FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 237839. September 22, 2020.]
AGUSTIN SABODOGO y ONGKI, petitioner,vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated September 22, 2020which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 237839 — AGUSTIN SABODOGO y ONGKI,petitioner, versus THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,respondent.
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1 are the Decision 2 dated June 28, 2017 and Resolution 3 dated January 24, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed petitioner Agustin Sabodogo's (Agustin) conviction for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs.
Antecedents
Agustin was charged with violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165, 4 under the following Information:
That on or about the 2nd day of July 2012, at Brgy. Dinahican, Municipality of Infanta, Province of Quezon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-name accused, without being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and control twenty (20) transparent plastic sachets each containing methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug, weighing 0.04 gram, 0.05 gram, 0.04 gram, 0.04 gram, 0.04 gram, 0.04 gram, 0.04 gram, 0.04 gram, 0.04 gram, 0.04 gram, 0.04 gram, 0.04 gram, 0.04 gram, 0.04 gram, 0.04 gram, 0.04 gram, 0.04 gram, 0.04 gram, 0.04 gram, 0.04 gram, or with a total weight of 0.81 gram, in violation of [Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165].
Contrary to law. 5
Arraigned, Agustin pleaded not guilty. 6 Thus, trial ensued.
The prosecution, through its witnesses — Police Officer 1 Myla Nocum (PO1 Nocum), Senior Police Officer 4 Cipriano Pujeda (SPO4 Pujeda) and P/Sr. Insp. Sotero Rodrigo, Jr. — alleged that, on July 2, 2012, they received information about the presence of a person wanted for murder in Purok Maligaya, Barangay Dinahican, Infanta, Quezon. At noon, the witnesses, together with SPO1 Rommel Valera (SPO1 Valera), went to Purok Maligaya to arrest the murder suspect, but failed. The team went back to the area in the afternoon of the same day. En route, they chanced upon a man who suddenly ran away upon seeing them. SPO1 Valera instinctively pursued the man, while the rest of the team followed suit. SPO1 Valera caught up with the man near a tree, and he asked why he ran. The man, later on identified as Agustin, replied that he got surprised. When the rest of the team was approaching, they saw the man pull out something from his pocket and surreptitiously dropped it under the bamboo bench attached to the tree. SPO1 Valera likewise saw Agustin, and picked up the thing, which turned out to be a sachet containing suspected shabu. Agustin then told SPO1 Valera, "[s]ir, panggamit ko lang po." 7
Thereafter, SPO1 Valera asked Agustin to remove his cap. When appellant did, a gray coin purse fell. SPO1 Valera picked up the coin purse and discovered 19 more sachets of suspected shabu. Immediately, SPO1 Valera marked the items with "AOS-1" to "AOS-2," as well as, took pictures of the seized items, and placed them in a plastic bag. As several onlookers were gathering in the area, the team decided to bring Agustin to the Infanta Police Station, while the seized items remained in the possession of SPO1 Valera. 8
At the police station, Agustin was apprised of his constitutional rights, and an inventory of the confiscated articles was made, together with the request for laboratory examination. The following day, SPO1 Valera brought the contraband to the crime laboratory in Lucena City, and handed over to Forensic Chemist Rodrigo Sotero, who forthwith examined the items. The result on the 20 plastic sachets yielded positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. 9
In defense, Agustin denied the charge, and claimed that he was framed up. At the time of the arrest, he was with Milagros Guantian (Milagros) and Rose Robaro conversing inside a nipa hut when SPO1 Valera called him, and when he approached, SPO1 Valera suddenly frisked him. To his surprise, SPO1 Valera picked up a plastic sachet from the ground and told him that it came from him. Agustin also denied wearing a cap then. He did not know where the cap and the coin purse came from. On cross-examination, Agustin averred that, although there were photographs of him and the items, they were not taken at the place of arrest, but in Anahaw — a videoke bar. 10
Milagros testified for Agustin, corroborating the latter's statement that she was with Agustin in the nipa hut. However, she did not recognize the person who called Agustin and did not hear their conversation. 11
In its Decision, 12 dated March 15, 2016, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) gave credence to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, convicted Agustin of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, and sentenced him as follows:
IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered against accused AGUSTIN SABODOGO y ONGKI finding him GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, this Court hereby imposes upon him the penalty of imprisonment which is Six (6) Years and One (1) Day, as minimum, up to Twelve (12) Years and One (1) Day, as maximum, and to pay a fine of Php300,000.00, to suffer all the accessory penalties and to pay the cost of suit.
The items/specimens subject of this case, the same being illegal per se, are ordered confiscated in favor of the government to be disposed of in accordance with the applicable provision of Section 21 of RA 9165, and its implementing rules and regulations.
SO ORDERED. 13
The RTC held that the elements of the crime were duly proven by the prosecution since it was established that they apprehended Agustin in possession of 20 plastic sachets of shabu, a prohibited drug. Agustin's defense of denial cannot prevail over the positive assertions of the apprehending police officers, and absent ill motives on the part of the police to impute to him the commission of the crime. Finally, the trial court declared that the chain of custody rule was sufficiently and substantially complied with; the apprehending team was able to maintain the integrity of the seized drug notwithstanding lack of strict compliance with Section 21, Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA No. 9165. 14
On appeal, 15 the CA affirmed the trial court Decision. 16 The CA confirmed that the prosecution evidence proved Agustin's unauthorized possession of sachets of shabu, a prohibited drug, and that there was an unbroken chain of custody. Agustin moved for reconsideration, 17 but was denied. 18
Aggrieved, Agustin filed the present petition contending that the CA erred in upholding his conviction for the following reasons. First, his warrantless arrest is invalid since he was not caught committing, has just committed or attempting to commit an offense. He was not doing anything illegal at the time of his arrest as to arouse the suspicion of the arresting officers. Second, without a valid warrantless arrest, the succeeding search on the person of Agustin is illegal and the confiscated 20 plastic sachets of shabu seized from him are inadmissible in evidence. Third, the presumption of regularity in the performance of the apprehending team's duties cannot prevail over the constitutional presumption of Agustin's innocence. Fourth, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are insufficient to prove the guilt of Agustin because they are incredible and inconsistent. Lastly, the apprehending team's failure to strictly comply with Section 21, RA No. 9165, and its implementing rules, is tantamount to a failure to establish the integrity of the seized items enough to engender reasonable doubt on the guilt of Agustin. 19
Issues
It is then for this Court to determine the following: (1) the validity of Agustin's warrantless arrest; (2) the validity of the warrantless search and seizure against Agustin; and (3) the sufficiency of evidence to justify the conviction of Agustin for possession of dangerous drugs.
The Court's Ruling
At the outset, we stress that any objection, defect, or irregularity attending an arrest must be made before the accused enters his plea on arraignment. 20 Without a move to quash the information before arraignment, the accused, in effect, admits the trial court's jurisdiction over his/her person upon entering a plea, and becomes estopped from questioning the legality of his/her arrest. 21 His/her active participation in the trial establishes voluntary submission to the trial court's jurisdiction, and cures any irregularity in the arrest. 22 Differently stated, any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure for the acquisition by the court of jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made before he enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived. 23 In this case, Agustin admitted the jurisdiction of the trial court to try and decide the case during the pre-trial conference. 24 He did not move to quash the information, he pleaded not guilty to the charge without any objection as to his arrest, and actively participated during the trial. Thus, Agustin can no longer assail the validity of his arrest.
The foregoing, notwithstanding, we find Agustin's petition meritorious. Petitioner Agustin Sabodogo y Ongki is acquitted of the charge against him.
In order to convict a person charged with the crime of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, it must be shown that: (1) the accused was in possession of an item or object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug; (2) the possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. 25 The State bears not only the burden of proving these elements, but also that the corpus delicti, which is the dangerous drug itself, is the same object tested to be positive for dangerous drug and presented in court. 26 It is thus crucial for the prosecution to establish the unbroken chain of custody of the seized item. 27
Time and again, the Court emphasizes that the identity and the integrity of the drug itself, which constitute the very corpus delicti of the offense must be shown to have been preserved. This is due to the illegal drug's unique characteristic that renders it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution either by accident or otherwise. Thus, to remove any doubt or uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the seized drug, evidence must definitely show that the illegal drug presented in court is the same illegal drug actually recovered from the accused-appellant; otherwise, the prosecution for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under RA No. 9165 fails. 28
Section 21, Article II of RA No. 9165 29 outlines the post-seizure procedure for the custody and disposition of seized drugs. The law mandates that the officer taking initial custody of the drug shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct the physical inventory of the same and take a photograph thereof 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. All three insulating witnesses are required since the commission of the crime in this case happened before the amendment of RA No. 9165 by RA No. 10640. 30 During the marking, inventory and taking of photographs of the items confiscated from Agustin, there were no representatives from the media and the DOJ, and an elected public official.
The failure of the apprehending team to strictly comply with the procedure laid down in Section 21 of RA No. 9165 and the IRR does not ipso facto render the seizure and custody over the items as void and invalid. However, the prosecution must satisfactorily prove that: (a) there is justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. The justifiable ground for non-compliance must be proven as a fact, because the Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist. 31 The prosecution must initiate acknowledging and justifying deviations from the prescribed procedure. The rules require that the apprehending officers do not simply mention a justifiable ground, but also clearly state this ground in their sworn affidavit, coupled with a statement on the steps they took to preserve the integrity of the seized item. 32
In Edangalino v. People, 33 citing People v. Reyes, et al.34 and People v. Sipin, 35 the Court enumerated the instances where the absence of the required witnesses may be justified, to wit: (1) the place of arrest was a remote area; (2) time constraints and urgency of the anti-drug operations; (3) the apprehending team's safety during the inventory and photograph of the seized drugs was threatened by an immediate retaliatory action of the accused or any person/s acting for and in his/her behalf; (4) the elected officials themselves were involved in the punishable acts sought to be apprehended; (5) earnest efforts to secure the presence of the witnesses within the period required under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code proved futile through no fault of the arresting officers, who face the threat of being charged with arbitrary detention. The prosecution in this case failed to sufficiently prove justifiable ground for non-compliance with the dictates of Section 21 of RA No. 9165 and its IRR.
Moreover, it cannot be overemphasized that there must be strict compliance with the prescribed measures during and after the seizure of dangerous drugs and related paraphernalia, during the custody and their transfer for examination, and at all times up to their presentation in court. Accordingly, the following links must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust operation: 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. 36
In this case, we find that the identity of the seized item had been compromised. The prosecution failed to establish that the contrabands recovered from the petitioner were the same illegal drugs presented before the trial court. For one, SPO1 Valera — who took hold of the seized items for most of the time after confiscation — did not testify. Second, the markings as appearing in the exhibits differ from the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. On one hand, the seized items bore the markings, "AOS-1 7/2/2012" to "AOS-20 7/2/2010." PO1 Nocum's sworn statement and SPO4 Pujeda's testimony likewise mentioned that SPO1 Valera marked the items with "AOS-1 7/2/2012" to "AOS-20 7/2/2010." 37 On the other hand, PO1 Nocum testified that SPO1 Valera marked the 20 plastic sachets with "AOS-1" to "AOS-20." 38Third, PO1 Nocum's account of the custody over the articles did not categorically place them in SPO1 Valera's possession during transit from the place of arrest to the police station, to wit:
Q: x x x After [SPO1 Valera] put the markings, what transpired next, if there was any?
A: Because there were already many people in that place, so we brought Agustin Sabodogo outside and we called the police station to fetch us using the police mobile car, ma'am.
Q: When you said "inilabas si Agustin Sabodogo[,"] where did you bring him?
A: Going to the road, ma'am.
Q: And what happened to the twenty (20) plastic sachets that you have recovered when you went outside going to the road?
A: As far as I know those plastic sachets were in the custody of Sgt. Valera, ma'am.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Now, upon arrival at the police station and you said that Sgt. Valera read the rights of Agustin Sabodogo, what happened then to the twenty (20) plastic sachets?
A: I do not know anymore, ma'am. The last thing I know was that they were in the custody of Sgt. Valera. 39
Fourth, after the physical inventory made at the police station, custody over the confiscated articles was again unknown, viz.:
Q: x x x [A]fter Valera read to Sabodogo his rights, what happened to the specimen in the possession of Valera?
A: I do not recall if I saw again those specimen [sic] on that particular day, ma'am. 40
Fifth, at the time of transmittal of the specimens to the crime laboratory, it is unclear who received them. PO1 Nocum testified as follows:
Q: x x x [A]fter the specimen was given to the crime lab, what happened next, if there was any?
A: Somebody received it, ma'am. 41
Based on the records, serious irregularities abound the chain of custody over the items seized. Thus, the prosecution miserably failed to demonstrate that the integrity and identity of the seized drugs have been duly preserved.
Finally, we find no basis on the RTC's and the CA's findings that the apprehending officers regularly performed their duties. Judicial reliance on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty despite the lapses in the procedures undertaken by the agents of the law is fundamentally flawed because the lapses themselves are affirmative proofs of irregularity. 42 The presumption of regularity in the performance of duty cannot overcome the stronger presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. Otherwise, a mere rule of evidence will defeat the constitutionally enshrined right to be presumed innocent. 43
In sum, we find that a broken chain of custody militates against the conviction of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt, as the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti was not preserved.
FOR THE STATED REASONS, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated June 28, 2017 and Resolution dated January 24, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 38687 are REVERSED. Accordingly, petitioner Agustin Sabodogo y Ongki is ACQUITTED. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ordered to cause his immediate release, unless he is being lawfully held in custody for any other reason.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation, who is ORDERED to REPORT to this Court the action he has taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution. Let entry of judgment be issued.
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.Rollo, pp. 3-25.
2.Id. at 29-41; penned by Associate Justice Stephen C. Cruz, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Jose C. Reyes, Jr. (now a Member of this Court) and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela.
3.Id. at 42-43.
4. Possession of Dangerous Drugs.
5.Rollo, p. 44.
6.Id.
7.Rollo, p. 45.
8.Id. at 45-46.
9.Id. at 46.
10.Id. at46-47.
11.Id. at 47.
12.Id. at 44-53.
13.Id. at 53.
14.Supra note 12.
15.Rollo, pp. 54-81.
16.Supra note 2. The dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED. The appealed March 15, 2016 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Infanta, Quezon, Branch 65, in Criminal Case No. 2012-133-I, finding accused-appellant Agustin Sabodogo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED. Id. at 40.
17.Rollo, pp. 82-98.
18.Supra note 3. Resolution, dated January 24, 2018, penned by Associate Justice Stephen C. Cruz, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Jose R. Reyes, Jr. and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela. The CA disposed of Agustin's Motion for Reconsideration, as follows:
x x x We find no cogent reason to warrant an alteration or reversal of the said decision. The instant motion has not raised any new or substantial ground or reason that would call for the reversal of Our findings. The grounds or issues raised in the motion for reconsideration merely reiterate matters already passed upon by Us when We rendered the decision which is sought to be reconsidered. Discussing again now the ratio decidendi of Our Decision would be belaboring the issues ad infinitum.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the instant motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
19.Supra note 1.
20.People v. Vasquez, 724 Phil. 713, 730 (2014), citing People v. Tampis, 455 Phil. 371 (2003).
21.Id. at 730-731.
22.Id. at 731. See also Valdez v. People, 563 Phil. 934, 946 (2007).
23.People v. Torres, G.R. No. 241012, August 28, 2019, citing People v. Alunday, 586 Phil. 120, 133 (2008); and Lapi v. People, G.R. No. 210731, February 13, 2019.
24.Rollo, p. 44.
25.People v. Quijano, G.R. No. 247558, February 19, 2020, citing People v. Manansala, 826 Phil. 578, 586 (2018).
26.Id.
27.People v. Enad, 780 Phil. 346, 357-358 (2016), citing People v. Quebral, 621 Phil. 226, 233 (2009).
28.People v. Sabdula, 733 Phil. 85, 94 (2014), citing People v. Denoman, 612 Phil. 1165, 1175 (2009).
29. Section 21 of RA No. 9165 reads:
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, x x x 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, x x x 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;
This is implemented by Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA No. 9165 which states:
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, x x x 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;
30.People v. Lim, G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018 citing People v. Ocampo, G.R. No. 232300, August 1, 2018; People v. Allingag, G.R. No. 233477, July 30, 2018, 874 SCRA 573; People v. Sipin, G.R. No. 224290, June 11, 2018, 866 SCRA 73; People v. Reyes, et al., 830 Phil. 619 (2018); and People v. Mola, 830 Phil. 364 (2018).
31.Edangalino v. People, et al., G.R. No. 235110, January 8, 2020, citing People v. De Guzman, 630 Phil. 637, 649 (2010).
32.People v. Jagdon, G.R. No. 234648, March 27, 2019, citing People v. Señeres, Jr., G.R. No. 231008, November 5, 2018, 884 SCRA 172, 192.
33.Supra.
34. 830 Phil. 619.
35. G.R. No. 224290, June 11, 2018, 866 SCRA 73.
36.People v. Caranto, 728 Phil. 507, 521 (2014).
37. TSN, May 22, 2014, p. 10. SPO4 Pujeda made the following pertinent statements:
Q: Could you recall what was the markings put by Valera on the specimens that Valera recovered from the accused?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: What was [sic] the markings?
A: AOS 1-20 7/2/20 2, ma'am.
38. TSN, April 16, 2013, pp. 10-11. The relevant portion of PO1 Nocum's testimony reads:
Q: x x x [W]here did Valera put the markings, in particular?
A: On each and every plastic sachets, ma'am.
Q: Including the one that Sabodogo dropped?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: Could you recall what was the markings put by Valera?
A: AOS-1 to 20, ma'am.
39. TSN, April 16, 2013, pp. 11-12.
40. TSN, June 4, 2013, p. 5.
41. TSN, January 15, 2014, p. 2.
42.Edangalino v. People, et al., supra note 31, citing People v. Ramirez, et al., 823 Phil. 1215, 1217 (2018).
43.Id., citing People v. Dave Claudel y Lucas, G.R. No. 219852, April 3, 2019.