THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 240663. December 6, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. GERALDINE VERSOZA y ABRIO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedDecember 6, 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 240663 (People of the Philippines,Plaintiff-Appellee,v. Geraldine Versoza y Abrio,Accused-Appellant). — Before the Court is an appeal that seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision 1 dated 28 November 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R C.R. No. 08149, which affirmed the Joint Decision 2 dated 07 March 2016 of Branch 127, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City in Criminal Case Nos. 91930 and 91931, which found accused-appellant Geraldine Versoza y Abrio (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Article II, Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165. 3
Antecedents
Accused-appellant was charged with violation of Article II, Sections 5 and 11 of RA 9165 in two separate Informations, the accusatory portions of which read:
Criminal Case No. 91930
That on or about the 28th day of April, 2014 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila[,] and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law, did[,] then and there[,] willfully, unlawfully[,] and feloniously sell and deliver to PO3 PEDRO JONSON, JR., who posed as buyer, One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet[,] later marked [as] "ANGEL-1 (BUY BUST) 04-28-14 (with signature) containing METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE (Shabu) weighing 0.01 gram, which[,] when subjected for laboratory examination[,] gave POSITIVE result to [sic] the tests for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, and knowing the same to be such.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
Criminal Case No. 91931
That on or about the 28th day of April, 2014 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila[,] and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law, did[,] then and there[,] willfully, unlawfully[,] and feloniously have in her possession, custody and control Three (3) heat-sealed plastic sachets[,] each later marked as "ANGEL-2 (RECOVER) 04-28-14 (with signature)," "ANGEL-3 (RECOVER) 04-28-14 (with signature)" & "ANGEL-4 (RECOVER) 04-28-14 (with signature)" containing METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE (Shabu) weighing 0.03 gram, 0.02 gram & 0.11 gram, which[,] when subjected for laboratory examination[,] gave POSITIVE result to [sic] the tests for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in gross violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges on her arraignment. After pre-trial, trial on the merits ensued.
Version of the Prosecution
Acting on a tip, Police Officer 3 Pedro Jonson (PO3 Jonson) and his fellow officers proceeded to Pangarap Village, Caloocan City and conducted a "test buy" against a certain "Angel," later identified as herein accused-appellant, who sold to PO3 Jonson one plastic sachet with suspected shabu worth P200.00. 6
With the information verified, PO3 Jonson and company returned to the target area to entrap accused-appellant. PO3 Jonson approached accused-appellant anew and bought another sachet of suspected shabu for the same price. Immediately after the transaction, PO3 Jonson arrested and frisked accused-appellant, and recovered from her a brown purse, which contained three other sachets with white crystalline substance, and eight empty plastic sachets. 7
PO3 Jonson marked the seized items at the crime scene before the team proceeded to the police station. There, PO3 Jonson turned over the seized items to the investigator on duty, PO3 Randulfo Hipolito (PO3 Hipolito). 8
At the station, PO3 Hipolito conducted the investigation and prepared the necessary documents. He likewise took photographs 9 of accused-appellant and the recovered pieces of evidence in the presence of a member of the "CAMANAVA Press" who signed the Receipt of Physical Inventory 10 as a witness thereto. 11
Thereafter, PO3 Hipolito delivered the seized items to the Crime Laboratory where they were received by PO2 San Miguel. 12 The seized items all tested positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug, based on Chemistry Report Nos. D-23-14 and D-24-14.
Version of the Defense
Accused-appellant denied the charge. She testified that in the afternoon of 20 April 2014, she was walking along Kamagong Street when two men appeared from nowhere and grabbed her. She yelled and asked what she did wrong, but they just dragged her into a vehicle. They tried to extort money from her. Having no money to give them, they brought her instead to the police station in Larangay, and was detained without basis. 13
Ruling of the RTC
In its 07 March 2016 Joint Decision, 14 the RTC convicted accused-appellant of both offenses. The dispositive portion of said Decision stated:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in this wise:
In Criminal Case No. 91930, the Court finds Accused GERALDINE VERSOZA [y] ABRIO alias "Angel" guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, for selling one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing [shabu], a dangerous drug, and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a Fine of Five hundred thousand pesos (Php500,000.00).
In Criminal Case No. 91931, the Court also finds Accused GERALDINE VERSOZA [y] ABRIO alias "Angel" guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of indeterminate imprisonment of twelve (12) years and [one] (1) day as the minimum to seventeen (17) years and eight (8) months as the maximum, and to pay a fine or Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00).
With the judgment of conviction, the Female Warden of the Dormitory, CAMANAVA District Jail, City of Malabon, is hereby directed to cause the immediate transfer of custody of the said accused to the National Correctional Institute for Women, Mandaluyong City, for the service of her sentence, and for the said Female Warden to forthwith submit a written report of her compliance or reason for non-compliance herewith, within ten (10) days from receipt hereof.
The drug subject matter of these cases are hereby ordered confiscated in favor of the government. In this record, the Branch Clerk of Court of this Sala is directed to turn over the said specimens to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for their immediate destruction in accordance with law.
SO ORDERED. 15
The RTC held that the prosecution was able to establish all the elements of the offenses charged and that the arresting officers had properly observed the chain of custody rule. It rejected accused-appellant's denial and alibi for being weak defenses. 16
Ruling of the CA
On 28 November 2017, the CA promulgated its assailed Decision 17 affirming accused-appellant's conviction, thus:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED and the 7 March 2016 Joint Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 127, in Criminal Case No. 91930 and Criminal Case No. 91931 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 18
The CA agreed that the prosecution was able to establish the identity and integrity of the evidence with the arresting officers' unbroken chain of custody over the seized items. 19
Hence, this appeal.
Issue
Whether the CA correctly affirmed accused-appellant's conviction for the offenses of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs punishable under RA 9165.
Ruling of the Court
The appeal is meritorious.
To obtain a conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, defined and penalized under Article II, Section 5 of RA 9165, the prosecution is duty-bound to establish the following elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. 20 Meanwhile, the successful prosecution of illegal possession of drugs necessitates the following facts to be proved, namely: (a) the accused was in possession of the dangerous drugs, (b) such possession was not authorized by law, and (c) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the dangerous drugs. 21
The State bears the burden of proving the elements of offenses committed in violation of RA 9165, which indispensably includes the proof of the corpus delicti, or the body of the crime. 22 In both illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, "the illicit drugs seized from the accused comprise the corpus delicti of the charges." Thus, the identity and integrity of the illicit drugs must be established beyond reasonable doubt. It is the prosecution's duty "to ensure that the illegal drugs offered in court are the very same items seized from the accused." 23
Considering that accused-appellant allegedly committed the offenses on 28 April 2014, the governing law is RA 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR). 24
Section 21 of RA 9165 and its IRR set out the standard in preserving the corpus delicti in illegal drug cases. 25 Under this law, the physical inventory and the taking of photograph of the drugs must be made immediately after, or at the place of apprehension. 26 This also means that all three (3) required witnesses, namely: a representative from the media; the Department of Justice (DOJ); and any elected public official should already be physically present at the time of the conduct of the inventory of the seized items. 27 The presence of third-party witnesses during seizure and marking ensures that whatever items are subsequently inventoried, photographed, examined, and presented in court are the same substances that were initially obtained from the accused. 28
The procedures mandatorily imposed under Section 21 are not mere paper rules that can be simply overlooked and ignored. 29 These established precautions in the handling of seized dangerous drugs are needed since narcotic substances are not easily identifiable and are prone to alteration or tampering. The chain of custody, as a method of authenticating a dangerous drug presented as evidence, ensures that the identity of the seized drugs will not be put in doubt. 30 Compliance with Section 21's chain of custody requirements ensures the integrity of the seized items. Non-compliance with them tarnishes the credibility of the corpus delicti around which prosecutions under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act revolve. 31 In fact, strict adherence to Section 21 is all the more required where the quantity of illegal drugs seized, as in this case, involved the paltry amounts of 0.01 gram, 0.02 gram, 0.03 gram, and 0.11 gram. 32 Strict adherence to Section 21 is required where the quantity of illegal drugs seized is minuscule, since it is highly susceptible to planting, tampering, or alteration of evidence. 33
Nonetheless, the Court has recognized that due to varying field conditions, strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure may not always be possible. 36 As such, deviations from the procedure may be allowed, provided that the prosecution satisfactorily proves that: (a) there is a justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. 37 The foregoing is based on the saving clause found in Section 21 (a), 38 Article II of the IRR of RA 9165, which was later adopted into the text of RA 10640. 34
In the instant case, the Court finds that the police officers failed to strictly comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 21 without showing any justification for such failure.
As the records prove, although the marking was done by PO3 Jonson at the place of arrest, the taking of photographs and inventory transpired at the police station instead. What is more, the three (3) required witnesses were not present during the buy-bust operation. At the police station, the taking of photograph and conduct of inventory were done without the presence of an elected public official and a representative from the DOJ, as the Receipt of Physical Inventory was signed only by a member of the "CAMANAVA PRESS," as can be readily confirmed by the photographs submitted in evidence. 35
The RTC and the CA seriously erred in brushing aside these lapses. As a rule, the physical inventory and the taking of photograph of the drugs were intended by the law to be made immediately after, or at the place of apprehension. 36 This also means that all the required witnesses should already be physically present at the time of the conduct of the inventory of the seized items. 37 Also, case law states that the mere marking of the seized drugs, unsupported by a physical inventory and taking of photographs, and in the absence of the necessary personalities under the law, fails to approximate compliance with the mandatory procedure under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. 38
The exception clause in Section 21 (a) of the IRR of RA 9165 would not save the prosecution's case as the latter did not even bother to give a justifiable reason for the police officers' non-compliance with the mandated procedures. The records do not at all bear out any acknowledgment of the police officers' omissions, let alone any explanation for their deviation from the required procedures. Neither do the records contain any allegation and proof that the arresting officers excited earnest efforts to obtain the attendance of the two other required witnesses.
With the police officers' palpable unjustified non-compliance with the chain of custody rule in this case, comes the concomitant failure of the prosecution to establish the corpus delicti of the offenses charged, and the resultant acquittal of the accused-appellant. As the Court has emphasized time and again, non-observance of the procedure mandated by Section 21 casts serious doubt whether the illegal drugs presented in court are the same illegal drugs seized from accused-appellant. 39 Compliance under the rule ensures the integrity of the confiscated drug and clearly establishes the corpus delicti, the failure of which, indicates the absence of an element of the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. In both illegal sale and illegal possession of prohibited drugs, conviction cannot be sustained if there is a persistent doubt on the identity of the drug which must be established with moral certainty. 40
Consequently. this Court is constrained to acquit accused-appellant for failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This renders a discussion of all other grounds raised by accused-appellant unnecessary.
WHEREFORE, the Appeal is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the 28 November 2017 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 08149, affirming the 07 March 2016 Joint Decision of Branch 127, Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, convicting accused-appellant GERALDINE VERSOZA y ABRIO for the offenses of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of dangerous drugs, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. She is hereby ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt and is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless she is detained for any other lawful cause.
The Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for Women is DIRECTED to IMPLEMENT this Resolution and to report to this Court the action taken hereon within five (5) days from receipt. Copies shall also be furnished to the Police General of the Philippine National Police and the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for their information.
The Regional Trial Court is ordered to turn over the drugs in this case to the Dangerous Drugs Board for destruction in accordance with law.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 2-24; penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez (now a Member of this Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Samuel H. Gaerlan (now a Member of this Court).
2. CA rollo, pp. 12-30; penned by RTC Judge Victoriano B. Cabanos.
3. Otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
4. Records, p. 1.
5. Id. at 25.
6. TSN, 02 December 2014, pp. 4-6.
7. Id. at 7-16; Records, p. 311, Exh. O.
8. TSN, 02 December 2014, pp. 16-20.
9. Records, pp. 108-109.
10. Id. at 106.
11. TSN, 28 October 2014, p. 11.
12. Id.
13. TSN, 28 April 2015, pp. 4-6.
14. CA rollo, pp. 12-30.
15. Id. at 30.
16. Records, pp. 140, 143-144, 146-147.
17. Rollo, pp. 2-24.
18. Id. at 23.
19. Id. at 17-22.
20. People v. Rasos, Jr., G.R. No. 243639, 18 September 2019.
21. People v. Retada, G.R. No. 239331, 10 July 2019.
22. People v. Placiente, G.R. No. 213389, 14 August 2019.
23. People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 238339, 07 August 2019.
24. In People v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 236304, 05 November 2018, this Court noted that RA 10640 was approved on 15 July 2014, and published on 23 July 2014 in The Philippine Star (Vol. XXVIII, No. 359, Metro Section, p. 21) and the Manila Bulletin (Vol. 499, No. 23, World News Section, p. 6). Thus, it became effective 15 days thereafter or on 07 August 2014, pursuant to Section 5 of the law. See also People v. Bangalan, G.R. No. 232249, 03 September 2018.
25. People v. Caray, G.R. No. 245391, 11 September 2019.
26. People v. Caranto, G.R. No. 217668, 20 February 2019.
27. Id.
28. People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 238339, 07 August 2019.
29. People v. Doria, G.R. No. 227854, 09 October 2019.
30. Veriño v. People, G.R. No. 225710, 19 June 2019.
31. People v. Que, G.R. No. 212994, 31 January 1018.
32. Exhibits, p. 101 (dorsal portion).
33. People v. Padua, G.R. No. 239781, 05 February 2020.
34. Garcia v. People, G.R. No. 228718, 07 January 2019.
35. Records, pp. 108-109, Exhs. N-1 to N-5.
36. See People v. Caranto, G.R. No. 217668, 20 February 2019.
37. Id.
38. People v. Mercader, G.R. No. 233480, 20 June 2018.
39. People v. Sali, G.R. No. 236596, 29 January 2020.
40. People v. Mercader, supra at note 38.