THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 232620, August 05, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. JAYSON MERANDO Y AVES, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
LEONEN, J.:
Unjustified noncompliance with the chain of custody procedure will shroud in doubt the identity and integrity of the dangerous drug allegedly seized. When there is reasonable doubt, an accused's acquittal must ensue.
This Court resolves an appeal from the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Regional Trial Court's Judgment2 finding Jayson Merando y Aves (Merando) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment.
In an April 11, 2013 Information,3 Merando was charged with violation of Article II, Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The Information read:
On or about April 9, 2013, in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-accused, not being lawfully authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and give away to PO1 Edmon Reyes, one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets (sic) containing two point seventeen centigrams (2.17 grams), of dried suspected Marijuana fruiting tops, which after qualitative examination, was found positive to the test for the presence of Marijuana, a dangerous drug, in violation of the said law.During arraignment, Merando pleaded not guilty to the charge. Trial on the merits then ensued.5
Contrary to law.4
WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused JAYSON MERANDO y AVES is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of illegal sale of 2.17 grams of dried Marijuana fruiting tops, a dangerous drugs (sic), and sentences him to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00).Merando appealed32 before the Court of Appeals.
Atty. Rachel G. Matalang is directed to forward the sachet of marijuana (Exhibit "S") to the Philippine Drugs Board for destruction.
SO ORDERED.31
To elucidate on the foregoing elements, this Court has said that "in prosecutions for illegal sale of drugs, what is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence." The dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and to sustain a conviction, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must be shown to have been preserved. This requirement necessarily arises from the "illegal drug's unique characteristic that renders it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution either by accident or otherwise." In drugs cases, it is essential that the identity of the prohibited drug be established beyond reasonable doubt. The mere fact of unauthorized possession or sale is not sufficient to sustain a finding of guilt. The fact that the substance said to be illegally sold is the very same substance offered in court as exhibit must be established.53 (Emphasis in the original, citations omitted)Since prosecutions under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act primarily revolve around the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti, compliance with its guidelines on the custody and disposition of the dangerous drugs seized is vital.54
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:Section 21 of the law's Implementing Rules and Regulations states:(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[.]
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:"Section 21 demands strict compliance. Compliance cannot give way to a facsimile; otherwise, the purpose of guarding against tampering, substitution, and planting of evidence is defeated."55 In Mallillin v. People:56
(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; (b) 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[.] (Emphasis supplied)
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.
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.57 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
The presence of third-party witnesses is imperative, not only during the physical inventory and taking of pictures, but also during the actual seizure of items. The requirement of conducting the inventory and taking of photographs "immediately after seizure and confiscation" necessarily means that the required witnesses must also be present during the seizure or confiscation. This is confirmed in People v. Mendoza, where the presence of these witnesses was characterized as an "insulating presence [against] the evils of switching, 'planting' or contamination":In People v. Cadungog,63 this Court held that since "a buy-bust operation is, by its nature, a planned activity, the buy-bust team has enough time and opportunity to bring with them, at the time of the buy-bust or immediately thereafter, the said witnesses."64Similarly, P/Insp. Lim did not mention in his testimony, the relevant portions of which are quoted hereunder, that a representative from the media or the Department of Justice, or any elected public official was present during the seizure and marking of the sachets of shabu, as follows:
. . . .
The consequences of the failure of the arresting [officers] to comply with the requirements of Section 21 (1), supra, were dire as far as the Prosecution was concerned. Without the insulating presence of the representative from the media or the Department of Justice, or any elected public official during the seizure and marking of the sachets of shabu, the evils of switching, "planting" or contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-busts conducted under the regime of RA No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) again reared their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the sachets of shabu that were evidence herein of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused. Indeed, the insulating presence of such witnesses would have preserved an unbroken chain of custody.62 (Citations omitted)
At the place of arrest and infront (sic) of the accused, PO1 Reyes marked the sachet of marijuana with "1 EBR/BEGOTE 04/09/2013 & his signature." Together with the accused, the evidence bought from him was immediately brought to the barangay hall of Manggahan and presented to the barangay officials for inventory purposes. Thereafter, the accused and the evidence bought from him were brought to the SAID-SOTG Headquarters and upon arriving thereat, was shown to PO3 Andrew C. Prado, the investigating officer. The police investigator photograph[ed] the bought item and prepared the request for laboratory examination. Thereafter, the Chief of the SAID-SOTG, PCI Renato B. Castillo endorsed the evidence for laboratory examination to the Chief, EPD Crime Laboratory service in Marikina City. The evidence was delivered by PO1 Edmon Reyes and received by PCI Stella S. Garciano. After a qualitative examination of the contents of the sachet by the latter, the same tested positive for marijuana, a dangerous drug.67Both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals found that it was only at the police station where the seized items were photographed.68
Very truly yours, (SGD) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG III Deputy Division Clerk of Court |
"WHEREFORE, the April 26, 2017 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 08123 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Jason Merando y Aves 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 JAYSON MERANDO y AVES 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 Agency for their information.
Let entry of final judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours, (SGD) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG III Deputy Division Clerk of Court |
Endnotes:
* Designated additional Member per Raffle dated July 29, 2019. On leave.
1Rollo, pp. 2-11. The Decision dated April 26, 2017 was penned by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez, and concurred in by Associate Justices Rodil V. Zalameda (now a member of this Court) and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (now a member of this Court) of the Special Second Division of the Court of Appeals, Manila.
2 CA rollo, pp. 11-18. The Judgment dated October 26, 2015 was penned by Presiding Judge Jennifer Albano Pilar of Branch 164, Regional Trial Court, Pasig City.
3 Id. at 9-10. Sometimes in the rollo, PO2 Anggati was referred to as PO1 Anggati.
4 Id. at 9.
5 Id. at 11.
6 Id. Estella was sometimes spelled "Stella".
7 Id. at 11-12.
8 Id. at 13.
9 Id.
10 Id. at 13-14.
11 Id. at 14.
12 Id.
13 Id.
14 Id.
15 Id.
16 Id. at 13-14.
17 Id. at 14.
18Rollo, p. 4.
19 Id.
20 CA rollo, pp. 14-15.
21Rollo, pp. 4-5. The CA Decision indicated PO2 Galutan as PO1 Galutan.
22 Id. at 5.
23 CA rollo, p. 15.
24 Id. at 15-16.
25 Id. at 16.
26 Id. at 11-18.
27 Id. at 18.
28 Id.
29 Id. at 17.
30 Id.
31 Id. at 18.
32 Id. at 19.
33 Id. at 40-56.
34 Id. at 46-47.
35 Id. at 51.
36 Id. at 79-98.
37 Id. at 88.
38 Id. at 89.
39 Id. at 93.
40Rollo, pp. 2-11.
41 Id. at 9.
42 Id. at 10-11.
43 Id. at 12-15.
44 Id. at 16.
45 Id. at 19-20.
46 Id. at 25-29.
47 Id. at 22-24.
48People v. Nandi, 639 Phil. 134, 142 (2010) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].
49People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 23, 29 (2017) [Per J. Del Castillo, First Division].
50People v. Ameril, G.R. No. 222192, March 13, 2019, [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
51People v. Nandi, 639 Phil. 134, 144-145 (2010) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].
52 789 Phil. 87 (2016) [Per J. Perez, Third Division].
53 Id. at 97.
54People v. Morales, 630 Phil. 215, 229-230 (2010) [Per J. Del Castillo, Second Division].
55People v. Royol, G.R. No. 224297, February 13, 2019, [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
56 576 Phil. 576 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
57 Id. at 588-589.
58 CA rollo, p. 17.
59 Id. at 14 and rollo, p. 4.
60 815 Phil. 356 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
61 GR. No. 212994, January 31, 2018, 853 SCRA 487 [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
62 Id. at 520-521.
63 G.R. No. 229926, April 3, 2019, [Per J. Carpio, Second Division].
64 Id. citing People v. Callejo, G.R. No. 227427, June 6, 2018, [Per J. Caguioa, Second Division].
65Rollo, p. 3.
66 Id. at 10.
67 Id.
68 Id.
69 CA rollo, p. 92.
70People v. Obmiranis, 594 Phil. 561, 577-578 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].