FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 219955, February 05, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GLENN DE GUZMAN Y DELOS REYES, Accused-Appellants.
D E C I S I O N
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
Assailed in this appeal is the January 29, 2015 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05930 which affirmed the October 10, 2012 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 75, Olongapo City, finding Glenn De Guzman y Delos Reyes (appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Antecedent Facts
Appellant was charged with the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs, as well as the use of dangerous drugs under Sections 5, 11 and 15, Article II of RA 9165 in three Informations3 dated November 16, 2009 which read:
During his arraignment on December 10, 2009, appellant entered a plea of not guilty.4 Trial thereafter ensued.Criminal Case No. 627-2009
That on or about the twelfth [sic] (12th) day of November, 2009, in the City of Olongapo, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly deliver to PO1 Lawrence Reyes Php100.00 (SN-S528347) worth of marijuana fruiting tops, which is a dangerous drug[,] in one (1) plastic sachet weighing Two Grams and Fifty Thousandths of a gram (2.050 gm.)Criminal Case No. 628-2009
That on or about the twelfth (12th) day of November, 2009, in the City of Olongapo, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his effective possession and control, four (4) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing marijuana fruiting tops weighing 8.645 gms. and one (1) pc. of ziplock containing small bricks of marijuana fruiting tops weighing 32.825 grams said accused not having the corresponding license or prescription to possess said dangerous drugs.Criminal Case No. 629-2009
That on or about the twelfth (12th) day of November, 2009, in the City of Olongapo, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being lawfully authorized, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly, was found to be positive tor use of THC metabolites, a dangerous drug after a confirmatory test.
x x x In this case, the delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummated the buy bust transaction. This was further corroborated by the presentation of the marked money in evidence. Moreover, the failure of the accused to successfully impute false motive to the policemen who arrested him strengthens the presumption that they were in the regular discharge of duties when they entrapped the accused and later charged him with drug pushing x x x.16The RTC also held that "the integrity and the evidentiary value of the drug involved were safeguarded,"17 as the seized items were "immediately marked for proper identification by the seizing officers and turned over to SPO1 Delos Reyes who, in turn, prepared the receipt of evidence in the presence of the accused, members of the police and barangay representatives."18
Aggrieved, appellant filed the present appeal.
(1) PO1 Reyes marked the plastic sachet that was subject of the buy-bust with "LR"and turned it over to case investigator SPO1 Delos Reyes who marked it with his own initials "ADR." On the other hand, the four other sachets and plastic pack searched from the person of the accused were separately marked by SPO1 Delos Reyes with his initials "ADR"; (2) A request for laboratory examination of the seized items was then prepared by SPO1 Delos Reyes; (3) The request and the marked items were personally delivered by SPO1 Delos Reyes to the Regional Crime Laboratory; (4) Chemistry Report No. D-074-2009-OCCLO confirmed that the specimens contained marijuana; and (5) The marked items were offered in evidence as Exhibits "I", "I-I" and "I-2".26
A successful prosecution for the sale of illegal drugs requires more than the perfunctory presentation of evidence establishing each element of the crime: the identities of the buyer and seller, the transaction or sale of the illegal drug and the existence of the corpus delicti. In securing or sustaining a conviction under RA No. 9165, the intrinsic worth of these pieces of evidence, especially the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti, must definitely be shown to have been preserved. This requirement necessarily arises from 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 possession or for drug pushing under RA No. 9165 fails.32 (Emphasis supplied)Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 provides the procedural safeguards that the apprehending team should observe in the handling of seized illegal drugs in order to preserve their identity and integrity as evidence. "As indicated by their mandatory terms, strict compliance with the prescribed procedure is essential and the prosecution must show compliance in every case."33
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:In this case, the records show that the buy-bust team had failed to strictly comply with the prescribed procedure under Section 21 , par. 1. Although the seized items were marked at the police station, there is nothing on record to show that the marking had been done in the presence of appellant or his representatives.35 Clearly, this constitutes a major lapse that, when left unexplained, is fatal to the prosecution's case.
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs, x x x shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the persons from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with em. elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media 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, finally, That noncompliance of 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 and custody over said items.
Provided, finally, That noncompliance of 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 and custody over said items.However, this saving mechanism operates only "under justifiable grounds, and as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team."36 Thus, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to: a) recognize and explain the lapse or lapses committed by the apprehending team; and b) demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized had been preserved, despite the failure to follow the procedural safeguards under RA 9165.37
To show an unbroken link in the chain of custody, the prosecution's evidence must include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was seized to the time it is offered in court as evidence, such that every person who handled the evidence would acknowledge how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. The same witness would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have its possession. It is from the testimony of every witness who bandied the evidence from which a reliable assurance can be derived that the evidence presented in court is one and the same as that seized from the accused.39 (Emphasis in the original)In simpler terms, the following links must be established in order to ensure that the identity and integrity of the seized items had not been compromised: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the il1egal 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.40
The said request for laboratory examination, as well as the specimens, were supposedly received by a cettain "PO1 Menor."45 However, SPO1 Delos Reyes did not testify in this regard; neither did "PO1 Menor." Clearly, the prosecution failed to disclose the identily of the person who had custody of the seized items after its turnover by SPO1 Delos Reyes; the identity of the person who turned over the items to Forensic Chemist Dascil, and the identity of the person who had custody thereof afler they were examined by the forensic chemist and before they were presented in court.
[FISCAL M. F. BAÑARES] Q: Mr. Witness, was the PNP Crime Laboratory able to examine the evidence recovered from [appellant]? A: Yes, ma'am. Q: Who turned over the sachets of marijuana to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination? A: I myself ma'am, and the other CAIDSOT members. Q: What evidence do you have to prove that you were the one who turned over the marijuana with the PNP Crime Laboratory? A: I signed the delivery receipt. Q: Are you referring to the stamp receipt that you brought the specimen to the crime laboratory for examination? A: Yes, sir [sic].44
It appears, based on the prosecution's evidence no less, that for reasons unknown, the PNP Crime Laboratory agreed to turn over custody of the seized items to an unnamed receiving person at the City Prosecutor's Office before they were submitted as evidence to the trial court. It should be emphasized that the City Prosecutor's Office is not, nor has it ever been, a part of the chain of custody of seized dangerous drugs. It has absolutely no business in taking custody of dangerous drugs before they are brought before the court.
- That Arlyn Dascil is a Forensic Chemist assigned at the PNP Crime Laboratory in Olongapo City;
- That she examined the specimen subject matter of [the] case;
- That based on her examination, the specimen suqject of [the] case was tbund positive for marijuana as shown by Chemistry Report No. D-074-2009, marked as Exhibit "H";
- That upon the request of the City Prosecutor's Office, the Evidence Custodian of [the] PNP Crime Laboratory turned over the specimen subject matter of [the] case to the Prosecutor's Office.46 (Emphasis supplied)
Endnotes:
* Designated as additional member per Octobr 18, 2017 raffle vice J. Jardeleza who recused due to prior action as Solicitor General.
** Designated as additional member per December 20, 2017 raffle vice J. Tijam who recused due to prior participation in the case before the Court of Appeals.
1Rollo, pp, 2-8; penned by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez and concurred in by Associate Justices Noel G. Tijam, now a member of this Court, and Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez.
2 CA rollo, pp. 64 76; penned by Judge Raymond C. Viray.
3 Records, pp. 1, 17 and 37.
4 Id. at 52-54.
5Rollo, p. 2.
6 Id.
7 Id. at 3.
8 Id.
9 Id.
10 Id.
11 CA rollo, p. 100.
12Rollo, p. 3.
13 Id.
14 Records, p. 4.
15Rollo, pp. 3-4.
16 CA rollo, pp. 70-71.
17 Id. at 74.
18 Id.
19 Id. at 69.
20 Id. at 75-76.
21Rollo, pp. 5-6.
22 Id. at 5.
23 Id.
24 Id. at 6.
25 Id.
26 Id. at 6-7.
27Derilo v. People, 784 Phil. 679, 686 (2016).
28 Id.
29People v. Partoza, 605 Phil. 1583, 890 (2009).
30 Id.
31 612 Phil. 1165 (2009).
32 Id. at 1175.
33 Id. Italics supplied.
34 AN ACT TO FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE ANTI-DRUG CAMPAIGN OF THE GOVERNMENT, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE SECTION 21 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE "COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002". Approved July 15, 2014.
35 See TSN, April 13, 2010, pp. 3-4; records, pp. 108-109. See also TSN, May 31, 2011, pp. 11-12; records, pp. 220-221.
36People v. Prudencio, G.R. No. 205148, November 16, 2016.
37People v. Denoman, supra note 31 at 1178.
38 Supra note 27 at 687.
39 Id. at 687.
40 Id.
41 TSN, April 13, 2010, p. 3; records, p. 108.
42 TSN, May 31, 2011, pp. 9,10; records, pp. 218-219.
43People v. Kamad, 624 Phil. 289, 304-305 (2010).
44 TSN, May 31, 2011, p. 19; records, p. 227.
45 See records, p 144.
46 Id. at 135.
47 See People v. Kamad, supra note 43 at 311. Emphasis and italics supplied.