THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 213914, June 06, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MANUEL FERRER Y REMOQUILLO A.K.A. "KANO," KIYAGA MACMOD Y USMAN A.K.A. "KIYAGA" AND DIMAS MACMOD Y MAMA A.K.A. "DIMAS," Accused-Appellants.
D E C I S I O N
MARTIRES, J.:
Accused-appellants MANUEL FERRER y REMOQUILLO a.k.a. "KANO," KIYAGA MACMOD y USMAN a.k.a. "KIYAGA" and DIMAS MACMOD y MAMA a.k.a. "DIMAS" appeal from the 29 November 2013 Decision1 and 25 April 2014 Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA), Fourth Division, in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05531 affirming the 29 March 2012 Judgment3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 204, Muntinlupa City, and denying their Motion for Reconsideration,4 respectively.
That on the 12th day of August 2006, in the City of Muntinlupa, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named accused, conspiring, confederating together, and mutually helping and aiding one another, not being authorized by law, did then and there, willfully and unlawfully sell, trade, deliver, and give away to another Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, weighing 98.29 grams, contained in two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets, in violation of the above-cited law.When arraigned, the accused-appellants7 pleaded not guilty to the charge against them. Hence, trial ensued.
CONTRARY TO LAW.6
FINDINGS:As to the drug tests, the laboratory found Manuel postive for methamphetamine hydrochloride and the spouses Macmods negative for the same.29
Qualitative examination conducted on specimen A and B gave POSITIVE result to the tests for the presence of Methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. x x x
WHEREFORE, premises considered and finding all the accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Sec. 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, MANUEL FERRER y REMOQUILLO, KIYAGA MACMOD y USMAN and DIMAS MACMOD y MAMA are each sentenced to LIFE IMPRISONMENT. They are further ordered to pay a fine of Php500,000.00 each and the costs of the suit.Not satisfied with the ruling of the RTC, the accused-appellants appealed to the CA.
The subject drug evidence consisting of two (2) packets of shabu are ordered transmitted to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper disposition.
The preventive imprisonment undergone by all the accused shall be credited in their favor.
SO ORDERED.39
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The judgment dated March 29, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, Branch 204, in Criminal Case No. 06-761, is AFFIRMED.Seeking to have the decision reversed, the accused-appellants moved for a reconsideration,43 but the CA found no merit in their arguments and denied the motion.44
SO ORDERED.42
SEC. 21 OF R.A. NO. 9165 WAS GROSSLY DISREGARDED. THERE WAS NO JUSTIFIABLE GROUND FOR NONCOMPLIANCE THEREWITH.II.
THERE WAS A BROKEN CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF THE ALLEGEDLY SEIZED DRUGS.45
2. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided, that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.47It is on the basis of this constitutional presumption that case law trenchantly maintains that the conviction of the accused must rest not on the weakness of the defense but on the strength of the prosecution.48 While not impelling such a degree of proof as to establish absolutely impervious certainty, the quantum of proof required in criminal cases nevertheless charges the prosecution with the immense responsibility of establishing moral certainty, a certainty that ultimately appeals to a person's very conscience.49 Thus, the conviction of an accused can only be justified if his guilt has been established beyond reasonable doubt50 which, under the Revised Rules of Court, is defined as follows:
Section 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. - In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.The Court is aware that as a general rule, on the question of whether to believe the version of the prosecution or that of the defense, the trial court's choice is generally viewed as correct and entitled to the highest respect because it is more competent to conclude so, it having had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor and deportment on the witness stand as they gave their testimonies.51 This rule finds even more stringent application where the findings are sustained by the CA,52 as in this case. But it must be equally stressed that this general rule is not cast in stone as not to admit recognized exceptions considering that an appeal in criminal cases opens the entire case for review, and it is the duty of the reviewing tribunal to correct, cite, and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned.53
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.60Noteworthily, even the Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) - the policy making and strategy-formulating body in the planning and formulation of policies and programs on drug prevention and control tasked to develop and adopt a comprehensive, integrated, unified and balanced national drug abuse prevention and control strategy61 - has expressly defined chain of custody involving the dangerous drugs and other substances in the following terms in Sec. 1(b) of DDB Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002,62 to wit:
b. "Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and used in court as evidence, and the final disposition.On the one hand, R.A. No. 9165 provides for the specific procedure to guide the police officers in preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items from the accused, viz:
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:The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165 specifically outlines the proper procedure to be followed in effecting Sec. 21(a) of the Act, viz:
(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;
(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination;
(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done under oath by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued within twenty-four (24) hours after the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of the dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not allow the completion of testing within the time frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided, however, That a final certification shall be issued on the completed forensic laboratory examination on the same within the next twenty-four (24) hours;
x x x x
a. The apprehending office/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 noncompliance 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 and underscoring supplied)In conjunction with Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, jurisprudence dictates the four links in the chain of custody of the confiscated item that must be established 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.63
On cross-examination, Viernes wavered in his testimony stating that it was the investigator who prepared the certificate but thereafter claimed to have prepared this document upon being confronted with his statements during the direct examination, viz:
FISCAL BAYBAY: Q. Did you in fact reach your office with the accused and the items? A. Yes, sir. Q. In your office, what documents if any, did you [prepare] in order to record the confiscation of the items you identified? A. The preparation of the certificate of inventory, sir. Q. Where were you when that certificate of inventory was prepared? A. I was present when it was prepared, sir. Q. Who prepared? A. Me, sir.70 (emphasis supplied)
In a catena of cases, the Court had ruled that under varied field conditions, strict compliance with the requirements of Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 may not always be possible. The Court clarifies that with the effectivity of R.A. No. 10640,72 Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 now reads:
ATTY MEDINA: Q. By the way, you said that after the operation there was this certificate of inventory that was prepared? A. Yes, sir. Q. And who actually prepared the certificate of inventory? A. Our investigator and we were there when it was prepared, sir. Q. So, it was the investigator who actually prepared the inventory? A. Yes, sir. Q. Not you as you have stated in your direct testimony? FISCAL BAYBAY: I think the witness should be confronted with the transcript whether he actually said [that] during direct testimony. x x x x ATTY. MEDINA: On page 24 of the transcript of stenographic notes dated July 16, 2007 line number 18, who prepared, referring to the certificate of inventory, the answer was me. A. The investigator and I were the ones who prepared it, sir. Q. But not actually you who prepared the inventory? A. He was the one who printed out the inventory but I was the one who wrote the inventory, sir.71 (emphases supplied)
SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphemalia 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/paraphemalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:Thus, noncompliance with the requirements of Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 on justifiable grounds shall not render void and invalid the seizure and custody of the confiscated items as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the items had been properly preserved by the apprehending team. The burden therefore is with the prosecution to prove that: (a) there is justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.73
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment 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 person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with an 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 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 and custody over said items. (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
| Very truly yours, |
WILFREDO V. LAPITAN | |
Division Clerk of Court | |
By: | |
(SGD) | |
MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG III | |
Deputy Division Clerk of Court |
"WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, we REVERSE and SET ASIDE the 29 November 2013 Decision and 25 April 2014 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05531. Accused-appellants Manuel Ferrer y Remoquillo, Kiyaga Macmod y Usman, and Dimas Macmod y Mama are hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged against them for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. They are ordered IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention unless they are otherwise legally confined for another cause."NOW, THEREFORE, You are hereby ordered to immediately release MANUEL FERRER y REMOQUILLO, KIYAGA MACMOD y USMAN and DIMAS MACMOD y MAMA unless there are other lawful causes for which they 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 sent to the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. The Director of Corrections is directed to report to the Court the action he will have taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Decision.
SO ORDERED."
| Very truly yours, |
WILFREDO V. LAPITAN | |
Division Clerk of Court | |
By: | |
(SGD) | |
MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG III | |
Deputy Division Clerk of Court |
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 2-12; penned by Associate Justice Amelita G. Tolentino and concurred in by Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario and Leoncia R. Dimagiba.
2 CA rollo, pp. 150-151.
3 Records, pp. 456-467; penned by Judge Juanita T. Guerrero.
4 CA rollo, pp. 126-134.
5 Entitled "An Act Instituting the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, Repealing Republic Act No. 6425, Otherwise Known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended, Providing Funds Therefor and for Other Purposes."
6 Records, p. 1.
7 Id. at 50 and 73.
8 Variably referred to as "Benito Biemes" in the TSN.
9 Acronym for Cavite, Laguna, Batangas, Rizal and Quezon provinces.
10 TSN, 20 June 2007, pp. 3-7.
11 Records, p. 346; Exh. "A."
12 Id. at 348; Exh. "C."
13 Id. at 347; Exh. "B."
14 Id. at 360; Exhs. "M" to "M-2."
15 TSN, 20 June 2007, pp. 6-10; TSN, 18 July 2007, pp. 5-7.
16 TSN, 18 July 2007, pp. 7-13 and 15.
17 Id. at 13-14, 16 and 19-20.
18 Exh. "D."
19 Exh. "D-1."
20 TSN, 18 July 2007, pp. 20-23.
21 Records, p. 349; Exh. "E."
22 Id. at 350; Exh. "F."
23 Id. at 351; Exh. "F-1."
24 Id. at 352; Exh. "F-2."
25 Id. at 353; Exh. "G."
26 Id. at 354 and 355; Exhs. "H" and "I."
27 TSN, 18 July 2007, pp. 24-32.
28 Records, p. 356; Exh. "J."
29 Id. at 357; Exh. "K."
30 TSN, 11 August 2010, pp. 2-4.
31 Id. at 4-6.
32 Id. at 6-7.
33 Id. at 8-10.
34 TSN, 10 November 2010, pp. 3-8.
35 Id. at 8-13.
36 Records, p. 465.
37 Id.
38 Id. at 466-467.
39 Id. at 467.
40Rollo, pp. 7-8.
41 Id. at 8-11.
42 Id. at 11.
43 CA rollo, pp. 126-133.
44 Id. at 150-151.
45Rollo, pp. 36 and 42.
46People v. Arposeple, G.R. No. 205787, 22 November 2017.
47 Sec. 14(2), Art. III of the 1987 Constitution.
48People v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 211721, 20 September 2017.
49Daayata v. People, G.R. No. 205745, 8 March 2017.
50People v. Alboka, G.R. No. 212195, 21 February 2018.
51 Id.
52Belmonte v. People, G.R. No. 224143, 28 June 2017.
53People v. Arposeple, supra note 46.
54 Sec. 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, includmg any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.
x x x
55People v. Alboka, supra note 50.
56People v. Arposeple, supra note 46.
57People v. Calvelo, G.R. No. 223526, 6 December 2017.
58 Id.
59People v. Arposeple, supra note 46.
60 Id., citing People v. Jaafar, G.R. No. 219829, 18 January 2017, 815 SCRA 19, 29.
61 Sec. 77, R.A. No. 9165.
62 Guidelines on the Custody and Disposition of Seized Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, and Laboratory Equipment pursuant to Section 21, Article II of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 in relation to Section 81(b), Article IX of R.A. No. 9165.
63People v. Alboka, supra note 50.
64 Exh. "D."
65 Exh. "D-1."
66 TSN, 18 July 2007, pp. 20-22.
67 Entitled "The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972."
68People v. Ceralde, G.R. No. 228894, 7 August 2017, citing People v. Mendoza, 736 Phil. 749, 764 (2014).
69 Records, pp. 358-359; Exh. "L."
70 TSN, 18 July 2007, p. 24.
71 TSN, 24 April 2008, pp. 28-29.
72 Entitled "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.'"
73People v. Año, G.R. No. 230070, 14 March 2018.
74 Id.
75People v. Arposeple, supra note 46.
76 Id.