THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 212195, February 21, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NAMRAIDA ALBOKA Y NANING @ "MALIRA," Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
MARTIRES, J.:
This resolves the appeal of Namraida Alboka y Naning @ "Malira" (Alboka) from the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA), Seventeenth Division, in CA G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04918 which affirmed the Judgment2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 204, Muntinlupa City, in Criminal Case Nos. 07-904 and 07-905 finding her guilty of Violation of Section (Sec.) 5 in relation to Sec. 26 and Sec. 11, both of Article (Art.) II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165.
When arraigned, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges against her.5 Joint trial of the cases thereafter proceeded.Crim. Case No. 07-9043
(For Violation of Sec. 5 in relation to Sec. 26, Art. II of R.A. 9165)
That on or about the 1st day of December 2007, in the City of Muntinlupa, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating, and mutually aiding one another, not being authorized by law, did then and there wilfully and unlawfully sell, trade, deliver, and give away to another one (1) piece of heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, weighing 0.05 grams, in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.Crim. Case No. 07-9054
(For Violation of Sec. 11, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165)
That on or about the 1st day of December 2007 in the City of Muntinlupa, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law, did then and there wilfully and unlawfully have in her possession, custody and control two (2) pieces of heat sealed transparent plastic sachets each containing Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug weighing 0.05 gram each, in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
That PS/Insp. Richard Allan B. Mangalip is a forensic chemist connected with the SPD Crime Laboratory, Makati City as of December 2, 2007 and that he is an expert in forensic chemistry;The Version of the Defense
That pursuant to the Request for Laboratory Examination, he conducted laboratory examination on the specimen which consists of one (1) small brown envelope containing: one (1) small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with white crystalline substance; two (2) small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance; and one (1) small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance, and which tested positive for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride.26
WHEREFORE, finding accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 in Criminal Case No. 07-907, NAMRAIDA ALBOKA y NANING is sentenced to LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of Php500,000.00; and of Violation of Sec. 11, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 in Criminal Case No. 07-905, she is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to fourteen (14) years as maximum and to pay a fine of Php300,000.00.The Ruling of the CA
The subject drug items are ordered transmitted to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for proper disposition.
The preventive imprisonment undergone by the accused shall be credited in her favour.
SO ORDERED.32
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present appeal is DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed decision dated January 28, 2011, rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 204, Muntinlupa City, is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.36ISSUE
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE FACT THAT HER GUILT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
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.The chain of custody was further explained by this Court in Mallillin v. People,50viz:
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, Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 provides for the manner by which law enforcement officers should handle the 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 possession 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.
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:Thus, as a general rule, the four links in the chain of custody of the confiscated item must be established: 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.51 The prosecution has the burden of proving each of the link from the moment of seizure up to its presentation in court as evidence of the corpus delicti.
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.
a. the seizure and markingLagos claimed that he placed the markings "GL-1-011207," "GL-2-011207," "GL-3-011207," and "GL-4-011207" on the sachet of shabu handed to him by Malira and on the three other sachets recovered. Worthy of note, however, was the evident failure of the prosecution in eliciting from its witnesses where and when the markings were placed, and whether the markings were placed in the presence of the accused-appellant. While it was during the re-cross examination that it was shown that the markings were placed by Lagos at the scene of the crime,53 the joint affidavit of arrest was deafeningly quiet on this matter.
People v. Breis52 defined marking as follows:
"Marking" is the placing by the apprehending officer of some distinguishing signs with his/her initials and signature on the items seized. It helps ensure that the dangerous drugs seized upon apprehension are the same dangerous drugs subjected to inventory and photography when these activities are undertaken at the police station or at some other practicable venue rather than at the place of arrest Consistency with the "chain of custody" rule requires that the "marking" of the seized items to truly ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence - should be done (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator (2) immediately upon confiscation.
| Very truly yours, |
(SGD) | |
WILFREDO V. LAPITAN | |
Division Clerk of Court |
"WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, we REVERSE and SET ASIDE the 23 October 2013 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04918. Accused-Appellant NAMRAIDA ALBOKA y NANING @ "MALIRA" is hereby ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove her guilty beyond reasonable doubt. She is ordered IMMEDIATELY RELEASED unless she is otherwise detained for some other case/s.NOW, THEREFORE, You are hereby ordered to immediately release NAMRAIDA ALBOKA Y NANING @ "MALIRA" unless there are other lawful causes for which she 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 the action he has taken to this Court within five (5) days from receipt of this Decision.
SO ORDERED."
| Very truly yours, |
(SGD) | |
WILFREDO V. LAPITAN | |
Division Clerk of
Court |
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 2-12. Penned by Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon and concurred in by Associate Justices Florito S. Macalino and Pedro B. Corales.
2 Records, pp. 202-212. Penned by Judge Juanita T. Guerrero.
3 Id. at 1.
4 Id. at 2.
5 Id. at 31.
6 Id. at 173, Exh. "A."
7 Id. at 174, Exh. "B."
8 Id. at 175, Exh. "C."
9 Id. at 176, Exhs. "D" and "D-1."
10 TSN, 2 October 2008, pp. 4-8.
11 Id. at 9-11; Records p. 5.
12 Id. at 11-14.
13 TSN 27 May 2010 p. 3, Exh. "K."
14 Id. Exh. "K-1."
15 Id. Exh. "K-2."
16 Id. Exh. "K-3."
17 TSN, 2 October 2008, pp. 14-18.
18 Records, p. 177, Exh. "E."
19 Id. at 179, Exh. "G."
20 Id. at 178, Exh. "F."
21 TSN, 2 October 2008, pp. 19-20.
22 Records, p. 181, Exh. "I."
23 Id. at 180, Exh. "H."
24 Id. at 182-183, Exh. "J."
25 TSN, 2 October 2008, pp. 21-22.
26 Records, p. 68.
27 TSN, 23 September 2010, pp. 3-6.
28 Id. at 7-9.
29 Id. at 9-10.
30 Records, p. 209.
31 Id. at 211.
32 Id. at 212.
33Rollo, pp. 7-9.
34 Id. at 9-10.
35 Id. at 10.
36 Id. at 11.
37People v. Baay, G.R. No. 220143, 7 June 2017.
38People v. Belen, G.R. No. 215331, 23 January 2017.
39Dela Cruz v. People, G.R. No. 163494, 3 August 2016, 799 SCRA 216, 224-225.
40Section 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, 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.
The penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) 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 controlled precursor and essential chemical, or shall act as a broker in such transactions.
If the sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution or transportation of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical transpires within one hundred (100) meters from the school, the maximum penalty shall be imposed in every case.
For drug pushers who use minors or mentally incapacitated individuals as runners, couriers and messengers, or in any other capacity directly connected to the dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemical trade, the maximum penalty shall be imposed in every case.
If the victim of the offense is a minor or a mentally incapacitated individual, or should a dangerous drug and/or a controlled precursor and essential chemical involved in any offense herein provided be the proximate cause of death of a victim thereof, the maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed.
The maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed upon any person who organizes, manages or acts as a "financier" of any of the illegal activities prescribed in this Section.
The penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years of imprisonment and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who acts as a "protector/coddler" of any violator of the provisions under this Section.
41 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" and dated 7 June 2002.
42People v. Macapundag, G.R. No. 225965, 13 March 2017,
43People v. Ismael, G.R. No. 208093, 20 February 2017.
44Section 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:
(1) 10 grams or more of opium;
(2) 10 grams or more of morphine;
(3) 10 grams or more of heroin;
(4) 10 grams or more of cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride;
(5) 50 grams or more of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu";
(6) 10 grams or more of marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil;
(7) 500 grams or more of marijuana; and
(8) 10 grams or more of other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDA) or "ecstasy", paramethoxyamphetamine (PMA), trimethoxyamphetamine (TMA), lysergic acid diethylamine (LSD), gamma hydroxyamphetamine (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, as determined and promulgated by the Board in accordance to Section 93, Article XI of this Act.
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be graduated as follows:
(1) Life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), if the quantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu" is ten (10) grams or more but less than fifty (50) grams;
(2) Imprisonment of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are five (5) grams or more but less than ten (10) 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 three hundred (300) grams or more but less than five (hundred) 500) grams of marijuana; and
(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.
45People v. Macapundag, supra note 42.
46People v. Hementiza, G.R. No. 227398, 22 March 2017.
47People v. Arce, G.R. No. 217979, 22 February 2017.
48People v. Ismael, supra note 43.
49 Entitled "Guidelines of the Custody and Disposition of Seized Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals and Laboratory Equipment."
50 576 Phil. 576, 587-589 (2008).
51People v. Gayoso, G.R. No. 206590, 27 March 2017.
52 766 Phil. 785, 801-802 (2015).
53 TSN, 6 November 2008, p. 20.
54 Id. at 20-21.
55 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.
56Gamboa v. People, G.R. No. 220333, 14 November 2016.
57People v. Barte, G.R. No. 179749, 1 March 2017.
58 TSN, 6 November 2008, p. 16-17.
59 Id. at 19-20; TSN, 2 October 2008, p. 19; TSN, 3 September 2009, p. 16.
60People v. Hementiza, supra note 46.
61People v. Barte, supra note 57.
62People v. Gayoso, supra note 51.
63Gamboa v. People, supra note 56.
64People v. Gayoso, supra note 51.
65People v. Manson, G.R. No. 215341, 28 November 2016.
66Daayata v. People, G.R. No. 205745, 8 March 2017.
67People v. Claro, G.R. No. 199894, 5 April 2017.
68People v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 211721, 20 September 2017.
69People v. Barte, supra note 57.
70People v. Ismael, supra note 43.
71People v. Hementiza, supra note 46.