FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 239850. November 28, 2019.]
MARVIN SABILE y ALBANO @ "CANO", petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 28, 2019 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 239850 (Marvin Sabile y Albano @ "Cano" v. People of the Philippines)
The Case
This petition for review on certiorari1 assails the following dispositions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 39378, viz.:
a) Decision 2 dated January 12, 2018 affirming petitioner's conviction for violation of Section 11 of Republic Act (RA) 9165 3 as amended by RA 10640; 4 and
b) Resolution 5 dated May 17, 2018 denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
The Proceedings Before the Trial Court
The Charge
By Information dated August 9, 2016, petitioner Marvin Sabile y Albano alias "Cano," was charged with violation of Section 11 of RA 9165, thus:
That on or about August 3, 2016, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, not having been authorized by law to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession and under his custody and control one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet marked as "MAS" containing ZERO POINT ZERO SIX EIGHT (0.068) GRAM of white crystalline substance containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, commonly known as "Shabu, a dangerous drug."
Contrary to law. 6
The case was raffled to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) — Branch 15, Manila. On arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty. Trial proper ensued.
During the trial, PO1 Jaymar B. Gallaza (PO1 Gallaza) and PO1 Marphy Cunanan Abarquez (PO1 Abarquez) testified for the prosecution. On the other hand, petitioner testified as lone witness for the defense.
The Prosecution's Version
On August 3, 2016, around 3 o'clock in the morning, PO1 Jaymar B. Gallaza and PO1 Marphy Cunanan Abarquez were patrolling the Binondo-Divisoria area in Manila when they noticed an angry man shouting at the top of his voice and randomly pointing at people around him. Bystanders told them "kanina pa po yan nagwawala." They approached the man later identified as petitioner. 7 They introduced themselves to petitioner and tried to pacify him but the latter continued cursing about money he allegedly lost.
Petitioner got arrested for breach of peace in violation of Section 844 of the Revised Ordinance of the City of Manila. 8 He was informed of his constitutional rights and, when asked to empty his pockets, brought out a heat-sealed transparent sachet from his lower garment's front pocket. The sachet contained white crystalline substance which the two officers suspected to be shabu. PO1 Gallaza seized the item and placed it in a box on his motorcycle and drove to the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs — Special Operation Task Unit of the Meisic Police Station in Binondo, Manila. 9
At the police station, PO1 Gallaza marked the seized item with petitioner's initials "MAS." He presented it to duty investigator SPO4 Victor C. Lalata who prepared the Chain of Custody Form, Request for Laboratory Examination, Booking Sheet and Arrest Report. SPO4 Lalata also took photographs of petitioner and the seized item. Meanwhile, PO1 Gallaza prepared the inventory in the presence of Barangay Kagawad Edmundo V. Mationg and media representative Danny Garendola. 10
After the photograph and inventory of the seized item, PO1 Gallaza delivered the item to the Manila Police District Crime Laboratory Office. Non-uniformed Personnel Marieta S. Peralta (NUP Peralta) received it around 9:05 in the morning and turned it over to Forensic Chemical Officer PCI Elisa Reyes Arturo (PCI Arturo) around 10:30 the same morning. PCI Arturo did the chemical examination on the item which yielded a positive result for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. 11
The testimony of PCI Arturo was dispensed with after the prosecution and defense stipulated that: (1) she conducted a qualitative examination on one (1) heat-sealed transparent sachet with marking "MAS" containing 0.068 gram of white crystalline substance which yielded a positive result for shabu; (2) after examining the specimen, she returned what remained of it in its transparent plastic sachet, sealed the sachet with masking tape and marked it "A-D-963-16" and "ERA"; (3) she formalized her findings under Chemistry Report No. D-963-1616; and (4) she turned over the specimen to the trial court together with the pertinent documents relative to the chemical examination she conducted. 12
The testimony of investigating officer SPO4 Victor C. Lalata was also dispensed with after the parties stipulated that (1) he was the police officer who investigated petitioner's case; and (2) in the course of his investigation, he produced several documents 13 including a picture of a police officer marking the seized item at the Meisic Police Station investigation room. 14
The Defense's Evidence
Petitioner denied the charge. On August 2, 2016, around 7 o'clock in the evening, he was in Binondo, Manila on his way home when six (6) policemen, including PO1 Gallaza, approached him. They told him that someone was complaining against him and he had to be brought to the police station. He went with them to the police station where he was informed that a case for illegal possession of dangerous drugs was going to be filed against him. 15
The Trial Court's Ruling
As borne by its Decision dated October 20, 2008 the trial court rendered a verdict of conviction, viz.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused MARVIN SABILE y ALBANO @ "CANO" is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act 9165. Consequently, said accused is hereby ordered to suffer an INDETERMINATE PENALTY of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months, as maximum, and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00)
xxx xxx xxx
SO ORDERED. 16
The trial court ruled that the prosecution was able to prove the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti of the case and establish an unbroken chain of custody thereof. Against the prosecution's positive evidence, petitioner's defense of denial was rejected. 17
The Proceedings Before the Court of Appeals
On appeal, petitioner faulted the trial court for rendering the verdict of conviction despite his allegedly invalid warrantless arrest and consequent search on his person. He asserted that per Martinez v. People, 18 shouting in a thickly-populated place, with many people conversing with each other on the street, does not constitute a violation of Section 844 of the Revised Ordinance. 19
In addition, petitioner pointed to the following alleged defects in the chain of custody: First, the marking of the seized item was done at the police station, not at the place of arrest. Second, NUP Peralta who received the seized item at the crime laboratory was not presented as witness. Third, there was no record of who exercised custody and possession of the drug specimen after PCI Arturo examined it until it was submitted to the trial court. 20
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) through Senior State Solicitor Alexander S. Salvador and State Solicitor II Donalita R. Lazo defended the verdict of conviction. It argued that petitioner was validly arrested without warrant because he was caught in flagrante delicto; he was creating a disturbance or breach of peace in violation of Section 844 of the Revised Ordinance. Considering that his arrest was lawful, the subsequent search on his person and seizure of the drug item were also lawful.
More, the succession of events showed that the item recovered from petitioner was the very same item identified in court. There is no doubt that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item were properly preserved. 21
The Court of Appeals' Ruling
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court by Decision dated January 12, 2018. It held that PO1 Gallaza and PO1 Abarquez validly effected petitioner's warrantless arrest since he was then committing a violation of Section 844 of the Revised Ordinance in their presence. There being a valid warrantless arrest, the incidental search on petitioner's person was also lawful. The seized item was, therefore, admissible in evidence. 22
Further, the prosecution was able to prove an unbroken chain of custody from the time the item in question was lawfully seized until it was presented and offered as evidence in court. 23
Section 21, RA 9165 and its IRR provide that non-compliance with chain of custody rule under justifiable grounds may be excused so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. 24
In light of the foregoing, therefore, petitioner's uncorroborated denial must fail. 25
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied through a Resolution dated May 17, 2018. 26
The Present Petition
Petitioner now urges the Court to exercise its discretionary appellate jurisdiction to reverse the verdict of conviction, repleading the very arguments he raised before the Court of Appeals. 27 In its Comment, 28 the OSG reiterates its counter-arguments in the proceedings below.
Issue
Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the trial court's verdict of conviction for illegal possession of dangerous drug?
Ruling
We acquit.
At the outset, the Court may no longer entertain petitioner's challenge against his warrantless arrest, as well as the consequent search incident thereto. This challenge should have been raised in a motion to quash before petitioner entered his plea. 29 This petitioner did not do. On the contrary, petitioner's active participation during the trial is deemed to have cured any defect or irregularity which may have attended his capture. 30
Petitioner, nevertheless, is not precluded from assailing the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti. For the admissibility and probative value of evidence is not affected when he failed to question the court's jurisdiction over his person. These are distinct and separate matters altogether.
In illegal drugs cases, the drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense. The prosecution is, therefore, tasked to establish that the substance illegally possessed by the accused is the same substance presented in court. 31 This is done through compliance with the chain of custody rule. The rule 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. 32
Here, petitioner is charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs allegedly committed on August 3, 2016. The applicable law, therefore, is RA 9165 as amended by RA 10640 in 2014.
The amendments under RA 10640 pertain to the requirement of having representatives of the media or National Prosecution Service instead of previously requiring the presence of both during the inventory process prescribed under Section 21, RA 9165; 33 and the relaxation of the rule regarding the certification of the forensic laboratory examiner. 34 Despite these less rigid standards, the law still requires that the same links in the chain of custody prior to the enactment of RA 10640 be established, viz.:
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. 35
Records show that the chain of custody here was repeatedly broken.
For one, the prosecution witnesses readily admitted that the seized item was not marked at the place of seizure. Worse, there was no attempt to justify the arresting officers' deviation from prescribed procedure.
It bears to stress that marking should be done in the presence of the apprehended violator immediately upon confiscation to ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain of custody. It is the starting point in the custodial link and is vital to be immediately undertaken because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. It serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of criminal proceedings, thus preventing switching, planting, or contamination of evidence. 36
In People v. Baltazar, 37 appellant therein was arrested for illegal sale of dangerous drug along Agham Road, Quezon City and brought to the Kamuning Police Station. En route, the seized item remained unmarked and exposed to possible switching and contamination. Hence, there was uncertainty on whether the item marked at the Kamuning Police Station was the same item seized from appellant. The Court considered this a fatal defect and thus rendered a verdict of acquittal.
Here, petitioner was arrested on the streets of Binondo, Manila for allegedly violating Section 844 of the Revised Ordinance. Upon his arrest, PO1 Gallaza and PO1 Abarquez frisked him and recovered a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance from his lower garment's front pocket. The seized item, however, was not immediately marked. Instead, PO1 Gallaza placed it in a box on his motorcycle and brought it to the Meisic Police Station. The possibility of switching, planting and contamination of the seized item while in transit cannot however be foreclosed, especially since PO1 Gallaza failed to elaborate in his testimony whether there were other items inside said box on his motorcycle.
For another, NUP Peralta, who received the seized item at the crime laboratory, was not presented as witness. This is a clear deviation from the doctrine in Mallillin v. People38 where the Court held, thus:
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. 39 (emphases added; citations omitted)
In People v. Gayoso, 40 the investigating officer turned over the seized shabu to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency and left to the latter the responsibility of forwarding the shabu to the crime laboratory. The person who delivered the item to the crime laboratory, however, was not presented as a witness for the prosecution. The Court considered this as a break in the third link in the chain of custody which warranted the acquittal of appellant.
Here, NUP Peralta never explained how the corpus delicti had been preserved in her hands. It was not established in what condition she received it and how she handled the item from receipt until it left her custody. The prosecution even failed to specify how long it remained in her possession before she turned it over to PCI Arturo. Clearly, it would be presumptive for the Court to declare that the integrity of the corpus delicti remained intact despite this gap in the chain of custody.
Finally, as petitioner aptly noted, there was no showing as to who exercised custody of the drug item after it was examined by PCI Arturo. Consequently, the manner of how the seized item was handled and preserved from the time it was examined until it was submitted to the trial court was never established.
The stipulation of the prosecution and the defense on what would have been the testimony of PCI Arturo are not sufficient to bridge the gap. For the parties never stipulated on where the seized item was supposedly preserved, if at all, as well as who had access to it until it was received by the Court.
The Court warned in People v. Carlit41 that the probability of the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti being compromised is present every single time the prohibited item is being stored or transported, be it from the PNP crime laboratory directly to the court or otherwise. It was, therefore, imperative for the prosecution to have presented the evidence custodian, and anyone else who may have handled the drug after him or her for that matter, as witness. During the interim — from the time the specimen was placed under his or her custody until the time it was brought to court — the threat of tampering, alteration, or substitution of the corpus delicti subsisted. For failure of the evidence custodian to take the witness stand, appellant was acquitted.
As heretofore shown, the chain of custody here had been breached many times over. Consequently, the identity and integrity of the seized drug item were not deemed to have been preserved. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions 42 cannot substitute for compliance and mend the broken links. For it is a mere disputable presumption that cannot prevail over clear and convincing evidence to the contrary 43 which is present here. Perforce, petitioner must be acquitted.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals' Decision dated January 12, 2018 and Resolution dated May 17, 2018 in CA-G.R. CR No. 39378 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
MARVIN SABILE y ALBANO @ Cano is ACQUITTED. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City is ordered to a) immediately release him from custody unless he is being held for some other lawful cause; and b) submit his report on the action taken within five (5) days from notice. Let entry of judgment issue.
SO ORDERED." Caguioa, J., on official leave; Inting, J., took no part; Hernando, J., Acting Member per S.O. No. 2726-B dated November 21, 2019.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Id. at 42.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia and concurred in by Associate Justices Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez and now Supreme Court Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, Rollo, p. 41.
3. Otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
4. 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."
5.Rollo, p. 58.
6.Id. at 42.
7.Id. at 43.
8. Sec. 844. Breaches of the Peace. — No person shall make, and, countenance, or assist in making any riot, affray, disorder, disturbance, or breach of the peace; or assault, beat or use personal violence upon another without just cause in any public place; or utter any slanderous, threatening or abusive language or expression or exhibit or display any emblem, transparency, representation, motto, language, device, instrument, or thing; or do any act, in any public place, meeting or procession, tending to disturb the peace or excite a riot, or collect with other persons in a body or crowd for any unlawful purpose; or disturbance or disquiet any congregation engaged in any lawful assembly.
9.Rollo, p. 43.
10.Id.
11.Id. at 43-44.
12.Id. at 44.
13. a) the Inquest Referral Letter to the City Prosecutor of Manila dated August 3, 2016; b) Joint Affidavit of Complaint and Apprehension executed by PO1 Jaymar B. Gallaza and PO1 Marphy C. Abarquez; c) Affidavit of Investigator; d) Certification dated August 3, 2016 issued by Police Superintendent Amante Baraquiel Daro, the station commander of SAID-SOTG of Meisic Police Station; e) Booking Sheet and Arrest Report; f) Request for Laboratory Examination; g) Receipt of Property/Seized Evidence; h) Picture of appellant; i) Picture of the seized evidence; and j) Picture of the police officer marking the seized evidence at the Meisic Police Station SAID investigation room while being witnessed by the barangay kagawad and a media representative; Rollo, p. 44.
14.Rollo, p. 44.
15.Id. at 45.
16.Id. at 41-42.
17.Id. at 45-47.
18. 703 Phil. 609, 621 (2008).
19.Rollo, pp. 65-71.
20.Id. at 82.
21.Id. at 106-116.
22.Id. at 48-52.
23.Id. at 53-54.
24.Id. at 54-55.
25.Id. at 55.
26.Id. at 58.
27.Id. at 18-33.
28.Id. at 156.
29. See Veridiano v. People, 810 Phil. 642, 656 (2017).
30.Id.
31.People v. Barte, 806 Phil. 533, 542 (2017).
32.People v. Hementiza, 807 Phil. 1017, 1026 (2017).
33.People v. Sood, G.R. No. 227394, June 06, 2018, 865 SCRA 368.
34. Sec. 21 (3) of RA 9165 as amended by RA 10640.
35.Supra note 32.
36.People v. Ramirez, G.R. No. 225690, January 17, 2018.
37. G.R. No. 229037, July 29, 2019.
38. 576 Phil. 576, (2008).
39.Id. at 587.
40. 809 Phil. 19, 33 (2017).
41. 816 Phil. 940, 949 (2017).
42. RULES OF COURT, Rule 131, Sec. 3 (m).
43.People v. Cabiles, 810 Phil. 969, 976 (2017).