FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 243465. June 23, 2021.]
RAYMOND SUBA y LUNA, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 23, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 243465 — RAYMOND SUBA y LUNA,petitioner, versusPEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,respondent.
After a careful review of the records of the instant case, the Court GRANTS the Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 1 filed by petitioner Raymond Suba y Luna (Suba). The Court REVERSES AND SETS ASIDE the Decision 2 dated May 9, 2018 of the Court of Appeals Special Fifteenth Division (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 39676, which affirmed the Decision 3 dated January 20, 2017 of Branch 172, Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela City (RTC) in Criminal Case No. 392-V-16 finding Suba guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, punished under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," as amended.
In cases involving violations of R.A. No. 9165, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt not only every element of the crime or offense charged, but must likewise establish the identity of the corpus delicti, i.e., the seized drugs. 4 R.A. No. 9165 requires nothing less than strict compliance. 5 Any lapses or deviations from the mandatory procedures under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, must be acknowledged and explained or justified by the prosecution. Otherwise, the integrity of the corpus delicti will not be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
In the instant case, the Court finds that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items had been compromised for the following reasons:
First, the police officers had failed to immediately mark and conduct an inventory of the items seized from Suba. Following a string of cases 6 where the Court acquitted the accused for failure of the police officers to immediately mark the seized drugs or other related items, the same conclusion should likewise obtain in this case, which calls for the acquittal of Suba. Notably, the prosecution offered no reasonable explanation as to why there was a gap of around seven hours from the time of Suba's apprehension at 2:00 a.m. to the inventory of the seized items around 9:30 a.m. The prosecution offered no explanation as to what happened during this period of time, and why a significant period of time had to lapse before the inventory was conducted.
Second, the Court cannot ignore the doubt created in the corpus delicti due to the absence of one of the two required witnesses under R.A. No. 9165, specifically a representative from either the media or the National Prosecution Service. While the police officers claimed to have exerted efforts to secure the attendance of either of these witnesses, there is no evidence on record that substantiates this claim. It must be emphasized that the prosecution has the burden to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This, however, it failed to do in this case.
Thus, for the reasons mentioned above and with the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti having been rendered compromised, it necessarily follows that Suba must be acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt for violation of Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated May 9, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 39676 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, petitioner Raymond Suba y Luna is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless he is being lawfully held for another cause.
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. 11-30.
2.Id. at 44-56. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando (now a Member of the Court), with Associate Justices Marlene B. Gonzales-Sison and Pedro B. Corales concurring.
3.Id. at 90-94. Penned by Judge Nancy Rivas-Palmones.
4.People v. Arbuis, 836 Phil. 1210, 1215 (2018).
5.People v. Que, 824 Phil. 882, 901 (2018).
6.People v. Gayoso, 808 Phil. 19 (2017); People v. Bartolini, 791 Phil. 626 (2016); People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212 (2015); People v. Sabdula, 733 Phil. 85 (2014); People v. Caranto, 728 Phil. 507 (2014); and People v. Alejandro, G671 Phil. 33 (2011).