National Prosecution Service (NPS) or media; and
(iii) The conduct of the physical inventory and photograph shall be done at the:
a. place where the search warrant is served; or
b. nearest police station; or
c. nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizure.
In the instant case, there is a judicial admission on the part of SPO2 Angeles that the marking of the seized dangerous drug did not happen at the place of arrest but at the police station; 37 that no elected public official and representative of the NPS or media were present to witness the physical inventory and photographing of the seized dangerous drug. 38 SPO2 Angeles further testified that the Inventory Receipt 39 only contains her name, but without her signature. 40
There is no question that non-compliance with the prescribed procedural requirements will not automatically render the seizure and custody of the items void and invalid. 41 However, this is true only when (a) there is a justifiable ground for the non-compliance, and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. 42 In other words, divergence from the prescribed procedure which has been fully justified should not affect the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated items. 43
As a general rule, in the conduct of anti-illegal drugs operations, all operations must be preceded by adequate planning and preparation to ensure the successful prosecution of cases, observance of the rights of suspects, safety of operating elements, and the security and integrity of seized items/evidence. 44 In this case, the only justification SPO2 Angeles offered for the non-compliance with the prescribed procedural requirements, during the October 18, 2015 buy-bust operation, is the heavy rainfall caused by typhoon Lando. 45 However, as early as October 15, 2015, there was already a weather forecast which has been disseminated by the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council through SMS, facsimile, websites, and media briefings. 46 Clearly, the team must have been aware of the impending typhoon, and it should have taken into consideration of the same in the planning and preparation of the buy-bust operation.
To the mind of the Court, the impending typhoon is not a sufficient explanation or justification on record as to excuse the absence of the required witnesses under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640.
To emphasize, the presence of third-party representatives during the seizure and inventory of the dangerous articles in the place of operation is supposedly to guarantee "against planting of evidence and frame up." 47 In other words, they are "necessary to insulate the apprehension and incrimination proceedings from any taint of illegitimacy or irregularity." 48
The Court has enumerated instances that may justify the absence of the required witnesses, as follows:
(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. 49 (Emphasis supplied)
Moreover, the marking of the seized drugs or other related items should have been done immediately after they were seized from appellant. 50 As held in People vs. Salonga, 51 "marking after seizure is the starting point in thecustodial link, thus it is vital that the seized contrabands are immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. The marking of the evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of criminal proceedings, obviating switching, planting, or contamination of evidence." 52
To underscore, the State has the responsibility to explain the lapses in the procedures taken to preserve the chain of custody of the dangerous drugs. In the absence of this explanation by the State, the evidence of the corpus delicti becomes unreliable, and calls for the acquittal of the accused on the ground that his guilt had not been shown beyond reasonable doubt. 53
All told, without the justification offered by the police officers for their non-compliance with the requirement of an unbridled chain of custody, the trial court and the CA erred in convicting appellant. To allow the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions by the police officers to prevail, notwithstanding the clear lapses on their part, is to negate the safeguards precisely placed by the law to ensure that no abuse is committed. 54 The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, as relied upon by the CA in its assailed Decision, 55 "stands only when no reason exists in the records by which to doubt the regularity of the performance of official duty. And even in that instance the presumption of regularity will not be stronger than the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused."56
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated February 21, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08317 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant Merlinda Solis-Montenegro a.k.a. Linda Solis is accordingly ACQUITTED of the charge of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 for failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ORDERED to immediately cause the release of appellant from detention, unless she is being held for some other lawful cause, and to inform this Court of his action hereon within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution. Let an entry of final judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED." (Hernando, J., on leave)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
* A.k.a. Mae Ann and Novie; rollo, p. 2.
1. CA Rollo, pp. 90-98; penned by Associate Justice Victoria Isabel A. Paredes, and concurred in by Associate Justices Mario V. Lopez and Ronaldo B. Martin.
2. Records, pp. 161-167; penned by Presiding Judge Nadine Jessica Corazon J. Fama.
3.Id. at 1.
4.Id. at 161-162.
5.Id. at 169.
6. Records, p. 10; Exhibit "C."
7.Id. at 11, Exhibit "D."
8.Rollo, p. 65.
9.Id. at 18, Exhibit "G."
10.Id. at 19, Exhibit "H."
11.Id. at 8-9, Exhibit "B."
12. Exhibit "N-1."
13. Records, pp. 161-167.
14.Id. at 167.
15. TSN, December 14, 2015, pp. 5-6.
16.Id. at 6.
17.Supra note 12.
18.Supra notes 15, at 8.
19.Supra note 13, at 166.
20.Id.
21. CA Rollo, pp. 90-98.
22.Id. at 94.
23.Id. at 95-96.
24.Id. at 97.
25.People vs. Hilario, et al., G.R. No. 210610, January 11, 2018, citing People vs. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 29 (2017).
26.Id.
27.People vs. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 29 (2017).
28.People vs. Adrid, 705 Phil. 654, 670-671 (2013).
29.Id. at 670.
30.People vs. Del Rosario, 700 Phil. 435, 445 (2012).
31.Guidelines on the Custody and Disposition of Seized Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, and Laboratory Equipment, DDB Board Resolution No. 1, Series of 2002 https://wwwddb.gov.ph/images/Board_Regulation/2002/Bd.%20Reg.%201%2002.pdf, (visited August 8, 2019).
32.People vs. Sagana, G.R. No. 208471, August 2, 2017, citing People vs. Goco, 797 Phil. 433, 444 (2016).
33.Id.
34. 600 Phil. 819 (2009).
35.Id. at 836.
36. Dated August 30, 2002.
37. TSN, December 15, 2015, pp. 3-4; TSN, February 19, 2016, p. 6.
38. TSN, February 19, 2016, pp. 7-8.
39.Supra note 10.
40.Supra note 38.
41.People vs. Martinez, et al., 652 Phil. 347, 372 (2010).
42.Id.
43. See People vs. Viterbo, et al., 739 Phil. 593, 603 (2014).
44. Planning and Preparation, Sections 2-4, Revised PNP Manual on Anti-Illegal Drugs Operations and Investigation, September 2014.
45. TSN, December 15, 2015, p. 3.
46. Report on Preparedness Measures and Effects of Typhoon Lando as of 12:00 a.m., October 19, 2015 <https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2015/10/19/report-on-preparedness-measures-and effects-of-typhoon-lando-as-of-1200-a-m-october-19-2015/> (visited September 4, 2019).
47. People vs. Sagana, supra note 32, citing People vs. Reyes, 797 Phil. 671, 689 (2016).
48. Id.
49. People vs. Sipin, G.R. No. 224290, June 11, 2018.
50. People vs. Salonga, 717 Phil. 117, 127 (2013).
51. Id.
52. People vs. Coreche, 612 Phil. 1238, 1245 (2009).
53. People vs. Angngao, 755 Phil. 597, 611 (2015).
54. People vs. Alvarado, et al., G.R. No. 234048, April 23, 2018.
55. Supra note 1, at 97.
56. People vs. Ameril, G.R. No. 222192, March 13, 2019.