People v. Viray

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 242527. November 18, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.MC HIERY NATALIO VIRAY AND JEROME CAOILE MACATLANG, accused-appellants.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 18, 2021which reads as follows: HTcADC

"G.R. No. 242527 (People of the Philippines v. Mc Hiery Natalio Viray and Jerome Caoile Macatlang). — This is an Appeal 1 from the Decision 2 dated March 13, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08507, which affirmed the Decision 3 dated July 5, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 69, Lingayen, Pangasinan, finding accused-appellants Mc Hiery Natalio Viray (Viray) and Jerome Caoile Macatlang (Macatlang) guilty of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."

This case stemmed from an Information 4 dated October 5, 2015 filed before the RTC charging Viray and Macatlang with the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the accusatory portion of which reads:

That on or about the evening of October 2, 2015 along [B]arangay Quibaol, Lingayen, Pangasinan n (sic) and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named Accused conspiring and confederating with each other, did then and there, unlawfully, feloniously and deliberately have sold, traded and delivered to a poseur-buyer (S.P.O. 2 JOJO MAYO), in exchange for marked money (PHP1000.00) ONE (1) heat[-]sealed plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance which was suspected to be "SHABU," which was tested and found POSITIVE for the presence of METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE, a prohibited drug, without both accused any valid and lawful authority to possess, sell and deliver the same.

Contrary to law.5

The prosecution alleged that on October 2, 2015, at around 6:20 in the evening, Senior Police Officer (PO) 2 Jojo Mayo (SPO2 Mayo) was on duty at the Lingayen Police Station, when he received a call from a civilian asset about the latter's supposed purchase of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) from Viray and Macatlang. SPO2 Mayo relayed this information to their Intelligence Officer, Police Inspector (PI) Franco Catalan, who immediately planned a buy-bust operation. 6

During their briefing, SPO2 Mayo was designated as poseur-buyer, while PO1 Reynaldo Domalanta (PO1 Domalanta), Oliver Sinaban (PO1 Sinaban), and Jhordan Sarzaba (PO1 Sarzaba) were tasked to provide perimeter security. A P1,000.00 bill was also marked with "JSM 2015." Meanwhile, PO1 Mary Jane Rosario coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for the operation. Coordination was also made with Prosecutor Jeffrey Catungal of the Department of Justice (DOJ), members of the barangay council, Romeo De Guzman (De Guzman) and Florencia Jimenez (Jimenez), and media representative Enrique Cayago. 7

While SPO2 Mayo was with the civilian asset, the latter received a phone call from Macatlang informing him of the change of the location of their meet-up, from Barangay Baay to the Quibaol earth dike in Barangay Quibaol, Lingayen. The buy-bust team then proceeded to the agreed place. When they arrived, SPO2 Mayo and the civilian asset waited until a black motorcycle carrying two persons drove towards them. 8

When the persons riding the motorcycle, who turned out to be Viray and Macatlang, approached them, the civilian asset introduced SPO2 Mayo to them as his cousin. 9 SPO2 Mayo then handed the P1,000.00 marked bill to Macatlang, while Viray handed over a small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing what is believed to be shabu. Immediately, the other members of the buy-bust team rushed to the area. SPO2 Mayo introduced himself as a police officer to Viray and Macatlang, and informed them of their arrest. Viray tried to resist arrest, but PO1 Sinaban was able to restrain him. 10

Due to the inclement weather caused by the typhoon Kabayan during that time, the buy-bust team decided to conduct the inventory of the seized item at the Lingayen Police Station. 11 In the meantime, SPO2 Mayo was in custody of the seized item. When they arrived at the police station, Prosecutor Catungal, barangay kagawad Jimenez and De Guzman, and media representative Romeo Gutierrez were already there. 12

SPO2 Mayo marked, took photographs, and made an inventory of the seized item in the presence of Viray and Macatlang and the four witnesses, who thereafter signed the inventory receipt. SPO2 Mayo then brought the seized item to the crime laboratory in Lingayen for testing. The item was received by forensic chemist, P/C Inspector Myrna C. Malojo-Todeño (PCI Todeño). 13

For their part, Viray and Macatlang denied the charges against them.

During trial, Macatlang testified that on October 2, 2015, at 5 o'clock in the afternoon, he was at his house when he received a call from a certain Norby Ananayo (Ananayo) requesting him to go to the latter's house at the dumpsite area. He met Ananayo at a basketball court in Baay West and had known him for less than a year. Since Ananayo's house was a little far from his place, he sent a text message to Viray, his "kumpadre," if he could borrow the latter's vehicle. In response, Viray agreed to accompany him to Ananayo's house. 14 Upon arriving at Ananayo's house, he and Viray were immediately handcuffed by PO1 Domalanta, PO1 Sarzaba, and SPO2 Mayo. They asked why they were being handcuffed, but the police officers instead asked them where they were getting their drugs. Macatlang answered that he did not know anything since they do not have any drugs in their possession. 15

Viray, on the other hand, averred that Macatlang was his "kumpadre," and that they were classmates in elementary school. On October 2, 2015, he was in his house when he received a text message from Macatlang saying that they have to go somewhere and that they would need to use his tricycle. He agreed to accompany Macatlang and he picked him up at his house in Barangay Baay. They then proceeded to meet Ananayo whom he did not know. 16 When they arrived at their destination, around six police officers suddenly arrested them. He did not know where the plastic sachet allegedly containing shabu came from. 17

After trial, the RTC, Branch 69, Lingayen, Pangasinan rendered its Decision 18 dated July 5, 2016 finding Viray and Macatlang guilty of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. It found that the prosecution duly established all the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, as well as show an unbroken chain in the custody of the seized item. The RTC then brushed aside the defense of denial and frame-up of Viray and Macatlang for lack of credence. The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, both accused are hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and are accordingly sentenced to suffer, without eligibility for parole, the penalty of life imprisonment, together with such accessory penalties provided for in the law, and to each pay a fine of P500,000.00.

The sachet of methamphetamine hydrochloride subject of this case is confiscated in favor of the government to be dealt with as the law directs.

SO ORDERED.19

In its Decision 20 dated March 13, 2018, the CA affirmed the RTC's conviction of Viray and Macatlang. The CA agreed with the RTC that all the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs were sufficiently established by the prosecution, and that the chain of custody was unbroken. It also ruled that Viray's and Macatlang's defense of alibi and frame-up are weak and cannot prevail over the credible and positive testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses. The dispositive portion of the CA decision states:

WHEREFORE, the Appeal is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated 5 July 2016 of the Regional Trial Court, First Judicial Region, Branch 69, Lingayen, Pangasinan[,] which found both accused-appellants [Mc Hiery] Natalio Viray and Jerome Caoile Macatlang in Criminal Case No. L-10661 guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165[,] is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED. 21

Hence, this appeal.

The parties then adopted their respective Appellant's 22 and Appellee's 23 Briefs filed before the CA as their Supplemental Briefs before the Court. 24

The appeal is granted.

In cases involving violations of R.A. No. 9165, the corpus delicti refers to the drug itself. It is, therefore, the duty of the prosecution to prove that the drugs seized from the accused were the same items presented in court. 25 To ensure the seized item's integrity and evidentiary value, the prosecution must account for each link in the chain of custody:

First, the seizure and marking 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. 26

The first link speaks of seizure and marking of the illegal drug recovered from the accused. Section 21, 27 Article II of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, 28 mandates that immediately after seizure and confiscation, the apprehending team shall conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused and the required insulating witnesses, viz.: (1) an elected public official; and (2) a representative from the media OR a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), provided, however, that the physical inventory and photograph may be done at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team in case of warrantless seizures, and that non-compliance with the requirements of Section 21, under justifiable grounds, shall not render void and invalid the seizure of the items, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.

In the present case, SPO2 Mayo testified that because of the heavy rains brought by typhoon Kabayan at the time of the buy-bust operation, the apprehending team decided to conduct the marking and inventory of the seized item at the Lingayen Police Station. 29 When they arrived at the police station, the witnesses, namely, the representatives from the media and the DOJ, and a barangay official were already there. Thus, he immediately marked, took photos, and made an inventory of the seized item in their presence. 30 From the foregoing, the Court is convinced that the first link in the chain of custody was sufficiently established.

The same cannot, however, be said for the second, third, and fourth links in the chain of custody.

The second link is the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer. This is a necessary step in the chain of custody because it will be the investigating officer who shall conduct the proper investigation and prepare the necessary documents for the developing criminal case. 31 Certainly, the investigating officer must have possession of the illegal drugs to properly prepare the required documents. 32

Here, SPO2 Mayo testified that he was in possession of the seized item from the time of confiscation until he personally turned it over to the crime laboratory for testing. 33 He did not mention that he turned over the seized item to the investigating officer, PI Catalan, who, however, appeared to have prepared and signed the Request for Drug Laboratory Examination. 34 In People v. Hementiza, 35 where the arresting officer claimed that he delivered the illegal drugs to the forensic chemist, but it appeared that the request for laboratory examination was prepared by another who had necessarily taken custody of the seized item, the Court said that this opened a question on the identities of officers who had custody of the illegal drugs. Necessarily, in such a case, there was doubt as to whether it was the arresting officer or the one who prepared the request for laboratory examination who remained in custody of the seized items, thereby raising doubts as to whether it remained under the same condition as when it was seized from the accused. In People v. Ilagan, 36 where there was likewise no transfer of the seized dangerous drugs to the investigating officer, the Court held that the absence of the second link certainly "casts doubt on the integrity of the seized items." 37 The Court ruled that this raised a question on how the police investigator could have properly performed his investigation without the corpus delicti on his hand. 38

The third link in the chain of custody is the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination. Once the seized drugs arrive at the forensic laboratory, it will be the laboratory technician who will test and verify the nature of the substance. 39 In the present case, while SPO2 Mayo personally turned over the seized item to the forensic chemist, his testimony is completely silent on the handling and disposition of the seized item while it was in his possession. It bears emphasis that it was not him who prepared and signed the Request for Drug Laboratory Examination, but PI Catalan. When PI Catalan prepared the said request, he would necessarily take in the custody of the seized item in order to ensure that he was requesting for the examination of these items and for not another item. There was, however, no testimony as to what condition did PI Catalan received the seized item, for which he prepared a request for laboratory examination, and the condition of the seized item when SPO2 Mayo regained possession of these items, for delivery to the forensic chemist. Likewise, there was no information on the condition of the seized item when it was delivered to and received by the forensic chemist, PCI Todeño. The records disclose that during the hearing on December 8, 2015, the parties stipulated on the proposed testimony of PCI Todeño, to the effect that:

(1) She conducted the laboratory examination of the seized item; 40

(2) The seized item was brought to the laboratory by SPO2 Mayo and received by her and Police Officer 1 Frias; 41 and

(3) That after laboratory examination, she issued Chemistry Report 42 No. D-804-2015L showing that the substance seized from Viray and Macatlang tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. 43

After stipulating on the above-mentioned matters, PCI Todeño took the witness stand and identified her signature on an improvised envelope containing the seized item subject of the present case. She then stated that after conducting the laboratory examination, she endorsed the envelope to the evidence custodian, from whom she also retrieved it for presentation to the court that day. 44

It has been held that in case the parties stipulate to dispense with the attendance and testimony of the forensic chemist, it should be stipulated that the forensic chemist was to testify that he/she took the precautionary steps required in order to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item, thus: (1) that the forensic chemist received the seized article as marked, properly sealed, and intact; (2) that he/she resealed it after examination of the content; and (3) that he/she placed his/her own marking on the same to ensure that it could not be tampered with during trial. 45 The stipulation on the proposed testimony of PCI Todeño, however, did not cover the foregoing safekeeping measures to preserve the integrity of the seized item. Verily, the stipulations did not cover the manner the seized item was handled before it came to the possession of PCI Todeño and after it left her possession.

The fourth link in the chain of custody is the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court. As stated above, after conducting the laboratory examination, PCI Todeño endorsed the envelope to the evidence custodian, from whom she also retrieved it for presentation to the court that day.

The evidence custodian, however, was never identified and presented in court during trial. In People v. Orcullo, 46 where the evidence custodian was likewise not presented, the Court held that "this circumstance presented a break in the links in the chain of custody of the evidence." 47 The Court said that "the evidence custodian could have testified on the circumstances under which he or she received the items, what he or she did with them during the time the items were in his custody, or what happened during the time the items were transferred to the trial court." 48 The Court ruled similarly in People v. Catinguel, 49 and said that the fourth link in the chain of custody was not established because of the absence of the testimony of the evidence custodian.

Indeed, establishing every link in the chain of custody is crucial to the preservation of the integrity, identity, and evidentiary value of the seized illegal drug. Failure to demonstrate compliance with even just one of these links creates reasonable doubt that the substance confiscated from accused is the same substance offered in evidence, 50 as in this case.

Further and more importantly, the Court notes that there was absolutely no evidence as regards the weight of the shabu supposedly confiscated from accused-appellants. The records reveal that the Inventory Receipt 51 did not indicate the weight of the supposedly seized illegal drug from accused-appellants. Moreover, the Certification 52 dated October 2, 2015 issued by PO2 Edgar S. Costales of the Lingayen Police Station shows that the police blotter with respect to the buy-bust operation conducted in the present case stated that the shabu confiscated was of "undetermined weight." The weight of the illegal drug was likewise not stated in the Information, which only alleged that accused-appellants sold, traded, and delivered to SPO2 Mayo, a "ONE (1) heat[-]sealed plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance." Notably, the weight of the shabu, i.e., 0.190 gram was only stated in the Chemistry Report 53 issued by PCI Todeño.

To the mind of this Court, the failure of the prosecution to state the weight of the supposedly confiscated illegal drug is fatal to its case. Without a clear reference on the weight of the illegal drug, there is no way for the Court to determine whether the shabu supposedly confiscated from accused-appellants was the very same one presented and examined during trial. The chances, moreover, that the illegal drug has been tampered, planted, or substituted is more likely.

In Calma v. People, 54 the Court acquitted the accused in view of the discrepancies in the (1) amount of the substance as alleged in the Information; (2) amount of the substance confiscated by the buy-bust team; and the (3) amount of substance examined by the forensic chemist. The Court said that the discrepancies tainted the integrity of the sachets of shabu which were presented in evidence before the trial court, raising reasonable doubt as to whether these plastic sachets were the very same ones that were confiscated from the accused. Thus, the Court's ruling should apply with more force to this case, where there is not only variance in the weight of illegal drugs, but a total lack of reference as to the weight of the shabu supposedly seized from accused-appellants.

All told, in view of the gaps in the second, third, and fourth links in the chain of custody, as well as the total lack of proper reference to the weight of the shabu supposedly seized from accused-appellants, the identity of the corpus delicti was not established beyond reasonable doubt. Perforce, the acquittal of accused-appellants is in order.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated March 13, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08507 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellants Mc Hiery Natalio Viray and Jerome Caoile Macatlang are ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt. They are ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention unless they are being held for some other lawful cause.

Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa, for immediate implementation and he is ORDERED to REPORT to this Court the action taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution. 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.

Let an entry of judgment be issued immediately. DETACa

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.Rollo, pp. 16-18.

2. Penned by Associate Justice Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin, with Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario (now a member of this Court) and Renato C. Francisco (retired), concurring; id. at 2-15.

3. Penned by Presiding Judge Loreto S. Alog, Jr.; CA rollo, pp. 25-34.

4. Records, pp. 1-2.

5.Id. at 1. (Italics in the original)

6.Rollo, p. 3.

7.Id. at 4.

8.Id.

9.Id.

10.Id.

11.Id.

12.Id. at 4-5.

13.Id. at 5.

14.Rollo, p. 6.

15.Id.

16.Id.

17.Id. at 7.

18. CA rollo, pp. 25-34.

19.Id. at 34.

20.Rollo, pp. 2-15.

21.Id. at 14.

22. CA rollo, pp. 13-24.

23.Id. at 41-69.

24.Rollo, pp. 36-37; 39-40.

25.People v. Bumanglag, G.R. No. 228884, August 19, 2019, citing People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 29 (2017).

26.People v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 235658, June 22, 2020; People v. Tulod, G.R. No. 227993, September 25, 2019; People v. Victoria, G.R. No. 238613, August 19, 2019; People v. Dela Torre, G.R. No. 225789, July 29, 2019; People v. Cabuhay, 836 Phil. 903 (2018); People v. Ubungen, 836 Phil. 888 (2018).

27. 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. — 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 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. x x x"

28. R.A. No. 10640, amending R.A. No. 9165, was approved on July 15, 2014. Considering that the buy-bust operation in this case was conducted on October 2, 2015, the provisions of R.A. No. 10640 apply.

29. TSN, February 4, 2016, p. 6.

30.Id. at 7-8.

31.People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 235 (2015).

32.People v. Hementiza, 807 Phil. 1017, 1034 (2017).

33. TSN, February 4, 2016, pp. 9-10.

34. Records, p. 18.

35.Supra note 32, at 1037.

36. G.R. No. 244295, November 9, 2020.

37.Id.

38.Id.

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

40. TSN, December 8, 2015, p. 3.

41.Id.

42. Records, p. 43.

43. TSN, December 8, 2015, p. 4.

44.Id. at 5.

45.People v. Ambrosia, G.R. No. 234051, November 27, 2019, citing People v. Pajarin, 654 Phil. 461, 466 (2011).

46. G.R. No. 229675, July 8, 2019.

47.Id.

48.Id.

49. G.R. No. 229205, March 6, 2019.

50.People v. Villalon, Jr., G.R. No. 249412, March 15, 2021, citing People v. Ubungen, supra note 26, at 902.

51. Records, p. 19.

52.Id. at 12-13.

53.Id. at 43.

54. 820 Phil. 858, 873 (2017).