People v. Valdez y Rodaje

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 255343. July 28, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.ROMEO VALDEZ y RODAJE ALIAS "POGI", accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated July 28, 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 255343 — People of the Philippines v. Romeo Valdez y Rodaje alias "Pogi".

Romeo R. Valdez waived his

Appellant Romeo Valdez y Rodaje alias "Pogi" (Valdez) asserts that the prosecution had no evidence to indict him for illegal possession of drugs. He was illegally arrested, hence, any evidence obtained during an illegal arrest was inadmissible in court.

In many instances, the Court has ruled that when an accused never objected to the irregularity of his arrest before his arraignment, pleaded not guilty on arraignment and actively participated in the trial of the case, he or she is considered to have properly and voluntarily submitted himself or herself to the jurisdiction of the trial court and waived his or her right to question his arrest. 1

Here, Valdez never objected to his arrest prior to or even during his arraignment. With assistance of counsel, he pleaded not guilty to the charge and actively participated in the trial, especially during the cross-examination of the witnesses against him. His actions showed that he voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the trial court and was therefore deemed to have waived his right to contest the validity of his arrest.

The failure of the accused though to timely object to the illegality of his or her arrest does not preclude him or her from questioning the admissibility of the evidence seized as an incident of the warrantless arrest. 2 Its inadmissibility is not affected when the accused fails to timely question the jurisdiction of the court over his or her person. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused and the constitutional inadmissibility of evidence are separate and mutually exclusive consequences of an illegal arrest. 3 SDHTEC

The chain of custody was

In illegal drugs cases, the drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense. The prosecution is, therefore, tasked to establish that the substance illegally possessed by the accused is the same substance presented in court. 4 Proof beyond reasonable doubt demands that unwavering exactitude be observed in establishing the corpus delicti. The chain of custody rule performs this function as it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. 5

Valdez was charged with violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165) allegedly committed on September 18, 2015. The applicable law is RA 9165, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640 (RA 10640). Section 21 thereof prescribes the standard in preserving the corpus delicti in illegal drugs cases:

SECTION 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 persons 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;

(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination;

(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued immediately upon the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not allow the completion of testing within the time frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided, however, That a final certification shall be issued immediately upon completion of the said examination and certification.

The IRR of RA 9165 further mandates:

SECTION 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:

(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory 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, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official 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, further, that non-compliance with 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 of and custody over said items.

To ensure the integrity of the seized drug item, the prosecution must account for each link in its chain of custody: 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 by the forensic chemist to the court. 6

The first link refers to the seizure and marking which must be done immediately at the place of the arrest. Too, it includes the physical inventory and taking of photograph of the seized items which should be done in the presence of the accused or his/her representative or counsel, together with an elected public official and a representative of the Department of Justice (DOJ) or the media.

Here, the chain of custody had been breached many times over.

First. The marking was not done immediately after arrest and seizure of the specimen. In People v. Castillo, 7 the Court explained the importance of immediately marking the corpus delicti after seizure:

In People v. Saunar, this Court discussed the purpose of marking and emphasized that it is a separate requirement from inventorying and photographing:

Although the requirement of "marking" is not found in Republic Act No. 9165, its significance lies in ensuring the authenticity of the corpus delicti. In People v. Dahil:

Crucial in proving the chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or other related items immediately after they have been seized from the accused. "Marking" means the placing by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initials and signature on the items seized. Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link; hence, it is vital that the seized contraband be immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. The marking of the evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of the criminal proceedings, thus, preventing switching, planting or contamination of evidence. (Emphasis on the original; citations omitted)

The Court concedes though that RA 9165 contains a saving clause allowing liberality whenever there are compelling reasons to otherwise warrant deviation from the established protocol so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. 8

Here, PO3 Wilfredo Lasic (PO3 Lasic) testified that after Valdez got arrested, the latter was brought to the police station and only there did he (PO3 Lasic) mark the sachet seized from Valdez. He explained that he could not mark it at the place of arrest since he did not have any marking tools with him. But this kind of justification is flimsy on its face and could not have set the saving clause in motion. Consequently, since the alleged corpus delicti remained unmarked from the place of arrest until it reached the police station, it was exposed to the possibility of switching or tampering while in transit, hence, its integrity and evidentiary value was deemed to have been compromised. 9 AcICHD

Second. RA 9165, as amended, now requires that the insulating witnesses must be an elected public official and a representative of the Department of Justice (DOJ) or the media. The Court has repeatedly stressed that the presence of the required insulating witnesses at the time of the inventory is mandatory. Under the law, the presence of the insulating witnesses is a high prerogative requirement, the non-fulfillment of which casts serious doubts upon the integrity of the corpus delicti itself — the very prohibited substance itself — and for that reason imperils the prosecution's case. 10 Non-compliance may be permitted if the prosecution proves that the apprehending officers exerted genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of such witnesses, albeit they eventually failed to appear. 11

Here, PO3 Lasic testified that he did the inventory and photograph taking only in the presence of Valdez and a media representative. There was no evidence at all that the police exerted efforts to secure the presence of the other insulating witness in the person of either an elected official or a DOJ representative. In fact, the prosecution did not even recognize this omission, let alone, explain the same. Again, this unjustified deviation could not have set the saving clause in motion as to save the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti.

Third. PO3 Lasic testified that he merely showed the seized drug to the investigator PO3 Boy Niño Baladjay (PO3 Baladjay) so the latter could prepare the request for its laboratory examination. It was PO3 Lasic who also personally delivered the request, together with the seized drug to the crime laboratory. This means that from the time of seizure until its delivery to the crime laboratory, the seized drug had only been in the sole custody of PO3 Lasic. Conspicuously though, PO3 Lasic was absolutely silent on how he handled the seized drug all through the time it remained in his custody. This is another gap in the chain of custody which further cast doubt on the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti.

As shown, the chain of custody here had been seriously violated many times over. We cannot, therefore, consider the identity and integrity of the seized drug items to have been preserved. Hence, Valdez must be acquitted as a matter of right.

A final word. We do not agree with the pronouncement of the Court of Appeals that stricter compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 is only required when the quantity of drugs is miniscule but not in this case where the drugs seized was 6.811 grams. For one, 6.811 grams is still susceptible of being planted or switched. It can easily be slipped in the pocket or the body of a person without being noticed. To another, the quantity of drugs is not the only measure for requiring compliance with the chain of custody rule, but rather, the assurance that the integrity of the corpus delicti was not compromised.

In the recent case of People v. Estavillo, 12 the Court did not hesitate to reverse the conviction of the accused even when the drugs involved were 99.303 grams. There, the insulating witnesses were not present during the seizure, marking, and inventory and the prosecution failed to justify their absence. Thus, the Court said that the procedural lapses committed cast serious doubts on whether the seized substances taken from the accused were the same substances presented in court. So must it be.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated August 28, 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12386 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

ACCORDINGLY, in Criminal Case No. 15-320023, ROMEO VALDEZ y RODAJE alias "Pogi" is ACQUITTED of violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 as amended.

The Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City is ordered TO CAUSE his immediate release, unless he is being lawfully held in custody for any other reason; and TO SUBMIT to the Court his compliance within five (5) days from notice.

Let an entry of judgment be immediately issued. TAIaHE

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

(SGD.) MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. See Villanueva v. People, 747 Phil. 40, 46 (2014).

2. See Homar v. People, 768 Phil. 195, 209 (2015).

3.Veridiano v. People, 810 Phil. 642, 654 (2017).

4. See People v. Barte, 806 Phil. 533, 542 (2017).

5.People v. Ameril, G.R. No. 222192, March 13, 2019.

6. See People v. Luminda, G.R. No. 229661, November 20, 2019.

7. G.R. No. 238339, August 07, 2019.

8.Barayuga v. People, G.R. No. 248382, July 28, 2020.

9. See People v. Bumanlag, G.R. No. 228884, August 19, 2019.

10.People v. Manansala, G.R. No. 229509, July 03, 2019.

11.People v. Maranan, G.R. No. 242823, June 22, 2020.

12. G.R. No. 238400, March 4, 2020.