SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 208471, August 02, 201
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ERNESTO SAGANA Y DE GUZMAN, Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
LEONEN, J.:
The miniscule quantity of confiscated illicit drugs heightens the importance of a more stringent conformity to Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.1
This Court resolves this appeal2 filed by Ernesto Sagana y De Guzman (Sagana) from the Decision3 of the Court of Appeals dated February 26, 2013 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05154.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the Regional Trial Court's ruling4 that Sagana was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
On July 22, 2010, two (2) Informations for violation of Article II, Sections 56 and 117 of Republic Act No. 9165 were filed against Sagana.8 The charging portions of the Informations read:
Upon arraignment, Sagana pleaded not guilty to the charges.10Criminal Case No. 2010-0390-D
That on or about the 21st day of July 2010, in the City of Dagupan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, ERNESTO SAGANA Y DE GUZMAN @ Nestor, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and criminally, sell and deliver to a customer Methamphetamine Hydrochlori.de contained in one (1) heat[-]sealed plastic sachet, weighing more or less 0.12 gram in exchange for P500.00, without authority do so.
Contrary to Article II, Section 5, R.A. 9165.Criminal Case No. 2010-0391-D
That on or about the 21st day of July 2010, in the City of Dagupan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, ERNESTO SAGANAY [sic] Y DE GUZMAN @ Nestor, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and criminally, have in his possession, custody and control Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu) contained in five (5) heat[-]sealed plastic sachets, weighing more or less 0.59 gram, without authority to possess the same.
Contrary to Article II, Section 11, R.A. 9165.9 (Emphasis in the original)
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Ernesto Sagana y de Guzman GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt in. Criminal Case No. 2010-0390-D for selling and delivering shabu weighing 0.12 gram to a poseur buyer in violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act [No.] 9165, and pursuant to law, he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and [a] fine of P500,000.00 and to pay the cost of suit.On appeal,30 Sagana asserted that the police officers failed to comply with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 and its implementing rules.31 He argued that the trial court allegedly erred in finding him guilty of the charges.32
In Criminal Case no. 2010-0391-D, the court likewise finds the accused Ernesto Sagana y de Guzman GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for Possession of 0.59 gram of Shabu, a dangerous drug, in violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act [No.] 9165 and pursuant to law, he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and [a] fine of P400,000.00 and to pay the cost of suit.
SO ORDERED.29 (Emphasis in the original)
(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and its consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.58In illegal sale of dangerous drugs, it is necessary that the sale transaction actually happened and that "the [procured] object is properly presented as evidence in court and is shown to be the same drugs seized from the accused."59
[1] the accused was in possession of dangerous drugs; [2] such possession was not authorized by law; and [3] the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of dangerous drugs.60In both cases involving illegal sale and illegal possession, the illicit drugs confiscated from the accused comprise the corpus delicti of the charges.61
b. "Chain of custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plants sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment at 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 w[as] made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition[.]In compliance with the chain of custody, the prosecution must identify the persons involved in handling the seized articles from confiscation up to their presentation as evidence.67Concomitantly, the prosecution should also offer statements pertaining to each link of the chain "in such a way that every person who touched the illegal drugs would describe how and from whom they were received, where they were and what happened to them while in his or her possession, the condition in which he or she received them, and their condition upon delivery."68
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.70 (Emphasis supplied)The prosecution in this case offered testimonies corroborating the narration of the alleged sale of illicit drugs that paved the way for Sagana's arrest. However, there were apparent lapses in the chain of custody that cast doubt on the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti. Hence, the prosecution failed to establish that the miniscule amounts of 0.12 grams and 0.59 grams of dangerous drugs presented as evidence in court were the very same ones allegedly seized and retrieved from Sagana.
"[B]y the very nature of anti-narcotics operations, the need for entrapment procedures, the use of shady characters as informants, the ease with which sticks of marijuana or grams of heroin can be planted in pockets or hands of unsuspecting provincial hicks, and the secrecy that inevitably shrouds all drug deals, the possibility of abuse is great." Thus, the courts have been exhorted to be extra vigilant in trying drug cases lest an innocent person is made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug offenses.75 (Emphasis provided)Thus, it is essential that the chain of custody is established in buy-bust operations. This includes:
First, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer;Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, the then77 prevailing law, provides the manner in dealing with confiscated articles in drug cases. This mandated procedure emphasizes "the value of preserving the chain of custody in relation to the dangerous drugs."78 Hence, the prosecution must prove compliance to establish the elements of the charges.79
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 by the forensic chemist to the court.76 (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)
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:This is further elucidated in its Implementing Rules and Regulations, which state:(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 prosecution's narration of events reveals that the police officers did not to conform with the chain of custody. This is in contravention to Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, which is mandatory in nature, as reflected in the presence of the word "shall"81 in the provision.(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)
Q: When you signaled your other companions, what happened next?"Every person who takes possession of seized drugs must show how it was handled and preserved while in his or her custody to prevent any switching or replacement."96 In a number of drug cases,97 this Court ruled that the failure of the prosecution to offer the testimonies of the persons who had direct contact with the confiscated items without ample explanation casts doubt on whether the allegedly seized shabu were the very same ones presented in court.
A: I frisked them and I was able to confiscate around 5 plastic sachets of shabu from the said suspect, madam.
....
Q: What markings did you place in the pieces of shabu?
A: My initial (sic) LCS, Madam.
Q: After you have placed [the] marking (sic) on the items, what did you do next?
A: I prepared the confiscation receipt, madam.
Q: Where did you prepare the confiscation receipt?
A: In the area, madam.
Q: What are you referring to?
A: At the place of the incident, madam.
Q: After you prepared the confiscation receipt, what did you do next?
A: We brought them in our office, madam.
....
Q: Upon arrival at your office, what did you do next?
A: We indorsed them to the desk officer for recording, madam.
Q: Where was it recorded?
A: In the police blotter, Madam.
Q After you have it recorded in the police blotter, what did you do next?
A: We prepared a request for examination, madam.
Q: Who prepared for (sic) the request for examination, what happened next?
A: The investigator, madam.
Q: After the preparation of the request for examination, what happened next?
A: I brought the same to the Crime Laboratory, madam.95 (Emphasis supplied)
It is lamentable that while our dockets are clogged with prosecutions under Republic Act No. 9165 involving small-time drug users and retailers, we are seriously short of prosecutions involving the proverbial "big fish." We are swamped with cases involving small fry who have been arrested for miniscule amounts. While they are certainly a bane to our society, small retailers are but low-lying fruits in an exceedingly vast network of drug cartels. Both law enforcers and prosecutors should realize that the more effective and efficient strategy is to focus resources more on the source and true leadership of these nefarious organizations. Otherwise, all these executive and judicial resources expended to attempt to convict an accused for 0.05 gram of shabu under doubtful custodial arrangements will hardly make a dent in the overall picture. It might in fact be distracting our law enforcers from their more challenging task: to uproot the causes of this drag menace. We stand ready to assess cases involving greater amounts of drugs and the leadership of these cartels.111WHEREFORE, premises considered, the February 26, 2013 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.CR-H.C. No. 05154 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Ernesto Sagana y De Guzman 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. Let entry of final judgment be issued immediately.
Endnotes:
1People v. Holgado y Dela Cruz, 741 Phil. 78, 81 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
2Rollo, pp. 19-21.
3 Id. at 2-18. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla and concurred in by Associate justices Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente and Agnes Reyes-Carpio of the Eighth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
4 CA rollo, pp. 16-23. The Decision, dated July 19, 2011, was penned by Judge Emma M. Torio of Branch 41, Regional Trial Court, Dagupan City.
5Rollo, p. 18, CA Decision
6 Rep. Act No. 9165, sec. 5 provides:
Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drags 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, including 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.
....
7 Rep. Act No. 9165, sec. 11 provides:
Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. — 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 possess any dangerous drug in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof:
....
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be graduated as follows:
....
(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu", or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy", PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or less than three hundred (300) grams of marijuana.
8Rollo, pp. 4-5.
9 Id. at 5.
10 Id.
11 Id. at 3.
12 Id.
13 Id.
14 Id.
15 Id.
16 Id. at 3-4.
17 Id. at 4.
18 Id.
19 Id.
20 Id. In the CA Decision, they referred to shabu as "methylamphetamine hydrochloride."
21 Id. at 16.
22 Id. at 4.
23 Id.
24 Id.
25 Id.
26 CA rollo, p. 23.
27 Id. at 22.
28 Id. at 21.
29 Id. at 23.
30 Id. at 24.
31Rollo, pp. 6-7.
32 Id. at 7-9.
33 Id. at 18.
34 Id. at 8.
35 Id. at 9.
36 Id. at 1.
37 Id. at 22.
38 Id. at 19-21.
39 Id. at 24.
40 Id. at 25-27.
41 Id. at 34-36.
42 CA rollo, p. 51.
43 Id.
44 Id. at 51-52.
45 Id.
46 Id. at 52-53.
47 Id. at 56.
48 Id.
49 Id. at 77-92, Appellee's Brief.
50 Id. at 85.
51 Id. at 86-87.
52 Id. at 89.
53 Id.
54People v. Sanchez y Espiritu, 590 Phil. 214, 229 (2008) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
55 Id. at 230.
56 Id.
57 Id.
58People v. Ismael y Raclang, G.R. No. 208093, February 20, 2017. http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2017/february2017/208093.pdf 6 [Per J. Del Castillo, First Division].
59 Id.
60 Id.
61 Id.
62Lopez v. People, 725 Phil. 499, 507 (2014) [Per J. Perez, Second Division].
63 Id.
64People v. Lagahit, 746 Phil. 896, 908 (2014) [Per J. Perez, First Division].
65People v. Ismael y Radang, G.R. No. 208093, February 20, 2017 6 [Per J. Del Castillo, First Division].
66People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 227 (2015) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].
67People v. Goco y Ombrog, G.R. No. 219584, October 17, 2016 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2016/october2016/219584.pdf 7 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, First Division].
68 Id.
69 576 Phil. 576 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
70 Id. at 588-589.
71Rollo, p. 3.
72People v. Garcia v. Ruiz, 599 Phil. 416, 426-427 (2009) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
73 Id.
74 401 Phil. 259 (2000) [Per J. Melo, Third Division].
75 Id. at 273.
76People v. Casacop y De Castro, 755 Phil. 265, 278 (2015) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division] citing People v. Remigio, 700 Phil. 452, 468 (2012) [Per J. Perez, Second Division] and People v. Kamad, 624 Phil. 289, 304 (2010) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
77 Before the amendment by Rep. Act No. 10640 (2014).
78People v. Alagarme y Citoy, 754 Phil, 449, 459 (2015) [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].
79People v. Garcia y Ruiz, 599 Phil. 416, 426 (2009) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
80 Id. at 427.
81People v. Sanchez y Espiritu, 590 Phil. 214, 231 (2008) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
82 CA rollo, p. 17.
83 Id. at 17-18.
84 Id. at 17.
85People v. Reyes, G.R. No. 199271, October 19, 2016 13 [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].
86People v. Mendoza y Estrada, 736 Phil 749, 762 (2014) [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].
87People v. Umipang y Abdul, 686 Phil. 1024, 1053 (2012) [Per C.J. Sereno, Second Division].
88 CA rollo, pp. 17-18.
89People v. Umipang y Abdul, 686 Phil. 1024, 1037-1038 (2012) [Per C.J. Sereno, Second Division].
90Rollo, p.3.
91Lescano y Carreon v. People, G.R. No. 214490, January 13, 2016 12 [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
92 Id.
93 Id.
94People v. De la Cruz y Lizing, 591 Phil. 259, 270 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
95Rollo, p. 11.
96People v. Ismael y Radang, G.R. No. 208093, February 20, 2017 11 [Per J. Del Castillo, First Division].
97See Carino v. People, 600 Phil. 433 (2009) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division], People v. Sanchez y Espiritu, 590 Phil. 214 (2008) [Per J. Brion, Second Division], Maltillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
98Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 586 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
99See rollo, p. 10.
100Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 587-588 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
101People v. Sanchez y Espiritu, 590 Phil. 214, 234 (2008) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
102People v. Holgado y Dela Cruz, 741 Phil. 78, 93 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
103People v. Ong y Li, 476 Phil. 553, 571-572 (2004) [Per J. Puno, En Banc].
104Lescano y Carreon v. People, G.R. No. 214490, January 13, 2016 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2016/january2016/214490.pdf 14 [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
105People v. Ong y Li, 476 Phil. 553, 572 (2004) [Per J. Puno, En Banc].
106People v. Casacop y De Castro, G.R. No, 208685, March 9, 2015, 755 Phil. 265, 284 [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
107 Id.
108 Id.
109 Id.
110 748 Phil. 78 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
111 Id. at 100.