FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 244764. September 29, 2021.]
JOHNNY VENEZUELA y PANUGAN, plaintiff-appellee, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 29, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 244764 (Johnny Venezuela y Panugan v. People of the Philippines). — The conviction of the accused for illegal possession of a dangerous drug is the subject of this petition for review on certiorari assailing the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated August 28, 2018 in CA-G.R. CR No. 40260.
ANTECEDENTS
Johnny Venezuela y Panugan (Johnny) was charged with Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drug before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) docketed as Criminal Case No. 16-073, thus:
That on or about the 2nd day of February 2016, in the Municipality of Angono, Province of Rizal, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess/use any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession, custody and control one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.11 gram of white crystalline substance marked as "JV", which after the corresponding laboratory examination conducted by the PNP Rizal Provincial Crime Laboratory Office on the white crystalline substance, gave positive result to the tests for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, also known as shabu, a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Johnny pleaded not guilty. Trial then ensued. The prosecution presented PO1 Jezrel Cerda (PO1 Cerda) who testified that on February 2, 2016 at around 4:45 p.m., Barangay Kagawad Mark Lee Tiamson (Kagawad Mark), Mary Rose Miranda (Mary Rose) and Sherry Ann Miranda (Sherry Ann) brought Johnny to the police station. They arrested Johnny after he was caught snatching Mary Rose's cellular phone. Thereafter, PO1 Cerda frisked Johnny. Suddenly, Sherry Ann pulled down Johnny's jersey shorts, and from his waist fell one plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance suspected to be shabu. Immediately, PO1 Cerda picked up the sachet and informed Johnny of his constitutional rights. PO1 Cerda then marked the sachet with "JV" corresponding to Johnny's initials. Also, PO1 Cerda prepared a request for laboratory examination and delivered the specimen to the Provincial Police Crime Laboratory Office. Thereat, the forensic chemist P/Sr. Insp. Joanne DC. Rosales received the specimen. The tests yielded positive result for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
On the other hand, Johnny claimed that on February 2, 2016, he was playing basketball when Kagawad Mark approached and accused him of stealing Mary Rose's cellular phone. Kagawad Mark brought Johnny to the police station where PO1 Cerda frisked him for bladed weapon with his consent saying 'sige po, kapkapan nyo po ako.' Yet, Johnny denied possession of the confiscated sachet and explained that he is not into drugs. Lastly, Johnny questioned the legality of his arrest.
On June 17, 2017, the RTC found Johnny guilty and ruled that the prosecution established all the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drug. Likewise, the RTC upheld Johnny's warrantless arrest, to wit: TIADCc
In light of the above, we find accused Johnny Venezuela GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 11, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 and illegally possessing 0.11 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu respectively and accordingly sentence him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of 12 years and 1 day as minimum to 13 years as maximum and to pay a fine of P300,000.00.
xxx xxx xxx
SO ORDERED.
Aggrieved, Johnny elevated the case to the CA docketed as CA-G.R. CR No. 40260. Johnny maintained that he was unlawfully arrested without a warrant and that the prosecution failed to prove the elements of the crime as well as the integrity and identity of the confiscated drug. On August 28, 2018, the CA denied the appeal and affirmed the RTC's findings. The CA explained that Johnny was caught in flagrante delicto in possession of the shabu. The CA likewise held that the prosecution established that the shabu seized from Johnny was accounted for from the time of confiscation until it was presented in court, 2viz.:
In this case, Johnny's possession of the dangerous drugs was clearly established by the clear, consistent, and categorical testimony of PO1 Jezrel, to wit:
xxx xxx xxx
Q Did you indeed frisk the accused?
A Yes sir.
Q Any result of that frisking which you made to this person Mr. Witness?
A While frisking the accused, the complainant Sherry Ann pulled down the shorts of the accused sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q What happened next after this Sherry Ann pulled down the shorts of the accused?
A As soon as Sherry Ann pulled down the shorts of the accused, a plastic sachet containing suspected shabu fell from the waist of the accused sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Clearly, Johnny was caught in flagrante delicto in possession of shabu. His arrest therefore falls within the ambit of Section 5 (a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court because he was committing an offense in the presence of the arresting officer at the time of his apprehension, which makes his arrest without a warrant lawful. x x x.
xxx xxx xxx
x x x Notably, when the plastic sachet of shabu fell from Johnny's waists, PO1 Jezrel immediately marked the confiscated item with accused-appellant's initials "JV". The immediate marking of the seized evidence as mandated by Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 ensured the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated shabu. There is also nothing in the records which would indicate that any person other than PO1 Jezrel had possession of the confiscated shabu. Rather, the records disclosed that the item did not leave the hands of PO1 Jezrel from the moment he seized the same until he delivered it and the request for laboratory examination to the Rizal Provincial Crime Laboratory Office. The confiscated item was personally received by P/Sr. Insp. Joanne who immediately conducted the qualitative examination on the contents of the plastic sachet which was found positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride. When presented in court, P/Sr. Insp. Joanne identified the shabu offered in evidence to be same as the one she had examined. PO1 Jezrel similarly identified the marked shabu as the same item confiscated from accused-appellant.
These pieces of evidence sufficiently show that the integrity of the plastic sachet of shabu was intact and never compromised. x x x.
xxx xxx xxx
All told, this Court finds no error on the part of the RTC in convicting accused-appellant for violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The June 17, 2017 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 67, Binangonan Rizal in Criminal Case No. 16-073 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Johnny sought reconsideration but was denied. 3 Hence, this petition. Johnny insists that the search upon his person at the police station is unlawful because he was arrested without a warrant. Likewise, the prosecuting failed to prove the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drug and the chain of custody of the confiscated item. 4 In its comment, the Office of the Solicitor General counters that Johnny was arrested in flagrante delicto in possession of the shabu. Also, the prosecution preserved the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug. 5 AIDSTE
RULING
We acquit.
Prefatorily, Johnny's warrantless arrest was lawful. As a rule, the procurement of a warrant is required for there to be a lawful arrest subject to recognized exceptions. One such instance is when the person to be arrested has executed an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime in the presence of the arresting officer. 6 The records show that Johnny was brought to the police station after he was caught snatching a cellphone. As such, it is reasonable for PO1 Cerda to search for and seize any evidence on Johnny's person in order to prevent its concealment or destruction. 7 Indeed, Johnny even consented to the search. Verily, the lawful arrest justifies the search which resulted in the confiscation of the sachet. At any rate, it is already too late for Johnny to question the legality of the arrest in view of his arraignment and active participation at the trial. 8 Any supposed defect in his arrest was deemed waived. 9
Anent the conviction for illegal possession of dangerous drug, the contraband itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction. 10 Thus, it is essential to ensure that the substance recovered from the accused is the same substance offered in court. 11 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. 12 Here, the records reveal a broken chain of custody.
In People v. Nepomuceno, 13 the Court cited the ruling in People v. Pagaduan, 14 which highlighted the importance of the inventory and photograph to safeguard the integrity of the confiscated drug, viz.:
In several cases, we have emphasized the importance of compliance with the prescribed procedure in the custody and disposition of the seized drugs. We have repeatedly declared that the deviation from the standard procedure dismally compromises the integrity of the evidence. In People v. Morales, we acquitted the accused for failure of the buy-bust team to photograph and inventory the seized items, without giving any justifiable ground for the non-observance of the required procedures. People v. Garcia likewise resulted in an acquittal because no physical inventory was ever made, and no photograph of the seized items was taken under the circumstances required by R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rules. In Bondad, Jr. v. People, we also acquitted the accused for the failure of the police to conduct an inventory and to photograph the seized items, without justifiable grounds.
We had the same rulings in People v. Gutierrez, People v. Denoman, People v. Partoza, People v. Robles, and People v. dela Cruz, where we emphasized the importance of complying with the required mandatory procedures under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.
We recognize that the strict compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 may not always be possible under field conditions; the police operates under varied conditions, and cannot at all times attend to all the niceties of the procedures in the handling of confiscated evidence. For this reason, the last sentence of the implementing rules provides 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[.]" Thus, noncompliance with the strict directive of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution's case; police procedures in the handling of confiscated evidence may still have some lapses, as in the present case. These lapses, however, must be recognized and explained in terms of their justifiable grounds, and the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized must be shown to have been preserved. (Emphasis in the original)
In this case, however, PO1 Cerda did not conduct physical inventory and photograph of the confiscated drug. There was no attempt on the part of PO1 Cerda to comply with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rules. Worse, the prosecution did not bother to offer any explanation to justify the noncompliance. PO1 Cerda failed to show why an inventory and photograph of the seized evidence had not been made at the police station. Moreover, the prosecution did not describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the seized item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. Notably, there was no evidence presented on how the seized item was handled upon its confiscation. Also, the prosecution did not discuss the condition of the confiscated drug and how it was kept from the time PO1 Cerda turned it over to the forensic chemist and before its presentation in the trial court.
We emphasized that for the saving clause under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 to apply, it is important that the prosecution explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses, and that the integrity and value of the seized evidence had been preserved. In other words, the justifiable ground for noncompliance must be proven as a fact. The court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist. Inarguably, PO1 Cerda's utter disregard of the required procedures and failure of the prosecution to provide any justification 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. The presumption of regularity is disputable and cannot be regarded as binding truth. 15 Indeed, when the performance of duty is tainted with irregularities, such presumption is effectively destroyed. 16 We reiterate that the provisions of Section 21 of R.A. 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-appellant must be acquitted of the charge against him 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 August 28, 2018 in CA-G.R. CR No. 40260 is REVERSED. Johnny Venezuela y Panugan is ACQUITTED in Criminal Case No. 16-073, and is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless he is being lawfully held for another cause. AaCTcI
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City for immediate implementation. He is ordered to report to this Court the action taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
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. 30-42. The Decision was rendered by the Seventeenth Division, penned by Associate Justice Pedro B. Corales, with the concurrence of Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion and Associate Justice Gabriel T. Robeniol.
2.Id. at 39-51.
3.Id. at 44-45.
4.Id. at 15-16.
5.Id. at 99-120.
6.Dionisio y Enriquezv. People, G.R. No. 249880, February 17, 2021.
7.Vaporoso v. People, G.R. No. 238659, June 3, 2019.
8.People vs. Hernandez, 347 Phil. 56 (1997).
9.Dolera v. People, 614 Phil. 655 (2009), citing People v. Timon, 346 Phil. 572 (1997) and People v. Nazareno, 329 Phil. 16 (1996).
10.People v. Partoza, 605 Phil. 883 (2009).
11.People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21 (2017); People v. Ordinario, G.R. No. 251436, March 1, 2021; and People v. Catipan, G.R. No. 252691, June 14, 2021.
12.People v. Bugtong, 826 Phil. 628 (2018); and People v. Ferma, Jr., G.R. No. 249259, January 13, 2021.
13. G.R. No. 216062, September 19, 2018.
14 641 Phil. 432 (2010).
15.People v. Cañete, 433 Phil. 781, 794 (2002); and Lopez v. People, 576 Phil. 576 (2008).
16.People v. Dela Cruz, 589 Phil. 259 (2008).