FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 253663. July 28, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. ABEL VISTA y REBULANAN, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 28, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 253663 — People of the Philippines v. Abel Vista y Rebulanan
The trial court 1 and the Court of Appeals 2 both found appellant Abel Vista y Rebulanan guilty of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165). 3
Appellant faults the Court of Appeals for affirming the verdict of conviction. He argues 4 that there was no proof that the witnesses during the inventory were indeed barangay officials. Too, the prosecution's explanation as to lack of media representative, i.e., that Jener Villarez (Villarez) was unavailable at the time, was unacceptable as they failed to prove that Villarez was the only media representative in the area. Also, there was no reason why the police officers failed to contact a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ). Clearly, the police officers did not exert diligent efforts to secure the presence of these insulating witnesses. More, SPO3 Albert A. Joven (SPO3 Joven) failed to establish that the items he seized were truly the subject of the alleged sale. It was not even mentioned whether he handled these items properly to ensure the same did not merge with the other items the police may have confiscated that day. The prosecution similarly failed to present the forensic chemist, hence, it was not shown how the items were handled or who else had access thereto. Although denial is weak, there are situations where an accused had no other defense but denial.
For its part, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), through Assistant Solicitor General Ma. Cielo Se-Rondain and Associate Solicitor Roy Patrick C. Tabanda, counters 5 that all the elements of the crimes charged were proven beyond reasonable doubt. The integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items was preserved. The testimonies of SPO3 Joven and PO3 Robert B. Camara (PO3 Camara) clearly demonstrated how the items were seized. The same remained in SPO3 Joven's possession from the time they were turned-over to him until he personally delivered the items to the crime laboratory. The fact that the forensic chemist did not testify is of no moment seeing as the defense agreed to stipulate on the testimony of P/Insp. Vina Zarina Macaro-Zaldua (P/Insp. Zaldua). Lastly, Kagawads Danilo Abogado (Kagawad Abogado) and Arnulfo Calayo (Kagawad Calayo) identified themselves as barangay officials of Barangay Impig, Sipocot, Camarines Sur in their notarized Joint Affidavit dated March 7, 2015.
We acquit.
In illegal drugs cases, the drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense. The Court, in People v. Barte6 emphasized that the prosecution is tasked to establish that the substance illegally possessed by the accused is the same substance presented in court. Failing to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti renders the evidence for the State insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and, hence, warrants a verdict of acquittal. 7
Appellant was charged with violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165 which he allegedly committed on March 6, 2015. The applicable law, therefore, is RA 9165 as amended by Republic Act No. 10640 (RA 10640) which took effect on August 7, 2014.
Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, prescribes the standard in preserving the corpus delicti in illegal drug cases, viz.:
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 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.
xxx xxx xxx
To ensure the integrity of the seized drug item, the prosecution must account for each link in its chain of custody. People v. Gayoso8 enumerates the links in the chain of custody that must be shown for the successful prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, i.e.,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.
This is the chain of custody rule. It came to fore due to the unique characteristics of illegal drugs which render them indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration, or substitution either by accident or otherwise. 9
We focus on the first link.
The first link speaks of seizure and marking which should be done immediately at the place of arrest and seizure. It also includes the physical inventory and taking of photographs of the seized or confiscated items.
People v. Dela Cruz, 10 clarified that the inventory and photographing must be done in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as the required witnesses under RA 10640: an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media.
Here, the Court notes that only barangay officials were called in to witness the inventory and photographing. No representative from the National Prosecution Service or the media were called upon to witness the same.
SPO3 Joven testified that they tried to call for either one of them, albeit at the time of the operation, media representative Villarez was not available and there was similarly no available personnel from the Naga City Prosecutor's office.
Notably, however, the police officers did not try to contact any other media representative apart from Villarez. It bears stress too, that the police officers received and allegedly confirmed appellant's illegal transactions around 8 o'clock in the evening on March 5, 2015. The buy-bust operation was conducted around 7 o'clock in the evening of the following day. The buy-bust operation was clearly pre-planned. The gap of one (1) day between the information and the actual conduct of the operation gave the police officers sufficient time to secure the presence of the required witnesses. But they failed to do so and the prosecution offered no justifiable reason for this procedural lapse.
In People v. Rojas, 11 the Court acquitted the accused because the presence of representatives from the DOJ and the media was not obtained despite the fact that the buy-bust operation on the accused was supposedly pre-planned.
But this is not all.
It bears emphasis too that SPO3 Joven did not mark the aluminum foils containing the alleged dried marijuana leaves. He categorically testified that he put the contents of the white Marlboro pack (subject of the sale) together in a plastic bag and marked the plastic bag, but not the aluminum foils themselves. 12 He did the same with the nine (9) aluminum foils that he retrieved from the black Marlboro pack (subject of the charge for illegal possession of dangerous drugs). 13
In People v. Sorin, 14 the Court ruled that placing the seized sachets in a separate plastic container and marking the latter instead of the former, individually and separately, renders the corpus delicti highly suspect, viz.:
In this case, SPO1 Mugot admitted that he did not mark the plastic sachets which contained the seized drugs, but instead placed the marking on the "transparent plastic cellophane" wherein he placed the seized sachets. To the Court's mind, the act of marking only the cellophane and not the individual plastic sachets renders the corpus delicti highly susceptible to tampering, switching, planting, and contamination of the evidence — the very acts which the requirement of marking seeks to prevent. As the cellophane passed hands, it can now no longer be determined with certainty that its contents have remained intact, especially considering the dearth of testimony from SPO1 Mugot that the cellophane was tightly sealed or, at the very least, secured. 15
In view, therefore, of the procedural infirmities, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items cannot be said to have been preserved. If the chain of custody procedure had not been complied with, or no justifiable reason exists for its non-compliance, as in this case, then it is the Court's duty to overturn the verdict of conviction. 16
As the Court stated in People v. Macud, 17 we recognize the pernicious effects of dangerous drugs in our society, but the efforts to defeat or eradicate these cannot trample on the constitutional rights of individuals, particularly those at the margins of our society who are prone to abuse at the hands of the armed and uniformed men of the State. Time and again, we have exhorted courts' "to be extra vigilant in trying drug cases, lest an innocent person is made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug offenses."
ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated December 4, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11678 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant Abel Vista y Rebulanan is ACQUITTED in Criminal Case No. L-5817 and Criminal Case No. L-5818.
The Court DIRECTS the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City to: (a) cause the immediate release of Abel Vista y Rebulanan from custody unless he is being held for some other lawful cause or causes; and (b) inform the Court of the action taken within five (5) days from notice.
Let entry of judgment immediately issue.
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. Through its Consolidated Decision dated June 21, 201 8, penned by Acting Presiding Judge Manuel G. Salumbides, CA rollo, pp. 66-84.
2. By its assailed Decision dated December 4, 2019, penned by Associate Justice Walter S. Ong and concurred in by now Supreme Court Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario and Associate Justice Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles, rollo, pp. 3-28; id. at 134-159.
3. Known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
4. See Appellant's Brief dated January 7, 2019, CA rollo, pp. 45-64.
5. See Appellee's Brief dated May 6, 2019, id. at 100-116.
6. 806 Phil. 533, 542 (2017).
7.People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 238212, January 27, 2020.
8. 808 Phil. 19, 31 (2017).
9.People v. Hementiza, 807 Phil. 1017, 1026 (2017).
10. G.R. No. 238212, January 27, 2020.
11. 836 Phil. 757, 771 (2018).
12. TSN, April 5, 2016, p. 17.
13.Id. at 18.
14. 757 Phil. 360 (2015).
15.Id. at 374.
16.People v. Año, 828 Phil. 439, 453 (2018).
17. 822 Phil. 1016, 1042 (2017).