THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 248371. September 2, 2020.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. FLORDELIZA UMBAC y GUMANIT a.k.a. "LIZA",accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated September 2, 2020, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 248371 (People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Flordeliza Umbac y Gumanit a.k.a. "Liza,"Accused-Appellant). — Accused-appellant Flordeliza Umbac y Gumanit assails the Court of Appeal's 13 November 2018 Decision in CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 02639 1 whereby the appellate court affirmed her conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, as pronounced in the 03 August 2017 Judgment rendered by Branch 42, Regional Trial Court, Dumaguete City in Criminal Case No. 2017-24139. aScITE
Antecedents
An Information was filed against accused-appellant charging her with violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165), otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Accused-appellant was indicted thusly:
That on or about the 10th day of January, 2017, in the City of Dumaguete, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, not being then authorized by law, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally sell and/or deliver to a poseur-buyer one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.02 gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, commonly called shabu, a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 2
Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. Thus, trial on the merits ensued. 3
According to the prosecution, on January 10, 2017, Police Officer 3 Jose Mari Morta (PO3 Morta) received an information from their confidential informant that a certain Liza was peddling illegal drugs in Sitio Canday-ong, Barangay Calindagan, Dumaguete City. Thus, a buy-bust team was organized to apprehend accused-appellant. Liza was later identified to be accused-appellant Flordeliza Gumanit Umbac. 4
The buy-bust was implemented, which led to accused-appellant's arrest. At the place of arrest, the seized drug was marked by PO3 Morta, who acted as poseur-buyer, with "FGU-BB-01/10/17". Then, accused-appellant and the seized illegal drug were brought to the Dumaguete Police Station where the inventory and photograph taking of the seized drug were conducted. The procedure was witnessed by a media representative, Juancho Gallarde (Gallarde), and Barangay Kagawad Meliton Patrimonio (Patrimonio). 5
Following the inventory, PO3 Morta prepared the memorandum request for laboratory examination and drug test of the seized drug and the appellant. After subjecting the specimen to examination, the results show that the contents submitted by PO3 Morta for examination contained 0.02 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. The urine test conducted on the appellant also yielded a positive result for drug use. 6
On the other hand, accused-appellant denied the charge against her and narrated that she was just sitting in her house when police officers forced her to go to the police station against her will. She was then surprised when she was charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs. Appellant denied the charge against her claiming that the evidence was merely planted by the police officers. 7
Finding that the evidence of the prosecution was able to establish the sale of dangerous drugs during the buy-bust operation, the RTC convicted accused-appellant of the crime charged against her. Also, the RTC noted the police officers' substantial compliance with the chain custody requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165. 8
On appeal, the CA affirmed accused-appellant's conviction, disposing accused-appellant's appeal in this wise:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DENIED. The decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 42, Dumaguete City dated August 3, 2017 in Criminal Case No. 2017-24139 finding accused-appellant FLORDELIZA UMBAC y GUMANIT a.k.a. "Liza," guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 is AFFIRMED en toto. 9
The appellate court found all the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs established: (1) the identities of accused-appellant and PO3 Morta as buyer and seller, respectively; and, (2) the object of the sale, the consideration, as well as the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for the same, as evidenced by the actual exchange and recovery of the contraband and the buy-bust money. 10 The CA dismissed accused-appellant's allegation of frame-up in view of the lack of evidence presented to support it. According to the CA, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty should prevail in the absence of proof that the police officers are ill-motivated in making the arrest. 11 Finally, the CA ruled that the police officers substantially complied with the requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165 despite the fact that the marking, inventory, and photograph-taking was done in the police station and was witnessed only by an elected official and a media representative. In the opinion of the CA, the integrity of the seized drug remained intact notwithstanding the lapses. 12
Hence, this appeal.
Issue
The Court is confronted with the task of determining whether or not the accused-appellant was correctly convicted of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. Among others, accused appellant highlights the police officers' failure to observe Section 21 of RA 9165, specifically their failure to immediately mark and inventory the seized drug at the scene of the crime, coupled with the prosecution's failure to provide justifiable excuses to explain the lapses. 13 HEITAD
Ruling of the Court
We grant the appeal.
To successfully prosecute a charge of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, it is imperative that the drugs seized, or the corpus delicti of the crime, must be presented as evidence in court. The State is under strict obligation to establish beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the dangerous drugs by showing that the drugs offered in court as evidence were the same substances bought during the buy-bust operation. This requirement is satisfied when the chain of custody mechanism provided under RA 9165, which objective is to remove unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence, are complied with. 14 Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended, provides:
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: 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, finally, That noncompliance of 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 and custody over said items. x x x
Meanwhile, We held that "marking" of the seized drug is an additional, yet very important, step that must be immediately done upon confiscation of the contraband. 15 We stressed in People v. Coreche16 that "marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link" and that failure to mark the drug immediately after it was seized casts serious doubt on the authenticity of the specimen. More importantly, in People v. Tomawis, 17 We ruled that the Section 21, RA 9165 mandates that the witnesses mentioned in the law must be present at the time of the warrantless arrest, as this could be done with ease by police authorities considering that a buy-bust operation, to its core, is a planned police activity. The same conclusion was reached recently in People v. Asaytuno, 18 where the Court overturned a conviction because the State failed to procure witnesses during the implementation of the buy-bust.
Here, the records reveal that the witnesses were only present during the inventory and photograph-taking conducted at the police station. This is evident especially with the stipulation reached by the prosecution and the defense with respect to the presence of the media representative and elected official. Thus:
COURT:
How many witnesses for you Prosecutor?
FISCAL JACOBO:
Your Honor, only the witnesses, Your Honor, of Kagawad Meliton Patrimonio and Juancho Gallarde.
COURT:
So that cannot be a subject to stipulation?
FISCAL JACOBO:
We will propose to stipulate, Your Honor.
COURT:
Okay, your stipulation.
FISCAL JACOBO:
May we propose for stipulation that on . . .
COURT:
That Juancho Gallarde is a media practitioner.
FISCAL JACOBO:
While Kagawad Meliton Patrimonio is a duly elected barangay official.
ATTY. ABREA:
Admitted, Your Honor.
COURT:
Next.
FISCAL JACOBO:
That the same witnesses were called upon to witness the inventory on January 10, 2017 at Dumaguete City Police Station at 7:30 p.m.
ATTY. ABREA:
Admitted. 19
This places serious doubt as to whether the same marked drug was the one submitted for inventory, photograph-taking, and laboratory testing.
Worse, neither did the trial court ask, nor did the prosecution offer justification why their presence were not procured during the implementation of the buy-bust. We acknowledge that while Section 21 provides for a saving mechanism in case of non compliance, the same is conditioned upon the State, through police authorities, giving adequate justification why the lapses occurred. Again, failure to do so would put the identity of the corpus delicti into question necessitating a finding of acquittal based on reasonable doubt. ETHIDa
We also reiterate that the practice of law enforcers bringing witnesses to the place where the seized drug is to be inventoried and photographed does not achieve the purpose of the law in having these witnesses prevent or insulate against the planting of drugs. 20 This is especially true when subject specimen is of miniscule quantity where the probability of planting, tampering, or contaminating evidence is amplified; which also explains the need for stricter observance of Section 21 of RA 9165. 21
WHEREFORE, the Appeal is hereby GRANTED. The 13 November 2018 Decision of the CA in CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 02639 finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Flordeliza Umbac y Gumanit is hereby ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt. The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is ordered to cause her immediate release, unless she is being lawfully held in custody for any other reason. Let an entry of final judgment be issued immediately.
The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to implement the immediate release of Flordeliza Umbac y Gumanit, and to report compliance within 10 days from receipt.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 5 to 23; penned by then Executive Justice Edgardo L. Delos Santos (now a member of the Court), with the concurrence of Associate Justice Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap and Associate Justice Emily R. Aliño-Geluz.
2.Id. at 5 to 6.
3.Id. at 6.
4.Id. at 6.
5.Id. at 6 to 7.
6.Id. at 7 to 8.
7.Id. at 10.
8.Id. at 11.
9.Id. at 22.
10.Id. at 13 to 15.
11.Id. at 16.
12.Id. at 16 to 22.
13.Id. at 22 to 24.
14.People v. Angngao y Makay, G.R. No. 189296, 11 March 2015.
15.People v. Asaytuno, G.R. No. 245972, 02 December 2019, quoting People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 175832, 15 October 2008.
16. G.R. No. 182528, 14 August 2009.
17. G.R. No. 228890, 18 April 2018.
18.Supra note 15.
19. Transcript of Stenographic Notes dated 26 May 2017, page 8.
20.People v. Tomawis, supra note 17.
21.Veriño y Pingol v. People, G.R. No. 225710, 19 June 2019.