FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 242933. November 3, 2020.]
FERDINAND VALENZUELA y JANABAL @ "BOTCHOY", petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 3, 2020which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 242933(Ferdinand Valenzuela y Janabal @ "Botchoy," Petitioner, v. People of the Philippines, Respondent). — This Petition 1 seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision 2 dated 20 July 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 40479, which affirmed the Decision 3 dated 18 August 2017 of Branch 103, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, in Criminal Case No. Q-10-162388, finding petitioner Ferdinand Valenzuela y Janabal @ Botchoy (petitioner) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165. 4
Antecedents
Petitioner was charged with violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 in an Information, the accusatory portion of which read —
That on or about the 7th day of January 2010, in Quezon City, Philippines, accused, without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully[,] and knowingly possess zero point thirteen (0.13) gram of white crystalline substance containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law. 5
Petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge on his arraignment. After pre-trial, trial on the merits ensued.
Version of the Prosecution
On 07 January 2010, a buy-bust team was organized to entrap petitioner who, according to a confidential informant (CI), was involved in illegal trade activities in La Loma, Quezon City. 6 On arrival at the target site, the CI approached petitioner and introduced PO3 Jorge Santiago (PO3 Santiago) saying, "kaibigan ko, si Buboy." Petitioner immediately asked PO3 Santiago, "ikaw ba iiskor ng item ko?" to which the latter replied, "halagang limang daang piso." Petitioner showed PO3 Santiago a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance of suspected shabu but gave this instead to a certain Emil who arrived. PO3 Santiago protested, "asan na yung binibili ko?" As petitioner was about to give a plastic sachet to PO3 Santiago, someone suddenly yelled, "may kalaban!" prompting petitioner to return the item into his right pocket. Petitioner attempted to flee but PO3 Santiago grabbed him and ordered the latter to empty his pockets, yielding a heat-sealed plastic sachet containing the suspected shabu. PO3 Santiago confiscated the item and marked it as "JS-FV." 7
Due to the occurrence of a commotion, the team proceeded to Camp Karingal where PO3 Jeffrey Flores (PO3 Flores) conducted an inventory of the seized item in the presence of media representative Ronnie Umipig (Umipig), petitioner, and Emil. Thereafter, PO3 Flores delivered the seized item to the crime laboratory. Per Chemistry Report No. D-09-10, 8 the seized plastic sachet tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. 9
Version of the Defense
On the other hand, petitioner testified that he was arrested on 05 January 2020, not on 07 January 2010. According to him, he was then at his cousin Emil's house in La Loma, Quezon City when police officers suddenly barged in and arrested him including eight (8) more persons. The policemen brought them to Camp Karingal where a certain Captain Guevarra asked for Php100,000.00 in exchange for their release. Petitioner and Emil's relatives were able to raise the amount but detained them just the same. Subsequently, they were charged with violation of Section 11 of RA 9165. 10
Before the prosecution rested its case, Emil died. The RTC dismissed the case against Emil (Criminal Case No. Q-10-162387) in its 22 October 2015 Order. 11
Ruling of the RTC
In its 18 August 2017 Decision, the RTC convicted petitioner of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, the dispositive portion of which stated:
ACCORDINGLY, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused Ferdinand Valenzuela y Janabal guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged, and he is hereby sentenced to suffer a jail term of twelve years and one (1) day as minimum to thirteen (13) years and one (1) month and two (2) days as maximum and he is ordered to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand (P300,000.00) Pesos with subsidiary imprisonment in case of non-payment.
The Branch Clerk of Court is hereby ordered to turn over the subject specimen covered by Chemistry Report No. D-09-10 to the PDEA Crime Laboratory in order that they be included in its next scheduled date of burning and destruction.
So Ordered. 12
The RTC held that the prosecution was able to prove that subject sachet of shabu presented in court is the same item seized from petitioner through the marking "JS-FV." The RTC also noted that the arresting officers were justified in preparing the inventory and taking photographs of the seized items at the police station due to the occurrence of a commotion at the crime scene. 13
Ruling of the CA
On 20 July 2018, the CA promulgated its assailed Decision affirming petitioner's conviction, viz.:
WHEREFORE, we DENY the appeal. The decision appealed from is AFFIRMED except that the imposition of a subsidiary imprisonment is deleted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.14
Agreeing with the RTC, the CA held that the prosecution had adequately proven the identity of the seized drug and its evidentiary value was well preserved from the time of seizure from petitioner until the time of presentation as evidence in court. 15 Petitioner moved for reconsideration but to no avail. 16
Hence, this petition.
Issue
The sole issue in this case is whether or not the CA correctly affirmed petitioner's conviction for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs.
Ruling of the Court
The petition is meritorious.
To obtain a conviction for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11 of RA 9165, the prosecution must prove that (1) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug, (2) such possession is not authorized by law, and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug. 17
Moreover, in cases of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous drugs, the dangerous drug itself confiscated from the accused constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense. Hence, it is of utmost importance that the integrity and identity of the seized drugs must be shown to have been duly preserved. The chain of custody rule performs this function as it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. The rule is imperative, as it is essential that the prohibited drug confiscated or recovered from the suspect is the very same substance offered in court as exhibit; and the identity of the said drug is established with the same unwavering exactitude as that required to make a finding of guilt. 18
To show an unbroken chain of custody, the following links must be proven by the prosecution: 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. 19
We hold that the prosecution failed to prove the first link.
Under the first link, the prosecution must prove that the arresting officers marked the seized items immediately after the arrest and prepared the inventory 20 in the presence of the accused, and the three mandatory witnesses, namely, a representative each from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ) as well as any elected public official pursuant to Section 21 (1) 21 of RA 9165 and Section 21 (a) 22 of its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR). However, all three mandatory witnesses were absent during the marking and seizure of the item. And during the inventory, only media representative Umipig was present. The two (2) other required witnesses, namely, an elected public official and DOJ representative, were inconspicuously absent. This ground alone necessitates the acquittal of accused-appellant.
The presence of the three witnesses required by Section 21 is not an empty requirement. It is precisely to protect and to guard against the pernicious practice of policemen in planting evidence. 23 The presence of third-party witnesses during seizure and marking ensures that whatever items are subsequently inventoried, photographed, examined, and presented in court are the same substances that were initially obtained from the accused. 24
We are aware that despite non-compliance with the aforesaid legal requirements, conviction may still ensue where the prosecution alleges and proves justifiable grounds for the arresting officers' non-compliance therewith, and establishes the steps taken to ensure that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. However, the prosecution has the positive duty to prove its reasons for the procedural lapses. 25 The prosecution must also prove that the apprehending team exerted earnest efforts to obtain the attendance of mandatory witnesses. 26
Here, the arresting officers failed to discharge their duty of proving the measures they took to ensure the preservation of the seized item's integrity and evidentiary value. Worse, they failed to adduce proof that they exerted earnest efforts to secure the presence of a DOJ representative and an elected official as mandatory witnesses to the inventory. A mere statement that they were constrained to conduct the inventory at their office due to the ensuing commotion at the site of the arrest is insufficient.
It must be emphasized that adherence to the chain of custody rule is even more strictly enforced where the quantity of the shabu allegedly possessed by petitioner was only 0.13 gram. 27 Strict adherence to Section 21 is required where the quantity of illegal drugs seized is miniscule, since it is highly susceptible to planting, tampering or alteration of evidence. 28
There being no justifiable reason in this case for non-compliance with the chain of custody rule, We acquit petitioner for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It is the Court's duty to overturn the verdict of conviction. 29
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The 20 July 2018 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 40479, affirming the conviction of petitioner FERDINAND VALENZUELA y JANABAL for the offense of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, he is hereby ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt.
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. 11-27.
2.Id. at 29-48; penned by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Rafael Antonio M. Santos and Germano Francisco D. Legaspi of the Special Twelfth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
3.Id. at 71-81; penned by Presiding RTC Judge Felino Z. Elefante.
4. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
5.Rollo, p. 71.
6.Id. at 31, 71 and 72.
7.Id. at 31, 32, and 72.
8.Id. at 34.
9.Id. at 32-33, 74-75.
10.Id. at 35 and 75.
11.Id. at 34.
12.Id. at 81.
13.Id. at 78-79.
14.Id. at 47.
15.Id. at 41-43.
16.Id. at 50-51.
17.See People v Castillo, G.R. No. 238339, 07 August 2019 [per J. Leonen].
18.People v. Ambrosio, G.R. No. 234051, 27 November 2019.
19.People v. Balles, G.R. No. 226143, 21 November 2018, 886 SCRA 463 [per J. Del Castillo].
20. See Largo v. People, G.R. No. 201293, 19 June 2019 [per J. Lazaro-Javier].
21. 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 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.
22. 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:
(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.
23.See People v. Advincula, G.R. No. 201576, 22 July 2019 [per J. Carandang].
24.Supra at note 17.
25.See People v. Ternida, G.R. No. 212626, 03 June 2019 [per J. Leonen].
26.See People v. Silayan, G.R. No. 229362, 19 June 2019 [per J. Carpio].
27.Rollo, p. 30.
28.People v. Padua, G.R. No. 239781, 05 February 2020 [per C.J. Peralta].
29.See People v. Bombasi, G.R. No. 230555, 09 October 2019 [per J. Lazaro-Javier].