People v. Ventanilla y Ferrer

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 250182. July 14, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALBERT VENTANILLA y FERRER @ "PALITS", accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 14, 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 250182 (People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee v. Albert Ventanilla y Ferrer @ "Palits," accused-appellant).

This Appeal 1 seeks to reverse and set aside the August 16, 2018 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 09553. The CA affirmed the June 8, 2017 Joint Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court of Lingayen, Pangasinan, Branch 69 (RTC), in Criminal Case Nos. L-11122 and L-11123, finding Albert Ventanilla y Ferrer @ "Palits"(accused-appellant) guilty of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."

Antecedents

In two (2) separate informations, accused-appellant was charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Secs. 5 and 11, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, to wit: HTcADC

Criminal Case No. L-11122Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs

That sometime in the evening of August 16, 2016 in P[.] Moran St. West, Poblacion, Lingayen, Pangasinan and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, who is without authority, did then and there, willfully and unlawfully sell one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or Shabu, a dangerous drug worth [Php500.00], a marked money to PO[I] Jhordan B. Sarzaba, a police operative acting as poseur[-]buyer during the legitimate buy-bust operation conducted against him due to his dealings with dangerous drugs without authority. 4

Criminal Case No. L-11123Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs

That sometime in the evening of August 16, 2016 in P[.] Moran St. West, Poblacion, Lingayen, Pangasinan and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there, willfully and unlawfully have in his possession, control and custody two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing 0.042 gram and 0.030 gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or Shabu, a dangerous drug, which were seized from him by the authorities upon a routine body check on his person after his apprehension for selling dangerous drugs during a police buy-bust operation against him. 5

During his arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded "not guilty" to the charges. Thus, trial on the merits ensued. 6

Evidence for the Prosecution

The prosecution presented as witnesses Police Officer I Jhordan Sarzaba (PO1 Sarzaba) and Police Chief Inspector Myrna Majojo-Todeño (PCI Todeño). 7

On August 16, 2016, at around 6:30 p.m., PO1 Sarzaba received a tip from a confidential informant (informant) that accused-appellant was engaged in dangerous drug activities. A buy-bust team was thus formed after the informant arranged a transaction with accused-appellant. The buy-bust team coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency and assigned PO1 Sarzaba as the poseur-buyer. The P500.00 buy-bust money was marked with "JBS." After several text message exchanges between the informant and accused-appellant, they agreed to meet at P. Moran Street West, Poblacion, Lingayen. 8

Later that night, at around 8:10 p.m., the buy-bust team reached the target area and positioned themselves. PO1 Sarzaba and the informant then approached accused-appellant. After being assured that PO1 Sarzaba was not a policeman, accused-appellant asked PO1 Sarzaba how much shabu he intended to buy, to which the latter replied P500.00 worth. Accused-appellant withdrew from his right front pocket a small transparent plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance and gave it to PO1 Sarzaba, who then handed accused-appellant the buy-bust money. PO1 Sarzaba then introduced himself as a policeman and executed the pre-arranged signal. Accused-appellant was thereafter arrested. 9

PO1 Sarzaba held the plastic sachet sold to him in his left hand and frisked accused-appellant with his right hand. PO1 Sarzaba then recovered another two (2) plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance from accused-appellant's right pocket, and the buy-bust money and a cellular phone from accused-appellant's left pocket. Due to the monsoon rain, the buy-bust team decided to bring accused-appellant and the seized items to the police headquarters of Lingayen. 10

At the police headquarters, PO1 Sarzaba marked, inventoried, and photographed the seized items in the presence of accused-appellant, Barangay Kagawad Pablito Tigno (Kagawad Tigno), Barangay Kagawad Gemmond Gonzales (Kagawad Gonzales), media representative Emil C. Toledo (Toledo), and Prosecutor Jefferey Catungal (Pros. Catungal). The plastic sachet sold to PO1 Sarzaba was marked with "JBS-1" while the two plastic sachets recovered from accused-appellant's right pocket were marked with "JBS-2" and "JBS-3." Accused-appellant was thereafter brought to the Lingayen District Hospital for medical examination and then endorsed to Police Officer III Wilfredo Dulay (PO3 Dulay), the investigating officer, for the preparation of requests for drug laboratory and drug test examination. PO1 Sarzaba retained possession of the seized items and only exhibited the same to PO3 Dulay while the latter prepared said requests. 11

At about 11:30 p.m., PO1 Sarzaba obtained the laboratory requests from PO3 Dulay and delivered the seized items to the PNP Lingayen Crime Laboratory. PCI Todeño, the forensic chemist, received the same from PO1 Sarzaba and immediately conducted a qualitative examination thereon. In her Chemistry Report No. D-684-2016L, PCI Todeño confirmed that the contents of the plastic sachet were positive for shabu. PCI Todeño also indicated in the report that the plastic sachet sold to PO1 Sarzaba weighed 0.014 gram while the two other plastic sachets weighed 0.042 gram and 0.030 gram, respectively. After the examination, PCI Todeño marked the plastic sachets and placed them inside a brown envelope which she sealed, signed, and delivered to the evidence custodian, Police Officer III E.J. Manuel (PO3 Manuel) for safekeeping. PO3 Manuel also affixed his signature on the envelope. Upon receiving the subpoena, PCI Todeño retrieved the envelope from PO3 Manuel for the presentation and identification of the seized items in court. PCI Todeño confirmed during her testimony that there were no signs of tampering on the brown envelope. 12

Evidence for the Defense

The defense presented accused-appellant and his neighbor, Agnes Candelario (Candelario), as witnesses.

On August 16, 2016, at around 5:00 p.m., accused-appellant was outside his house while waiting for his wife who went to buy medicine for their sick five-month old baby. Suddenly, several policemen from the Lingayen Police Station arrived and asked him to board the patrol vehicle. At the time of his arrest, accused-appellant had no upper garment and had bloodshot eyes because of the liquor he had just then imbibed. The policemen brought accused-appellant to the Lingayen Police Station. After more than an hour, the barangay officials and Pros. Catungal arrived at the police station. Accused-appellant informed the witnesses that he was merely picked up by the police. Noticing accused-appellant's bloodshot eyes, Pros. Catungal retorted that accused-appellant was high on drugs, which the latter denied. 13

Candelario testified that she saw the police officers arresting accused-appellant. She was seven meters away from accused-appellant and was watering her plants at the time of accused-appellant's arrest, there being no rain that day. Candelario thereafter saw Jessele Manalili (Manalili), accused-appellant's daughter, arrive at the house, and told her that accused-appellant had been arrested. 14 aScITE

Manalili's testimony was dispensed with following the admission by the prosecution that she was informed by Candelario about her father's arrest. 15

RTC Ruling

In its June 8, 2017 Joint Decision, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The dispositive portion of the joint decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the accused Albert Ventanilla [y] Ferrer is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

(1) IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. L-11122: of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and is imposed the penalty of life imprisonment, and to pay a fine of P500,000.00;

(2) IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. L-11123: of violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and is imposed the penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P300,000.00;

and such accessory penalties provided for in the law.

The three (3) sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride subject of these cases are confiscated in favor of the government for disposal in the manner set forth in the law.

SO ORDERED. 16

The RTC ruled that the elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs were duly established by the prosecution. Accused-appellant was positively identified by PO1 Sarzaba as the same person who sold him the plastic sachet, later on found by PCI Todeño to be positive for shabu, for a consideration of P500.00. PO1 Sarzaba also testified that he recovered two more plastic sachets containing shabu from accused-appellant's right pocket after the latter's arrest. The RTC held that the prosecution's detailed and consistent narration of the incident prevailed over the defense's denial. According to the RTC, accused-appellant's alibi was absurd and "exceedingly uncommon" since no father would wait outside his house and leave his gravely ill five-month old baby alone in the house. The RTC also took judicial notice of the actual weather conditions in Lingayen on August 16, 2016. The RTC noted that the towns in Lingayen were drenched in monsoon rains which even caused the Executive Judge of the Lingayen Hall of Justice to suspend work that day. Thus, the RTC found Candelario's testimony that there was no rain that day unconvincing. As to the chain of custody, the RTC held that there were no broken links in the chain since PO1 Sarzaba had custody of the seized evidence from the time of its seizure until its delivery to the crime laboratory. The marking, inventory, and photographing of the seized evidence were also witnessed by Pros. Catungal, Kagawad Tigno, Kagawad Gonzales, and media representative Toledo. PO1 Sarzaba retained custody of the seized evidence even during PO3 Dulay's preparation of the requests for laboratory examination of the latter. The transfers in the custody of the seized evidence were all documented in the chain of custody form. 17

Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed to the CA.

CA Ruling

In its August 16, 2018 Decision, the CA affirmed in toto the ruling of the RTC. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the present appeal is DISMISSED. The Joint Decision dated June 8, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 69 of Lingayen, Pangasinan in Criminal Case Nos. L-11122 and L-11123 is hereby AFFIRMEDin toto.

SO ORDERED.18

The CA upheld the findings of the RTC that all the elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs were adequately established by the prosecution and that there was an unbroken chain of custody. The CA also ruled that the absence of accused-appellant's signature on the inventory receipt did not render the seized items inadmissible. Contrary to accused-appellant's claim that he was absent during the inventory which explained why his signature was lacking in the inventory receipt, the photographs taken during the inventory of the items clearly showed that he was present during the marking and inventory, together with the mandatory witnesses. The buy-bust team's failure to conduct the marking at the place of arrest also did not render the seized evidence inadmissible. The CA held that the explanation provided by the prosecution that monsoon rains affected the area at the time of the buy-bust operation, justified the marking and inventory at the police station. The lack of container for the seized evidence also did not render the seized evidence inadmissible. The CA also noted that PO1 Sarzaba made sure that there was no contamination of the evidence by holding on to the seized items from the place of arrest to the police station. Even the absence of information on the weight of the plastic sachets did not militate against the prosecution's cause since R.A. No. 9165 does not mandate the apprehending officers to weigh the seized drugs before their inventory or turnover to the crime laboratory. 19

Hence, this appeal.

Assignment of Errors

I.

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE OFFENSES CHARGED NOTWITHSTANDING THE POLICE OFFICERS' NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS UNDER SEC. 21 OF R.A. NO. 9165, AS AMENDED BY R.A. NO. 10640.

II.

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE OFFENSES CHARGED DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO ESTABLISH A COMPLETE CHAIN OF CUSTODY AS WELL AS THE INTEGRITY AND IDENTITY OF THE ALLEGEDLY SEIZED ITEMS. 20

In its February 3, 2020 Resolution, 21 this Court required the parties to submit their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desired. Accused-appellant filed his Manifestation (In Lieu of Supplemental Brief) 22 dated August 3, 2020, and manifested that he was adopting his Brief for the Accused-Appellant 23 dated December 21, 2017, as his supplemental brief. The appellee, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), averred in its Manifestation (In Lieu of Supplemental Brief) 24 dated August 28, 2020, that it was adopting its Brief for the Appellee 25 dated May 10, 2018, and dispensing with the filing of a supplemental brief to expedite the resolution of the case and to avoid repetition of arguments.

Accused-appellant asserts that the apprehending team committed several irregularities in handling the seized evidence which tainted the corpus delicti. First, the seized evidence was not secured by a container or an evidence bag to avoid contamination or alteration. Second, the seized plastic sachets were not marked, inventoried, and photographed at the place of arrest and the prosecution's justification for such failure was unsubstantiated. Third, the inventory receipt did not indicate the weight of the seized evidence which exposed the same to tampering. 26

On the other hand, the OSG contends that the prosecution showed compliance with the chain of custody rule and the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized evidence. The marking and inventory of the seized sachets at the police station did not affect their integrity and evidentiary value since marking upon immediate confiscation contemplates marking of the seized items at the nearest police station. Nonetheless, the monsoon rains at the time of the buy-bust operation constituted a valid excuse for not conducting the marking and inventory at the place of arrest in order to avoid contamination of the seized evidence. 27 HEITAD

The Court's Ruling

The appeal is meritorious.

In both illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the dangerous drug seized from the accused constitutes the corpusdelicti of the offense. Thus, it is of utmost importance that the integrity and identity of the seized drugs must be shown to have been duly preserved. The chain of custody rule performs this function as it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. 28

In People v. Dahil, 29 this Court enumerated the links that the prosecution must establish 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 by the forensic chemist to the court.

The first link of the chain of custody includes the inventory and taking of photographs of the seized evidence as described under Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, which states:

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 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;

xxx xxx xxx

On August 7, 2014, R.A. No. 10640 took effect and amended Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 as follows:

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 [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 and custody over said items.

The Court, in People v. Catalan, 30 held that the absence of the witnesses enumerated under Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 at the time of seizure of the illicit drugs constitutes a serious lapse in the chain of custody. 31 This is because police officers are ordinarily given sufficient time — beginning from the moment they receive the information about the activities of the accused until the time of his arrest — to prepare for a buy-bust operation and consequently, make the necessary arrangements beforehand, knowing fully well that they would have to strictly comply with the chain of custody rule. 32 Thus, police officers must exert earnest efforts before conducting the actual buy-bust operation to secure the attendance of the witnesses not merely during the inventory of the seized illicit drugs but, more importantly, during the actual buy-bust operation. 33 The insulating presence of the witnesses during the actual buy-bust operation ensure protection against the possibility of planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drug. 34

In this case, Kagawad Tigno, Kagawad Gonzales, media representative Toledo, and Pros. Catungal arrived only at the police station to witness the marking and inventory of the seized items. Undoubtedly, their insulating presence at the place of arrest was lacking despite the buy-bust team having sufficient time to secure their attendance at the time of seizure and arrest. Their absence during seizure and apprehension raises doubts as to the integrity and evidentiary value of the illicit drug allegedly seized from accused-appellant since there could be no guarantee that the drug came from accused-appellant or that the drug presented in court was the same drug seized from accused-appellant.

Aside from the police officers' noncompliance with Sec. 21, there is also a break in the fourth link in the chain of custody which compromised the identity of the illicit drugs.

The fourth link in the chain of custody deals with the turnover by the forensic chemist of the illicit drugs to the court. If the forensic chemist turned over the seized evidence to an evidence custodian after conducting the forensic examination, the fourth link should include the testimony of the evidence custodian as to the manner on how he handled the seized evidence when it was in his custody before its turnover to the court.

Here, PCI Todeño's testimony only showed that she turned over the sealed envelope containing the seized contraband to PO3 Manuel, the evidence custodian, who thereafter affixed his signature on said envelope after receipt thereof. Although PCI Todeño testified that the condition of the envelope was the same when she retrieved it from PO3 Manuel for presentation to the court, the latter was not presented to attest as to how he handled the said evidence from the time it was turned over to him and while it was in his custody.

In People v. Ubungen, 35 the Court ruled that absent any testimony on the management, storage and preservation of the seized illegal drug, the fourth link in the chain of custody could not be reasonably established. Failure to demonstrate compliance with even just one of the links in the chain of custody creates reasonable doubt that the substance confiscated from the accused is the same substance offered in evidence. ATICcS

Considering that the prosecution in this case failed to establish with moral certainty the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpusdelicti due to the break in the first and fourth links in the chain, reasonable doubt is engendered as to the guilt of accused-appellant, which constrains this Court to render a judgment of acquittal.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is GRANTED. The August 16, 2018 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 09553, which affirmed the June 8, 2017 Joint Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Lingayen, Pangasinan, Branch 69, in Criminal Case Nos. L-11122 and L-11123, finding Albert Ventanilla y Ferrer @ "Palits" guilty of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, is REVERSED andSET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Albert Ventanilla y Ferrer @ "Palits" is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.

The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City is ORDERED to IMMEDIATELY RELEASE accused-appellant from detention, unless he is being lawfully held in custody for any other reason, and to INFORM this Court of his action hereon 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. CA rollo, pp. 129-130.

2.Id. at 107-121; penned by Associate Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla (retired Member of this Court) with Associate Justices Victoria Isabel A. Paredes and Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin, concurring.

3.Id. at 54-63; penned by Presiding Judge Loreto S. Alog, Jr.

4.Id. at 108.

5.Id.

6.Id.

7.Id.

8.Id. at 108-109.

9.Id. at 109.

10.Id.

11.Id. at 109-110.

12.Id. at 110.

13.Id. at 110-111.

14.Id. at 110.

15.Id.

16.Id. at 63.

17.Id. at 58-62.

18.Id. at 121.

19.Id. at 112-120.

20.Id. at 111-112.

21.Rollo, pp. 23-24.

22.Id. at 31-32.

23. CA rollo, pp. 31-52.

24.Rollo, pp. 27-29.

25. CA rollo, pp. 81-99.

26.Id. at 41-50.

27.Id. at 90-97.

28.People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 29 (2017).

29. 750 Phil. 212 (2015).

30. 699 Phil. 603 (2012).

31.Id. at 618-619.

32.People v. De Motor, G.R. No. 245486, November 27, 2019.

33. See People v. Tomawis, 830 Phil. 385, 405 (2018).

34.People v. Caranto, G.R. No. 217668, February 20, 2019.

35. 836 Phil. 888 (2018).