People v. Villacampa y San Jose

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 238529. March 11, 2020.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.JERRY VILLACAMPA y SAN JOSE, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated11 March 2020which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 238529 (People of the Philippines v. Jerry Villacampa y San Jose). — In order to support a judgment of conviction for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, the prosecution must establish with moral certainty the identity of the corpus delicti or the dangerous drug itself; otherwise, a judgment of acquittal is constitutionally mandated.

Before this Court is an appeal from the Decision 1 dated October 6, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08741, which affirmed the Judgment dated July 26, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 20 of Imus, Cavite, in Criminal Case No. 7838-10, finding accused-appellant Jerry Villacampa y San Jose (Villacampa) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5 of RA No. 9165.

Factual Antecedents

In an Information dated October 16, 2010, Villacampa was charged with Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, as defined and penalized under Section 5 of RA No. 9165; the accusatory portion of the information reads:

"That on or about the 14th day of October 2010, in the Municipality of Imus, Province of Cavite, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and distribute to a poseur buyer 1.0023 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, commonly known as "shabu," a dangerous drug, in violation of the provisions of Republic Act 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

CONTRARY TO LAW." 2

Arraigned thereon, Villacampa pleaded not guilty. Trial on the merits ensued thereafter.

Version of the Prosecution

On October 14, 2010, acting upon a tip from a confidential informant about the rampant Illegal Selling of Dangerous Drugs by one alias Jerry Smith in Anabu 2C, Imus Cavite, Investigation Agent Anju Villanueva (IA1 Villanueva) formed a team, with Investigation Officer Althestane Duque (IO1 Duque) as poseur-buyer and IO1 Mark Louie Cervantes (IO1 Cervantes) and IO1 Theodore Barte (IO1 Barte) as back-up/arresting officers. The team held a briefing for a buy-bust operation to be conducted that same day.

At 2:00 p.m. of the same day, the confidential informant and the apprehending team left their office and arrived at the target place in Anabu 2C, Imus, Cavite around 3:00-3:30 p.m. They conducted a surveillance and casing operation to determine any threat or hostility around the area. Upon clearance, IO Duque, IO Barte and IO Cervantes, together with the confidential informant, alighted from the vehicle. IO Duque, as poseur-buyer, and the informant, proceeded to an alley leading to a house of a certain alias Boy, (later identified as one Ruben Reyes), while IO Barte and IO Cervantes positioned themselves about 15 to 20 meters away from the said house as back up team. Upon reaching the house, the confidential informant and IO Duque introduced themselves to a man inside the house, whom they later came to know as alias Boy a.k.a. Ruben Reyes. A few minutes later, the accused Villacampa arrived in a motorcycle. The confidential informant introduced IO Duque to Villacampa and the latter asked IO Duque and alias Boy "how much were they buying." Alias Boy answered that he would be buying "two" (2), while IO Duque said that he would be buying "worth Php1,000.00." Villacampa handed alias Boy two transparent plastic sachets with white crystalline substance inside, and he gave also IO Duque a plastic sachet worth P1,000.00. IO Duque then gave Villacampa the marked buy-bust money as payment for the shabu. Upon the consummation of the transaction, IO Duque made the pre-arranged signal to the apprehending team by making a phone call to IO Barte and IO Cervantes.

Upon receipt of the call, IO Barte and IO Cervantes immediately rushed towards the house of alias Boy and apprehended both Villacampa and alias Boy. They introduced themselves as Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) officers, and informed the two of their violations and their Miranda rights. IO Duque apprehended and frisked alias Boy and was able to get from him two sachets of shabu, while IO Cervantes frisked Villacampa and was able to get from him the marked buy-bust money. Thereafter, IO Duque marked the items recovered from alias Boy and Villacampa. Specifically, IO Duque marked the sachet handed to him by Villacampa with EXH. "A" AD 10/14/10. 3 At this point, however, they were not able to proceed with the inventory and the booking of the seized items because the relatives of alias Boy started to throw stones at them. Thus, they were forced to evacuate the area and proceeded with the inventory and the booking of the seized items in their office.

Upon arrival at their office, IO Duque also took photographs of the seized items recovered from Villacampa and alias Boy, and also prepared a Request for Laboratory Examination of the items seized. IO Duque then turned over the seized items to Investigator Basilio who, together with IO Duque, brought the same to the crime laboratory, where these were turned over to the Forensic Chemist for chemical analysis. The laboratory examination on the seized items was conducted by Forensic Chemist Sheila Esguerra; the chemical analysis of the seized items tested positive for the prohibited substance methamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as "shabu."

Version of the Defense

The accused Villacampa denied the accusations against him. He claimed that at around 3:30-4:00 p.m. on October 14, 2010, he was driving a motorcycle along Anabu, Coastal, Imus Cavite; that while waiting for people to cross the street, he was called by a certain PO1 Jayzon Rapiz, who had just arrested a certain fat lady and an old man; that he was invited by PO1 Rapiz to go to the police station as there was a tip that he (Villacampa) was involved in drug pushing; that he refused to go, but he was forcibly brought to the PDEA Canlubang at Camp Vicente Lim, Calamba City, Laguna; that once in that office, he was told to cooperate and disclose the names of people involved in drug dealing activities, otherwise a case would be filed against him. The accused claimed that he only came to know about the charges against him when he was brought in for inquest before the prosecutor's office.

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

On July 26, 2016, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered Judgment convicting the accused Villacampa of violating Section 5 of RA No. 9165. The dispositive portion of that judgment reads:

"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused Jerry Villacampa to be GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for the offense of Violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of Republic Act 9165 and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay the fine of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00).

The evidence marked Exh. "C" AD 10/14/10 is ordered to be turned over to the PDEA for destruction under Sec. 21, par. 7 of R.A. 9165.

SO ORDERED." 4

The RTC found that the prosecution had proved all the elements of Illegal Sale of Drugs, and that the substance marked, tested, and offered in evidence was the same items bought from Villacampa. It also declared that there was an unbroken link in the chain of custody from the time the items were seized from the possession of the accused up to the time the prosecution offered the same as evidence in court.

Further, the RTC held that even though only a media representative witnessed and signed the certificate of inventory, the failure to produce the other witnesses required by law was not fatal to the case as the prosecution had duly established the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, and had thus met the requirements of Section 21 of RA No. 9165.

On September 30, 2016, Villacampa's Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA) was given due course.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

In its Decision of October 6, 2017, the CA denied Villacampa's appeal. The dispositive portion of that decision reads:

"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated July 26, 2016 of the RTC Branch 20 of Imus, Cavite in Criminal Case No. 7838-10 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the evidence marked as EXH. "A" AD 10/14/10 instead of EXH. "C" AD 10/14/10 is ordered to be delivered/turned over to the PDEA for proper disposition and destruction in accordance with law.

SO ORDERED." 5

The CA upheld the findings of the RTC that the links in the chain of custody had remained unbroken and that the integrity of the drugs seized had been preserved. It ruled that the sworn statements and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses had sufficiently established the prosecution's case.

Hence, the instant appeal.

Issue

The main issue to be resolved in the case is whether or not the prosecution had duly established by proof beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of Villacampa for violation of Section 5, RA No. 9165.

The Ruling of this Court

The appeal is meritorious.

Villacampa plants his appeal chiefly on the ground that the prosecution did not adduce conclusive evidence that during the turnover of the seized drugs at every stage — from their confiscation from the accused, transportation to the police station, conveyance to the chemistry lab, and presentation to the court — the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti (which is the seized drugs themselves) had been duly preserved 6 Likewise, he contends that there had been non-compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of RA No. 9165, particularly with respect to the lack or absence of Department of Justice (DOJ) and barangay representatives as witnesses during the inventory and booking of the seized items; the accused likewise adverts to the fact that the inventory and photographing of the seized items were not done immediately after seizure, at the place where the buy bust was conducted.

The prosecution must prove with moralcorpus.

To sustain a conviction under Section 5 of RA No. 9165 or Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, case law teaches that the following elements must be duly proved: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and its consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is important is that the sale transaction of drugs actually took place and that the object of the transaction is properly presented as evidence in court and is shown to be the very same drugs seized from the accused. 7 (emphasis supplied)

In cases of illegal sale, the dangerous drugs seized from the accused constitutes the very corpus delicti 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. 8 The mere fact that there had been an unauthorized sale will not by itself suffice to create in a reasonable mind the moral certainty required to sustain a finding of guilt. More than just the fact of sale, the fact that the substance illegally sold is the very same substance offered in court as exhibit, must also be established with the same unwavering exactitude as these requisites to sustain a finding of guilt. 9 "The chain of custody rule performs this function as it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are erased or removed." 10

The chain of custody rule was adopted as a measure or method to authenticate the evidence, more particularly in cases where the evidence is susceptible to alteration, tampering, contamination, or even substitution and exchange. In other words, in drug related cases, in order to establish the identity and integrity of the seized drugs with moral certainty, the prosecution must show or establish an unbroken chain of custody running through every movement of the seized items, from the time of their seizure up to the time these are presented as evidence in court.

Jurisprudence stresses that there are four links in the chain of custody that must be duly proved, or established to wit:

"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 from the forensic chemist to the court." 11

In the Appellant's Brief filed with the CA, which was adopted as the Supplemental Brief in the present appeal, Villacampa points out the gaps in the links of the chain of custody, particularly: during the conveyance of the seized drug from the investigating officer to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination and the turnover and submission of the seized drug from the forensic chemist to the court.

Indeed, the evidence at bench shows that the investigating officer and the forensic chemist were not presented in court to testify about the turn over and the handling of the seized items. It was only IO Duque, the alleged poseur-buyer, as well as IO Barte, and IO Cervantes, (the latter two being the "backup" arresting officers), who were presented as prosecution witnesses.

Significantly, IO Duque only testified as to the first two links of the chain, namely the seizure and marking of the recovered illegal drug, and the turnover of the illegal drug supposedly seized by the apprehending officer, to the investigating officer, to wit:

IO Althestane Duque

Q Now you mentioned that you were able to buy this shabu from Jerry Smith in exchange of the P1,000.00 you handed to him, if you will be shown this item again will you be able to identify the same?

A Yes, Ma'am.

Q How, Mr. Witness?

A Nag mark po ako ng markings ko mismo sa lugar ng pagkakahuli po doon po mismo sa tapat ng bahay minarkahan ko po ng EXH. "A" AD 10/14/10.

Q By the way, how many plastic sachets were you able to buy, Mr. Witness?

A Only one (1), Ma'am.

Q What markings again?

A EXH. "A" AD 10/14/10. 12

xxx xxx xxx

Q You mentioned that you prepared a request for laboratory examination pertaining to the specimen you bought from Jerry Smith, if shown to you that request will you be able to identify the same?

A Yes, Ma'am.

Q I am showing to you this request, Mr. Witness, marked as Exhibit "A", are you referring to this?

A Yes, Ma'am.

Q Based on that request, can you recall who personally delivered the subject specimen to the crime lab?

A Delivered by SI2 Basilio siya po ang imbestigador.

Q Do you know who turned over to Police Officer Basilio the subject specimen?

A Ako po, Ma'am.

Q You mean to say, immediately after you arrived in your office you turned over the subject specimen to Police Officer Basilio?

A No, Ma'am, I just show him, Ma'am. Bale kasama ko po siyang maghatid nito sa laboratory.

Q You mean to say you were with Police Officer Basilio when you turned over the subject specimen to the crime lab.?

A Yes, Ma'am. 13

However, as to the remaining two links, namely the turn-over of the seized drug from the investigating officer to the forensic chemist; and the submission and the presentation of the seized drug from the forensic chemist to the court, no witnesses were presented to substantiate the same. It bears notice that the testimony of forensic chemist Sheila Esguerra's was dispensed with by the prosecution, with no explanation nor justification whatsoever — this despite her being present in court during the Pre-Trial. 14 Neither was the investigating officer presented in court to testify to the handling of the seized drug from his possession until their delivery to the crime laboratory for examination. Nor was any PDEA agent or officer presented to testify to the turn-over and submission of the seized drug from the crime laboratory to the court.

On top of these, as pointed out in the Appellant's Brief, 15 there were discrepancies in the markings of the seized drugs. IO Duque testified that he placed the markings "EXH. "A" AD 10/14/10" in the transparent plastic sachet containing the illegal drugs obtained from Villacampa. 16 It is interesting to note, however, that at the Pre-Trial 17 and during the Formal Offer of Evidence in court of the Prosecution, 18 the transparent plastic sachet carried the markings of "AAD" only. These markings are altogether different from each other, and the difference had not been explained, or accounted for either.

In Mallillin v. People, 19 this Court taught that the chain of custody rule requires "testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence in court, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and that there was no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same." 20 (emphasis supplied).

Substantial compliance with Section 21 of RA

Section 21 of RA No. 9165 outlines the procedure that the police officers must follow in handling the seized drugs or paraphernalia after apprehension of the accused to preserve their integrity and evidentiary value. Section 21 (1), Title II, of RA No. 9165 specifically provides:

"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.

(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." 21

However, jurisprudence teaches that strict compliance with the provisions of Section 21 of RA No. 9165 may not always be possible. 22 Thus, in the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Section 21 RA No. 9165, a saving clause was included or inserted, to wit: 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.23 This saving clause was enacted into law when RA No. 10640 was passed on July 15, 2014, thus:

"(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." 24

In fine, substantial compliance with the provisions of Section 21 RA No. 9165 may be allowed provided that the prosecution satisfactorily proves that: (a) there is justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. 25

In People v. Almorfe, 26 the Court nevertheless stressed that, for the above-saving clause to apply, the prosecution must explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses, even as it also stressed that the integrity and value of the seized evidence must be preserved. 27 Also, in People v. De Guzman, 28 it was emphasized that the justifiable ground for non-compliance must be proven as a fact, because the Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even existed. 29

In this case, the apprehending officers admitted that they were not able to strictly comply with the procedure mandated by Section 21 of RA No. 9165. During his testimony as witness, IO Duque indeed admitted as follows:

Q The inventory was not done in the place where the accused was allegedly apprehended, am I right?

A Sa opis po namin.

Q Why did you not make the inventory right there and then as mandated by the law?

A Bale binabato na po kami ng mga kamag-anak ni Boy, ang dami po parang hinaharass na po kami

Q I thought you well prepared in going there, you have the security, you have with the coordination with the police?

A Iniiwasan po naming may casualty.

Q You answer my question, did you not say a while ago that you were well prepared as far as the security is concerned?

A Mas concern po kami sa safety po namin.

Q Did it not occur to your mind that in conducting that kind of operation your life would be in danger?

A Yes, sir.

Q And yet you are reluctant to have a strong security with you?

A Secured po iyong lugar, iniiwasan lang po naming na . . . (interrupted)

xxx xxx xxx

Q So no inventory was done or was made in the place?

A Only markings, sir.

Q No picture taking of the alleged evidence confiscated at the place where the alleged transaction was conducted?

A Mayroon po sir.

Q Did I get you right that you photograph this item while you arrived in your office at Camp Vicente Lim?

A Mayroon din po sir.

Q And where is that photograph you got at the place of the incident?

A Noong inquest isinubmit po naming lahat.

Q But you testified a while ago that there were picture taking only at your office in Camp Vicente Lim, did I not get you right, Mr. Witness?

A Mayroon din po kami doon.

Q But you did not testify on that, you did not tell to the Prosecutor?

A Sinabi ko po, Sir.

Q You only told the Prosecutor that the picture taking was done in your office, am I right, Mr. Witness?

A Yes, sir.

Q And also the inventory was made in your office, am I right, Mr. Witness?

A Yes, sir.

Q Are you aware that the mandate of Sec. 21 of Republic Act 9165 that at the place you must take pictures of the alleged evidence confiscated at the place where the buy bust was conducted that you must make an inventory at the place where the buy bust was conducted?

A Alam ko po iyon, sir.

Q And this must be in the presence of media personnel and directive representative from a Barangay, am I right?

A Yes, sir.

Q And there was no media representative at the place where the buy bust operation was conducted, am I right, Mr. Witness?

A Yes, sir.

Q And there was no Barangay elected officials in the place where the alleged buy bust was conducted, am I right, Mr. Witness?

A Yes, sir.

Q So you did not follow the mandate of the law, am I right, Mr. Witness?

A I'm just following my team leader sir.

Q Regardless of the law just to follow your team leader, am I right?

A Sinabi ko po sa kanya iyon pero iyon po ang ininsist niya so siya po ang team leader.30 (emphasis supplied)

If the foregoing testimony proves anything at all, it proves that there was utter failure to comply with the mandates of Section 21 RA No. 9165. It likewise proves that no explanation or justification had been given or provided to excuse non-compliance with the law.

In our constitutional system, the basic and cardinal precept is that the burden of proving the guilt of an accused lies with the prosecution, which must always rely on the strength of its own evidence, and not on the weakness of the evidence for the defense. 31 This rule is invariable whatever may be the reputation for probity or notoriety of the accused, for the law presumes that he is innocent unless and until the contrary is proved. 32 The prosecution in this case having miserably failed to overcome its burden to show proof beyond reasonable doubt that the accused and appellant Villacampa had violated the provisions of Section 5 of RA No. 9165, the latter's acquittal must ensue as a matter of law and justice.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Decision dated October 6, 2017 of the Court of Appeals which affirmed the Decision dated July 26, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 20 of Imus, Cavite are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused Jerry Villacampa y San Jose is ACQUITTED on the ground that his guilt had not been shown beyond reasonable doubt; he is accordingly ordered immediately released from custody, unless he is being lawfully held for another offense.

The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to implement this Decision and to report to this Court the action taken hereon within five (5) days from receipt hereof.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. CA rollo, pp. 81-92.

2.Rollo, pp. 2-3.

3. TSN, IO Althestane Duque dated September 19, 2013, p. 48.

4.Rollo, p. 6.

5.Id. at pp. 12-13.

6. CA rollo, p. 33.

7.People v. Salim Ismael, G.R. No. 208093, February 20, 2017, 806 Phil. 21, 29.

8.Id.

9.Mallillin v. People, G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008, 576 Phil. 576, 586-587.

10.Fajardo v. People, 691 Phil. 752, 758-759 (2012) citing People v. Gutierrez, 614 Phil. 285, 293 (2009).

11.People v. Gayoso, G.R. No. 206590, March 27, 2017 citing People v. Nandi, 639 Phil. 134, 144-145 (2010).

12. TSN, IO Althestane Duque, September 19, 2013, pp. 8-9.

13.Id. pp. 12-13.

14. Records, p. 25.

15.Rollo, pp. 34-35.

16. TSN, IO Althestane Duque, September 19, 2013, p. 8.

17. Records, pp. 24-25.

18.Id. at 83.

19. G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008, 576 Phil. 576.

20.Id. p. 587.

21. Republic Act No. 9165 or otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

22.People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 175832, October 15, 2003, 569 SCRA 194.

23. Section 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165.

24. Republic Act No. 10640 or An Act to further Strengthen the Anti-Drug Campaign of the Government, Amending for the Purpose Section 21 of RA 9165 or otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

25.People v. Manuel Lim Ching, G.R. No. 223556, October 9, 2017, 842 SCRA 280, 295.

26. G.R. No. 181831, March 29, 2010, 631 Phil. 51.

27.Id. at 60.

28. G.R. No. 186498, March 26, 2010, 630 Phil. 637.

29.Id. at 649.

30. TSN, September 19, 2013, pp. 18-20.

31.Supra note 9 at 593.

32.People v. Laxa, G.R. No. 138501, 20 July 2001, 361 SCRA 622, 627.