SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 227398, March 22, 2017
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANASTACIO HEMENTIZA Y DELA CRUZ, Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
MENDOZA, J.:
This is an appeal from the October 16, 2015 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06847, which affirmed the January 29, 2014 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 73, Antipolo City (RTC) in Criminal Case Nos. 03-25726 and 03-25727, finding Anastacio Hementiza y Dela Cruz (accused-appellant) guilty of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Antecedents
On May 27, 2003, accused-appellant was charged in two (2) separate Informations before the RTC. In Criminal Case No. 03-25726, accused-appellant was charged with possession of shabu in violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The Informations read:
That on or about the 25th day of May 2003, in the City of Antipolo, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without having been lawfully authorized by law, did, then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control two (2) heat sealed transparent plastic sachets containing 0.03 and 0.06 gram of white crystalline substance or with total weight of 0.09 gram, which after the corresponding laboratory examination conducted thereon by the PNP Crime Laboratory both gave positive results to the test for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, also known as "shabu," a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.In Criminal Case No. 03-25727, accused-appellant was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 for the sale of shabu. The Information states:
CONTRARY TO LAW.3
That on or about the 25th day of May 2003, in the City of Antipolo, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not having been authorized by law to sell or otherwise dispose of any dangerous drug, did, then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and give away to PO2 Rache E. Palconit, who acted as a poseur-buyer, one (1) heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.05 gram of white crystalline substance, for and in consideration of the sum of P-200.00, which after the corresponding laboratory examination conducted by the PNP Crime Laboratory gave a positive result to the test for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, also known as "shabu," a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.On July 22, 2003, accused-appellant was arraigned and he pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, trial ensued with the prosecution presenting Forensic Chemist P/Insp. Sharon Lontoc Fabros (Fabros), PO2 Rache E. Palconit (Palconit) and Barangay Captain, Dr. Rina Gabuna Junio (Dr. Junio), as its witnesses.
CONTRARY TO LAW.4
WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused Anastacio Hementiza y Dela Cruz is hereby found guilty beyond any shadow of a doubt of the offense charged in the Informations and is sentenced to the penalty of Life Imprisonment in Criminal Case No. 03-25727 with a fine of Php 500,000.00 and in Criminal Case No. 03-25726, the same accused is hereby sentenced to suffer an Imprisonment of Twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years with a fine of Php300,000.00 as provided for under Sec. 11 Par. (3) of RA 9165, as amended.Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed before the CA.
Anastacio Hementiza y Dela Cruz is to be promptly committed to the National Bilibid Prisons for immediate service of his sentence.
The seized specimens subject of the instant cases are ordered destroyed in the manner provided by law.
SO ORDERED.5
WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated 29 January 2014 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 73, Antipolo City is AFFIRMED.Hence, this appeal.
SO ORDERED.6
WHETHER THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED FOR THE CRIMES CHARGED HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.In a Resolution,7 dated December 7, 2016, the Court required the parties to submit their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desired. In his Manifestation in lieu of Supplemental Brief,8 dated February 28, 2017, accused-appellant manifested that he was adopting his Appellant's Brief filed before the CA as his supplemental brief for the same had adequately discussed all the matters pertinent to his defense. In its Manifestation,9 dated February 6, 2017, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) stated that all matters and issues raised by accused-appellant had already been discussed in its Brief before the CA and asked that it be excused from filing its supplemental brief.
The dangerous drug itself, the shabu in this case, constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and in sustaining a conviction under Republic Act No. 9165, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must definitely be shown to have been preserved. This requirement necessarily arises from the illegal drugs 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 under Republic Act No. 9165 fails.13Thus, the chain of custody over the dangerous drug must be shown to establish the corpus delicti.
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 use in court as evidence, and the final disposition.In Mallillin v. People,15 the Court explained the importance of the chain of custody:
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered in evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe 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. These witnesses 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 possession of the same.In connection thereto, Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 provides for the manner by which law enforcement officers should handle seized items in dangerous drugs cases:
While testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard because it is almost always impossible to obtain, an unbroken chain of custody becomes indispensable and essential when the item of real evidence is not distinctive and is not readily identifiable, or when its condition at the time of testing or trial is critical, or when a witness has failed to observe its uniqueness. The same standard likewise obtains in case the evidence is susceptible to alteration, tampering, contamination, and even substitution and exchange. In other words, the exhibits level of susceptibility to fungibility, alteration or tampering without regard to whether the same is advertent or otherwise not dictates the level of strictness in the application of the chain of custody rule.
Indeed, 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. Graham v. State positively acknowledged this danger. In that case where a substance was later analyzed as heroin was handled by two police officers prior to examination who however did not testify in court on the condition and whereabouts of the exhibit at the time it was in their possession was excluded from the prosecution evidence, the court pointing out that the white powder seized could have been indeed heroin or it could have been sugar or baking powder. It ruled that unless the state can show by records or testimony, the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit at least between the time it came into the posession of the police officers until it was tested in the laboratory to determine its composition, testimony of the state as to the laboratory's findings is inadmissible.
A unique characteristic of narcotic substances is that they are not readily identifiable as in fact they are subject to scientific analysis to determine their composition and nature. The Court cannot reluctantly close its eyes to the likelihood or at least the possibility, that at any of the links in the chain of custody over the same there could have been tampering, alteration or substitution of substances from other cases by accident or otherwise in which similar evidence was seized or in which similar evidence was submitted for laboratory testing. Hence, in authenticating the same, a standard more stringent than that applied to cases involving objects which are readily identifiable must be applied, a more exacting standard that entails a chain of custody of the item with sufficient completeness if only to render it improbable that the original item has either been exchanged with another or been contaminated or tampered with.16
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:Strict compliance with the chain of custody requirement, however, is not always the case. Hence, the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 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;
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[.]
SECTION 21.(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]In the case at bench, the prosecution failed to demonstrate substantial compliance by the apprehending officers with the safeguards provided by R.A. No. 9165 as regards the rule on chain of custody. To begin with, the records are bereft of any showing that an inventory of the seized items was made. Neither does it appear on record that the apprehending team photographed the contraband in accordance with law.
Prosecutor Sampayo: When the marked money was recovered and two other sachets were recovered, what did you do?In People v. De La Cruz,23 where the marking of the seized items was made at the police station, and without any showing that the same had been done in the presence of the accused or his representatives, the Court concluded that the apprehending team's omission to observe the procedure outlined by R.A. No. 9165 in the custody and disposition of the seized drugs significantly impaired the prosecution's case.
Palconit: The suspect was brought to the PDEA office.
Prosecutor Sampayo: What did you do at the PDEA office?
Palconit: We turned over the confiscated evidence to the investigator and we informed our CO that the operation was positive.
Prosecutor Sampayo: What were the confiscated items which were turned over?
Palconit: Buy bust money, one sachet which I bought and two other sachets which were recovered from the suspect.
Prosecutor Sampayo: What was done with the confiscated sachets, the one that was bought and the two others which were recovered from the target person?
Palconit: When we arrived at the office, we made a request for laboratory examination.
Prosecutor Sampayo: What did you do with the items?
Palconit: We placed markings on the confiscated items.
Prosecutor Sampayo: Do you remember what marking was placed?
Palconit: Yes, ma'm, REP-1, REP-2, REP-3.
Prosecutor Sampayo: What are these markings about?
Palconit: Those are my initials, Rache E. Palconit.
Prosecutor Sampayo: Where did you put the markings?
Palconit: At the sachets.
Prosecutor Sampayo: What sachets are you talking about?
Palconit: The sachet that I bought and the sachets that were recovered.
Prosecutor Sampayo: What marking was placed on the specimen found on his possession?
Palconit: REP-2 and REP-3.
Prosecutor Sampayo: After putting the markings, what did you do?
Palconit: We brought it to the crime laboratory.
Prosecutor Sampayo: Who personally brought it?
Palconit: Me.22
Prosecutor Sampayo: What did you do at the PDEA office?It is unlikely that Palconit did not know the officer to whom he supposedly turned over the seized drugs. Surely, this investigating officer worked with him in the same office. Indeed, the apprehending officer and investigating officer might be one and the same person. If that was the case, however, then there would have been no need to say that Palconit turned over the seized items to the investigator. He could have simply said that he was the one who conducted the investigation and prepared the necessary documents for the filing of a criminal case against accused-appellant.
Palconit: We turned over the confiscated evidence to the investigator and we informed our CO that the operation was positive.
Prosecutor Sampayo: What were the confiscated items which were turned over?
Palconit: Buy bust money, one sachet which I bought and two other sachets which were recovered from the suspect.27
Prosecutor Sampayo: When the marked money was recovered and two other sachets were recovered, what did you do?There are several unexplained and doubtful points in this step.
Palconit: The suspect was brought to the PDEA office.
Prosecutor Sampayo: What did you do at the PDEA office?
Palconit: We turned over the confiscated evidence to the investigator and we informed our CO that the operation was positive.
Prosecutor Sampayo: What were the confiscated items which were turned over?
Palconit: Buy bust money, one sachet which I bought and two other sachets which were recovered from the suspect.
Prosecutor Sampayo: What was done with the confiscated sachets, the one that was bought and the two others which were recovered from the target person?
Palconit: When we arrived at the office, we made a request for laboratory examination.
Prosecutor Sampayo: What did you do with the items?
Palconit: We placed markings on the confiscated items.30x x x
Prosecutor Sampayo: After putting the markings, what did you do?
Palconit: We brought it to the crime laboratory.
Prosecutor Sampayo: Who personally brought it?
Palconit: Me.
Prosecutor Sampayo: Why did you bring it to the crime laboratory.
Palconit: For laboratory examination.31
Endnotes:
1 Penned by Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios with Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Associate Justice Maria Elisa Sempio Diy, concurring; rollo, pp. 2-10.
2 Penned by Executive Judge Ronaldo B. Martin; CA rollo, pp. 36-41.
3 CA rollo, p. 36.
4 Id. at 37.
5 Id. at 41.
6Rollo, p. 10.
7 Id. at 16-17.
8 Id. at 23-24.
9 Id. at 18-19.
10People v. Roble, 663 Phil. 147, 157 (2011).
11People v. Alcuizar, 662 Phil. 794, 808 (2011).
12 Id.
13People v. Alcuizar, 662 Phil. 794, 801 (2011).
14 Guidelines of the Custody and Disposition of Seized Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals and Laboratory Equipment.
15 576 Phil. 576 (2008).
16 Id. at 587-589.
17 745 SCRA 221 (2015).
18 Id. at 240-241.
19People v. Resurrecion, 618 Phil. 520 (2009).
20 Records, p. 6-7.
21 Id. at 8-9.
22 TSN, March 23, 2006, p. 8.
23 591 Phil. 259 (2008).
24People v. Holgado, G.R. No. 207992, August 11, 2014, 732 SCRA 554, 570.
25People v. Sabdula, 733 Phil. 85, 100-101 (2014).
26 Supra note 17 at 244.
27 TSN, March 23, 2006, p. 7.
28 639 Phil. 134 (2010).
29 Supra note 17 at 245.
30 TSN, March 23, 2006, p. 8.
31 Id. at 9.
32 Records, p. 22.
33 Id.
34 724 Phil. 788 (2014).
35 Supra note 17 at 247.
36 599 Phil. 416, 432-433 (2009).
37People v. Lorenzo, 633 Phil. 393 (2010).
38 Id. at 403.
39People v. Sabdula, 733 Phil. 85, 101 (2014).