THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 233470, August 14, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. ALAN BANDING Y ULAMA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
LEONEN, J.:
The constitutional rights of those who stand to be deprived of life, liberty, and property in a criminal charge involving illegal drugs demand fidelity to the chain of custody rule. To this end, no conviction may ensue where there is reasonable doubt on the confiscated drugs' identity.
This Court resolves an appeal1 assailing the Court of Appeals Decision.2 The Court of Appeals upheld the Regional Trial Court Decision3 finding Alan Banding y Ulama (Banding) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Article II, Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
An Information was filed before the Regional Trial Court, charging Banding with violation of Article II, Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. It read:
That on or about the 20th day of September, 2010, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, without lawful authority did then and there wilfully and unlawfully sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport, or act as broker in the said transaction, a dangerous drug, to wit: 4.35 (four point thirty five) grams of white crystalline substance containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride also known as "shabu", a dangerous drug.On arraignment, Banding pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. Trial then ensued.5
Contrary to law.4
ACCORDINGLY, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused Alan Banding y Ulama @ "Al" GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged, and he is hereby sentenced to suffer a jail term of life imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand (P 500,000.00) Pesos.Giving credence to the prosecution witnesses' testimonies, the trial court ruled that the prosecution was able to establish that a valid buy-bust operation took place and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item were properly preserved.22 Among others, it held that a clerical error—particularly, writing marijuana instead of shabu—in the inventory receipt does not tarnish the police officers' credibility.23 It also found that though the police officers inventoried and photographed the evidence without an elected official and a Department of Justice representative, such lapse was justified since the "illegal drug was never altered or tampered."24
The Branch Clerk of Court is hereby ordered to turn over the subject specimen covered by Chemistry Report No. RD-04-11 to the PDEA Crime Laboratory in order that they be included in its next scheduled date of burning and destruction.
So Ordered.21 (Emphasis in the original)
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Appeal is DENIED and the Decision dated 22 October 2015 rendered by Branch 103, Regional Trial Court of the Quezon City, is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, to read as follows:Thus, Banding filed a Notice of Appeal.29 The Court of Appeals gave due course to it in an April 24, 2017 Resolution.30
"X x x
ACCORDINGLY, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused Alan Banding y Ulama @ "Al" GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged, and he is hereby sentenced to suffer a jail term of life imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) Pesos without eligibility for parole.
X x x"
SO ORDERED.28 (Emphasis in the original)
This rule places upon the prosecution the task of establishing the guilt of an accused, relying on the strength of its own evidence, and not banking on the weakness of the defense of an accused. Requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt finds basis not only in the due process clause of the Constitution, but similarly, in the right of an accused to be "presumed innocent until the contrary is proved." "Undoubtedly, it is the constitutional presumption of innocence that lays such burden upon the prosecution." Should the prosecution fail to discharge its burden, it follows, as a matter of course, that an accused must be acquitted. As explained in Basilio v. People of the Philippines:To sustain an accused's conviction for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be established: "(1) proof that the transaction or sale took place and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence."49
We ruled in People v. Ganguso:An accused has in his favor the presumption of innocence which the Bill of Rights guarantees. Unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt, he must be acquitted. This reasonable doubt standard is demanded by the due process clause of the Constitution which protects the accused from conviction except upon proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, and unless it discharges that burden the accused need not even offer evidence in his behalf, and he would be entitled to an acquittal. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not, of course, mean such degree of proof as, excluding the possibility of error, produce absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. The conscience must be satisfied that the accused is responsible for the offense charged.
Well-entrenched in jurisprudence is the rule that the conviction of the accused must rest, not on the weakness of the defense, but on the strength of the prosecution. The burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, not on the accused to prove his innocence.48 (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 exactitude that Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 requires was later relaxed through the amendments that Republic Act No. 10640 introduced, particularly as to the required third-party witnesses during the seizure, inventory, and photographing.50Lescano v. People51 summarized the present rule:
(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[.] (Emphasis supplied)
Moreover, Section 21 (1) requires at least three (3) persons to be present during the physical inventory and photographing. These persons are: first, the accused or the person/s from whom the items were seized; second, an elected public official; and third, a representative of the National Prosecution Service. There are, however, alternatives to the first and the third. As to the first (i.e., the accused or the person/s from whom items were seized), there are two (2) alternatives: first, his or her representative; and second, his or her counsel. As to the representative of the National Prosecution Service, a representative of the media may be present in his or her place.52Despite such amendment, Section 21 remains couched in a specific, mandatory language that commands strict compliance. The accuracy it requires goes into the covertness of buy-bust operations and the very nature of narcotic substances. In Mallillin v. People:53
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.54 (Emphasis supplied)Strict compliance with Section 21 ensures observance of the four (4) links in the confiscated item's chain of custody, as enumerated in People v. Nandi:55
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 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.56 (Emphasis in the original)The prosecution must establish these links. Any deviation would cast serious doubts on the identity of the seized item and its "actual connection with the transaction involved and with the parties thereto."57
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[.]59 (Emphasis supplied)To sanction noncompliance, the prosecution must prove that the inventory was conducted in either practicable place.
What is critical in drug cases is not the bare conduct of inventory, marking, and photographing. Instead, it is the certainty that the items allegedly taken from the accused retain their integrity, even as they make their way from the accused to an officer effecting the seizure, to an investigating officer, to a forensic chemist, and ultimately, to courts where they are introduced as evidence. . . .Furthermore, the prosecution witnesses testified that only a media representative was present during the physical inventory and the taking of photographs. Although they requested the presence of a barangay official, their invitation was allegedly unheeded.67 They invoke substantial compliance with the rule, as there was an effort to secure the attendance of an elected official.68
Section 21 (1)'s requirements are designed to make the first and second links foolproof. Conducting the inventory and photographing immediately after seizure, exactly where the seizure was done, or at a location as practicably close to it, minimizes, if not eliminates, room for adulteration or the planting of evidenced.66 (Emphasis supplied)
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[.]From these, the prosecution must establish two (2) requisites: "first, the prosecution must specifically allege, identify, and prove 'justifiable grounds'; second, it must establish that despite non-compliance, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs and/or drug paraphernalia were properly preserved."69
(1) their attendance was impossible because the place of arrest was a remote area; (2) their safety during the inventory and photograph of the seized drugs was threatened by an immediate retaliatory action of the accused or any person/s acting for and in his/her behalf; (3) the elected official themselves were involved in the punishable acts sought to be apprehended; (4) earnest efforts to secure the presence of a DOJ or media representative and an elected public official within the period required under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code prove futile through no fault of the arresting officers, who face the threat of being charged with arbitrary detention; or (5) time constraints and urgency of the anti-drug operations, which often rely on tips of confidential assets, prevented the law enforcers from obtaining the presence of the required witnesses even before the offenders could escape.71 (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)While the list in Lim is not exclusive, it illustrates excusable instances. To justify the arresting officers' deviation from Section 21 's requirements, the prosecution must prove that they exerted earnest efforts to comply.
Given the flagrant procedural lapses the police committed in handling the seized shabu and the obvious evidentiary gaps in the chain of its custody, a presumption of regularity in the performance of duties cannot be made in this case. A presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty is made in the context of an existing rule of law or statute authorizing the performance of an act or duty or prescribing a procedure in the performance thereof. The presumption applies when nothing in the record suggests that the law enforcers deviated from the standard conduct of official duty required by law; where the official act is irregular on its face, the presumption cannot arise. In light of the flagrant lapses we noted, the lower courts were obviously wrong when they relied on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty.This Court, as the last bastion of civil liberties, cannot sanction gross violations of the law's requirements. We reiterate that the burden rests on the prosecution to prove an accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, not on the accused to prove his or her innocence. Here, absent proof of accused-appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, acquittal ensues.
We rule, too, that the discrepancy in the prosecution evidence on the identity of the seized and examined shabu and that formally offered in court cannot but lead to serious doubts regarding the origins of the shabu presented in court. This discrepancy and the gap in the chain of custody immediately affect proof of the corpus delicti without which the accused must be acquitted.79 (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)
Very truly yours, (SGD) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG III Deputy Division Clerk of Court |
"WHEREFORE, the Court of Appeals' February 17, 2017 Decision in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07900 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Alan Banding y Ulama is ACQUITTED for the prosecution's failure 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 ALAN BANDING y ULAMA 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 to this Court the action he has taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Decision. Copies shall also be furnished to the Director General of the Philippine National Police and the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement for their information.
Let entry of final judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours, WILFREDO V. LAPITAN Division Clerk of Court By: (SGD) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG III Deputy Division Clerk of Court |
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 14-16.
2 Id. at 2-13-A. The Decision dated February 17, 2017 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07900 was penned by Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda (now a member of this Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Pedro B. Corales of the Eleventh Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
3 CA rollo, pp. 64-75. The Decision dated October 22, 2015 in Criminal Case No. Q-10-166398 was penned by Presiding Judge Felino Z. Elefante of Branch 103, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City.
4 Id. at 64.
5Rollo, p. 4.
6 Id.
7 Id. at 4 and CA rollo, pp. 64-65.
8 Id. at 5.
9 Id. at 5 and CA rollo, p. 65.
10 Id.
11 CA rollo, p. 65. PO3 Corona testified that despite his prior request for an elected public official's presence, no one came to witness the inventory and photographing of the seized drugs.
12Rollo, p. 5.
13 CA rollo, p. 66.
14Rollo, pp. 5-6.
15 Id. at 6.
16 CA rollo, p. 68.
17Rollo, pp. 6 and 10.
18 CA rollo, pp. 68-69.
19 Id. at 69.
20 Id. at 64-75.
21 Id. at 74-75.
22 Id. at 74.
23 Id. at 72.
24 Id. at 74.
25Rollo, pp. 2-13-A.
26 Id. at 11.
27 Id.
28 Id. at 13.
29 Id. at 14-16.
30 Id. at 17.
31 Id. at 19-20.
32 Id. at 23-27.
33 Id. at 28-32.
34 Id. at 33-34.
35 CA rollo, pp. 41-63.
36 Id. at 51.
37 Id. at 52.
38 Id. at 54.
39 Id. at 56.
40 Id. at 59.
41 Id. at 87-102.
42 Id. at 95.
43 Id. at 93.
44 Id. at 97,
45 Id.
46 Id. at 96-97.
47 RULES OF COURT, Rule 133, sec. 2 provides:
SECTION 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. — In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.
48Macayan, Jr. v. People, 756 Phil. 202, 213-214 (2015) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division] citing Basilio v. People of the Philippines, 591 Phil. 508, 548 (2008) [Per J. Velasco, Jr., Second Division].
49People v. Royol, G.R. No. 224297, February 13, 2019, [Per J. Leonen, Third Division] citing People v. Morales, 630 Phil. 215, 228 (2010) [Per J. Del Castillo, Second Division].
50People v. Que, G.R. No. 212994, January 31, 2018, 853 SCRA 487, 520-521 [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
51 778 Phil. 460 (2016) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
52 Id. at 475.
53 576 Phil. 576 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
54 Id. at 588-589.
55 639 Phil, 134 (2010) [Per J, Mendoza, Second Division].
56 Id. at 144-145 citing People v. Kamad, 624 Phil. 289 (2010) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
57People v. Betocura, 693 Phil. 476, 496 (2012) [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].
58 See People v. Belocura, 693 Phil. 476 (2012) [Per J. Bersamin, First Division]; People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division]; People v. Caiz, 790 Phil. 183 (2016) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division]; and People v. Royol, G.R. No. 224297, February 13, 2019, [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
59 Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 (2002), sec. 21 (a).
60 CA rollo, p. 51.
61 Id. at 65.
62 Id. at 67.
63 Id. at 66.
64See Google Maps, Distance from "Mercury Drug - Lagro Hilltop Branch, Quirino Hwy, Novaliches, Quezon City, Metro Manila" to Camp Karingal.
65People v. Que, G.R. No. 212994, January 31, 2018, 853 SCRA 487 [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
66 Id. at 518-519.
67Rollo, p. 5.
68 CA rollo, p. 97.
69People v. Que, G.R. No. 212994, January 31, 2018, 853 SCRA 487, 523 [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
70 G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018, [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].
71 Id.
72 CA rollo, p. 66.
73Rollo, p. 10.
74 Id.
75 CA rollo, p. 67.
76 Id.
77 Id. at 97.
78 624 Phil. 289 (2010) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
79 Id. at 311.