THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 228880, March 06, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. LINA ACHIENG NOAH, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
LEONEN, J.:
This resolves an appeal from the Court of Appeals July 29, 2016 Decision1 in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 07006, affirming the conviction of accused-appellant Lina Achieng Noah (Noah) for violating Article II, Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, for the illegal transportation of dangerous drugs.
On April 16, 2012, an Information was filed charging Noah with violation of Article II, Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165.2 It read in part:
That on or about the 24th day of February 2012, in Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously transport and bring to the Philippines a total of 5,941.9 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride.On her arraignment last March 28, 2012, Noah pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. On July 25, 2012, pre-trial was conducted and, afterwards, trial on the merits ensued.4
CONTRARY TO LAW.3
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the prosecution, having discharged its bounden duty to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the accused, LINA ACHIENG NOAH, is hereby found guilty of the offense charged in the Information and is hereby sentenced to suffer a penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00).On March 11, 2015, Noah filed an Appeal24 before the Court of Appeals.
The Branch Officer-in-Charge is hereby directed to coordinate with, and transmit to the PDEA, the representative samples previously extracted from the confiscated specimens for its proper disposition.
Furnish the Legal and Prosecution Service of the PDEA, the prosecutor, the accused and her counsel, copies of this decision.23 (Emphasis in the original)
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated 16 January 2014 of Branch 116, Regional Trial Court of Pasay City in Criminal Case No. R-PSY-12-04855-CR is AFFIRMED.The Court of Appeals held that Noah's act of transporting the seized shabu to the Philippines fell under Section 5 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. Moreover, since her act was malum prohibitum, its mere commission constituted the offense.27 It rendered the search valid despite being warrantless, ruling that the operation was a customs search.28 Further, it agreed with the trial court that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were properly preserved.29
SO ORDERED.26 (Emphasis in the original)
SECTION 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 essential element for the crime of illegal transportation of dangerous drugs is the movement of the dangerous drug from one (1) place to another.41 To establish the accused's guilt, it must be proven that: (1) the transportation of illegal drugs was committed; and (2) the prohibited drug exists.42
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 into 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.Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640, provides the standard for the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered drugs and/or drug paraphernalia, spelling out the requirements for custody prior to the filing of a criminal case:
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 exhibit's 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.49 (Citations 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:Compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 ensures the integrity of the seized items. In contrast, noncompliance tarnishes the credibility of the corpus delicti, on which prosecutions under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act are based.51
(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.
(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 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.50
Thus, the following links should be established in the chain of custody of the confiscated item: 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.53 (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)When the identity of corpus delicti is compromised by noncompliance with Section 21, critical elements of the offense of illegal transportation of dangerous drugs are not proven. This warrants an accused's acquittal.54
This Court is convinced that the apprehending officers have complied with the requirements under Section 21. Based on the records, there was an unbroken chain of custody of the seized shabu from the time of its discovery up to its presentation in court. The prosecution established that in the exclusion room, Landicho continued inspecting the luggage before airport officers, government agents, and accused-appellant herself. There were even pictures showing that accused-appellant was present during the field test, marking, and inventory of the seized items.
- Suspicious of the unusually sewed bag of appellant, Landicho asked her to follow him at the exclusion room for further examination of her luggage;
- While inside the exclusion room, Landicho further examined the bag in the presence of appellant, Teresita Roque (Deputy Collector for Passenger Services), Roxanne Antonio (Supervisor), Nelson Lavilles (Warehouseman), other Customs staff and some media men;
- Upon discovery of the packages of shabu, Landicho affixed his initials "MRL", signature and date thereon;
- After marking, Landicho prepared the Inventory Report dated 24 February 2012. This was witnessed by the representatives of Customs Task Force on Dangerous Drugs, Narcotics Group and the Department of Justice;
- Landicho turned over the Inventory Report together with appellant's personal belongings to the PDEA and Customs Task Force[;]
- SA Noble then asked appellant if she can understand English, to which she replied in positive. He apprised appellant of her constitutional rights and thereafter effected arrest;
- Agent Fajardo of PDEA turned over the luggage and bag to Forensic Chemist Ariane Arcos;
- After proper documentation, Arcos conducted physical and chemical examinations;
- Arcos then prepared Chemistry Report No. PDEA-DD012-067 dated 25 February 2012;
- When the specimen subject of her examination was brought to court, Arcos identified it to be the same sample she took; and
- Landicho positively identified it to be the one seized from appellant.56 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
Very truly yours, (SGD) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN Division Clerk of Court |
Endnotes:
* Designated additional Member per Special Order No. 2624 dated November 28, 2018.
1Rollo, pp. 2-19. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Francisco, and concurred in by Associate Justices Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and Danton Q. Bueser of the Fourteenth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
2 Id. at 3.
3 CA rollo, p. 134.
4 Id.
5 Id. at 86, RTC Decision, and 134.
6 Id.
7 Id. at 134.
8 Id. at 86.
9 Id. at 135.
10 Id. at 87 and 135.
11 Id.
12 Id. at 135.
13 Id. at 88 and 135.
14 Id. at 135-136.
15 Id. at 88 and 136. Marquis reagent was misspelled as "marquee reagent" in the RTC Decision.
16 Id. at 88.
17 Id. at 89-90 and 136.
18 Cameroon was misspelled as "Cameroun" in the rollo.
19 CA rollo, pp. 136-137.
20 Id. at 85-106. The Decision was penned by Judge Racquelen Abary-Vasquez of Branch 116, Regional Trial Court, Pasay City.
21 Id. at 96.
22 Id. at 95-105.
23 Id. at 105-106.
24 Id. at 55-84.
25Rollo, pp. 2-19.
26 CA rollo, pp. 149-150.
27 Id. at 140-141.
28 Id. at 144-145.
29 Id. at 147.
30 Id. at 160-162.
31Rollo, pp. 25-26.
32 Id. at 27-31.
33 Id. at 32-38.
34 Id. at 32-33.
35 Id.
36 Id. at 34.
37 CA rollo, p. 124.
38 Id. at 124-125.
39People v. Dimaano, 780 Phil. 586, 603 [Per J. Leonen, Second Division] citing People v. Laba, 702 Phil. 301 (2013) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division].
40 Id. citing People v. Guzon, 719 Phil. 441 (2013) [Per J. Reyes, First Division].
41People v. Asislo, 778 Phil. 509 (2016) [Per J. Peralta, Third Division].
42People v. Watamama, 692 Phil. 102, 106 (2012) [Per J. Villarama, Jr., First Division].
43People v. Mariacos, 635 Phil. 315 (2010) [Per J. Nachura, Second Division].
44People v. Casacop, 755 Phil. 265, 276 (2015) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
45People v. Guzon, 719 Phil. 441 (2013) [Per J. Reyes, First Division].
46People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 29 (2017) [Per J. Del Castillo, First Division] citing Fajardo v. People, 691 Phil. 752 (2012) [Per J. Perez, Second Division].
47 Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, (2002), sec. 1(b).
48 576 Phil. 576 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
49 Id. at 587-589.
50 Rep. Act No. 9165 (2002), secs. 21(1), (2), and (3).
51People v. Que, G.R. No. 212994, January 31, 2018, [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
52 639 Phil. 134 (2010) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].
53 Id. at 144-145.
54People v. Que, G.R. No. 212994, January 31, 2018, [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
55People v. Del Mundo, 418 Phil. 740 (2001) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division].
56 CA rollo, pp. 148-149. In item no. 4, the Court of Appeals left out Julie Fabroa, the airport's media representative, and Barangay Councilor Mel Anthony Bajada.
57 Id. at 148.