FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 252462. September 14, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,petitioner,vs. JOEL TAUB y BEDAYO, RODERICK LINIHAN y EUMAGE, * and PHILIP CAMAT y SALES, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated September 14, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 252462(People of the Philippines v. Joel Taub y Bedayo, Roderick Linihan y Eumage, and Philip Camat y Sales). — The conviction of Joel Taub y Bedayo (Joel), Roderick Linihan y Eumage (Roderick), and Philip Camat y Sales (Philip) for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, and Roderick and Philip's conviction for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs are the subjects of review in this appeal assailing the Court of Appeals' (CA) Decision 1 dated March 25, 2019 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10028, which affirmed the findings of the Regional Trial Court (RTC). HTcADC
We acquit.
In the Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, the contraband itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction. 2 Thus, it is essential to ensure that the substance recovered from the accused is the same substance offered in court. 3 Here, records reveal a broken chain of custody. The offense was committed on May 27, 2017, after the effectivity of the amendatory law, R.A. No. 10640. 4 Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, 5 outlines the post-seizure procedure for the custody and disposition of seized drugs. The law mandates that the officer taking initial custody of the drug shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct the physical inventory of the same and take a photograph in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom the 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 (NPS) or the media who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. The law requires the presence of these witnesses primarily to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contaminating of evidence. 6
Thus, the witnesses required in this case are an elected public official and a representative of the NPS or the media. It is notable, however, that the marking and inventory of the confiscated items were not witnessed by an elected public official. As found by the CA 7 and RTC, 8 the marking and inventory of the seized items were conducted in the presence of Philip, Roderick, Joel, and media representative Zen Trinidad. Police Officer 1 Kevin Agudo admitted that no elected public officer was present when the marking and inventory of the seized items were conducted and that Moises Maitim signed the receipts of physical inventory only after the procedures were conducted, thus:
ATTY. ZUMARAGA:
Q: Will you admit to this Honorable Court that there was no public officer when you made the inventory of the alleged items?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: I am showing to [sic] you the Receipt of Physical Inventory. There is a name written therein, Moises Maitim?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Will you admit that this Moises Maitim was not present when this Receipt of Physical Inventory was accomplished by you?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Then why did he place his signature therein?
A: When we went to the barangay hall that was the time that he affixed his signature, sir.
Q: So, after you have conducted the inventory in front of the apartment?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: So immediately after signing you already left the place, am I correct?
A: Yes, sir. 9
We stress that the presence of the insulating witnesses is a vital requirement to ensure the preservation of the identity and evidentiary value of the seized drug. 10 In People v. Arellaga, 11 the accused was acquitted because the three required witnesses were not present during the inventory and photograph of the seized items and the prosecution failed to justify this lapse, and we ruled that the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti had been compromised when the mandatory witnesses were absent during the inventory of the seized items. In People v. Santos, 12 mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses, are unacceptable as justified grounds for non-compliance. Here, the prosecution merely explained that the buy-bust team tried to obtain the presence of an elected public official to come to the buy-bust scene but there was no barangay official available at that time. 13 Worse, the accomplished certificate of inventory was brought to the barangay hall to be signed by an elected public official to make it appear that one was present during the inventory. This is not merely non-compliance with the rules but an utter disregard of the mandated procedure, and can hardly be deemed as substantial compliance. As it happens, this demeanor of the arresting team demonstrates the police operatives' lack of effort to procure the presence of a barangay official for the conduct of the inventory.
Moreover, the buy-bust team failed to show that the integrity of the evidence had all along been preserved in the chain of custody. We note the links in the movement and custody of the seized drugs: (1) the confiscation and marking of the specimen seized from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the turnover of the seized item by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) the investigating officer's turnover of the specimen to the forensic chemist for examination; and (4) the submission of the item by the forensic chemist to the court. 14
We focus on the fourth link in the chain which presents a discontinuity in the custody over the seized items. It is settled that in case of stipulation by the parties to dispense with the attendance and testimony of the forensic chemist, it should be clearly demonstrated that forensic chemist took precautionary steps in order to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item, viz.: (1) the forensic chemist received the seized article as marked, properly sealed, and intact; (2) she resealed it after examination of the content; and (3) she placed her own marking on the same to ensure that it could not be tampered pending trial. 15 In People v. Leaño, 16 the Court ruled that in case the parties agreed to dispense with the attendance and testimony of the forensic chemist, it should be stipulated that the forensic chemist would have testified that she took the precautionary steps required in order to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item, thus: (1) the forensic chemist received the seized article as marked, properly sealed, and intact; (2) she resealed it after examination of the content; and (3) she placed her own marking on the same to ensure that it could not be tampered pending trial.
In this case, the parties' stipulations regarding the testimony of Police Chief Inspector Donna Villa Huelgas (PCI Huelgas) did not mention that precautionary steps were taken to preserve the integrity of the seized items while they were in her possession before presentation to the trial court for identification. More, the stipulations contained an admission that PCI Huelgas transmitted the seized items to the prosecution. In People v. De Guzman, 17 the Court ruled that "the City Prosecutor's Office is not, nor has it ever been, a part of the chain of custody of seized dangerous drugs. It has absolutely no business in taking custody of dangerous drugs before they are brought before the court." aScITE
The utter disregard of the required procedures created huge gaps in the chain of custody. The operatives failed to provide any justification showing that the integrity of the evidence had all along been preserved. The police officers did not describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the seized item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.
Lastly, it must be stressed that while the law enforcers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties, this presumption cannot prevail over the constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent and it cannot by itself constitute proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of regularity is disputable and cannot be regarded as binding truth. 18 Indeed when the performance of duty is tainted with irregularities, such presumption is effectively destroyed. 19
In sum, we find that a broken chain of custody militates against the conviction of appellants beyond reasonable doubt, as the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti were not preserved.
FOR THESE REASONS, the appeal is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals' Decision dated March 25, 2019 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10028 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Joel Taub y Bedayo, Roderick Linihan y Eumage, and Philip Camat y Sales are ACQUITTED of the offenses of Illegal Sale and Possession of Dangerous Drugs in Criminal Case Nos. 29712-2017-C, 29713-2017-C, 29714-2017-C, and 29716-2017-C, and are ORDEREDIMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless they are being lawfully held for another cause. Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City for immediate implementation. The Director is directed to report to this Court the action taken within five days from receipt of this Resolution.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
*Eumague in some parts of the records.
1.Rollo, pp. 3-22. Penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez (now a member of this Court), with the concurrence of Associate Justices Romeo F. Barza and Franchito N. Diamante.
2.People v. Crispo, 828 Phil. 416, 436-437 (2018); People v. Sanchez, 827 Phil. 457, 472-473 (2018); People v. Magsano, 826 Phil. 947, 964-965 (2018); People v. Manansala, 826 Phil. 578, 586 (2018); People v. Miranda, 824 Phil. 1042, 1055-1056 (2018); People v.Mamangon, 824 Phil. 728, 741 (2018); and People v. Partoza, 605 Phil. 883, 890-891 (2009).
3.People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 30-31 (2017); and Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 586 (2008).
4.Entitled "AN ACT TO FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE ANTI-DRUG CAMPAIGN OF THE GOVERNMENT, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE SECTION 21 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE 'COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002,'" approved on July 15, 2014, states that it shall "take effect fifteen (15) days after its complete publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation." Verily, a copy of the law was published on July 23, 2013 in the respective issues of "The Philippine Star" (Vol. XXVIII, No. 359, Philippine Star Metro section, p. 21) and the "Manila Bulletin" (Vol. 499, No. 23; World News section, p. 6); hence, R.A. No. 10640 became effective on August 7, 2014. See OCA Circular No. 77-2015 dated April 23, 2015.
5.The provision was amended by Republic Act No. 10640, and reads:
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:
xxx xxx xxx
N.B. Prior to the amendment, the required witnesses were representatives from the media andthe Department of Justice, and any elected public official.
6.People v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 236304, November 5, 2018.
7.Rollo, pp. 17-19.
8.CA rollo, pp. 43-44.
9.TSN, July 28, 2017, pp. 23-24.
10.People v. Flores, G.R. No. 241261, July 29, 2019; People v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 233535, July 1, 2019; and 838 Phil. 191, 204 (2018).
11.G.R. No. 231796, August 24, 2020.
12.G.R. No. 243627, November 27, 2019.
13.Rollo, p. 7.
14.People v. Bugtong, 826 Phil. 628, 638-639 (2018).
15.People v. Leaño, G.R. No. 246461, July 28, 2020; citing People v. Ubungen, 836 Phil. 888 (2018).
16.People v. Leaño, supra.
17.825 Phil. 43, 60 (2018).
18.Mallillin v. People, supra note 3; and People v. Cañete, 433 Phil. 781, 794 (2002).
19.People v. Dela Cruz, 589 Phil. 259, 272 (2008).