FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 226842. September 14, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.RUPERTO SORRERA y GARCIA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 14, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 226842 — People of the Philippines v. Ruperto Sorrera y Garcia
RESOLUTION
We acquit.
Appellant Ruperto Sorrera y Garcia was charged with violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165) allegedly committed on January 1, 2005. 1 Since the amendatory law, Republic Act No. 10640, took effect only on August 7, 2014, the governing law here is still RA 9165 prior to its amendment.
In illegal drugs cases, the drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense. The prosecution is, therefore, tasked to prove that the dangerous drug seized from the accused is the same substance eventually offered in court. 2
Section 21 of RA 9165 prescribes the standard in preserving the corpus delicti in illegal drug cases, viz.:
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:
(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; (emphasis added)
xxx xxx xxx
The Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 further commands:
Section 21. (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. (emphasis added)
To ensure the integrity of the seized drug, the prosecution must also account for each link in its chain of custody: 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. 3
This is the chain of custody rule. It came to fore due to the unique characteristics of illegal drugs which render them indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration, or substitution either by accident or otherwise. 4 Though non-compliance with the rules may be excused, the arresting officers must (1) offer justifiable grounds for the omission, and (2) establish that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were nonetheless preserved.
Here, the first and fourth links of the chain of custody were seriously breached.
The first link in the chain of custody includes the marking, physical inventory and photograph of the seized items.
Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link. It is vital that the seized contraband be immediately marked at the place of arrest because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. It 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 the criminal proceedings, thus, preventing switching, planting or contamination of evidence. 5
Here, appellant was arrested at his residence at 165 Road 2, Old Balara, Quezon City after a buy-bust operation. Three (3) plastic sachets containing suspected shabu were seized from his possession. But the marking of these seized items was only done at Police Station 6, Batasan, Quezon City. The arresting officers explained though that they could not perform the marking at the place of arrest because appellant got violent, stabbed Police Officer 3 Jerry Villamor, and was causing a commotion.
While the arresting officers offered a justifiable ground for their departure from procedure, they failed to establish that despite such deviation, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items was nonetheless preserved. To be sure, Police Officer 1 Balbino Reas (PO1 Reas) testified that he had custody of the seized items from the place of arrest until they got to the police station. But where exactly did he keep the items while in transit and how long did he keep them in his possession? Did the other officers make sure that PO1 Reas did not have any other plastic sachets in his possession at that time? Considering the minute amount of dangerous drugs allegedly seized (i.e., 0.09 gram in total), what guarantees did the arresting officers offer to allay the fears of switching, planting, and contamination of evidence? Certainly, the generic statement that PO1 Reas had custody of the seized items, without more, does not suffice to prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items remained intact.
In Sabile v. People, 6 petitioner was arrested in Binondo, Manila for allegedly violating Section 844 of the Revised Ordinance. Upon his arrest, PO1 Gallaza and PO1 Abarquez frisked him and recovered a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance from his lower garment's front pocket. The seized item, however, was not immediately marked. Instead, PO1 Gallaza placed it in a box on his motorcycle and brought it to the Meisic Police Station. Thus, the Court held that the possibility of switching, planting and contamination of the seized item while in transit could not be foreclosed, especially since PO1 Gallaza failed to elaborate in his testimony whether there were other items inside the box on his motorcycle.
Another. Section 21 of RA 9165 and its implementing rules and regulations require that the inventory and photograph be done in the presence of the accused or his/her representative or counsel and three (3) insulating witnesses, i.e., a representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official, 7 to ensure that they are the same items which entered the chain of custody. 8
Here, the arresting officers did an inventory of the seized items sans the presence of any of the insulating witnesses. The prosecution did not even mention the effort they took, if any, to secure their presence. To be sure, PO1 Reas even admitted that he made a physical inventory of the confiscated specimens without the required witnesses. 9 Worse, it is unclear whether appellant himself witnessed the inventory of the items supposedly seized from him.
In People v. Lim, 10 the Court acquitted appellant for failure of the arresting officers to secure the presence of the insulating witnesses during inventory and photograph. The arresting officers reasoned that there are times when they do not give prior notice to the barangay officials for fear that they might leak the confidential information. Meanwhile, there was also no showing that the arresting officers tried to contact DOJ representatives for purposes of the operation. The Court found these justifications to be invalid as there was no genuine and sufficient attempt to comply with the law.
Too, in People v. Paming, 11 the inventory was conducted without the required witnesses. Worse, the same was done without the presence of the accused who, as the arresting officer admitted, was just in the investigation room. The omission proved fatal to the prosecution's case.
The Court also notes that the arresting officers failed to take photographs of the seized items. PO1 Reas reasoned that this omission was due to the fact that Police Station 6 was not issued a camera at that time. Considering that the buy-bust operation occurred in 2005 when smartphones with camera features were still a luxury rather than a commodity, the Court finds this justification acceptable.
But, again, the presence of a justifiable ground is only half of the requirement for the saving clause in Section 21 to come into play; it still behooved the arresting officers to ensure that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. This, they could have done by making sure that the insulating witnesses were present during the operation, and offering their testimonies during the trial. As it was, however, no independent witness could corroborate the claims of the arresting officers.
For emphasis, the arresting officers had a valid excuse for their failure to comply with the photograph requirement. But without adopting any countermeasure to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items despite the omission, the corpus delicti of the drug charges against appellant could not be deemed preserved.
As for the fourth link, this involves the turnover and submission of the drug items from the forensic chemist to the trial court. In relation to this link, the prosecution and the defense stipulated on the testimony of Police Inspector Bernardino Banac, Jr. (P/Insp. Banac), viz.:
1) He is a Forensic Chemist of PNP Crime Laboratory;
2) His office received a request for laboratory examination;
3) Together with said request was a plastic sachet which contained 3 smaller plastic sachets;
4) He conducted the requested laboratory examination of the specimen submitted for examination;
5) He submitted a Chemistry Report, the findings thereon showing the specimens positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, with signature of the Police Officer and jurat;
6) He turned over the specimens to the Evidence Custodian and retrieved the same for the pre-trial. 12
The Court has already ruled, however, that in dispensing the testimony of the forensic chemist, the following stipulations should be included: (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 pending trial. Essentially, it should be stipulated that the forensic chemist would have testified that he took precautionary steps to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item. 13
Clearly, the stipulations between the parties do not bear the afore-cited facts. For P/Insp. Banac merely confirmed the existence of the specimen and the Chemistry Report showing the results of the examination. His proposed testimony did not contain a statement on how the specimens were handled and preserved. Without these facts, it is highly probable that the integrity of the corpus delicti was compromised.
Similarly, in People v. Galisim, 14 the prosecution and the defense dispensed with the testimony of Forensic Chemist Police Chief Inspector Isidro Cariño upon stipulating that "he had received and examined the specimens and issued the findings in his report." Said report, however, did not disclose the manner of handling the specimens before PCI Cariño received them, how he examined the items, and how these items left his possession to ensure they will not be substituted or tampered during trial. Thus, the Court ruled that the fourth link of chain of custody was breached.
As heretofore shown, the chain of custody here had been repeatedly breached many times over; the metaphorical chain, irreparably broken. Consequently, the identity and integrity of the seized drug item were not deemed to have been preserved. Perforce, petitioner must be acquitted and released from restraint.
ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated November 9, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06028 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Appellant Ruperto Sorrera y Garcia is ACQUITTED in Criminal Case Nos. Q-05-131779 and Q-05-131780. The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City is ordered to a) immediately release Ruperto Sorrera y Garcia from custody unless he is being held for some other lawful cause; and b) submit his report on the action taken within five (5) days from notice. Let an entry of final 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.Rollo, pp. 42-43.
2. See People v. Barte, 806 Phil. 533, 542 (2017).
3.People v. Dela Torre, G.R. No. 225789, July 29, 2019.
4.Jocson v. People, G.R. No. 199644, June 19, 2019.
5.People v. Omamos, G.R. No. 223036, July 10, 2019.
6. G.R. No. 239850 (Notice), November 28, 2019.
7.People v. Rosales, G.R. No. 233656, October 2, 2019.
8.People v. Ramirez, 823 Phil. 1215, 1225 (2018), citing People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214, 241 (2008).
9.Rollo, p. 86.
10. G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018, 879 SCRA 31, 63-64.
11. G.R. No. 241091, January 14, 2019.
12.Rollo, p. 44.
13.People v. Ubungen, 836 Phil. 888, 901 (2018), citing People v. Pajarin, 654 Phil. 461, 466 (2011).
14. G.R. No. 231305, September 11, 2019.