FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 249495. June 16, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. RODEL TORRES y HERNANDEZ, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 16, 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 249495 (People of the Philippines v. Rodel Torres y Hernandez). — Rodel Torres y Hernandez (accused-appellant) assails the Decision 1 dated March 26, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08901, which affirmed the Decision 2 dated June 3, 2015 of Regional Trial Court (RTC) Urdaneta City, Pangasinan, Branch 48, in Criminal Case No. U-18120, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating, Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9165, which punishes the sale of dangerous drugs.
Facts of the Case
Prosecution's Version
Acting on information from a confidential informant (CI) that a certain "Rodel" was engaged in illegal drug trade activities in Barangay Nancayasan, Urdaneta City, Intelligence Officer 3 Sharon I. Ominga (IO3 Ominga) of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) assembled a team for a possible buy-bust operation. Several PDEA agents attended the briefing including Intelligence Officer 1 Beverly L. Peralta (IO1 Peralta) who was assigned as poseur-buyer, and IO1 Robert D. Orencia (IO1 Orencia) who was designated as back-up/arresting officer. IO3 Ominga handed IO1 Peralta a P500.00 bill with Serial No. WH 940673 to serve as buy-bust money. IO1 Peralta affixed her initials "BLP" on the bill. During the briefing, it was agreed that the pre-arranged signal would be IO1 Peralta passing her shoulder bag to the CI. 3
IO1 Peralta and the CI went to the target area, a vulcanizing shop at the back of the 7-Eleven store along McArthur Highway, Barangay Nancasayan, Urdaneta City. 4 After a few minutes of waiting at the target area, "Rodel," who turned out to be herein accused-appellant, arrived. IO1 Peralta and the CI approached him. Then, the CI told him that her friend, IO1 Peralta, wanted to buy shabu. Accused-appellant responded, "[a]no, ilan kunin niyo? Bilis at nagmamadali ako"(How much will you get? Do it quickly. I am in a hurry). IO1 Peralta answered, "[l]imandaan lang (P500.00 only)." 5
Accused-appellant brought out several transparent plastic sachets, and handed IO1 Peralta one plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance, suspected as methamphetamine hydrochloride, more commonly known as shabu. Upon receipt of the sachet, IO1 Peralta handed the buy-bust money to accused-appellant. Thereafter, IO1 Peralta passed her shoulder bag to the CI which signified the consummation of the sale. The rest of the buy-bust team rushed to the scene. IO1 Peralta and IO1 Orencia introduced themselves to accused-appellant as PDEA operatives, arrested him, and apprised him of his constitutional rights. 6
IO1 Peralta immediately marked the plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance with "BLP 5-24-12" at the place of arrest. 7 IO1 Peralta also seized five transparent plastic sachets of suspected shabu from accused-appellant, and one sachet of suspected dried marijuana. 8 IO1 Peralta marked the seized items as "BLP1 5-24-12," "BLP2 5-24-12," "BLP3 5-24-12," "BLP4 5-24-12," "BLP5 5-24-12," and "BLP6 5-24-12," respectively. She retrieved the P500.00 buy-bust money from accused-appellant and marked several paper bills seized from him, amounting to P250.00. 9
Accused-appellant was then brought to PDEA Urdaneta, 10 where IO1 Peralta conducted an inventory of the seized items in the presence of accused-appellant; Joanne Ponsoy (Ponsoy), a media correspondent of GMA-7 Dagupan City; and Barangay Kagawad Darwin Barcolta (Kagawad Barcolta) of Barangay Baoayas, Urdaneta City. Photographs of the inventory process and the seized items were taken. Afterwards, Ponsoy and Kagawad Barcolta signed the Certificate of Inventory dated May 24, 2012. 11 SDHTEC
Subsequently, IO3 Ominga prepared a request for laboratory examination and delivered the seized items to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory, Urdaneta City. The request for laboratory examination, six plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance and one plastic sachet with suspected dry marijuana were received by Police Officer Nashville Meneses on May 24, 2012. 12 Based on Chemistry Report No. DT No. D-094-2012-U 13 prepared by Forensic Chemist Police Chief Inspector Emelda Besarra Roderos, the contents of the six plastic sachets were confirmed to be shabu while the contents of the other plastic sachet was confirmed to be marijuana. 14
Accordingly, the State filed an Information 15 charging accused-appellant with a violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165, for selling shabu to IO1 Peralta:
That on or about 7:40 o'clock in the morning of May 24, 2012 at Urdaneta City, Pangasinan and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.067 gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (SHABU), a dangerous drug. 16 (Emphasis in the original)
For possession of the other seized items, the State filed an Information 17 charging accused-appellant with a violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165:
That on or about 7:40 o'clock in the morning of May 24, 2012 at Urdaneta City, Pangasinan and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, control and custody five (5) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet[s] containing 0.100 gram; 0.084 gram; 0.079 gram; 0.235 gram and 0.236 gram, with a total weight of 0.734 gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), and one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet of dried marijuana containing 0.358 gram, both dangerous drugs. 18 (Emphasis in the original)
Accused-appellant's Version
Accused-appellant denied the charges against him and averred that he, and his neighbor Jay Ann Aturdido (Aturdido), 19 went to the PDEA safehouse in Bayaoas, Urdaneta City to visit Aturdido's detained relatives. Upon arrival, Aturdido gave her relatives food and clothes. She also attempted to give them an envelope. However, a PDEA officer seized the envelope and counted the money contained therein. The PDEA officer then informed Jay Ann that the money was insufficient. Thereafter, accused-appellant and Aturdido were kept in custody along with the other detainees. 20
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
The trial court found accused-appellant guilty of the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs 21 as he was positively identified as the seller of the suspected shabu22 and because the laboratory examination confirmed that the seized items were indeed prohibited drugs. 23 The trial court also found that accused-appellant failed to establish ill motive on the part of the PDEA which caused them to concoct charges against him. 24
Applying the doctrine laid out in People v. Lacerna, 25People v. Catan, 26 and People v. Dekingco, 27 the trial court found that the crime of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs 28 was absorbed in the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs because the prohibited drugs seized from accused-appellant were items that he intended to sell at the time of his arrest. 29
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
The CA affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the prosecution sufficiently proved the elements for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs. 30 The CA also held that the integrity and evidentiary value of the shabu was preserved. 31
Proceedings before the Court
On September 9, 2020, the Court issued a Resolution directing the parties to file their respective supplemental briefs within 30 days from notice. 32
The Public Attorney's Office filed a Manifestation in Lieu of a Supplemental Brief 33 dated November 19, 2020 stating that accused-appellant "repleads and adopts all the arguments raised in the [Appellant's Brief 34 dated August 3, 2018]" filed with the CA. 35 Similarly, the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a Manifestation and Motion 36 dated December 16, 2020 declaring that it will no longer file a Supplemental Brief because the issues have been exhaustively addressed in its Appellee's Brief dated December 5, 2018. 37
Ruling of the Court
The appeal is meritorious.
At the outset, it should be noted that the events in this case transpired in 2012, or prior to the amendments introduced by R.A. 10640. 38 Thus, the provisions of R.A. 9165 are applicable. AScHCD
R.A. 9165 prescribes the procedures to be observed in the custody and disposition of confiscated or seized dangerous drugs otherwise known as the chain of custody. The chain of custody consists of four links, namely: 39
The following links that must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, 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 from the forensic chemist to the court. 40
Failure to observe the rules governing each link of the chain of custody tarnishes the credibility of the corpus delicti41 and raises doubts as to whether the punishable act under R.A. 9165 was actually committed by the accused. 42 Consequently, accused-appellant hinges his prayer for exoneration on the State's alleged failure to comply with the chain of custody rule. 43 He claims that the State's failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody over the drugs allegedly seized from him must lead to his acquittal. 44
We agree.
After a meticulous review of the records, it becomes apparent that the State committed serious lapses in relation to the first link in the chain of custody. In particular, the PDEA failed to procure the presence of three essential witnesses (i.e., an elected public official, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and a representative from the media) 45 to observe the apprehension of accused-appellant and the seizure of the alleged shabu and marijuana from his person.
Having the necessary witnesses at the time of apprehension and seizure is a vital aspect of the chain of custody because it forecloses the pernicious practice of planting of evidence or compromising the integrity of the same. 46 In People v. Tomawis, 47 the Court extensively discussed the significance of this requirement:
The presence of the witnesses from the DOJ, media, and from public elective office is necessary to protect against the possibility of planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drug. Using the language of the Court in People v. Mendoza, without the insulating presence of the representative from the media or the DOJ and any elected public official during the seizure and marking of the drugs, the evils of switching, "planting" or contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-busts conducted under the regime of RA 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) again reared their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the subject sachet that was evidence of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused.
The presence of the three witnesses must be secured not only during the inventory but more importantly at the time of the warrantless arrest.
It is at this point in which the presence of the three witnesses is most needed, as it is their presence at the time of seizure and confiscation that would belie any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drug. If the buy-bust operation is legitimately conducted, the presence of the insulating witnesses would also controvert the usual defense of frameup as the witnesses would be able to testify that the buy-bust operation and inventory of the seized drugs were done in their presence in accordance with Section 21 of RA 9165.
The practice of police operatives of not bringing to the intended place of arrest the three witnesses, when they could easily do so — and "calling them in" to the place of inventory to witness the inventory and photographing of the drugs only after the buy-bust operation has already been finished — does not achieve the purpose of the law in having these witnesses prevent or insulate against the planting of drugs. 48 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Here, the records are bereft of any indication that the necessary witnesses were present when accused-appellant was arrested in the morning of May 24, 2012. 49 Instead, the PDEA merely "called in" witnesses Ponsoy and Kagawad Barcolta — the very act militated against in Tomawis — after accused-appellant was arrested and the prohibited drugs were seized from him.
What is more, both Ponsoy and Kagawad Barcolta were not summoned to the place of arrest, but were only asked to be present at the PDEA office in Urdaneta City. 50 As narrated by Ponsoy:
Direct examination of Ponsoy conducted by Prosecutor Silvestre Ridao:
Q: Do you recall madam witness if you were called upon by the elements of the PDEA stationed at Barangay Bayaoas, Urdaneta City on May 24, 2012 to act as a witness to the inventory?
A: Yes your Honor [sic].
Q: And where did you proceed madam witness after you were invited by the elements of the PDEA?
A: Right after the PDEA okayed, we proceeded to their office. 51
Cross-examination by Atty. Jose Antonio Guillermo:
Q: What time on May 24, 2012, when the inventory was conducted were you invited?
A: As far as I remember that was between 9:00 to 11:00 in the morning. 52
Q: Do you know [that] the arrest conducted by the PDEA to the accused was allegedly done on [or] about 8:00 o'clock in the morning on that day?
A: Yes your Honor [sic]. 53
Ponsoy also admitted that she was unaware how accused-appellant was apprehended on May 24, 2012. 54 Neither did the prosecution establish that Kagawad Barcolta witnessed the arrest of accused-appellant, 55 or that a representative from the DOJ was present during the arrest. All told, not one of the necessary witnesses was present when accused-appellant was arrested or when IO1 Peralta marked the seized items at the place of arrest. 56 Hence, the safeguards enunciated in Section 21 of RA 9165 and reiterated in People v. Tomawis were disregarded. AcICHD
Additionally, We find that the State failed to comply with the requirement of photographing and taking an inventory of the seized items at the place of arrest. In People v. Lim, 57 We held that:
Immediate physical inventory and photograph of the confiscated items at the place of arrest may [only] be excused in instances when the safety and security of the apprehending officers and the witnesses required by law or of the items seized are threatened by immediate or extreme danger such as retaliatory action of those who have the resources and capability to mount a counter-assault. 58
As consistently claimed by the prosecution, accused-appellant was apprehended at a vulcanizing shop behind 7-Eleven along McArthur Highway, Barangay Nancayasan, Urdaneta City. 59 However, no photographs of him and the seized items at that location can be found in the records. The only photographs offered in evidence 60 depict accused-appellant and the seized items at the PDEA office in Urdaneta City.
In failing to secure the presence of necessary witnesses at the time of apprehension, seizure and marking, and in failing to inventory and photograph the seized items immediately upon seizure and confiscation, the State was unable to shield the corpus delicti from doubts as to its origin, identity and integrity. Time and again, We have ruled that strict compliance with the chain of custody must be observed especially when miniscule amounts of prohibited drugs are involved as these are susceptible to being planted, switched, contaminated or tampered with. 61
While the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 allows permissible non-compliance with chain of custody procedures, 62 the State must establish justifiable grounds for non-compliance. In particular, the prosecution must: (a) recognize any lapses on the part of law enforcement operatives; and (b) be able to justify the same. 63
Nowhere in the record did the prosecution acknowledge that it had completely disregarded the witness, marking, inventory and photographing requirements prescribed under R.A. 9165. Moreover, the prosecution failed to put forth satisfactory reasons for non-compliance. Therefore, the State's non-compliance cannot be sanctioned.
Because of the lapses in the chain of custody — a vital component in establishing the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt 64 — We find that the State failed to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence enjoyed by accused-appellant. Consequently, the State's invocation of the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot be countenanced. 65
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated March 26, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08901 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Rodel Torres y Hernandez is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is ORDERED to IMMEDIATELY RELEASE accused-appellant Rodel Torres y Hernandez, unless the latter is being held for some other lawful cause. The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is likewise ORDERED to inform the Court of the date of the accused-appellant's release, or the reason for his continued confinement, within ten (10) days from receipt of notice. Copies shall also be furnished to the Director General of the Philippine National Police and the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for their information.
The letter dated November 1, 2020 of CInsp. Edgar N. Morillo, Acting Superintendent, New Bilibid Prison South, Bureau of Corrections, in compliance with the Resolution dated September 9, 2020, informing the Court that accused-appellant Rodel Torres y Hernandez was received in the Bureau of Corrections on July 31, 2015 and is presently confined at Dormitory 13F-1 of the Maximum Security Compound by virtue of a commitment order from the Regional Trial Court, Branch 48, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan is NOTED; and the Office of the Solicitor General's prayer to be excused from filing of supplemental brief in the instant case, is GRANTED. TAIaHE
SO ORDERED."Zalameda, J., took no part; Delos Santos, J., designated Additional Member per Raffle dated July 29, 2020.
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Justice Rodil V. Zalameda (now a Member of this Court), with the concurrence of Justices Fernanda Lampas-Peralta and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (now a Member of this Court); Rollo, pp. 3-16.
2. Records, pp. 259-270.
3.Id. at 262.
4.Id.
5.Id. at 4.
6.Id. at 262.
7.Id.
8.Rollo, p. 7.
9. Records, pp. 4, 9.
10.Id. at 5.
11.Id. at 10.
12.Id. at 9.
13.Id. at 173.
14.Id.
15.Id. at 1-A.
16.Id.
17.Id. at 259-260.
18.Id.
19.Id. at 185-187.
20.Id. at 264-265.
21.Id. at 269.
22.Id. at 268.
23.Id.
24.Id. at 269.
25. 344 Phil. 100 (1997).
26. 282 Phil. 255 (1992).
27. 267 Phil. 535 (1990).
28. Records, p. 269.
29.Id.
30.Rollo, pp. 10, 16.
31.Id. at 10.
32.Id. at 24-25.
33.Id. at 31-32.
34. CA rollo, pp. 68-85.
35.Rollo, p. 31.
36.Id. at 36-38.
37.Id.
38. 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.'" As the Court noted in People v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 236304, November 5, 2018, R.A. 10640 was approved on July 15, 2014. Under Section 5 thereof, it shall "take effect fifteen (15) days after its complete publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation." R.A. 10640 was published on July 23, 2014 in The Philippine Star (Vol. XXVIII, No. 359, Philippine Star Metro section, p. 21) and Manila Bulletin (Vol. 499, No. 23; World News section, p. 6). Thus, R.A. 10640 appears to have become effective on August 7, 2014.
39.People v. Kamad, 624 Phil. 289 (2010).
40.Id. at 304.
41.People v. Que, 824 Phil. 882, 896 (2018).
42.Id.
43. CA rollo, p. 81.
44.Id. at 83-84.
45.See People v. Esguerra, G.R. No. 243986, January 22, 2020.
46.People v. Globa, G.R. No. 241251, December 10, 2019.
47. 830 Phil. 385 (2018), cited in People v. Gamo, G.R. No. 213417, February 26, 2020.
48.Id. at 409.
49. Records, p. 9.
50. TSN dated March 18, 2013, p. 4.
51.Id.
52.Id. at 8.
53.Id.
54. Records, p. 264.
55.Id. at 162-163.
56. TSN dated March 18, 2013, p. 4; records, pp. 162-163, 262; rollo, p. 7.
57. G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018.
58.Id.
59. Records, p. 4; CA rollo, p. 126; TSN dated January 23, 2013, pp. 3-4.
60. Exhibits O, P, and Q.
61.People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78, 92-92 (2014), citing Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576 (2008).
62. Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 9165, Section 21.
63.SeePeople v. Sarabia, G.R. No. 243190, August 28, 2019 citing People v. Alagarme, 754 Phil. 449 (2015).
64. G.R. No. 229046, September 11, 2019.
65.SeePeople v. Sarabia, G.R. No. 243190, August 28, 2019.