People v. Villanueva y Buenviaje

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 241948. June 23, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. ROBERTO VILLANUEVA y BUENVIAJE, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 23, 2021 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 241948 (People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, v. Roberto Villanueva y Buenviaje, accused-appellant).

This is an Appeal 1 from the March 21, 2018 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09009 which affirmed the January 31, 2017 Joint Judgment 3 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 79 (RTC), finding Roberto Villanueva y Buenviaje (appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, 4 Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, 5 as amended by R.A. No. 10640.

Antecedents

Appellant was charged with violation of Secs. 5 6 and 11, 7 Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, in two (2) separate Informations both dated December 2, 2014, which read:

Criminal Case No. R-QZN-14-11923-CR — for violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165

That on or about the 22nd day of November, 2014, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, without lawful authority did then and there willfully and unlawfully sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport, or act as broker in the said transaction, a dangerous drug, to wit: One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with zero point zero seven (0.07) gram of white crystalline substance containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 8

Criminal Case No. R-QZN-14-11924-CR — for violation of Sec. 11, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165

That on or about the 22nd day of November, 2014, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, not authorized by law to possess or use any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and knowingly have in his possession and control a dangerous drug, to wit: One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with zero point eighteen (0.18) gram of white crystalline substance containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous [drug].

CONTRARY TO LAW. 9

During arraignment, appellant pleaded "not guilty" to the charges. Trial ensued thereafter.

Evidence of the Prosecution

The prosecution presented Police Officer III Reynaldo Del Mundo (PO3 Del Mundo)10 and Police Officer III Christopher Aquino (PO3 Aquino) as its witnesses. Their testimonies tended to establish the following:

On November 21, 2014, Police Station 4, Station Anti-Illegal Drugs (SAID) in Novaliches, Quezon City, received a report from an informant that a certain "Bobby" was selling illegal drugs at No. 30 Ingracia Street, Nitang Avenue, Barangay Gulod, Novaliches, Quezon City. Thereafter, a buy-bust team was formed led by Police Chief Inspector Raul Rasoles and members PO3 Del Mundo, PO3 Aquino, Police Officer III Ramon Addun (PO3 Addun), Police Officer Noel Galeno, and Police Officer III Salamanque. PO3 Del Mundo was designated as poseur-buyer. 11

In the afternoon of the following day, the buy-bust team, together with the informant, went to appellant's above-mentioned location, where he had agreed to meet. The informant then introduced PO3 Del Mundo to appellant as the interested buyer of shabu worth P1,000.00. After appellant signified his trust, PO3 Del Mundo gave him the P1,000.00 marked money. Appellant then took out of his pocket a transparent plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance which he handed to PO3 Del Mundo, who subsequently raised his left hand to signal that the drug transaction had been consummated. 12

PO3 Del Mundo immediately apprehended appellant, seized the transparent plastic sachet, and retrieved the P1,000.00 marked money from appellant. PO3 Aquino assisted PO3 Del Mundo in arresting appellant, with the latter confiscating another plastic sachet in the possession of appellant. 13 At the place of arrest, PO3 Del Mundo marked the plastic sachet he bought from appellant with "RDM-RBV 11-22-14"; the one confiscated by PO3 Aquino, he marked with "CA-RBV 11-22-14." 14 Since a commotion ensued in the area, the buy-bust team decided to head back to the police station. 15 PO3 Del Mundo and PO3 Aquino remained in possession of their respective seized plastic sachets until they arrived at the police station. 16

Upon arrival at the police station, the apprehending officers prepared the chain of custody form (Exhibit "H"), and the inventory of the seized properties/items (Exhibit "F"). The prosecution averred that the team exerted efforts to secure the presence of the required witnesses during the inventory, but only media representative Jun Tobias arrived. 17

After the inventory, PO3 Del Mundo turned over the plastic sachet he bought from appellant to the police investigator on duty, Police Officer III Jun Pingol (PO3 Pingol). 18 In turn, PO3 Pingol prepared the request for laboratory examination (Exhibit "L"), the arrest and booking sheet of appellant, and the referral letter addressed to the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City. 19 Afterwards, PO3 Del Mundo turned over the confiscated items to the crime laboratory where Police Chief Inspector Anamelisa S. Bacani (PCI Bacani) conducted a forensic examination that yielded a positive result for methamphetamine hydrochloride. 20

Version of the Defense

For his part, appellant riposted that he was apprehended on November 22, 2014, at around 2:00 in the afternoon, while he was sleeping in his house located at No. 30 Ingracia Street, Nitang Avenue, Barangay Gulod, Novaliches, Quezon City. At that time, he was with his mother and live-in partner Erlinda Luseriaga. Four (4) men broke into their house, handcuffed appellant, and forcibly took him to the police station. At the police station, PO3 Del Mundo took out a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance from his pocket and forced appellant to point to the sachet while taking his picture. 21

RTC Judgment

In its January 31, 2017 Joint Judgment, 22 the RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165. He was sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine of P500,000.00 in Criminal Case No. R-QZN-14-11923-CR. In the same decision, the RTC dismissed the charge for violation of Sec. 11, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 in Criminal Case No. R-QZN-14-11924-CR.

In Criminal Case No. R-QZN-14-11923-CR, the RTC held that the prosecution had sufficiently established all the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The prosecution proved that appellant sold one (1) plastic sachet of shabu to PO3 Del Mundo for P1,000.00. 23 It gave weight to PO3 Del Mundo's testimony positively identifying appellant as the illegal seller of the seized drugs. 24 The trial court also found that the apprehending officers had substantially complied with the rules on the chain of custody under Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165, despite the fact that only a representative from the media was present. Lastly, the RTC disregarded appellant's weak defense of denial for lack of merit. 25

In Criminal Case No. R-QZN-14-11924-CR, the RTC dismissed the charge for illegal possession of dangerous drugs. It held that while the prosecution was able to sufficiently establish the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, it failed to comply with the rule on chain of custody from the point when PO3 Aquino seized the alleged shabu from appellant. Both PO3 Aquino and PO3 Del Mundo had inconsistent statements anent the turnover of the second plastic sachet, allegedly in appellant's possession, to the police investigator upon their arrival at the police station until its delivery to the crime laboratory. 26 Consequently, the integrity and evidentiary value of the second sachet had not been preserved.

The dispositive portion of the Joint Judgment, reads:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

1. In Criminal Case No. R-QZN-14-11923-CR, the Court finds accused ROBERTO VILLANUEVA y BUENVIAJE, GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act [No.] 9165, and he is hereby sentenced to suffer life imprisonment, and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00);

2. In Criminal Case No. R-QZN-14-11924-CR, accused ROBERTO VILLANUEVA y BUENVIAJE is hereby ACQUITTED of violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act [No.] 9165.

The Branch Clerk of Court is directed to immediately turn over to the Chief of PDEA Crime Laboratory, the subject drugs covered by Chemistry Report No. D-610-14, to be disposed of in strict conformity with the provisions of R.A. [No.] 9165 and its implementing rules and regulations on the matter.

SO ORDERED. 27

Aggrieved, appellant appealed his conviction in Criminal Case No. R-QZN-14-11923-CR to the CA.

CA Decision

In its March 21, 2018 Decision, 28 the CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC, thus:

All told, We affirm the conviction of accused-appellant ROBERTO VILLANUEVA y BUENVIAJE for the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs.

FOR THE STATED REASONS, the appeal is DENIED.

SO ORDERED. 29

The CA held that the buy-bust team had substantially complied with the requirements of the law on marking, photography, and inventory of the seized dangerous drugs. The inventory form confirms compliance with the rules, as it contains the signatures of the seizing officer, PO3 Del Mundo, the arresting officer, PO3 Aquino, and witnessed by media representative Jun Tobias. Moreover, the integrity of the seized drugs was preserved. 30 The totality of the prosecution's evidence shows the continuous whereabouts of the dangerous drug from the time it was confiscated and tested in the crime laboratory until it was offered in evidence.

Hence, the instant appeal. 31

Assignment of Errors

Appellant imputes the following errors in support of his appeal:

I.

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF SECTION 5, ARTICLE II OF R.A. NO. 9165 DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE APPREHENDING OFFICERS TO OBSERVE THE PROCEDURE PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 21 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, AS AMENDED BY R.A. NO. 10640;

II.

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO OBSERVE THE PROPER PROCEDURE AND ESTABLISH EVERY LINK IN THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY. 32

In his Appellant's Brief 33 before the CA, appellant argues that there was failure to observe the procedure provided for under Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640. 34 There was noncompliance with the required representatives from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and an elected public official during the physical inventory and photographing of the seized evidence. 35 Appellant maintains that the apprehending officers did not exert any genuine and sufficient effort to comply with the mandate of Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165. 36 He contends that the police officers failed to justify their failure to comply with the requirements under R.A. No. 9165. Finally, appellant argues that there were breaks in every link in the chain of custody. 37

On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) urges this Court to affirm appellant's conviction. The OSG maintains that the prosecution duly established the elements of the offense as charged. There was an unbroken chain of custody from PO3 Del Mundo's confiscation of the plastic sachet from appellant and marking of the same after his arrest, to the turnover of the said contraband to the police investigator until its turnover to the crime laboratory for examination. Accordingly, the integrity and identity of the seized drug were sufficiently preserved.

Did the CA seriously err in affirming the conviction of appellant for violating Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, as amended?

Our Ruling

We GRANT the appeal.

At the outset, it must be stressed that an appeal in criminal cases throws the entire case wide open for review. The reviewing tribunal can correct errors, though unassigned in the appealed judgment, or even reverse the trial court's decision based on grounds other than those that the parties raised as errors. 38 Consequently, this Court has the competence to examine records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law. 39

To secure a conviction for violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, the prosecution must establish not only the presence of all the elements of the crime as charged but also every link in the chain of custody. The identity of the prohibited drug must be established with moral certainty, considering that the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime. 40 To remove any doubt or uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the seized drug, evidence must definitely show that the illegal drug presented in court is the same illegal drug actually recovered from the accused; otherwise, the prosecution for possession or for sale under R.A. No. 9165 fails. 41

This Court finds that there were substantial gaps as to the compliance with the chain of custody rule as laid down by Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640.

To ensure compliance with the chain of custody rule, Sec. 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165 requires the apprehending team, after seizure and confiscation, to immediately conduct a physical inventory and photograph the same in the presence of: (1) the accused or the persons from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, (2) a representative from the media, and (3) the DOJ, and (4) any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. 42

Notably, R.A. No. 10640, which amended Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and became effective on July 23, 2014, requires only three witnesses to be present during the inventory and taking of photographs of the seized evidence, namely: (a) the accused or the persons from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, (b) an elected public official, and (c) a representative of the National Prosecution Service (NPS) or the media. 43

Here, since the alleged offense was committed on November 22, 2014, the provisions of R.A. No. 10640 shall apply. The requirement of three witnesses mandated by law to be present during the inventory and taking of photographs must be complied with.

The prosecution failed to prove compliance with the chain of custody rule. First, the apprehending officers failed to procure the presence of all the required three (3) witnesses. The Court notes that during the inventory of the seized item, no elected public official was present. The inventory was only witnessed by appellant and media representative Jon Tobias. Under the law, the presence of the appellant, any elected public official and a representative from the media or NPS is mandatory because the law requires them to sign the copies of the inventory and to be given a copy thereof.

Second, the prosecution cannot benefit from the saving clause provided by Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640. The saving clause applies only (1) where the prosecution recognized the procedural lapses, and thereafter explained the cited justifiable grounds for such, and (2) when the prosecution established that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized had been preserved. 44

In People v. Umipang, 45 this Court held that the prosecution must show that earnest efforts were employed in contacting the representatives enumerated under the law 46 for "a sheer statement that representatives were unavailable — without so much as an explanation on whether serious attempts were employed to look for other representatives, given the circumstances — is to be regarded as a flimsy excuse." 47

Here, the prosecution failed to give any justifiable ground or an explanation for failure to secure the presence of a local public official to witness the inventory and photographing of the seized item. It bears emphasis that the buy-bust operation was arranged and scheduled in advance when the police officers formed an apprehending team, coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency and even prepared the buy-bust money and held a briefing. Yet, they failed to ensure that a local public official would witness the inventory and marking of the seized items. The police officers had sufficient opportunity to secure the mandatory witnesses for the inventory and photography of the seized drugs, but still failed to do so.

Third, the certificate of inventory that was produced by the prosecution was irregularly executed.

To emphasize, Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 requires that the copies of the inventory be signed by all the required witnesses including appellant. 48 Here, the certificate of inventory was not signed by appellant or by his counsel or representative and such defect was not acknowledged by the prosecution. Nor did the prosecution provide any explanation as to why appellant was not able to sign the certificate of inventory. Here, the testimony of PO3 Aquino during his cross-examination revealed/established that appellant did not sign the inventory of the seized properties/items, and it did not indicate whether the appellant was present at the time of its preparation. 49

Verily, Sec. 21 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 provides 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." 50 For this provision to be effective, however, the prosecution must first (1) recognize any lapse on the part of the police officers and (2) be able to justify the same. 51 Here, the prosecution neither recognized, much less tried to justify, the police officers' deviation from the procedure contained in Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165.

Finally, the prosecution also failed to establish the fourth link in the chain of custody. After the seized shabu was delivered by PO3 Del Mundo to PCI Bacani for laboratory analysis, no one testified on how the specimen was handled thereafter. While PCI Bacani disclosed that after examination, she sealed the specimens and turned them over to the evidence custodian, POI Junia Tuccad (POI Tuccad), it was not established how the specimen was handled and kept until it was presented in court.

In People v. Balubal, 52 the Court discussed the importance of an unbroken chain of custody. The prosecution's evidence must include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was seized to the time it is offered in court as evidence, such that every person who handled the evidence would acknowledge 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. The same witness would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have its possession. It is from the testimony of every witness who handled the evidence from which a reliable assurance can be derived that the evidence presented in court is one and the same as that seized from the accused. 53

In this case, the testimony of forensic chemist PCI Bacani was dispensed with. Only the stipulation of the parties as to the testimony of PCI Bacani as to whom she delivered the specimen after the examination was indicated on the record. However, POI Tuccad failed to testify as to how she handled the seized items while in her custody and pending presentation in court. This casts serious doubts on the handling of the confiscated shabu as it is not clear as to how it was handled pending its presentation in court. This opens the possibility that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug may have been compromised.

In sum, the prosecution failed to provide justifiable grounds for the apprehending team's noncompliance with the requirements laid down in Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165. The integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti have, thus, been compromised. 54 Accordingly, appellant must be acquitted.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The March 21, 2018 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09009 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE for failure of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of appellant Roberto Villanueva y Buenviaje. He is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged against him and ORDERED immediately RELEASED from custody, unless he is being held for some other lawful cause. Let an Entry of Judgment be issued immediately.

The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ORDERED to IMPLEMENT this Resolution and to inform this Court of the date of the actual release from confinement of Roberto Villanueva y Buenviaje within five (5) days from receipt hereof.

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. 104-106.

2.Id. at 88-96; penned by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez (now a Member of this Court) with Associate Justices Victoria Isabel A. Paredes and Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob, concurring.

3.Id. at 51-61; penned by Presiding Judge Nadine Jessica Corazon J. Fama.

4. SECTION 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions. x x x

5. Otherwise known as the "'Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."

6.Supra note 4.

7. SECTION 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof; x x x.

8. CA rollo, pp. 88-89.

9.Id. at 89.

10. Also referred to as "Police Officer III Reynaldo del Mundo" in some parts of the rollo.

11. CA rollo, p. 53.

12.Id. at 53; 90.

13.Id. at 53.

14.Id. at 53; 90.

15.Id. at 53.

16.Id.

17.Id.

18.Id.

19.Id.

20.Id. at 90.

21.Id. at 55-56; 90-91.

22.Id. at 51-61.

23.Id. at 57.

24.Id.

25.Id. at 58.

26.Id. at 59.

27.Id. at 60.

28.Id. at 88-96.

29.Id. at 95-96.

30.Id. at 94-95.

31.Id. at 104-106.

32.Id. at 35.

33.Id. at 27-49.

34.Id. at 35.

35.Id. at 39.

36.Id.

37.Id. at 43.

38.People v. Abdula, G.R. No. 212192, November 21, 2018, 886 SCRA 383, 406-407; Mapandi v. People, 829 Phil. 198, 204 (2018).

39.People v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 235658, June 22, 2020.

40.People v. Mama, G.R. No. 237204, October 1, 2018, 881 SCRA 268, 277; People v. Mercader, 833 Phil. 1031, 1042 (2018).

41.People v. Macaumbang, G.R. No. 208836, April 1, 2019, 889 SCRA 344, 365-366; People v. Alcuizar, 662 Phil. 794, 801 (2011).

42.People v. Balubal, G.R. No. 234033, July 30, 2018, 875 SCRA 1, 13-14; People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 228 (2015).

43.People v. Bangcola, G.R. No. 237802, March 18, 2019, 897 SCRA 330, 346-347.

44.Tumabini v. People, G.R. No. 224495, February 19, 2020.

45. 686 Phil. 1024 (2012).

46.Id. at 1053.

47.People v. Crispo, 828 Phil. 416, 435-436 (2018).

48.People v. Manabat, G.R. No. 242947, July 17, 2019, 909 SCRA 543, 567.

49. See RTC Joint Judgment; CA rollo, p. 55.

50.People v. Manabat, supra note 48, at 568.

51.People v. Baer, G.R. No. 228958, August 14, 2019; People v. Resurreccion, G.R. No. 231361, July 3, 2019, 907 SCRA 465, 477.

52.Supra note 42.

53.Id. at 21, citing People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 219955, February 5, 2018, 845 SCRA 116.

54.People v. Manabat, supra note 48 at 568; Abilla v. People, G.R. No. 227676, April 3, 2019, 900 SCRA 120.