FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 253627. November 18, 2021.]
ERICK PERTO y ATONEN, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated November 18, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 253627 —Erick Perto y Atonen v. People of thePhilippines
At the outset, the Court notes that petitioner Erick Perto availed of the wrong remedy in elevating his case before the Court. As a general rule, appeals in criminal cases are brought to this Court via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, except when the Court of Appeals imposes the penalty of "reclusionperpetua, life imprisonment or a lesser penalty." In the latter case, the appeal shall be made by a mere notice of appeal filed before the Court of Appeals. 1
In Ramos v. People, 2 the Court declared that petitioners therein availed of a wrong mode of appeal by filing a petition for review on certiorari before the Court, despite having been sentenced by the Court of Appeals with reclusion perpetua. In the interest of substantial justice, however, the Court treated their petition as an ordinary appeal in order to resolve the substantive issue at hand with finality. So must it be in the present case. HTcADC
We now resolve the appeal on the merits.
In drug cases, the State bears not only the burden of proving the elements, but also of proving the corpus delicti or the body of the crime. The drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense. 3
Petitioner was charged with illegal delivery of dangerous drugs defined and penalized under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165), 4 which he allegedly committed on April 18, 2013. The applicable law, therefore, is RA 9165 before its amendment on August 7, 2014.
Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended, 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. (Emphasis supplied)
To ensure the integrity of the seized drug item, the prosecution must account for each link in its 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. 5
We focus on the first link.
The first link speaks of seizure and marking including the physical inventory and taking of photographs of the seized or confiscated items.
As part of the chain of custody procedure, the law requires that the marking, physical inventory, and photographing of the seized items be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation of the same. The law further requires that the said inventory and photographing 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 certain required witnesses, namely: a representative from the media AND the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official. 6
The law requires the presence of these witnesses primarily to ensure not only compliance with the chain-of-custody rule but also to remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence. 7 aScITE
Here, the prosecution alleged that Intelligence Officer 1 Cindy Leila Aben conducted the inventory in the presence of petitioner, Barangay Captain Edward Digman Cosalan, and representatives from the media and the DOJ. We note, however, the representatives from the media and the DOJ were not identified by their names in the records. The Certificate of Inventory likewise only bore their signatures. This raises the questions: was there really any representative from the media and the DOJ? Did they really witness the conduct of inventory on the alleged marijuana confiscated from petitioner?
To be sure, Section 1 (b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, which implements RA 9165, defines chain ofcustody as —
[T]he duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody [was] made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition. (Emphasis supplied)
In the same vein, as part of the chain of custody, the insulating witnesses should be identified and sign the inventory. Otherwise, anyone could just affix their signature on the certificate of inventory.
People v. Cubay8 held that the Court should only rely on the evidence presented before it and not engage in guesswork. Here, the evidence on record speaks for itself. The prosecution utterly failed to prove with the standard of moral certainty that the three (3) insulating witnesses were present during the inventory.
Indeed, the presence of the insulating witnesses during the inventory and photographing of the confiscated illegal drugs is vital. In the absence of these witnesses, the possibility of switching, planting, or contamination of the evidence negates the credibility of the seized drug and other confiscated items. Non-compliance with the requirement is, therefore, fatal to the prosecution's case, 9 as in this case.
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated July 31, 2019 and Resolution dated July 15, 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08387 are REVERSED and SETASIDE.
Petitioner ERICK PERTO y ATONEN is ACQUITTED in Criminal Case No. 13-CR-9472 of Illegal Delivery of Dangerous Drugs defined under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The Court DIRECTS the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City to cause the immediate release of ERICK PERTOyATONEN from custody unless he is being held for some other lawful cause, and to submit a report on the action taken within five (5) days from notice.
Let an entry of judgment be issued immediately.
The letter dated July 15, 2021 of Ms. Jane G. Sabido, Chief, Archives Section, Judicial Records Division, Court of Appeals, Manila, in compliance with the Resolution dated January 18, 2021, transmitting the rollo of CA G.R. CR HC No. 08387 with 442 pages, one (1) folder of original record and three (3) folders of transcript of stenographic notes is NOTED.
SO ORDERED." Lopez, M., J., no part; Inting, J., designated Additional Member per Raffle dated January 4, 2021; Lopez, J., J., no part; Hernando, J., designated Additional Member per Raffle dated October 27, 2021.
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Buenaflor v. People, G.R. No. 224181 (Notice), January 8, 2020.
2. See 803 Phil. 775, 782-783 (2017).
3.People v. Dela Torre, G.R. No. 225789, July 29, 2019.
4. Also known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
5.People v. Dela Torre, supra.
6.People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 238212, January 27, 2020.
7.People v. Santos, G.R. No. 236304, November 05, 2018.
8.People v. Cubay, G.R. No. 224597, July 29, 2019.
9.Izon v. People, G.R. No. 222509, March 3, 2021.