People v. Undaki

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 252677. November 11, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.ABOLKIYA DILNA ALI ALIAS "ABOL" AND SAIPON DILAOSAN UNDAKI ALIAS "DITI", accused;

SAIPON DILAOSAN UNDAKI ALIAS "DITI", accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 11, 2021which reads as follows: HTcADC

"G.R. No. 252677 (People of the Philippines v. Abolkiya Dilna Ali alias "Abol" and Saipon Dilaosan Undaki alias "Diti," Accused; Saipon Dilaosan Undaki alias "Diti," Accused-Appellant). — Saipon Dilaosan Undaki alias "Diti" (Saipon), appeals the Decision 1 dated August 9, 2019 and the Resolution 2 dated January 14, 2020 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12144, which affirmed his conviction for violation of Section 5, 3 Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 4 in the October 24, 2018 Decision 5 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 82.

ANTECEDENTS

Saipon, together with Abolkiya Dilna Ali (Abolkiya), were charged with the illegal sale of shabu, a dangerous drug, under Section 5, Article II of RA No. 9165 or the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," as follows:

That on or about the 14th day of July 2018, in Quezon City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law, conspiring together, confederating with and mutually helping with [sic] each other, did then and there willfully and unlawfully sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport, or act as a broker in the said transaction one (1) knot-tied transparent plastic bag with markings A-1 JQM 07-14-18 containing eighty-two point zero two (82.02) grams of white crystalline substance containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride known as "SHABU[,]" a dangerous drug.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 6

Saipon and Abolkiya pleaded not guilty to the charge. During the pre-trial, the parties agreed to dispense with the presentation of the forensic chemist, who examined the seized item, and instead stipulated on the following matters:

1. That the accused are the ones charged in the Information;

2. That the Court has jurisdiction to try and hear this case and over the [persons] of the accused[;]

3. That the Forensic Chemist Katrina Jane D. Agustin is a qualified Forensic Chemist assigned at the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), NIA Road, Brgy. Pinyahan, Quezon City;

4. That she personally received a Request for Laboratory Examination dated July 14, 2018, together with the specimen subject of the case;

5. That she can identify the Request for Laboratory Examination and Request for Drug Test she received and the documents she prepared;

6. That she received the specimen on July 14, 2018 at 6:40 p.m. as indicated in the Request for Laboratory Examination;

7. That upon receiving the said specimen, she conducted qualitative examination and found the specimen positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu;

8. That in connection with the examination she conducted, she submitted Chemistry Report No. PDEA-DDO18-570 dated July 14, 2018, indicating her findings on the specimen submitted; that the same was positive to the test for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride;

9. That she thereafter turned over the specimen to the assistant evidence custodian Erwin Obediente who safekept it until it was retrieved [today] and brought to Court for [today's] hearing;

10. That she can identify the following: the specimen she received from the arresting officers indicated in the Chain of Custody [form], the Chemistry Report on the specimen and she prepared the Initial Laboratory Report on the Drug Test and her signature on both documents;

11. That she signed the Chain of Custody [form]; [and]

12. That she has no knowledge of the facts and circumstances leading to the arrest of the accused, and as to the source of the specimen submitted to her for examination. 7

At the trial, the prosecution presented the testimonies of Agents Jerome Mandiit (Agent Jerome) and Eric Tugunen (Agent Eric), along with several documentary and object evidence. 8 Through the prosecution's evidence, it was established that on July 13, 2018, a confidential informant gave a tip to Agent Jerome about the illegal drug activities of Saipon. The information was immediately relayed to Special Enforcement Service (SES) Agent Jonar Cuayzon (Agent Jonar), and Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) SES Director Levi Ortiz (Director Levi). Acting on the report, Agent Jonar and Director Levi decided to conduct a buy-bust operation. 9 At around 10:00 a.m. that day, the confidential informant was instructed to call Saipon to arrange a meeting with an interested buyer. Saipon agreed to meet the next day at the parking lot of Jollibee Fairview for the sale of 100 grams of shabu. 10

A final briefing for the operation was conducted at 6:00 a.m. of July 14, 2018. The transaction was planned to take place on board an unmarked vehicle that the team will use to go to the target place. Agent Jerome was designated as the poseur-buyer, while the confidential informant was assigned to drive and was instructed to switch on the hazard light once the sale was consummated to signal the rest of the team to back up the arrest. Two genuine P500.00-bills were used on top of the boodle money. After preparing the authority to operate, and the pre-operation report, the team proceeded to the designated venue. 11

The team arrived at the target area at around 8:30 a.m., and after two hours of waiting, they received a call from Saipon to proceed to Regalado Avenue beside the hospital. Upon arrival, the confidential informant called Saipon and gave their exact location and the description of their vehicle. When Saipon and Abolkiya arrived and boarded the vehicle, the confidential informant introduced Agent Jerome as the buyer. Agent Jerome showed Saipon the money, ensuring that only the genuine bills are seen. Saipon then handed Agent Jerome a Mercury Drug plastic bag containing a knot-tied plastic bag with white crystalline substance. After inspecting the bag, Agent Jerome gave Saipon the payment. At this point, the confidential informant immediately executed the pre-arranged signal, which prompted the rest of the PDEA operatives to move in and effect the arrest of the suspects. 12

At the place of arrest, photographs were taken and Agent Jerome marked the seized drug with "A-1 JQM 07-14-18." Immediately, the team proceeded to the PDEA headquarters, where the physical inventory was conducted in the presence of Saipon and Abolkiya, a barangay kagawad, and a media representative. Agent Jerome prepared the Request for Laboratory Test and, thereafter, brought the seized item to the crime laboratory for examination. He turned over the item to the forensic chemist, who, after examination, issued a report finding the specimen positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. 13

In defense, Saipon and Abolkiya denied the charge and offered a different narration of the incident. They claimed that they were waiting in front of SM Fairview to meet a certain Joseph, who would help Saipon look for a job when suddenly, an unknown man held Saipon from behind and pointed a gun to his side. Another man then put his arm around Abolkiya, who was told not to make a scene. They were forced to board a vehicle and were asked about the whereabouts of their "boss." After unsuccessful attempts to elicit information from them, the men ordered them to get off the vehicle and stay by the hood. On top of the hood were several items, including one which looked like "tawas." Saipon also alleged that one of the men told him to call his father to demand for P50,000.00 in exchange for their freedom.

The RTC, in its Decision 14 dated October 24, 2018, acquitted Abolkiya on the ground of failure to prove conspiracy since he did not participate in the sale transaction between Saipon and Agent Jerome. Meanwhile, Saipon was found guilty of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The RTC gave credence to the testimonies of Agents Jerome and Eric, and rejected Saipon's defense of frame-up. The RTC ruled that the prosecution established all the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, as well as an unbroken chain of custody, thus:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused [Abolkiya] NOT GUILTY of violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 on the ground of reasonable doubt.

As regard[s] accused [Saipon], the Court finds him GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165.

Accordingly, this Court sentences the accused [Saipon] to suffer the penalty of Life Imprisonment and to pay a Fine in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand ([P]500,000.00) Pesos without eligibility of [sic] parole in accordance with R.A. 9346.

The Jail Warden of the Quezon City Jail, EDSA, Kamuning, Quezon City, is directed to release from custody the living person of accused [Abolkiya] unless he is being held for some other legal cause.

xxx xxx xxx

SO ORDERED. 15

On appeal, the CA affirmed Saipon's conviction. 16 The CA held that he was caught in flagrante delicto, and was positively identified as the seller of the illegal drug. There was a valid buy bust operation, and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug was preserved. However, the CA observed that the prosecution failed to show justifiable ground to excuse the apprehending team's failure to immediately conduct a physical inventory of the confiscated item at the place of arrest. Nonetheless, the CA held that the matter cannot be raised for the first time on appeal to render the seized item inadmissible in evidence. 17 Aggrieved, Saipon moved for reconsideration, but was denied in a Resolution 18 dated January 14, 2020.

Hence, this appeal. Saipon seeks the reversal of his conviction, maintaining that the buy bust operation was dubious, and that there are gaps in the chain of custody. Saipon questions why the name of Abolkiya was indicated in the pre-operation report instead of his, and why Agent Jerome, who was supposedly assigned in Mindanao, actively participated in the operation in Quezon City. As to the chain of custody, the buy bust team failed to immediately conduct the physical inventory at the place of arrest, and the evidence custodian, who kept the seized item after examination at the crime laboratory, did not testify. 19

The People, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed a Manifestation 20 dated February 17, 2021, stating that it will no longer file a supplemental brief before this Court and will be adopting its appellee's brief filed with the CA despite not having filed an appellee's brief before the CA. 21

RULING

The appeal is meritorious.

Conviction for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA No. 9165 entails proof of the following elements beyond reasonable doubt: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. The dangerous drug constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense; hence, the preservation of its identity and integrity is crucial for a judgment of conviction. 22 In this regard, the burden is upon the prosecution to prove that the illegal drug presented in court is the same drug actually seized from accused-appellant. This stringent burden is engendered by the unique characteristic of narcotic substances that renders them indistinct, not readily identifiable, and usually open to tampering, alteration, or substitution either by accident or by deliberate act, especially when seized in small quantity. 23

It is essential to ensure that the substance recovered from the accused is the same substance offered in court. 24 Accordingly, the prosecution must satisfactorily establish the movement and custody of the seized drug through the following links: (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. 25

In this case, the records reveal a broken chain of custody. After the seized drug was marked, the buy bust team proceeded to the PDEA headquarters in Barangay Pinyahan, Quezon City. The second link in the chain of custody requires the prosecution to establish the movement and custody of the confiscated item, particularly, its turnover by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer, who shall conduct the proper investigation and prepare the necessary documents for the transfer of the evidence to the police crime laboratory for testing. 26 Further, the third link in the chain of custody requires that the movement from the investigating officer to the forensic chemist be established. Here, there are marked irregularities in the second and third links of the chain of custody. Agent Jerome failed to show how he handled the seized drug during its transport from the place of arrest to the PDEA office until it was delivered and turned over to the forensic chemist at the crime laboratory. The operatives failed to provide any justification showing that the integrity of the evidence had all along been preserved. They 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.

Moreover, the prosecution was not able to establish the fourth link in the chain of custody, or that relating to the turnover and submission of the seized drug from the forensic chemist to the court. In People v. Andanar, 27 we held that the following details are required in the stipulation of the forensic chemist's testimony, to wit: (1) that the forensic chemist received the seized article as marked, properly sealed, and intact; (2) that the drug was resealed after examination of the content; and (3) that the forensic chemist placed his or her own marking on the item to ensure that it is not tampered with, pending trial. To be sure, the fourth link in the chain of custody could not be reasonably established absent any testimony regarding the management, storage, and preservation of the illegal drug after its qualitative examination. 28 Here, the stipulations on the forensic chemist's testimony are incomplete to remove any doubt on the integrity and evidentiary value of the shabu presented to the trial court. At its best, the stipulations merely provide that the forensic chemist possessed the necessary qualifications to examine the seized item; that she personally received it; and that after examination, she turned it over to the evidence custodian, who kept it until it was presented in court. The stipulations are silent on crucial details to demonstrate the condition of the specimen upon her receipt, and the measures she took in its handling. Likewise, there is nothing on record to show the condition of the item upon its turnover to the evidence custodian after examination up to the time it was presented in court. There was also no allegation as to how the evidence custodian handled the seized item. The lack of these vital informations deprived the trial court of the means to ascertain that the evidence presented was not compromised.

We reiterate that the prosecution bears the burden of proof to show valid cause for non-compliance with the procedure laid down in Section 21 of RA No. 9165, as amended. As we have emphasized in the recent case of People v. Sanico: 29

[The prosecution] has the positive duty to demonstrate observance thereto in such a way that, during the proceedings before the trial court, it must initiate in acknowledging and justifying any perceived deviations from the requirements of the law. Its failure to follow the mandated procedure must be adequately explained and must be proven as a fact in accordance with the rules on evidence. The rules require that the apprehending officers do not simply mention a justifiable ground, but also clearly state this ground in their sworn affidavit, coupled with a statement on the steps they took to preserve the integrity of the seized item. A stricter adherence to Section 21 is required where the quantity of illegal drugs seized is miniscule since it is highly susceptible to planting, tampering, or alteration. 30 (Citations omitted and emphasis in the original.)

Corollary to this is the basic rule that the presumption of regularity in the performance of their official duties enjoyed by the law enforcers cannot prevail over the constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent. The presumption of regularity is disputable and cannot be regarded as binding truth. 31 Indeed, when the performance of duty is tainted with irregularities, such presumption is effectively destroyed. 32 As the prosecution failed to discharge its burden, the Court finds it apt to acquit Saipon.

FOR THESE REASONS, the appeal is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Decision dated August 9, 2019 and the Resolution dated January 14, 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12144 are REVERSED. Saipon Dilaosan Undaki alias "Diti" is ACQUITTED in Criminal Case No. R-QZN-18-09386-CR, and is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention unless he is lawfully held for another cause.

Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.

Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. The Director General is directed to report to the Court the action taken within five (5) 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

1.Rollo, pp. 3-19. Penned by Associate Justice Marlene B. Gonzales-Sison, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles and Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin.

2. CA rollo, pp. 132-133.

3. SEC. 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals.

4. Entitled "AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on June 7, 2002.

5. CA rollo, pp. 50-68. Penned by Presiding Judge Lyn Ebora-Cacha.

6.Id. at 50.

7.Rollo, pp. 4-5.

8.Id. at 5-6.

9. CA rollo, p. 53.

10.Id.

11.Id.

12.Id. at 54-58.

13.Id. at 54-55.

14.Id. at 50-68. Penned by Presiding Judge Lyn Ebora-Cacha.

15.Rollo, pp. 9-10.

16.Id. at 3-19.

17.Id. at 16.

18. CA rollo, pp. 132-133.

19.Rollo, pp. 38-42.

20.Id. at 28-29.

21.Id. at 12-13. The CA noted that the OSG received the appellant's brief on May 2, 2019 but the OSG did not file an appellee's brief as of July 15, 2019. Thus, the CA deemed the case submitted for decision.

22.People v. Partoza, 605 Phil. 883, 890 (2009).

23.Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 587-588 (2008).

24.People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 33 (2017).

25.People v. Bugtong, 826 Phil. 628, 638-639 (2018).

26.People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 235 (2015).

27. G.R. No. 246284, June 16, 2021, citing People v. Miranda, G.R. No. 218126, July 10, 2019, further citing People v. Cabuhay, 836 Phil. 903, 918 (2018), citing People v. Pajarin, 654 Phil. 461, 466 (2011).

28.Id.

29. G.R. No. 240431, July 7, 2020.

30.Id.

31.Mallillin v. People, supra note 23, at 593; and People v. Cañete, 433 Phil. 781, 794 (2002).

32.People v. Dela Cruz, 589 Phil. 259, 272 (2008).