THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 253836. June 22, 2022.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.GENIEL YUSORES y YBAÑEZ, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 22, 2022, which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 253836 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, versus GENIEL YUSORES y YBAÑEZ, accused-appellant.
RESOLUTION
After a careful review of the records of the case, the Court reverses and sets aside the Decision 1 dated November 29, 2019 of the Court of Appeals-Cebu City, Eighteenth Division (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02875, which affirmed the Judgment 2 dated May 3, 2017 in Criminal Case No. 2011-20508 of Branch 34, Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City (RTC), convicting accused-appellant Geniel Yusores y Ybañez (Yusores) for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165. 3
The elements of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 are: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. 4 The State has the burden to prove not only the elements of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, but also its corpus delicti. 5 To discharge this burden, compliance with the following requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 must be established:
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 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;
(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination;
(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done under oath by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued within twenty-four (24) hours after the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of the dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not allow the completion of testing within the time frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided, however, That a final certification shall be issued on the completed forensic laboratory examination on the same within the next twenty-four (24) hours[.]
Furthermore, the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165 provides that the inventory and photographing of the seized items should be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served, at the nearest police station, or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable. 6 CAIHTE
Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 embodies the chain of custody rule or the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or paraphernalia from the time of seizure up to their presentation in court. 7 Therefore, the prosecution must be able to account for all the links in the chain of custody of the seized drug, which are: (1) the seizure and marking of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and (4) the turnover and submission of the seized and marked illegal drug by the forensic chemist to the court. 8
In the present case, there are unexplained gaps in the chain of custody. The first link in the chain covers the seizure, marking, inventory and photographing of the seized drug by the apprehending officers. 9 A review of the records of the case shows that there is an unexplained discrepancy in the number of plastic sachets recovered from Yusores. The Certificate of Inventory clearly states that there was a total of seven sachets seized from Yusores, to wit:
1) One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing suspected shabu powder/granules later marked as "GYY-BB-06/01/11" with signature.
2) One (1) pc. five hundred peso bill marked money with serial no. JG993967.
3) One (1) pc. heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing suspected shabu left over marked as "GYY-P-06/01/11" with signature.
4) Five (5) pcs. empty transparent plastic sachet collectively marked as "GYY-P-06/01/11" with signature. 10
However, during his testimony, Police Officer 1 (PO1) Roderick Maquinta (PO1 Maquinta), the designated poseur-buyer, narrated that he was able to seize and mark only six sachets, viz.:
Q: How did you make the arrest?
A: I told him that I am arresting him for selling shabu and I also told him of his constitutional rights.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: After you informed him of his rights, what did you do next, if any?
A: I asked him if he understood what I just said to him, he just nodded.
Q: After you arrested your subject, inform him of his rights what did you do next, if any?
A: Right after that, our back up also went to the area, Ma'am, personally arrested that person and handcuffed and the six (6) sachets, I marked it (sic). 11
Thus, there is a break in the first link of the chain of custody as the seizing officer could not properly account for the number of sachets obtained from Yusores.
In addition, both PO1 Maquinta and PO1 Ramsteadt Balbuena (PO1 Balbuena) testified that the buy-bust operation was done at a road intersection near the Cadawinonan Housing Project. 12 However, the photographs taken by PO1 Balbuena show Yusores seated on a plastic chair with the seized items on top of the table in front of him. This does not indicate that the inventory and photographing were done at an intersection. 13
Also, the stipulated testimonies of the three witnesses only provide that they were "called upon to witness the inventory conducted in this case on June 1, 2011 at the Dumaguete Socializing Housing Project in Barangay Cadawinonan, Dumaguete City." 14 Such statement does not clarify where the actual inventory and photographing of the seized items were conducted. Thus, it cannot be ascertained whether the marking, inventory, and photographing of the seized items were actually conducted at the place of arrest in compliance with Section 21. 15 CAIHTE
Further, there are material discrepancies in the testimonies of the apprehending officers which the Court cannot ignore as these relate directly to the conduct of the buy-bust operation. PO1 Maquinta testified that he and PO1 Balbuena were no longer accompanied by the confidential informant during the buy-bust operation on June 1, 2011, viz.:
Q: During the second buy bust operation, you were with PO1 Balbuena?
A: Yes Ma'am.
Q: Where was the confidential back-up at the time?
A: He was not with us.
Q: So, the alleged transaction of selling and buying shabu was done without the confidential agent?
A: Yes, Ma'am. 16
Meanwhile, PO1 Balbuena stated that the confidential informant was present during the June 1, 2011 buy-bust operation:
Q: And what happened after the intended operation on May 31, 2011 was aborted?
A: On the following day, June 1, 2011, Inspector [Felicisimo] Callet informed Senior Intelligence [Police Non-commissioned Officer Senior Police Officer 1 Liderato D.] Faelogo to lead the operation in his behalf.
Q: And what happened after that?
A: Adopting the same plan in the previous day and the same coordination, Ma'am.
Q: What happened next?
A: In the afternoon, at about 3:20 the same date June 1, 2011 our colleagues positioned themselves near our target area, after that we proceeded to the target area together with PO1 Maquinta and the confidential agent.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: And during the alleged buy bust operation on June 1, 2011 Mr. Witness, who was with PO1 Maquinta when he transacted with the accused?
A: Me, together with our confidential informant, sir. 17
Moreover, PO1 Balbuena claimed that Yusores struggled and tried to escape during his arrest. 18 This contradicts PO1 Maquinta's narration that Yusores did not resist arrest and had no violent reactions when PO1 Maquinta introduced himself as a police officer. 19 Verily, these inconsistencies in the details of the buy-bust operation as narrated by the prosecution witnesses render questionable the legitimacy of the operation.
There is likewise a break in the fourth link of the chain of custody. The last link covers the forensic chemist's custody of the seized drug and its eventual turnover to the court. 20 In this case, Police Chief Inspector Josephine Llena (PCI Llena) testified that the seized items were turned over to her by PO1 Maquinta at 5:25 p.m. on June 1, 2011. 21 However, the qualitative examination of the sachet of shabu subject of the sale and marked as "GYY-BB-06/01/11" was conducted the following day and she was able to release Chemistry Report No. D-104-11 at 10:00 a.m. on June 2, 2011. 22 PCI Llena failed to testify on how she stored and safeguarded the sachet of 0.02 gram of shabu prior to the qualitative examination. Likewise, there are no details on the safekeeping of the seized drug prior to its turnover to the RTC on June 16, 2011. The miniscule amount of shabu involved in this case is highly susceptible to alteration, tampering, or damage and underscores the need for the seized drug to be properly secured. Lack of details on this matter is fatal to the case.
In view of the above lapses in the chain of custody and considering the material discrepancies in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, Yusores should be acquitted of the crime charged on the basis of reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated November 29, 2019 of the Court of Appeals-Cebu City, Eighteenth Division, in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02875 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE for failure of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of accused-appellant GENIEL YUSORES y YBAÑEZ. 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 final judgment be issued immediately.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Superintendent of the New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City for immediate implementation. The said Superintendent is ORDERED to REPORT to this Court within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution the action he/she has taken.
SO ORDERED.
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 5-13. Penned by Associate Justice Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap, with Associate Justice Edgardo L. delos Santos (retired Member of the Court) and Associate Justice Alfredo D. Ampuan, concurring.
2. Id. at 10-19. Penned by Judge Rosendo B. Bandal, Jr.
3. Titled "AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," signed on June 7, 2002.
4. People v. Rivera and Estanislao, G.R. No. 252886, March 15, 2021, accused at <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/66945>.
5. Tañamor v. People, G.R. No. 228132, March 11, 2020, accessed at <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/66109>.
6. Section 21 of the IRR reads:
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. — 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:
(a) 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 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[.]
7. People v. Omamos, G.R. No. 223036, July 10, 2019, accessed at <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65476>.
8. People v. Plaza, Plaza and Balinton, 839 Phil. 198, 211 (2018).
9. People v. Corral, G.R. No. 233883, January 7, 2019, 890 SCRA 91, 99.
10. Records, p. 20.
11. TSN dated April 4, 2014, p. 7.
12. Id. at 25; TSN dated April 23, 2015, p. 6.
13. Folder of Exhibits, pp. 27, 29 and 31.
14. Rollo, pp. 14-15.
15. See Tañamor v. People, supra note 5.
16. TSN dated April 14, 2014, pp. 25-26.
17. TSN dated April 23, 2015, pp. 5-6; TSN dated June 22, 2015, p. 4.
18. TSN dated April 23, 2015, p. 7.
19. TSN dated April 14, 2014, p. 24.
20. People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 237 (2015).
21. TSN dated September 27, 2013, pp. 9-10.
22. Id.