FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 250904. June 30, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOEL TINGA y HIGUIT, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 30, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 250904 (People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joel Tinga y Higuit, Accused-Appellant.) — This appeal 1 seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision 2 promulgated on 23 May 2018 by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08751. The CA affirmed the Judgment 3 dated 20 September 2016 of Branch 267, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Taguig City in Criminal Case No. 16744-D-TG, finding Joel Tinga y Higuit (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165. 4
Antecedents
Accused-appellant was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, in an Information, the accusatory portion of which reads:
That, on or about the 22nd day of June 2009, in the City of Taguig, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell to IO1 KEVIN B. CODAMAN, a PDEA Agent poseur-buyer, one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing nine point seven hundred five (9.705) grams of white crystalline substance, which substance was found positive to the test of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride commonly known as "shabu," a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. After termination of pre-trial, trial on the merits ensued. 6
Version of the Prosecution
On 17 June 2009, the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) received information from a confidential informant (CI) about the rampant illegal drug trade activities of accused-appellant. The CI likewise relayed that accused-appellant asked her to find a buyer of the drugs he was selling. Thereafter, on 21 June 2009, the CI called accused-appellant on the cellphone and introduced IO1 Kevin Codamon (IO1 Codamon) 7 as a prospective buyer of 10 grams of shabu. They agreed to meet the following day at ML Quezon St. Lower Bicutan, Taguig City. 8
A team was formed on 22 June 2009 to conduct buy bust operation against accused-appellant with IO1 Codamon as the poseur buyer and the rest of the team as arresting officers. The team went to the area and IO Codamon met with accused-appellant. After confirming that IO Codamon had the money to pay for the illegal drugs, accused-appellant went inside his house and upon his return, handed to IO Codamon one (1) heat-sealed plastic bag containing white crystalline substance. In exchange, the latter gave accused-appellant the buy bust money. 9
Accused-appellant was subsequently arrested and IO1 Engelbert De Leon (IO1 De Leon) recovered the buy-bust money from the former's possession. IO1 Codamon immediately marked the plastic sachet with suspected shabu and they proceeded to the PDEA office because of the nosy crowd. IO1 Matthew Bolanay (IO1 Bolanay) conducted inventory in the presence of the accused-appellant, media representatives Mr. Emilio Vittali Carreon and Cris Panlubasan, and Barangay Kagawad Melinda Gaffud. Thereafter, IO1 Codamon together with the inventory and arresting officer brought the seized drug to the crime laboratory. Upon examination, the seized items were found positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride. 10
Version of the Defense
Accused-appellant denied the charge and claimed that on 22 June 2009, he was sleeping in his room when he heard his mother speak and tell someone that he was sleeping. He got up and went out to find John-John, his acquaintance, and an unknown man waiting for him. They invited him over to a friend's house. He came with them and upon arrival at the area, the unknown man bid goodbye and left. He went inside their friend's house and while inside, he heard someone from outside shout, "John-John, dapa!" He lay face down on the ground and after sometime, someone came, handcuffed him, and brought him to the police station where he was charged with violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. 11
Ruling of the RTC
On 20 September 2016, the RTC rendered its Judgment, 12 convicting accused-appellant of the offense charged, thus:
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing dissertation of the Court, the Court finds accused JOEL TINGA y Higuit GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 5, 1st paragraph, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 under Criminal Case No. 16744-D-TG and judgment is hereby rendered that he should suffer the penalty of Life imprisonment and to pay Fine in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00)
xxx xxx xxx
SO ORDERED. 13
Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed to the CA.
Ruling of the CA
In its Decision 14 dated 23 May 2018, the CA affirmed accused-appellant's conviction. The dispositive portion of said decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed Judgment dated 20 September 2016 of Branch 267 of the Regional Trial Court of Taguig City is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 15
The CA held that the prosecution had duly established the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. It held that each link in the chain of custody was firmly established and with the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug maintained. It agreed with the RTC that accused-appellant's defense of frame-up was grossly insufficient to overcome the prosecution's positive averments as to the commission of the offense. 16
Hence, this appeal.
Issue
Whether the CA correctly affirmed accused-appellant's conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165.
Court's Ruling
The appeal is meritorious.
In actions involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must first be established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took place and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence. The existence of the corpus delicti is essential to a judgment of conviction. Hence, the identity of the dangerous drug must be clearly established. 17
Corollary thereto, Section 21 of RA No. 9165, the applicable law at the time of the commission of the alleged offense, 18 outlines the procedural safeguards in handling the seized drugs by the apprehending officer/team, to wit:(1) the seized items be inventoried and photographed immediately after seizure or confiscation; (2) the physical inventory and photographing must be done in the presence of (a) the 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), all of whom shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy of the same; and (3) the seized drugs must be turned over to a forensic laboratory within twenty-four (24) hours from confiscation for examination. 19
In the same manner, to ensure the integrity of the seized drugs, the prosecution must likewise establish the chain of custody of the dangerous drugs, i.e., 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. 20 The prosecution must establish these links. Any deviation would cast serious doubts on the identity of the seized item and its "actual connection with the transaction involved and with the parties thereto." 21
The narration of events revealed that PDEA agents committed procedural and unexplained breaches in the custody and handling of the seized drug.
IO1 Codamon marked the seized drug at the place of seizure and the inventory was conducted at the PDEA office afterwards. 22 There was no reason proffered, however, as to why the mandatory taking of photographs was not done. Moreover, the inventory was conducted in the presence of the Barangay Kagawad and two (2) media representatives and without the presence of a representative from the DOJ. The prosecution failed to justify his absence and there was also no statement to prove that genuine and earnest efforts were exerted to secure his presence. This, despite that the buy bust operation was planned days before the actual operation and the PDEA agents had ample time to coordinate with the required witnesses.
Next, the forensic chemist Mr. Severino Uy was not presented in court. The parties stipulated on his testimony as follows:
(1) That, Mr. Severino Uy, has a Degree of Bachelor of Science in Chemistry and is a Chemist III at the PDEA, Laboratory Service located at NIA Northside Road, Barangay Pinyahan, Quezon City;
(2) That he was the chemist on duty at the PDEA and was tasked to examine the specimen subject matter of this case pursuant to the request of the PDEA;
(3) That after examination, the said specimen was found positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride commonly known as "shabu";
(4) That Mr. Severino Uy could identify the letter request for examination, PDA report, and the specimen itself, which are now in the possession of the Public Prosecutor and marked as prosecution exhibits, Exhibits "L", "M", and "N" and lastly;
(5) That Mr. Severino Uy has no personal knowledge as to how the specimen he examined was taken from the accused and the circumstances of its recovery from the accused. 23
In People v. Pajarin, 24 it was held that as a rule, the police chemist who examines a seized substance should ordinarily testify that he received the seized article as marked, properly sealed and intact; that he resealed it after examination of the content; and that he placed his own marking on the same to ensure that it could not be tampered pending trial. In case the parties stipulate to dispense with the attendance of the police chemist, they should stipulate that the latter would have testified that he took the precautionary steps mentioned.
It is worthy to note that there was no stipulation as to the handling and precautionary measures taken by Mr. Uy to the seized drug when it was delivered, and the precautions undertaken to ensure its integrity before they were presented in court. In the absence of testimony regarding the management, storage, and preservation of the illegal drugs seized after its qualitative examination, the fourth link in the chain of custody could not be reasonably established. 25
The Court finds that the PDEA agents committed deviations in the handling and custody of the seized drug. While Section 21 of RA No. 9165 provides a saving mechanism for any deviation of the provision prescribed therein, the same cannot be applied because the PDEA agents in this case failed to recognize their lapses, as well as justify or explain the same. Evidently, the PDEA agents' unjustified non-compliance with the law compromised the identity and integrity of the seized drug, warranting accused-appellant's acquittal.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision promulgated on 23 May 2018 by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08751, finding accused-appellant JOEL TINGA y HIGUIT guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. He is hereby ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt and is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention unless he is being confined for some other lawful cause.
The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to IMPLEMENT this Resolution and to report to this Court the action taken hereon within five (5) days from receipt.
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. 28-29; See Notice of Appeal dated 14 June 2018.
2.Id. at 3-27; penned by Associate Justice Rafael Antonio M. Santos with Associate Justice Apolinario Bruselas, Jr. and Associate Justice Carmelita Salandanan Manahan, concurring.
3. CA rollo, pp. 43-53; penned by Judge Antonio M. Olivete.
4. Comprehensive Dangerous Act of 2002.
5. CA rollo, pp. 43-44.
6.Id. at 44.
7. Also referred to as IO1 Codaman.
8. CA rollo, pp. 45-46.
9.Id. at 46-47.
10.Id. at 47.
11.Rollo, pp. 06-07.
12. CA rollo, pp. 43-53.
13.Id. at 52-53.
14.Rollo, pp. 03-27.
15.Id. at 26.
16.Id. at 10, 22, and 24.
17.People v. Jodan, G.R. No. 234773, 03 June 2019, [per CJ Peralta].
18. The Information alleged that accused-appellant committed the offense on 22 June 2009, thus, the earlier version of Sec. 21 of RA No. 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations shall apply, i.e., prior to its amendment by Republic Act No. 10640, (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) which was approved on 15 July 2014 and became effective on 7 August 2014 or 15 days after its publication on 23 July 2014.
19. See People v. Espejo, G.R. No. 240914, 13 March 2019. [Per J. Caguioa].
20.People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212 (2015), G.R. No. 212196, 12 January 2015. [Per J. Mendoza].
21.People v. Banding, G.R. No. 233470, 14 August 2019. [Per J. Leonen].
22.Rollo, pp. 05-06.
23.Id. at 21.
24. 654 Phil. 461 (2011), G.R. No. 190640, 12 January 2011. [Per J. Abad].
25. See People v. Ubungen, G.R. No. 225497, 23 July 2018. [Per J. Martires].