SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 250897. July 7, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.BENEDICK VILLANUEVA y ALCAIDE, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated07 July 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 250897 (People of the Philippines v. Benedick Villanueva y Alcaide). — The conviction of accused-appellant Benedick Villanueva y Alcaide (Benedick) for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 1 is the subject of review in this appeal 2 assailing the April 30, 2019 Decision 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10453, which affirmed the findings of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Candon City, Ilocos Sur, Branch 23. 4
We acquit.
The following elements must be proven in the prosecution for the Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs: (1) the identities of the buyer and seller; (2) the transaction or sale of the illegal drug; and (3) the existence of the corpus delicti. 5 Here, the prosecution was able to prove the identity of the seller and the existence of the sale transaction, notwithstanding that the poseur-buyer was not presented as a witness.
The Court has established the general rule that the non-presentation of the informant in the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is not essential to convict the accused if the testimony is merely corroborative. 6 If the civilian informant is also the poseur-buyer, his failure to testify will be fatal to the prosecution's case when: (1) there is no eyewitness to the illegal sale of dangerous drugs; 7 (2) the prosecution failed to explain the non-presentation of the poseur-buyer or any other reliable eyewitnesses who could testify in place of the poseur-buyer; 8 (3) the other witnesses, who were positioned at a considerable distance from the transaction place, did not hear the conversation between the pusher and poseur-buyer; 9 and (4) when the accused vehemently denies selling any prohibited drugs coupled with the inconsistent testimonies of the arresting officers or the possibility that the arresting officers had motives to falsely testify against the accused. 10 Under the exceptions, the arresting officers have no personal knowledge of the illegal sale, 11 which is not the case here.
Police Officer (PO) 1 Vic Ballesteros (PO1 Ballesteros) testified based on his actual and personal knowledge of the illegal sale. Even though the buy-bust team was inside a tinted vehicle, the RTC noted that they were near enough, and PO1 Ballesteros was able to observe the movements of the poseur-buyer and Benedick. 12 PO1 Ballesteros positively identified Benedick as the seller and gave details of the transaction that can only be given by a person who saw it happen. He described how Benedick arrived at the place of the incident, the position of a civilian asset "Franklin" 13 (poseur-buyer) and Benedick while transacting, the kind of paper on which the plastic sachet was wrapped, when Franklin handed the marked money to Benedick, and the execution of the pre-arranged signal, 14viz.:
Q Now, upon seeing the civilian asset, where particularly in relation to the vehicle, where was then the civilian asset? CAIHTE
A When we were in front [sic] of Bojek, he was directly behind the Montero, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q How did [Benedick] arrived[sic]Mr. Witness, the subject person?
A He came from the south direction proceeding north on board on[sic]a single motorcycle, sir.
Q And when the subject person arrived, what did you notice?
A When the subject person arrived, he parked in front [sic] of the civilian asset, sir.
Q And what direction then your civilian asset was facing when the subject person parked in front [sic] of your asset?
A The subject person was facing north and the civilian asset was facing the national highway, sir.
Q Did the subject person get off from his motorcycle?
A No, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q And what happened next after that, sir?
A When [Benedick] arrived we only observed what they will do next, sir.
Q And what did you observe, what happened next?
A [Benedick] handed something to the civilian asset, sir.
Q Will you describe that something that the subject person handed to the civilian asset?
A It was a small crumpled newspaper, sir.
Q Upon seeing that, what happened next, sir?
A When the civilian asset confirmed that it was shabu, sir, he handed over the buy-bust money to the subject person, sir.
Q After your asset handed the buy-bust money to the subject person, what happened?
A The civilian asset executed the pre-arranged signal, sir.
Q And what is that pre-arranged signal that you are talking about?
A He will scratch his head, sir.
Q And after executing the pre-arrange signal, what happened next?
A PO1 Camacho and I alighted from the vehicle and went near the subject person, sir. 15
xxx xxx xxx
Q You mentioned that you arrested one "Bong," will you point to him if he is present in today's hearing?
A Yes, sir.
Q Kindly point to him?
A He is there, sir.
INTERPRETER:
The witness is pointing to a man in [a] yellow shirt sitted [sic] on the second bench and when asked to identify himself responded to [the] name Benedic[k] Villanueva, your Honor. 16
As observed by the RTC 17 and upheld by the CA, 18 the members of the team also confirmed the consummation of the illegal sale and positively identified Benedick as the seller. Thus, Franklin's testimony will only corroborate the team's testimonies. It bears stressing that while Franklin's testimony is competent — it is not indispensable. Therefore, his presentation is not essential to convict Benedick. Despite proof that the sale between Benedick and the poseur-buyer took place, the buy-bust team failed to establish the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti with certainty.
In the Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, the contraband itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense, and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction. 19 Thus, it is essential to ensure that the substance recovered from the accused is the same substance offered in court. 20 Indeed, the prosecution must satisfactorily establish the movement and custody of the seized drug through the following links: (1) the confiscation and marking, if practicable, 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. 21 Here, records reveal a broken chain of custody.
To establish the first link, the apprehending officers must comply with Section 21, 22 Article II of RA No. 9165, as amended by RA No. 10640, 23 the applicable law when Benedick committed the crime. Section 21 provides the procedural safeguards to remove any doubt on the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs. The law mandates that the officer taking initial custody of the drug shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct the physical inventory of the same and take a photograph in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom the 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 (NPS) or the media who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. The law requires the presence of these witnesses primarily to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence. 24 DETACa
Marking serves a two-fold function: first, to give the succeeding handlers a reference; and second, to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time of seizure and confiscation until disposition at the end of the criminal proceedings, thereby preventing switching, planting, or contamination of evidence. 25 Here, PO1 Ballesteros testified that he marked the plastic sachet bought by Franklin from Benedick with his "VFB," to wit:
Q Who particularly put markings on the items that you recovered?
A Me, sir.
Q And what marking did you put on those items, sir?
A My initials, sir.
Q And what is your initial?
A VFB, sir. 26
However, as borne by the records, the seized item was marked with "VFB 05/29/15". A perusal of PO1 Ballesteros' testimony shows that he never mentioned marking the confiscated item with the date of the buy-bust along with his initials. We cannot treat this discrepancy lightly because the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti become uncertain. There is no doubt whether the sachet marked with "VFB," as testified to by PO1 Ballesteros who marked the item, was the same sachet marked with "VFB 05/29/15," which was brought to the crime laboratory and ultimately presented in court. 27 Thus, there is a substantial gap from the initial stage due to the uncertainty in the markings.
Moreover, the prosecution failed to show how PO1 Ballesteros handled the seized items while waiting for the witnesses that took about 30 minutes. The prosecution witnesses' testimonies are likewise silent as to how the seized item was handled after the seizure and during the transport to the police station. We stress that the first link is crucial in proving the chain of custody. It is the starting point in the custodial link that succeeding handlers of the evidence will use as a reference point. 28
The other links in the chain are equally exceedingly flawed because the prosecution witnesses failed to provide the measures taken by the buy-bust team and all persons who took part in the chain to ensure the integrity of the sachets allegedly obtained and to negate any possibility of adulteration or substitution. Accordingly, the evils of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence remained and were not eliminated.
The breach in the procedure provided in Section 21, Article II of RA No. 9165 and its implementing rules committed by the police operatives and left unexplained by the prosecution is undeniable. The Court cannot rely on the presumption of regularity of performance by the police officers of their official duty as the presumption only applies when nothing in the record suggests a deviation from the standard conduct of official duty required by law. 29 It is not conclusive, and it cannot overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence by itself. Thus, any taint of irregularity, as in this case, affects the whole performance and should make the presumption unavailable. 30 Hence, Benedick must be acquitted of the charges against him.
FOR THESE REASONS, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated April 30, 2019 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10453 is REVERSED. Accordingly, accused-appellant Benedick Villanueva y Alcaide is ACQUITTED 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 to the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City for immediate implementation. The Director is directed to report to this Court the action taken within five days from receipt of this Resolution.
SO ORDERED." (Lopez, J. Y., J., designated additional member per Special Order No. 2822 dated April 7, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Otherwise known as "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
2.Rollo, pp. 17-18.
3.Id. at 3-15. Penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion, with concurrence of Associate Justices Maria Elisa Sempio Diy and Tita Marilyn B. Payoyo-Villordon.
4.Id. at 44-54. September 25, 2017 Decision in Criminal Case No. 3490-C.
5.People v. De Guzman, 825 Phil. 43, 54 (2018).
6.People v. Capulong, 243 Phil. 676, 682 (1988); People v. Andiza, 247 Phil. 611, 617 (1988); People v. Bati, 267 Phil. 109, 117 (1990).
7.Quinicot v. People, 608 Phil. 259, 277 (2009); citing People v. Polizon, 288 Phil. 821, 826-827 (1992); People v. Ramos, 791 Phil. 162, 172-173 (2016); citing People v. Fider, 295 Phil. 132, 152 (1993).
8.People v. Ramos, id.; citing People v. Orteza, 555 Phil. 701, 712 (2007).
9.People v. Samson, 292 Phil. 368, 375 (1993).
10.People v. Ramos, supra note 7; citing People v. Lucero, 299 Phil. 1, 9 (1994) and People v. Sillo, 28 Phil. 841, 852-853 (1992).
11.People v. Ramos, supra note 7.
12.Rollo, p. 50. The pertinent portion of the RTC Decision reads:
Evidence proved likewise that PO1 Ballesteros clearly witnessed the whole transaction as the accused and the poseur-buyer were just three to five meters away from them while he was on board at the back of a tinted Montero sports utility vehicle together with his co-police officers parked nearby as shown in the photographs depicting the place of the transaction, the specific locations of the accused, the poseur-buyer and them (policemen). [Emphasis supplied; citations omitted.]
xxx xxx xxx
13.Id. at 5.
14.Id. at 48-50.
15. See TSN, November 25, 2015, pp. 11-15.
16.Id. at 26-27.
17. CA rollo, p. 51.
18.Rollo, pp. 3-15.
19.People v. Partoza, 605 Phil. 883, 890 (2009).
20.People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 29 (2017).
21.People v. Bugtong, 826 Phil. 638-639 (2018).
22. SEC. 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. — x x x
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.
xxx xxx xxx
This is implemented by Section 21 (1), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 which states:
SEC. 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. — x x x
(1) 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 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. Entitled "AN ACT TO FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE ANTI-DRUG CAMPAIGN OF THE GOVERNMENT, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE SECTION 21 OF [RA] NO. 9165, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE 'COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002,'" approved on July 15, 2014, states that it shall "take effect fifteen (15) days after its complete publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation." Verily, a copy of the law was published on July 23, 2013 in the respective issues of The Philippine Star (Vol. XXVIII, No. 359, Philippine Star Metro section, p. 21) and the Manila Bulletin (Vol. 499, No. 23; World News section, p. 6); hence, RA No. 10640 became effective on August 7, 2014.
24.People v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 236304, November 5, 2018.
25.People v. Alagarme, 754 Phil. 449, 460 (2015).
26. See TSN, November 5, 2015, p. 18.
27.People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 221458, September 5, 2018.
28.People v. Sanchez, id.
29.People v. Que, G.R. No. 212994, January 31, 2019.
30.People v. Capuno, 655 Phil. 226, 244 (2011).