THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 207229, September 20, 2017
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SIEGFRED CABELLON CABAÑERO, Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
LEONEN, J.:
The marking and identification of the seized dangerous drug is an essential part of the chain of custody. Absent this step, a gap is created which casts a shadow of doubt on the identity and integrity of the dangerous drug presented as evidence, creating reasonable doubt, which must be resolved in favor of the accused.
This reviews the August 30, 2012 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. CEB-CR HC No. 01081, affirming the conviction of accused-appellant Siegfred Cabellon y Cabañero (Cabellon) for violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
This Court restates the facts as found by the lower courts.
In an Information2 dated April 28, 2006, Cabellon was charged with violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165:
That on or about the 13th day of April2006 at about 7:30 P.M. more or less, in Bulacao, City of Talisay, Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, with deliberate intent, did then and there sell and dispose One (1) heat sealed plastic packet of white crystalline substance containing Methylamphetamine (sic) hydrochloride locally known as "SHABU", weighing 0.03 gram, a dangerous drugs.Upon arraignment Cabellon pleaded not guilty.4 Trial on the merits ensued.
CONTRARY TO LAW.3
ACCORDINGLY, this court finds the accused GUILTY as charged and sentences him to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of [P]500,000.00.Cabellon filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals and raised several errors. He claimed that the trial court erred in upholding the validity of his arrest despite the blatant violation of his right against unreasonable searches and when it relied on the weakness of the defense evidence rather than on the strength of the prosecution evidence. Additionally, he averred that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.20
Exhibit "B" is forfeited in favor of the State for proper disposition.
SO ORDERED.19
IN LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, the appeal is DENIED. The decision dated October 27, 2008 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Brunch 58, Cebu City in Criminal Case No. CBU-76737 convicting Siegfred Cabellon y Cabañero for the crime of Sale of Dangerous Drugs penalized under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 is AFFIRMED in toto.Cabellon filed a Notice of Appeal26 on October 4, 2012, which was noted and given due course by the Court of Appeals in its April 29, 2013 Resolution.27
SO ORDERED.25
In all prosecutions for violations of Republic Act No. 9165, the corpus delicti is the dangerous drug itself. Its existence is essential to a judgment of conviction. Hence, the identity of the dangerous drug must be clearly established.Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 provides the manner by which law enforcement officers should handle seized dangerous drugs:
Narcotic substances are not readily identifiable. To determine their composition and nature, they must undergo scientific testing and analysis. Narcotic substances are also highly susceptible to alteration, tampering, or contamination. It is imperative, therefore, that the drugs allegedly seized from the accused are the very same objects tested in the laboratory and offered in court as evidence. The chain of custody, as a method of authentication, ensures that unnecessary doubts involving the identity of seized drugs are removed.44 (Emphasis supplied)
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, 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:Section 21 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 further provides:
(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[.] (Emphasis supplied)
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, 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:While it may be true that strict compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 may be excused under justifiable grounds, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items must still be preserved by the apprehending officer.
(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[.] (Emphasis supplied)
(Pros. Canta) Q: How many packs of shabu did your poseur[-]buyer handed it (sic) to you?Even PO2 Barangan could not confirm who placed the markings on the sachet:
(PO3 Bucao) A: Only one.
Q: Who kept this pack of shabu from the place of the arrest to the police station?
A: Myself.
Q: What did you do with this pack of shabu that you get (sic) from the accused?
A: After we reach in (sic) our station I gave it to PO3 Abellar the one pack of shabu.
Q: What did PO3 Abellar do with this one pack of shabu?
A: He made a request to the PNP Crime Lab for chemical analysis.
....
Q: I am showing to you this one pack of white crystalline substance with labeling "SCC" the date thereon, is that the evidence you are referring to?
A: Yes[,] sir.
Q: Who then made the marking "SCC" and the date?
A: I am not sure who made the marking.45
(PROS. CANTA) Q: I am showing to you this one pack of white crystalline substance marked as Exhibit B, with markings SCC with a date, can you tell us if this is the same evidence that your (sic) recovered from the accused?People v. Nandi47 expounded on the four (4) links that should be established by the prosecution to constitute an unbroken chain of custody:
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Why are you sure?
A: Because this is the one PO3 Bucao showed to me.
Q: And there are markings in this plastic pack containing this small plastic pack of shabu SCC and the date 04/13/06, who made that marking if you know?
A: I do not know[,] sir.46
[F]irst, 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.48Undeniably, a noticeable gap exists in the chain of custody with the prosecution's failure to present evidence that the seized sachet was actually marked by any of the three (3) apprehending officers.
While the miniscule amount of narcotics seized is by itself not a ground for acquittal, this circumstance underscores the need for more exacting compliance with Section 21. In Mallillin v. People, this court said that "the likelihood of tampering, loss or mistake with respect to an exhibit is greatest when the exhibit is small and is one that has physical characteristics fungible in nature and similar in form to substances familiar to people in their daily lives."53WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated August 30, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. CEB-CR HC No. 01081 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Siegfred Cabellon y Cabañero is hereby ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless he is confined for any other lawful cause.
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated August 30, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. CEB-CR HC No. 01081 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Siegfred Cabellon y Cabanero is hereby ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless he is confined for any other lawful cause.NOW, THEREFORE, You are hereby ordered to immediately release SIEGFRED CABELLON y CABAÑERO unless there are other lawful causes for which he should be further detained, and to return this Order with the certificate of your proceedings within five (5) days from notice hereof.
Let a copy of this decision be furnished the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City for immediate implementation. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to report to this Court, within five (5) days from receipt of this decision, the action he has taken.
The Regional Trial Court is directed to turn over the seized sachet of methamphetamine hydrochloride to the Dangerous Drugs Board for destruction in accordance with law.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours, (SGD) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN Division Clerk of Court |
Endnotes:
1 CArollo, pp. 92-105. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo L. Didos Reyes and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles of the Nineteenth Division, Court of Appeals, Cebu City.
2 Id. at 10-11.
3 Id. at 10.
4 Id. at 51, RTC Decision.
5 Id. at 52, RTC Decision.
6 Id.
7 Id.
8 Id. at 53, RTC Decision.
9 Id. at 51-52.
10 Id. at 51 and 53. RTC referred to the substance as "methylamphetamine hydrochloride."
11 Id. at 53-54, RTC Decision.
12 Id.
13 TSN dated September 23, 2008, p. 4. TSN also refers to the date as "September 23, 2007."
14 Id. at 54.
15 Id.
16 Id. at 51-58. The Decision, docketed as Criminal Case No. CBU 76737, was penned by Presiding Judge Gabriel T. Ingles of Branch 58, Regional Trial Court, Cebu City.
17 Id. at 55-57.
18 Id. at 57.
19 Id. at 58.
20 Id. at 31.
21 Id. at 92-105.
22 Id. at 95-99.
23 Id. at 100-101.
24 Id. at 101-104.
25 Id. at 105.
26 Id. at 106-107.
27 Id. at 111.
28Rollo, p. 22.
29 Id. at 23-26 and 27-28.
30 CA rollo, pp. 37-38.
31 Id. at 38-39.
32 Id. at 39-42.
33 Id. at 48-49.
34 Id. at 74.
35 Id. at 76-77.
36 Id. at 78-79.
37 Id. at 79-81.
38People v. Morales, 630 Phil. 215, 228 (2010) [Per J. Del Castillo, Second Division] citing People v. Darisan, 597 Phil. 479 (2009) [Per J. Corona, First Division].
39 TSN dated April 24, 2007, p. 4.
40 TSN dated February 13, 2007, pp. 5-6.
41 Id. at 7.
42 TSN dated April 24, 2007, pp. 5-6.
43 G.R. No. 219829, January 18, 2017 <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2017/january2017/219829.pdf> [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
44 Id. at 7, citing People v. Simbahon, 449 Phil. 74 (2003) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division] and Mallillin v. People, 516 Phil. 576 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
45 TSN dated April 24, 2007, p. 6.
46 TSN dated February 13, 2007, p. 9.
47 639 Phil. 134 (2010) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].
48 Id. at 144-145, citing People v, Kamad, 624 Phil. 289 (2010) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
49 TSN dated April 24, 2007, p. 6.
50 RTC records, p. 8.
51 Id. at 9.
52 741 Phil. 78 (2014) [Per J. Leonen].
53 Id. at 99, citing Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].