FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 250174. June 23, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. ALIAKBAR SULTAN y SANDE A.K.A. "ALI AKBAR SULTAN y SANDE" @ "ROLLY'', accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 23, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 250174 (People of the Philippines v. Aliakbar Sultan y Sande a.k.a. "Ali Akbar Sultan y Sande"@ "Rolly'').
The Court resolves this appeal from the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10732, dated May 31, 2019, which affirmed the Judgment 2 of the Regional Trial Court of Batangas City, Branch 84 (RTC), dated February 12, 2018, finding Aliakbar Sultan y Sande a.k.a. "Ali Akbar Sultan y Sande" @ "Rolly" (appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal delivery of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165.
Antecedents
Appellant was charged with violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 for illegal delivery of dangerous drugs weighing 4.62 grams in an information which reads:
Criminal Case No. 20858
That on or about February 16, 2016 at around 8:00 in the evening at Brgy. 21, Batangas City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, not being authorized by law, did then and there knowingly, willfully, and criminally deliver or dispense one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 4.62 gram[s] of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, more commonly known as "Shabu," a dangerous drug, which is a clear violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 3
Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. Trial thereafter ensued.
The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses established that on February 16, 2016, the Batangas City Police Station learned from a civilian asset (asset) that a certain "Rolly" will deliver shabu worth P10,000.00 at the main campus of the Batangas State University (BSU). Thus, an entrapment operation was organized and the necessary pre-operation report and coordination form with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) were accomplished. 4
On the evening of even date, the team and their asset proceeded to the target area. After about twenty (20) minutes from their arrival, a tricycle stopped in front of the team's vehicle and a man, whom the asset identified as Rolly, alighted therefrom. The asset introduced Police Officer I John F. Macaraig (POI Macaraig) to alias Rolly and told him that it was POI Macaraig who will buy the shabu. Rolly then took one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet from his right pocket and handed it to PO1 Macaraig, which the latter verified as a sachet containing white crystalline substance. Rolly was thereafter arrested and was informed of his rights. POI Macaraig asked appellant his name to which he replied, "Aliakbar Sultan." 5
Police Officer II Carlos V. Eje (PO2 Eje), who was observing the entrapment from inside their vehicle parked about three (3) meters away, immediately went out to guard the area. POI Macaraig immediately marked the seized item with his initials "JFM" at the place of arrest and in the presence of appellant and PO2 Eje. Thereafter, the team and appellant proceeded to the police station. POI Macaraig remained in possession of the sachet until their arrival at the police station and turned over the same to Police Officer II Lowie M. Enriquez (PO2 Enriquez). The seized item was then inventoried and photographed in the presence of appellant, a barangay councilor, and a National Prosecution Service (NPS) representative. 6
PO2 Enriquez delivered the confiscated item to the Batangas Provincial Crime Laboratory Office, where Senior Police Officer IV Jesus T. Agustin, Jr. received the specimen, together with the request for laboratory examination. The sachet marked with "JFM" tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, as stated in the chemistry report issued by the forensic chemist. Subsequently, the specimen was turned over to the evidence custodian, Police Officer II Joel Barcelona (PO2 Barcelona), who placed it in the evidence room until it was submitted to the RTC as evidence of the corpus delicti against appellant. 7
Appellant denied the charge and claimed that he was at the market with his wife when five (5) policemen suddenly arrested him. He was asked for the whereabouts of the shabu and the police immediately brought him to the station. Meanwhile, appellant's wife accompanied the other police officers to their house, and when they arrived at the police station, appellant was surprised to see the sachet of shabu that was allegedly found in his house. Thereafter, he was detained. 8
RTC Judgment
On February 12, 2018, the RTC rendered a Judgment finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal delivery of dangerous drugs, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding [accused], ALIAKBAR SULTAN y SANDE GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. [No.] 9165 (delivery of dangerous drugs) and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS [PhP500,000.00].
Since the accused is a detention prisoner, the period of his preventive imprisonment shall be credited in his favor, subject to the provisions of Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 10592.
Accordingly, the one (1) plastic sachet containing shabu with markings ["JFM"] (Exhibit "O") shall be transmitted to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for [its] proper disposal in accordance with law and pertinent regulations.
SO ORDERED. 9
The RTC ruled that the prosecution substantially established all the elements of the offense of illegal delivery of dangerous drugs, which are: 1) that the accused passed on possession of a dangerous drugs to another, personally or otherwise, and by any means; 2) such delivery is not authorized by law; and 3) the accused knowingly made the delivery with or without consideration. 10
The RTC also found that the links in the chain of custody were proven. First, the seized sachet containing shabu was immediately marked at the place of arrest and in the presence of the accused. Second, the same was turned over to the investigator. Third, the investigator turned over the seized sachet to the Provincial Crime Laboratory, which ultimately forwarded it to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination. The item yielded a positive result for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride. After examination, the seized item was handed to the evidence custodian. Lastly, the evidence custodian submitted the marked illegal drug seized to the court. 11
Appellant filed an appeal before the CA. He argued that there was no entrapment operation and that the prosecution failed to establish compliance with the chain of custody requirement. 12
CA Ruling
The CA denied the appeal and affirmed appellant's conviction. Aside from the presence of all elements of the offense, the prosecution was also able to establish an unbroken chain of custody. Contrary to appellant's claim of the absence of an entrapment operation, the CA was convinced that the former was caught in flagrante delicto during an entrapment as shown by the necessary documents prepared by the police officers, as well as their close coordination with the PDEA. 13
Hence, the present appeal.
Issue
Whether or not the CA correctly affirmed the RTC in convicting appellant of the offense of illegal delivery of dangerous drugs.
Ruling of the Court
The appeal is meritorious.
In his appellant's brief filed before the CA, appellant argued that the prosecution failed to comply with the chain of custody rule. First, the marking "JFM" was not in conformity with paragraph 2.35 of Sec. 2-6 of the Revised PNP Manual on Anti-Illegal Drugs Operations and Investigation 14 which requires an indication of the date, time, and place of seizure. Further, the elective official and NPS representative only arrived during the inventory process and were not present during the alleged entrapment operation and the actual seizure. 15Second, the prosecution witnesses' respective testimonies failed to give a definite indication as to how the drug evidence was preserved after marking and in what manner it was transported. 16 Appellant pointed out that there was absolutely no showing of an attempt to preserve the integrity of the evidence by placing it in sealed evidence bags or sealed containers. 17
In convicting appellant for illegal delivery of dangerous drugs under Sec. 5 of R.A. No. 9165, the same provision which governs illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs, the RTC and the CA were convinced that the integrity and evidentiary value of the heat-sealed sachet of shabu recovered from appellant were properly preserved.
A closer scrutiny, however, reveals otherwise.
R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, together with its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR), clearly and explicitly laid out the proper procedure in maintaining an unbroken chain of custody in order to safeguard and preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized prohibited items.
At the time of the alleged entrapment conducted against appellant, Sec. 1 (A) of the Guidelines on the IRR of Sec. 21, R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, provides that:
A. Marking, Inventory and Photograph; Chain of Custody Implementing Paragraph "a" of the IRR
xxx xxx xxx
A.1.3. In warrantless seizures, the marking, physical inventory and photograph of the seized items in the presence of the violator shall be done immediately at the place where the drugs were seized or at the nearest police station or nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable.
xxx xxx xxx
A.1.5. The physical inventory and photograph of the seized/confiscated items shall be done in the presence of the suspect or his representative or counsel, with elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service (NPS) or the media, who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory of the seized or confiscated items and be given copy thereof. In case of their refusal to sign, it shall be stated "refused to sign" above their names in the certificate of inventory of the apprehending or seizing officer.
xxx xxx xxx
A.1.7. To prevent switching or contamination, the seized items, which are fungible and indistinct in character, and which have been marked after the seizure, shall be sealed in a container or evidence bag and signed by the apprehending/seizing officer for submission to the forensic laboratory for examination.
In this case, the prosecution failed to show an unbroken chain of custody. It failed to prove compliance with the first link requiring marking, inventory and photographing of the evidence. The prosecution testified that the seized heat-sealed transparent sachet containing shabu, was marked with the initials "JFM" immediately at the place of arrest and in the presence of the accused. The same was followed by the physical inventory and photographing at the police station in the presence of the accused, a barangay councilor, and a NPS representative. Inevitably, these procedures did not comply with the requirements of the law.
Marking of the evidence immediately at the place of arrest does not end with the mere act of placing the initials of the seizing officer. It continues with the conduct of preserving the evidence by placing it inside a sealed container or bag to ensure non-contamination or alteration. Here, the prosecution testimony revealed that the sachet seized was simply stapled to a piece of paper, which paper was later disposed of. Also, the marking does not provide for any other details, e.g.: date, time, and place of seizure, except for the lone initials "JFM."
Further, although physical inventory and photographing are allowed to be done at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team, presence of the insulating witnesses at or near the place of seizure/arrest is not to be dispensed with. Unfortunately, the prosecution failed to secure the required witnesses' presence at the place of entrapment against appellant without any valid justification. The barangay councilor and NPS representative were present only during the inventory and photographing at the police station. The purpose of the law in requiring their presence at the time of arrest and/or seizure, which is to protect against any possible planting, contamination or alteration, was not achieved. It bears emphasis that the presence of the required witnesses at the time of the apprehension and inventory is mandatory, and that the law imposes the said requirement because their presence serves an essential purpose. 18
Jurisprudence is replete with cases where the Court emphasized that the presence of third-party witnesses is imperative, not only during the physical inventory and taking of pictures, but also during the actual seizure of items. The requirement of conducting the inventory and taking of photographs "immediately after seizure and confiscation" necessarily means that the required witnesses must also be present during the seizure or confiscation. 19
Compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Sec. 21 ensures the integrity of the seized item. Noncompliance with these requirements tarnishes the credibility of the corpus delicti around which prosecutions under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act revolve. 20 The identity of the corpus delicti must, in itself, be proven with moral certainty. When the same is jeopardized by noncompliance with Sec. 21, critical elements of the offense of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs remain wanting. It follows then, that this noncompliance justifies an accused's acquittal. 21 The Court, in People v. Que, 22 stressed that:
What is critical in drug cases is not the bare conduct of inventory, marking, and photographing. Instead, it is the certainty that the items allegedly taken from the accused retain their integrity, even as they make their way from the accused to an officer effecting the seizure, to an investigating officer, to a forensic chemist, and ultimately, to courts where they are introduced as evidence. Hence, the four (4) links were underscored in Nandi: first, from the accused to the apprehending officers; second, from the apprehending officers to the investigating officers; third, from the investigating officers to the forensic chemists; and fourth, from the forensic chemists to the courts. The endpoints of each link (e.g., the accused and the apprehending officer in the first link, the forensic chemist and the court in the fourth link) are preordained, their respective existences not being in question. What is prone to danger is not any of these end points but the intervening transitions or transfers from one point to another.
Section 21(1)'s requirements are designed to make the first and second links foolproof. Conducting the inventory and photographing immediately after seizure, exactly where the seizure was done, or at a location as practicably close to it, minimizes, if not eliminates, room for adulteration or the planting of evidence. The presence of the accused, or a representative, and of third-party witnesses, coupled with their attestations on the written inventory, ensures that the items delivered to the investigating officer are the items which have actually been inventoried. 23 (emphases supplied)
Thus, for failure of the prosecution to show absence of any doubt in the identity of the corpus delicti, appellant's acquittal based on reasonable doubt is in order.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10732 dated May 31, 2019, which affirmed the Judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Batangas City, Branch 84, dated February 12, 2018, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
The Court ACQUITS Aliakbar Sultan y Sande a.k.a. "Ali Akbar Sultan y Sande" @ "Rolly" of the offense of illegal delivery of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, and ORDERS his IMMEDIATE RELEASE from detention unless he is lawfully being held in custody for any other reason.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. The said Director General is ORDERED to REPORT to this Court within five (5) days from receipt hereof the action he has taken.
Let an 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.Rollo, pp. 3-14; penned by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez (now a Member of this Court), with Associate Justices Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles and Tita Marilyn B. Payoyo-Villordon, concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 61-64A (64A is unpaginated at the back of p. 64).
3.Rollo, pp. 3-4.
4.Id. at 4.
5.Id. at 4-5.
6.Id. at 5.
7.Id. at 5-6.
8.Id. at 6.
9. CA rollo, pp. 64-64-A.
10.Id. at 63.
11.Id. at 63-A (unpaginated at the back of p. 63).
12.Rollo, p. 6.
13.Id. at 13.
14.2.35. The Seizing Officer must mark the evidence with his initials indicating therein the date, time and place where the evidence was found/recovered or seized.
15. CA rollo, p. 54.
16.Id. at 55.
17.Id. at 56.
18.People v. Claudel, G.R. No. 219852, April 3, 2019.
19.People v. Que, 824 Phil. 882, 911 (2018).
20.Id. at 896.
21.Id. at 898.
22.Id.
23.Id. at 909.