THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 222192, March 13, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. LAHMODIN AMERIL Y ABDUL @ "AMOR/MHONG", ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
LEONEN, J.:
At the core of every prosecution for the sale of illegal drugs is the constitutional mandate of the State to adduce proof on the identity and integrity of the seized illegal drugs. The wisdom behind this burden is to ensure that the items seized were neither tampered nor contaminated. Failure to overcome such burden calls for the acquittal of the accused.1
This resolves an Appeal from the Court of Appeals April 20, 2015 Decision2 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05502, which convicted Lahmodin Ameril y Abdul @ "Amor/Mhong" of violation of Article II, Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
In an Information,3 dated April 24, 2006 Ameril was charged with violation of Article II, Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165. The accusatory portion read:
That on or about April 17, 2006, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, not being authorized by law to sell, trade, deliver or give away to another any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell or offer for sale three (3) transparent plastic sachets with the following markings and net weights, to wit:On arraignment, Ameril pleaded not guilty. Trial on the merits then ensued.5
1. "LAA" containing four point four one one two (4.4112) grams;
2. "LAA-2" containing four point four three five zero (4.4350) grams; and
3. "LAA" containing three point nine seven two seven (3.9727) grams
of white crystalline substance containing Methylamphetamine hydrochloride, known as "SHABU", which is a dangerous drug[.]
Contrary to law.4 (Emphasis in the original)
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:In Mallillin v. People,62 this Court emphasized the importance of the chain of custody:
(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 persons 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. (Emphasis in the original)
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 vs. State positively acknowledged this danger. In that case where a substance 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 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.Failing to comply with Article II, Section 21, Paragraph 1 of Republic Act No. 9165 implies "a concomitant failure on the part of the prosecution to establish the identity of the corpus delicti[,]"64 and "produces doubts as to the origins of the [seized illegal drugs]."65
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.63 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
The chain of custody over the evidence was similarly established. The court is convinced of the integrity and proper preservation of the evidence. SI Fernandez testified that immediately after the arrest of the accused, he marked the evidence as LLA-1, LL-2 and LLA-3 and brought them to their office. Soon after, he delivered the three sachets to their crime laboratory for chemical analysis where it was found positive for illegal drugs. The team likewise substantially complied with the provisions of Section 21 as the evidence seized was properly marked, photographed, and inventoried in the presence of witnesses from the barangay and the media.Contrary to the Regional Trial Court's findings, the integrity of the seized illegal drugs was not preserved.
....
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the court finds the accused LAHMODIN AMERIL y ABDUL a. k. a. "Amor/Mhong", GUILTY, beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165, and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment AND to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).68
PO1 Garcia testified that he had marked the seized item (on the wrapper) with the initial "RP-1". However, an examination of the two documents showed a different marking: on one hand, what was submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory consisted of a single piece telephone directory paper containing suspected dried marijuana leaves fruiting tops with the marking "RGR-1" and thirteen pieces of rolling paper with the markings "RGR-RP1" to "RGR-RP13"; on the other hand, the PNP Crime Laboratory examined the following items with the corresponding markings: a printed paper with the marking "RGR-1" together with one small brick of dried suspected marijuana fruiting tops and thirteen pieces of small white paper with the markings "RGP-RP1" to "RGP-RP13".Here, like in Garcia, there is a discrepancy in the markings of the illegal drugs seized from accused-appellant. This raises doubts if the items presented in court were the exact ones taken from accused-appellant.73
PO1 Garcia's testimony is the only testimonial evidence on record relating to the handling and marking of the seized items since the testimony of the forensic chemist in the case had been dispensed with by agreement between the prosecution and the defense. Unfortunately, PO1 Garcia was not asked to explain the discrepancy in the markings. Neither can the stipulated testimony of the forensic chemist now shed light on this point, as the records available to us do not disclose the exact details of the parties' stipulations.
To our mind, the procedural lapses in the handling and identification of the seized items, as well as the unexplained discrepancy in their markings, collectively raise doubts on whether the items presented in court were the exact same items that were taken from Ruiz when he was arrested. These constitute major lapses that, standing unexplained, are fatal to the prosecution's case.72 (Emphasis in the original, citations omitted)
However, on cross-examination, Special Investigator Fernandez stated that he marked the seized illegal drugs with initials LAA-1, LAA-2, and LAA-3:
Q For your information the Forensic Chemist inc (sic) charge of this case previously submitted to this Court the sachet you bought from this Alyas Amor, without first showing this to you please state for the record, how will you be able to recognize this? A I think I have my signatures on the plastic sachet and placed the initials LLA-1 and LLA-3.74 (Emphasis supplied)
Q - So since you marked it on the target area, were you able to ask the person there from the barangay to witness the marking Mr. Witness?That the integrity of the corpus delicti had been compromised was further magnified by the gap in the chain of custody. Special Investigator Fernandez merely testified that he submitted the seized illegal drugs to the Forensic Chemistry Division for examination and safekeeping. He did not identify the person to whom he gave the seized illegal drugs upon delivery.76
A - Yes, sir.
Q - And who was that?
A - It was the Kagawad of the barangay, sir, and also the media from the Police File Tonight, (sic) sir.
Q - You mean to say Mr. Witness, you have a form of the Inventory of the Seized Items with you at that time?
A - Yes, sir.
Q - So since you followed the Inventory you were able to photograph it?
A - Of course, because that is the procedure, sir.
Q - But Mr. Witness, there is nothing on file of the photographed (sic) of the seized items, but at any rate, you said you marked it Mr. Witness?
A - I placed LAA-1, LAA-2 and LAA-3, sir.75 (Emphasis supplied)
Moreover, the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties cannot work in favor of the law enforcers since the records revealed severe lapses in complying with the requirements provided for under the law. "The presumption stands when no reason exists in the records by which to doubt the regularity of the performance of official duty." Thus, this presumption "will never be stronger than the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. Otherwise, a mere rule of evidence will defeat the constitutionally enshrined right of an accused to be presumed innocent."82 (Citations omitted)Moreover, in People v. Mirantes:83
The oft-cited presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions cannot by itself affect the constitutional presumption of innocence enjoyed by an accused, particularly when the prosecution's evidence is weak. The evidence of the prosecution must be strong enough to pierce the shield of this presumptive innocence and to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. And where the evidence of the prosecution is insufficient to overcome this presumption, necessarily, the judgment of conviction of the court a quo must be set aside. The onus probandi on the prosecution is not discharged by casting doubts upon the innocence of an accused, but by eliminating all reasonable doubts as to his guilt.84 (Citations omitted)The totality of the evidence presented shows that the arresting officers who conducted the buy-bust operation were remiss in the performance of their official functions. They made discrepancies in the markings of the seized illegal drugs, and failed to comply with the chain of custody. Consequently, the presumption of regularity in favor of arresting officers is negated.
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 drug menace. We stand ready to assess cases involving greater amounts of drugs and the leadership of these cartels.86WHEREFORE, the Court of Appeals April 20, 2015 Decision in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05502 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, accused-appellant Lahmodin Ameril y Abdul @ "Amor/Mhong" is 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 some other lawful cause.
| Very truly yours, |
(SGD) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN | |
Division Clerk of Court |
"WHEREFORE, the Court of Appeals April 20, 20.15 Decision in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05502 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Lahmodin Ameril y Abdul @ "Amor/Mhong" is 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 some other lawful cause.NOW, THEREFORE, You are hereby ordered to immediately release LAHMODIN AMERIL y ABDUL @ "AMOR/MHONG" 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 Director of the Bureau of Corrections for immediate implementation. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to report the action he has taken to this Court within five (5) days from receipt of this Decision. For their information, copies shall also be furnished to the Director General of the Philippine National Police and the Director General of the Philippine Drugs Enforcement Agency.
SO ORDERED."
| Very truly yours, |
(SGD) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN | |
Division Clerk of Court |
Endnotes:
* Additional member per Raffle dated October 8, 2018.
** Additional member per Raffle dated March 4, 2019.
1Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
2Rollo, pp. 2-11. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando (now a member of this court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Stephen C. Cruz of the Seventh Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
3 CA Rollo, pp. 12-13.
4 Id. at 12.
5Rollo, p. 3.
6 CA Rollo, p. 19.
7Rollo, p. 3.
8 Id.
9 CA Rollo, p. 19.
10Rollo, p. 3.
11 Id. at 3.
12 Id. at 3-4.
13 Id.
14 Id.
15 Id.
16 Id.
17 CA Rollo, p. 41.
18 RTC Records, p. 6.
19Rollo, p. 4.
20 Id.
21 Id.
22 Id.
23 Id.
24 Id. at 4.
25 Id.
26 RTC Records, p. 5.
27Rollo, pp. 4-5.
28 Id. at 5.
29 CA Rollo, p. 62.
30 Id. at 64.
31 CA Rollo, p. 21.
32 Id.
33 Id.
34Rollo, p. 5.
35 CA Rollo, p. 21.
36Rollo, p. 5.
37 Id.
38 Id.
39 CA Rollo, pp. 17-24. The Decision in Crim. Case No. 06-243457 was penned by Presiding Judge Caroline Rivera-Colasito of Branch 23, Regional Trial Court, Manila.
40 Id. at 21.
41Rollo p. 5.
42 CA Rollo, p. 22.
43 Id.
44 Id.
45 Id. at 25.
46 Id. at 53-76.
47 Id. at 64.
48 Id. at 66.
49 Id. at 67.
50Rollo, pp. 2-11.
51 Id. at 10.
52 Id. at 7.
53 Id. at 9.
54 Id. at 10.
55 Id. at 12-14.
56 CA Rollo, p. 155.
57Rollo, pp. 17-18.
58 Id. at 24-28.
59 Id. at 21-23.
60People v. Morales y Midarasa, 630 Phil. 215, 228 (2010) [Per J. Del Castillo, Second Division].
61Fajardo v. People, 691 Phil. 752, 758-759 (2012) [Per J. Perez, Second Division].
62Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
63 Id. at 588-589.
64People v. Morales y Midarasa, 630 Phil. 215, 229 (2010) [Per J. Del Castillo, Second Division].
65People v. Laxa, 414 Phil. 156, 170 (2001) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].
66 CA Rollo, p. 12.
67 Id. at 22.
68 Id. at 23-24.
69Fajardo v. People, 691 Phil. 752 (2012) [Per J. Perez, Second Division].
70People v. Lorenzo, 633 Phil. 393 (2010) [Per J. Perez, Second Division].
71People v. Garcia, 599 Phil. 416 (2009) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
72 Id. at 431-432.
73 Id. at 432.
74 TSN dated December 14, 2006, p. 20.
75 TSN dated April 7, 2010, p. 7.
76 TSN dated December 14, 2006, p. 28.
77 RTC Records, p. 36.
78 CA Rollo, p. 22.
79Rollo, p. 9.
80People v. Mendoza y Estrada, 736 Phil. 749, 770 (2014) [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].
81People v. Segundo y Iglesias, G.R. No. 205614, July 26, 2017 <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2017/july2017/205614.pdf> [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
82 Id. at 21.
83People v. Mirantes, 284-A Phil. 630 (1992) [Per J. Regalado, Second Division].
84 Id. at 642.
85 741 Phil. 78 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
86 Id. at 100.