SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 251882. March 15, 2021.]
GRACE DEYRO QUIAMBAO, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated15 March 2021which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 251882 (Grace Deyro Quiambao v. People of the Philippines). — The conviction of accused-petitioner for illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs is the subject of review in this petition assailing the Court of Appeals' (CA) Decision 1 dated April 8, 2019 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08766 which affirmed the Regional Trial Court's (RTC) Decision 2 dated April 19, 2016 in Criminal Case Nos. 14-0704 and 14-0705.
ANTECEDENTS
On May 30, 2014, PO3 Ryan Buccat (PO3 Buccat) and the confidential informant (CI) reported to PO2 Dionisio Palce (PO2 Palce) that a certain Grace Quiambao (Quiambao) was engaged in illegal drug activity at Amalingan Street, Green Heights, Barangay (Brgy.) San Isidro, Parañaque City (target site). Later, P/SSupt. Ariel Leonor Andrade formed the Buy Bust Team composed of PSI Paolo P. Tampol (PSI Tampol) as Team Leader, PO2 Palce as poseur-buyer, PO3 Domingo Julaton (PO3 Julaton), PO3 Bukid, PO3 Locsin, PO3 Quemado, and PO3 Buccat as back up. PSI Tampol gave PO2 Palce three pieces of P100.00 bills (marked money) for the operation. At around 9:00 p.m., the Buy Bust Team and the CI, proceeded to the target site. Thereat, the CI approached Quiambao, and introduced PO2 Palce as the buyer. PO2 Palce told Quiambao "Pa-iskor ako, three hundred pesos lang. Tikman ko lang 'yung item mo." Quiambao replied "Tamang-tama ang dating mo, marami pa aking items." Then, PO2 Palce handed Quiambao the P300.00 marked money, and Quiambao took out one plastic sachet containing suspected shabu from her right pocket.
Thereafter, PO2 Palce wiped his face with a towel as the pre-arranged signal that the sale had been consummated. PO2 Palce introduced himself as a policeman, and immediately arrested Quiambao. PO3 Buccat rushed in and recovered the buy-bust money from Quiambao. PO2 Palce then required Quiambao to bring out all the items in her pocket. Quiambao then handed five plastic sachets containing suspected shabu to PO2 Palce. Accordingly, PO2 Palce marked the sachet which was the object of the sale with "DP" and the other five sachets recovered from Quiambao with "DP-1," "DP-2," "DP-3," "DP-4," and "DP-5." The police officers brought Quiambao to the Brgy. Hall of San Isidro. Thereat, PO2 Palce prepared the Receipt/Inventory of Property Seized signed by Brgy. Kagawad Shiela Bernal (Brgy. Kagawad Bernal). On the other hand, PO3 Julaton took photographs of the seized items. The police officers then brought Quiambao and the recovered items to the Parañaque Police Station for documentation. At the station, the police prepared the Request for Laboratory Examination on Seized Evidence, Chain of Custody Form, Booking Sheet, Spot Report, Affidavit of Attestation, and Pinagsamang Salaysay. PO2 Palce brought the six plastic sachets containing the suspected shabu to the Crime Laboratory for examination, which yielded positive results for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride. 3 Consequently, Quiambao was charged with illegal possession and sale of shabu docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 14-0704 and 14-0705, respectively, before the RTC:
[Criminal Case No. 14-0704]
The undersigned Asst. State Prosecutor accuses GRACE QUIAMBAO Y DEYRO, of the crime of Violation of Section 11, paragraph 1 of Art. II of Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. 9165), otherwise known as "The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," committed as follows:
That on or about the 30th day of May 2014, in the City of Parañaque, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law to possess, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his (sic) possession and under her control and custody five (5) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets (marked as "DP-1", "DP-2", "DP-3", "DP-4" and "DP-5"), with the said five (5) sachets respectively containing 0.35 gram ("DP-1"), 0.29 gram ("DP-2"), 0.72 gram ("DP-3"), 0.52 gram ("DP-4") and 0.46 gram ("DP-5") of white crystalline substance, which found positive to the test for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.
Contrary to law.
[Criminal Case No. 14-0705]
The undersigned Asst. State Prosecutor accuses GRACE QUIAMBAO Y DEYRO, of the crime of Violation of Section 5, Art. II of R.A. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, committed as follows:
That on or about the 30th day of May 2014, in the City of Parañaque, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being lawfully authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport a one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet marked as "DP" weighing 0.46 gram to Police Poseur Buyer PO2 Dionisio Palce, which contents of the said plastic sachet when tested were found positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law. 4
Quiambao pleaded not guilty. During pre-trial, the parties dispensed with the testimonies of Brgy. Kagawad Bernal, PO3 Julaton and PO3 Buccat. Also, the parties dispensed with the testimony of forensic chemist PCI Abraham Verde Tecson (PCI Tecson). The parties then stipulated that on May 31, 2014, PCI Tecson received one sealed transparent plastic sachet containing six heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets each containing white crystalline substance, and when tested, the specimens yielded positive results for methamphetamine hydrochloride, per Chemistry Report Number D-555-14. 5 At the trial, the prosecution presented its sole witness PO2 Palce who narrated the conduct of the buy-bust operation. On the other hand, Quiambao filed a Demurrer to Evidence but was subsequently withdrawn. The defense then orally waived the right to present evidence. 6 On April 19, 2016, the RTC found Quiambao guilty of both crimes, thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered the Court finds accused GRACE QUIAMBAO y DEYRO in Criminal Case No. 14-0704 for Violation of Sec. 11, Art. II of RA 9165 for being in possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride with a total weight of 2.34 grams, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months as maximum and to pay a fine of Php300,000.00. CAIHTE
In Criminal Case No. 14-0705 for Violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the Court finds accused GRACE QUIAMBAO y DEYRO, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Php500,000.00.
Considering that the judgment is for conviction as well as the penalty involved, the OIC-Branch Clerk of Court is hereby directed to prepare the Mittimus for the accused to be detained at the Institute for Women, Mandaluyong City.
The sachets of shabu marked "DP" and "DP-1", "DP-2", "DP-3", "DP-4", and "DP-5" weighing 0.46 gram, 0.35 gram, 0.29 gram, 0.72 gram, 0.52 gram and 0.46 gram respectively and subject of these cases, are forfeited in favor of the government and the OIC-Branch Clerk of Court is directed to immediately turn over the same to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper disposal pursuant to Section 21 of RA 9165 and Supreme Court OCA Circular No. 51-2003.
SO ORDERED. 7
Quiambao appealed to the CA and argued that she should be acquitted of the charges due to police officers' non-compliance with the mandatory chain of custody requirement under Section 21, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165. 8 Quiambao contended that the Spot Report indicated that the confiscated drugs was "marijuana," and not "shabu." Also, the prosecution did not present PO3 Julaton, the case investigator who prepared the Spot Report, to explain the discrepancy. Further, the request for laboratory examination had no signature to prove that the person who received the contraband at the laboratory, was the same person who released the seized items after the examination. Moreover, it was only Brgy. Kagawad Bernal who signed the inventory receipt. 9 On April 8, 2019, the CA affirmed the RTC's findings and ruled that there was proof beyond reasonable doubt that Quiambao was guilty of the crimes of illegal sale and possession of shabu, to wit:
The appellant Grace argues that the Prosecution did not establish the chain of custody, and the integrity of the items seized from her (the appellant Grace), because the Prosecution did not present evidence showing that the inventory of the seized items was conducted in the presence of the appellant Grace and/or her representative, a representative from the DOJ, a representative from the Media, and an elected official, and PO2 Palce did not mark the seized items immediately upon seizure.
The argument of the appellant Grace is without merit.
xxx xxx xxx
Section 21 above-quoted categorically states non-compliance with the requirements regarding the procedure to be taken in the handling of seized drugs, shall not invalidate the seizure and custody of the contraband. It is settled that the failure to strictly follow the directives of Section 21, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 is not fatal and will not necessarily render the items confiscated inadmissible. What is important is that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved.
The succession of events in this case shows that the items seized from the appellant Grace, were the same items tested at the laboratory, and the same items identified at the RTC. We thus hold that the Prosecution proved the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs seized from the appellant Grace.
xxx xxx xxx
The testimony of PO2 Palce proved that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated illegal substance, were properly preserved. Moreover, no proof was adduced to support the claim that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized drugs were compromised. The integrity of the evidence is presumed to be preserved, unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered with. The burden of proof to show the evidence was tampered with, is upon accused-appellant. There is a presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers, and a presumption that public officers properly discharged their duties.
Thus, we find no reason to overturn the findings of the RTC that the drugs seized from the appellant Grace, were the same items presented during trial. Also, the chain of custody of the illegal drugs seized from the appellant Grace remained unbroken.
The appellant Grace further argues we should acquit her, because the RTC erred in giving full faith and credence to the testimony of PO2 Palce, as there were inconsistencies in the contents of the Spot Report, and the testimony of PO2 Palce.
xxx xxx xxx
The alleged contradictions (i.e.: the Spot Report indicated that the evidence was "marijuana," however PO2 Palce testified that the evidence was "shabu"), refer only to a minor and collateral matter, which did not affect the credibility of the Prosecution witness, and the commission of the crime itself. The alleged inconsistency was extraneous, and did not affect the elements of the crimes of illegal possession of shabu, and illegal sale of shabu, which have been sufficiently established. More importantly, we do not expect the police authorities to know the nature of the seized contraband, because only the appropriate laboratory examination can make this determination.
xxx xxx xxx
We DISMISS the appeal, and AFFIRM the Decision dated 19 April 2016 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 259, Parañaque City, in Criminal Cases Numbers 14-0704 to 14-0705.
IT IS SO ORDERED.10
Quiambao sought reconsideration but was denied. Hence, this recourse. 11
RULING
We acquit.
In illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs, the contraband itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offenses and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction. 12 Thus, it is essential to ensure that the substance recovered from the accused is the same substance offered in court. 13 Indeed, the prosecution must satisfactorily establish the movement and custody of the seized drug through the following links: (1) the confiscation and marking of the specimen seized from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the turnover of the seized item by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) the investigating officer's turnover of the specimen to the forensic chemist for examination; and, (4) the submission of the item by the forensic chemist to the court. 14 Here, the records reveal a broken chain of custody.
Notably, the alleged crime happened before RA No. 10640 15 amended RA No. 9165. Thus, the original provisions of Section 21 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations shall apply, to wit: aScITE
[Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of RA 9165]
(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. (Emphases supplied.)
[Section 21(a), Article II of the IRR of RA 9165]
(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 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. (Emphases supplied.)
In earlier cases, this Court ruled that the deviation from the standard procedure in Section 21 dismally compromises the evidence, unless (1) such non-compliance was under justifiable grounds; and (2) the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team. 16 Later, we emphasized the importance of the presence of the three insulating witnesses during the physical inventory and the photograph of the seized items. 17 In People v. Lim, 18 it was explained that in case the presence of any or all the insulating witnesses was not obtained, the prosecution must allege and prove not only the reasons for their absence, but also the fact that earnest efforts were made to secure their attendance, thus:
It is well to note that the absence of these required witnesses does not per se render the confiscated items inadmissible. However, a justifiable reason for such failure or a showing of any genuine and sufficient effort to secure the required witnesses under Section 21 of RA 9165 must be adduced. In People v. Umpiang, the Court held that the prosecution must show that earnest efforts were employed in contacting the representatives enumerated under the law 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." Verily, mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses are unacceptable as justified grounds for non-compliance. These considerations arise from the fact that police officers are ordinarily given sufficient time — beginning from the moment they have received the information about the activities of the accused until the time of his arrest — to prepare for a buy-bust operation and consequently, make the necessary arrangements beforehand knowing full well that they would have to strictly comply with the set procedure prescribed in Section 21 of RA 9165. As such, police officers are compelled not only to state reasons for their noncompliance, but must in fact, also convince the Court that they exerted earnest efforts to comply with the mandated procedure, and that under the given circumstances, their actions were reasonable. (Emphases in the original.)
In this case, the absence of the required insulating witnesses puts serious doubt as to the integrity of the chain of custody. There were no representatives from the DOJ and the media during the inventory and photograph of the seized items. Admittedly, only an elected public official witnessed the inventory. Worse, there was no attempt on the part of the buy-bust team to comply with the law and its implementing rules. The operatives likewise failed to provide any justification showing that the integrity of the evidence had all along been preserved. The police officers did not describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the seized items and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. In People v. Caray, 19 we ruled that the corpus delicti cannot be deemed preserved absent any acceptable explanation for the deviation from the procedural requirements of the chain of custody rule. Similarly, in Matabilas v. People, 20 sheer statements of unavailability of the insulating witnesses, without actual serious attempt to contact them, cannot justify non-compliance. Indeed, the presence of the insulating witnesses is the first requirement to ensure the preservation of the identity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs. 21 The utter disregard of the required procedures created a huge gap in the chain of custody.
Lastly, it must be stressed that while the law enforcers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties, this presumption cannot prevail over the constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent and it cannot by itself constitute proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of regularity is disputable and cannot be regarded as binding truth. 22 Indeed, when the performance of duty is tainted with irregularities, such presumption is effectively destroyed. 23
We reiterate that the provisions of Section 21 of RA No. 9165 embody the constitutional aim to prevent the imprisonment of an innocent man. The Court cannot tolerate the lax approach of law enforcers in handling the very corpus delicti of the crime. Hence, the accused-petitioner must be acquitted of the charges against her given the prosecution's failure to prove an unbroken chain of custody.
FOR THESE REASONS, the petition is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals' Decision dated April 8, 2019 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08766 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Grace Deyro Quiambao is ACQUITTED in Criminal Case Nos. 14-0704 and 14-0705, and is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless she is being lawfully held for another cause.
FURTHER, the Court resolves to:
1. NOTE and GRANT the undated manifestation and motion (to admit the attached appellant's brief and its annexes) of counsel for petitioner, stating that petitioner failed to attach the required appellant's brief filed before the Court of Appeals as counsel's files were missing due to the Taal Volcano eruption for he resides in Sitio Longos, Brgy. San Felipe, Cuenca, Batangas, and that due to the pandemic, counsel is unable to comply with his undertaking to submit a new verification in compliance with the 2019 Amended Rules of Court as he failed to secure petitioner's signature who is currently incarcerated, and praying that the attached brief be admitted, and that petitioner be granted an extension to submit a new verification;
2. GRANT the motion of counsel for petitioner for extension of fifteen (15) days from January 29, 2021, within which to file compliance with the Resolution dated September 16, 2020;
3. NOTE and GRANT the manifestation and compliance with second motion for extension (to submit verification of the petition and certificate of non-forum shopping in compliance with the Revised Rules on Civil Procedure of 2020, and the appellant's brief and its annexes) dated February 10, 2021 of counsel for petitioner, relative to the Resolution dated September 16, 2020, submitting the attached verified declarations of the soft copies of the motion for extension and the signed petition for review and its annexes, and praying that counsel be granted an additional period of thirty (30) days from February 13, 2021 within which to submit the verification of the petition and certificate of non-forum shopping considering the present health condition; and
4. NOTE and GRANT the manifestation and compliance with prayer to admit (the herein attached USB containing the required soft copy in PDF file of the signed petition for review on certiorari) dated February 10, 2021 of counsel for petitioner, stating that when counsel filed its manifestation and compliance on February 15, 2021, the USB containing the PDF file of the petition for review was not accepted by the receiving section of this Court as he inadvertently failed to file a separate manifestation and compliance in relation thereto, and submitting anew the attached USB containing the PDF file of the signed petition in compliance with the Resolution dated September 16, 2020. aDSIHc
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City for immediate implementation. The Director is directed to report to this Court the action taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED." (Rosario, J., no part due to prior action in the Court of Appeals; Gaerlan, J., designated additional member per Raffle dated February 15, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MA. CONSOLACION GAMINDE-CRUZADADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 116-133; penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario (now a member of this Court) and Perpetua T. Atal-Paño.
2.Id. at 107-114; penned by Assisting Judge Jansen R. Rodriguez.
3.Id. at 119-120.
4.Id. at 117-118.
5.Id. at 118-119.
6.Id. at 120.
7.Id. at 121.
8. "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," signed on June 7, 2002.
9.Id. at 122-123.
10.Id. at 128-132.
11.Id. at 14-74.
12.People v. Partoza, 605 Phil. 883, 890 (2009). See also People v. Cariño, G.R. No. 233336, January 14, 2019; People v. Crispo, 828 Phil. 416, 436 (2018); People v. Sanchez, 827 Phil. 457, 472 (2018); People v. Magsano, 826 Phil. 947, 964-965 (2018); People v. Manansala, 826 Phil. 578, 592 (2018); People v. Miranda, 824 Phil. 1042, 1058 (2018); and People v. Mamangon, 824 Phil. 728, 742 (2018).
13.People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 30-31 (2017), citing Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 587 (2008).
14.People v. Bugtong, 826 Phil. 628, 638-639 (2018).
15. AN ACT TO FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE ANTI-DRUG CAMPAIGN OF THE GOVERNMENT, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE SECTION 21 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE "COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002," approved on July 15, 2014.
RA No. 10640 took effect on July 23, 2014. See OCA Circular No. 77-2015 dated April 23, 2015. As amended, it is now mandated that the conduct of physical inventory and photograph of the seized items must be in the presence of (1) the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel; (2) with an elected public official; and (3) a representative of the National Prosecution Service, or the media who shall sign the copies of the inventory, and be given a copy thereof.
16.People v. De la Cruz, 591 Phil. 259, 271 (2008); People v. Nazareno, 559 Phil. 387, 397 (2007), citing People v. Laya, 414 Phil. 156 (2001). People v. Santos, Jr., 562 Phil. 458 (2007).
17.People v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 233535, July 1, 2019.
18. G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018.
19. G.R. No. 245391, September 11, 2019.
20. G.R. No. 243615, November 11, 2019.
21.People v. Flores, G.R. No. 241261, July 29, 2019; People v. Rodriguez, supra note 17; and People v. Maralit, G.R. No. 232381, August 1, 2018.
22.People v. Cañete, 433 Phil. 781, 794 (2002); and Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 593 (2008).
23.People v. Dela Cruz, 589 Phil. 259, 272 (2008).