THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 220456, June 10, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. GAJIR ACUB Y ARAKANI A.K.A. "ASAW," ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
LEONEN, J.:
State agents must strictly comply with the legal safeguards established in Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended, for the custody and disposition of seized illegal drugs, to ensure that the evidence was not tampered with, substituted, or planted. For the saving clause in Section 21 to apply, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that noncompliance was justified and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item were preserved.
This Court reviews the March 16, 2015 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 01003-MIN, affirming the conviction of accused-appellant Gajir Acub y Arakani a.k.a. "Asaw" (Acub) for violation of Section 5 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act.
In an Information dated February 11, 2005, Acub was charged with selling a dangerous drug to an undercover police officer during a buy-bust operation:
That on or about February 10, 2005, in the City of Zamboanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law to sell, deliver, transport, distribute or give away to another any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully and unlawfully, sell and deliver to PO2 Ronald Canete Cordero, member of the PNP, Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Force (AIDSOTF), who acted as poseur buyer, one (1) pc. heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance weighing 0.0188 gram, which when subjected to qualitative examination gave positive result to the test for the presence of METHAMPHETAMlNE HYDROCHLORIDE (shabu), accused knowing the same to be a dangerous drug, in flagrant violation of the above-mentioned law.Upon arraignment, Acub pleaded not guilty to the charge against him. Trial on the merits ensued, with the prosecution presenting three (3) police officers as its witnesses and the defense presenting Acub and his wife, Intan Acub (Intan), as its witnesses.3
CONTRARY TO LAW.2
WHEREFORE, in the light of all the foregoing, this Court finds accused GADJIR ACUB Y ARAKANI, a.k.a. "ASAW" GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for violating Section 5, Article II of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (R.A. 9165) and sentences him to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and pay a fine of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000) without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.Acub filed a Notice of Appeal.25 In its May 3, 2012 Resolution,26 the Court of Appeals directed Acub to file his appellant's brief and the Office of the Solicitor General to file its corresponding appellee's brief upon receipt of the appellant's brief. Both parties complied and filed their respective briefs.27
SO ORDERED.24 (Emphasis in the original)
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated 04 November 2011 rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga City, Branch 13, in Crim. Case No. 5658 (21352), which declares accused-appellant guilty of violation of Section 5, Article II of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (RA 9165) is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION, in that the accused-appellant shall not be eligible for parole.Thus, Acub filed a Notice of Appeal,32 which was given due course by the Court of Appeals in its July 14, 2015 Resolution.33
SO ORDERED.31 (Emphasis in the original)
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 the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640, provides the manner of custody and disposition of confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered drugs and/or drug paraphernalia. Section 21, as amended, imposes the following requirements when it comes to custody of drugs or drug paraphernalia prior to the filing of a criminal case:
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.48
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:This Court has repeatedly emphasized that strict compliance49 is the expected standard when it comes to the custody and disposition of seized illegal drugs, to prevent tampering and planting of evidence. People v. Que50 stressed:
- 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 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[;]
- 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;
- A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued immediately upon the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of 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 immediately upon completion of the said examination and certification[.]
The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act requires nothing less than strict compliance. Otherwise, the raison d'etre of the chain of custody requirement is compromised. Precisely, deviations from it leave the door open for tampering, substitution, and planting of evidence.Strict compliance with Section 21 is in keeping with the doctrine that penal laws are strictly construed against the government and its agents. In People v. Gonzales:52
Even acts which approximate compliance but do not strictly comply with Section 21 have been considered insufficient.51
These provisions obviously demand strict compliance, for only by such strict compliance may be eliminated the grave mischiefs of planting or substitution of evidence and the unlawful and malicious prosecution of the weak and unwary that they are intended to prevent. Such strict compliance is also consistent with the doctrine that penal laws shall be construed strictly against the Government and liberally in favor of the accused.53Nonetheless, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act recognizes that strict compliance with its provisions may not always be possible. Hence, a saving clause was introduced, first in the Implementing Rules and Regulations, before being eventually inserted in the amended law. The saving clause states:
[P]rovided, finally, 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.The law is clear that for the saving clause to apply, the twin requirements must be met: (1) the noncompliance was justifiable; and (2) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item were preserved. Not only must the prosecution explain why the requirements were not strictly complied with,54 it must also prove during trial the justifiable grounds for noncompliance.55People v. Umipang56 instructed:
Minor deviations from the procedures under R.A. 9165 would not automatically exonerate an accused from the crimes of which he or she was convicted. This is especially true when the lapses in procedure were "recognized and explained in terms of [] justifiable grounds." There must also be a showing "that the police officers intended to comply with the procedure but were thwarted by some justifiable consideration/reason." However, when there is gross disregard of the procedural safeguards prescribed in the substantive law (R.A. 9165), serious uncertainty is generated about the identity of the seized items that the prosecution presented in evidence. This uncertainty cannot be remedied by simply invoking the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties, for a gross, systematic, or deliberate disregard of the procedural safeguards effectively produces an irregularity in the performance of official duties. As a result, the prosecution is deemed to have failed to fully establish the elements of the crimes charged, creating reasonable doubt on the criminal liability of the accused.57 (Citations omitted)Here, both the trial court58 and the Court of Appeals59 acknowledged that the prosecution failed to prove strict compliance with Section 21. However, they both brushed this failure aside by reasoning that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized shabu were nevertheless preserved. The Court of Appeals held:
Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 clearly outlines the post-seizure procedure for the custody and disposition of seized drugs. The law mandates that the officer taking initial custody of the drug shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct the physical inventory of the same and take a photograph thereof in the presence of the accused, of 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.The Court of Appeals is mistaken.
However, the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the said law provide a saving clause whenever the procedures laid down in the law are not strictly complied with, thus:... 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.As gleaned from the foregoing, the most important factor is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items as they will be used to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. As long as the evidentiary value and integrity of the illegal drug are properly preserved, strict compliance of the requisites under Section 21 of RA 9165 may be disregarded. Further, slight infractions or nominal deviations by the police from the prescribed method of handling the corpus delicti should not exculpate an otherwise guilty defendant.60 (Citations omitted)
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."63It is disconcerting how quickly the lower courts downplayed the legal safeguards in Section 21 by immediately resorting to the saving clause and embracing the presumption of regularity accorded to State agents.
There is no question that the prosecution miserably failed to provide justifiable grounds for the arresting officers' non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as well as the IRR. The unjustified absence of an elected public official and DOJ representative during the inventory of the seized item constitutes a substantial gap in the chain of custody. There being a substantial gap or break in the chain, it casts serious doubts on the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti. As such, the petitioner must be acquitted.65 (Emphasis supplied)In his separate concurring opinion in Mariñas, Associate Justice Diosdado Peralta expounded that the prosecution, in accordance with the Rules on Evidence, has the burden of proving a justifiable cause for noncompliance with Section 21.66 He then listed some of the possible justifiable reasons for noncompliance with Section 21:
In this case, the prosecution never alleged and proved that the presence of all the required witnesses was not obtained for any of the following reasons, such as: (1) their attendance was impossible because the place of arrest was a remote area; (2) their safety during the inventory and photograph of the seized drugs [was] threatened by an immediate retaliatory action of the accused or any person/s acting for and in his/her behalf; (3) the elected official[s] themselves were involved in the punishable acts sought to be apprehended; (4) earnest efforts to secure the presence of a DOJ or media representative and an elected public official within the period required under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code prove futile through no fault of the arresting officers, who face the threat of being charged with arbitrary detention; or (5) time constraints and urgency of the anti-drug operations, which often rely on tips of confidential assets, prevented the law enforcers from obtaining the presence of the required witnesses even before the offenders could escape.67 (Citation omitted)The prosecution utterly failed to provide any justifiable ground for the arresting officers' failure to inventory and photograph the seized sachet in the presence of accused-appellant, an elected public official, and representatives from the National Prosecution Service or the media. Worse, the prosecution remained silent as to the noncompliance with Section 21.
Very truly yours, (SGD) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN Division Clerk of Court |
"WHEREFORE, the March 16, 2015 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 01003-MIN is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Gajir Acub y Arakani a.k.a. "Asaw" is ACQUITTED for the prosecution's failure 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 GAJIR ACUB Y ARAKANI a.k.a. "ASAW" 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 to the Penal Institute Superintendent of the Bureau of Corrections San Ramon Prison and Penal Farm, Zamboanga City, for immediate implementation. The Penal Institute Superintendent is directed to report the action he has taken to this Court within five (5) days from receipt of this Decision.
The Regional Trial Court is directed to turn over the seized sachet of shabu to the Dangerous Drugs Board for destruction in accordance with law.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours, (SGD) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN Division Clerk of Court |
Endnotes:
1 CA rollo, pp. 86-93. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Oscar V. Badelles, and concurred in by Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Maria Filomena D. Singh of the Twenty-First Division, Court of Appeals, Cagayan De Oro City.
2 Id. at 86-87.
3 Id. at 20-24. Intan was sometimes spelled "Intad" in the rollo.
4 Id. at 87.
5 Id. PO3 Ajuji was also referred to as PO1 Ajuji in the rollo.
6 Id. at 21.
7 Id. at 22.
8 Id. at 87.
9 Id.
10 Id.
11 Id. at 90.
12 Id. at 87-88.
13 Id. at 20-21. Inspector Manuel was sometimes referred to as Police Senior Inspector Manuel.
14 Id. at 21.
15 Id. at 22-23 and 88.
16 Id.
17 Id.
18 Id.
19 Id.
20 Id. at 41-49. The Decision docketed as Crim. Case No. 5658 (21352) was penned by Presiding Judge Eric D. Elumba of Branch 13, Regional Trial Court, Zamboanga City.
21 Id. at 48.
22 Id.
23 Id.
24 Id. at 49.
25 Id. at 8.
26 Id. at 9.
27 Id. at 16-40, Acub's Brief, and 56-83, Office of the Solicitor General's Brief.
28 Id. at 86-93.
29 Id. at 89-91.
30 Id. at 91-92.
31 Id. at 93.
32 Id. at 99-101.
33 Id. at 108.
34Rollo, p. 17.
35 Id. at 34-35.
36 Id. at 19-21 and 28-30.
37 CA rollo, pp. 24-26.
38 Id. at 28.
39 Id.
40 Id. at 31-32.
41 Id. at 34-35.
42 Id. at 65-69.
43 Id. at 69-70.
44 Id. at 77-79.
45 Id. at 79-80.
46People 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].
47 803 Phil. 582 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
48 Id. at 591 citing People v. Simbahon, 449 Phil. 74 (2003) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division]; People v. Laxa, 414 Phil. 156 (2001) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division]; and Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
49People v. Que, G.R. No. 212994, January 31, 2018, [Per J. Leonen, Third Division]; People v. Gonzales, 708 Phil. 121, 129 (2013) [Per J. Bersamin, First Division]; and People v. Carin, 645 Phil 560, 566 (2010) [Per J. Carpio Morales, Third Division].
50 G.R. No. 212994, January 31, 2018, [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
51 Id.
52 708 Phil. 121 (2013) [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].
53 Id. at 129 citing People v. Denoman, 612 Phil. 1165 (2009) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
54People v. Almorfe, 631 Phil. 51, 60 (2010) [Per J. Carpio Morales, First Division] citing People v. Garcia, 599 Phil. 416 (2009) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
55People v. De Guzman, 630 Phil. 637, 648-649 (2010) [Per J. Nachura, Third Division].
56 686 Phil. 1024 (2012) [Per J. Sereno, Second Division].
57 Id. at 1053-1054.
58 CA rollo, p. 48.
59 Id. at 91-92.
60 Id. at 91-92.
61 Id. at 86.
62 741 Phil. 78 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
63 Id. at 99 citing Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
64 G.R. No. 232891, July 23, 2018, [Per J. Reyes, Jr., Second Division].
65 Id.
66 J. Peralta, Concurring Opinion in Mariñas v. People, G.R. No. 232891, July 23, 2018, [Per J. Reyes, Jr., Second Division].
67 Id.
68People v. Ramirez, G.R. No. 225690, January 17, 2018, [Per J. Martires, Third Division] citing People v. Mendoza, 736 Phil 749, 769-770 (2014) [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].