SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 224223, November 20, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. NORMAN ANGELES Y MIRANDA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
INTING, J.:
This is an appeal1 from the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision2 dated May 22, 2015 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06678, which affirmed the Decision3 dated January 30, 2014 of Branch 67, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Binangonan, Rizal, finding Norman Angeles y Miranda (appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The appellant was charged in an Information4 for the Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, as follows:
That on or about the 26thday of October 2012 in the Municipality of Binangonan, Province of Rizal, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without having been authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell, deliver and give away to POI Raul G. Paran, 0.05 gram of white crystalline substance contained in one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet, which substance was found positive to the test of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, also known as "shabu", a dangerous drug, in consideration of the amount of Php 200.00, in violation of the above-cited law.On November 22, 2012, the appellant entered a plea of not guilty to the offense charged.6 After the termination of the pre-trial, trial on the merits ensued.
CONTRARY TO LAW.5
In light of the above, we find the accused Nom1an Angeles GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 and sentence him to suffer a penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00. Let the drug samples in this case be forwarded to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper disposition. Furnish PDEA with a copy of this Decision per OCA Circular No. 70-2007.The RTC ruled that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not suffer any discrepancy; thus, they should be given full weight and credit. It further found that all the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs were proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, and that the chain of custody over the seized sachet with shabu was properly established.
SO ORDERED.13
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated January 30, 2014. is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that accused-appellant is not eligible for parole. The Decision is affim1ed in all other respects.Aggrieved, the appellant appealed to the Court.24
SO ORDERED.23
x x x "by the very nature of anti-narcotics operations, the need for entrapment procedures, the use of shady characters as informants, the ease with which sticks of marijuana or grams of heroin can be planted in pockets or hands of unsuspecting provincia1 hicks, and the secrecy that inevitably shrouds all drug deals, the possibility of abuse is great." Thus, while it is tme that a buy-bust operation is legally effective and proven procedure, sanctioned by law, for apprehending drug peddlers and distributors, the law nevertheless requires strict compliance with procedures laid down by it to ensure that rights are safeguarded.29In deciding cases involving minuscule amounts of illegal drugs, courts are reminded to exercise a higher level of scrutiny.30 The Court mandated that there should be stricter compliance with the rules when the amount of the dangerous drug is minute due to the possibility that the seized item could be tampered.31 In the case at bench, the seized plastic sachet of shabu is 0.05 gram; thus, the Court has every reason to carefully scrutinize whether the law enforcers complied with the procedures outlined by the law. The Court is aware that, in some instances, law enforcers resmi to the practice of planting evidence to extract information from or even to harass civilians.32 The Court has repeatedly been issuing warnings to trial courts to exercise extra vigilance in trying drug cases, lest an innocent person is made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug offenses.33
Sec. 1. Definition of Terms- x x xThe purpose of the chain of custody requirement is to ensure that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved, so much so that unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the evidence are removed39 To avoid any doubt, the prosecution must show the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit at least between the time it came into possession of the police officers and until it was tested in the laboratory to determine its composition up to the time it was offered in evidence.40 This includes 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.41 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.42
b. "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 records 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 the time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in com1 as evidence, and the final disposition. (Italics supplied)
The links that must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation, are as follows: (1) the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officers; the turn-over of the illegal drug seized to the investigating officer; (3) the turn-over by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and (4) the turn over and submission of the illegal drug from the forensic chemist to the court.45To ensure the establishment of the chain of custody, Section 21(1), Article II of RA 9165 specifies that:
Sec. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, ControlledComplementing the foregoing rule, Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 provides:
Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia Laboratory Equipment.- x x x
and/or
(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;xxxx
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. - x x xOn July 15,2014, RA 1064046 amended RA 9165 as follows:
(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. (Italics supplied)
The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equiptment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct 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 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 the said items. (Italics Supplied)From the foregoing rules, it is crystal clear that as part of the chain of custody, the law requires that the marking, physical inventory, and photography of the confiscated drugs must be conducted immediately after seizure, although jurisprudence recognized that "marking upon immediate confiscation contemplated even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team."47
The presence of the witnesses from the DOJ, media and from public elective office is necessary against the possibility of planting, contan1ination, or loss of the seized drugs. Using the language of the Court in People v. Mendoza, without the insulating presence of the representative from the media or the DOJ and any elected public official during seizure and marking of the drugs, the evils of switching, "planting" or contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy bust conducted under the regime of RA 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 subject sachet that were evidence of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused.Here, the prosecution utterly failed to prove the corpus delicti of the offense charged. The law enforcers ignored the requirements provided under Section 21 of RA 9165. They violated the chain of custody by failing to comply with the witness requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165. Records reveal that only a media representative witnessed the alleged inventory of the seized shabu.53 Likewise, it is apparent that not a single photograph of the seized sachet of 0.05 gram of shabu was presented. The records are bereft of any slight indication that photographs of the sachet of shabu were duly taken during inventory.
The presence of the three witnesses must be secured not only during inventory but more importantly at the time of the warrantless arrest. It is at this point in which the presence of the three witnesses is most needed, as it is their presence at the time of seizure and confiscation that would belie any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drug. If the buy-bust operation is legitimately conducted, the presence of the insulating witnesses would also controvert the usual defense of frame-up as the witnesses would be able to testify that the buy-bust operation and inventory of the seized drugs were done in their presence in accordance with Section 21 of RA 9165.
The practice of police operatives of not bringing to the intended place of arrest the three witnesses, when they could easily do so -- and "calling in them in" to the place of inventory to witness the inventory and photographing of the drugs only after the buy-bust operation has already been finished - does not achieve the purpose of the law in having these witnesses prevent or insulate against planting of drugs.
To restate, the presence of the three witnesses at the time .of seizure and confiscation of the drugs must be secured and complied with at the time of the warrantless arrest; such that they are required to be at or near the intended place of arrest so that they can be ready to witness the inventory and photographing of the seized and confiscated drugs "immediately after seizure and confiscation."52 (Emphasis in the original; citations omitted)
Invocation of the disputable presumptions that the police officers regularly performed their official duty and that the integrity of the evidence is presumed to be preserved, will not suffice to uphold appellant's conviction. Judicial reliance on the presumptions of regularity in the performance of official duty despite the lapses in the procedures undertaken by the agents of the law is fundamentally flawed because the lapses themselves are affirmative proofs of irregularity. The presumption may only arise when there is a showing that the apprehending officers/team followed the requirements of Section 21 or when the saving clause found in IRR is successfully triggered.59 (Citations omitted.)By failing to follow even the simplest witness requirement under Section 21 and the questionable inventory of the seized item, the police officers cannot be presumed to have regularly exercised their duties during the buy-bust operation. The blatant violations committed by these agents of law cannot be countenanced. Otherwise, the Court will be giving these law enforcers a license to abuse their power and authority, defeating the purpose of the law, violating human rights and eroding the justice system in this country.
Endnotes:
* On leave.
** Designated additional member per Special Order No. 2724 dated October 25, 2019. 1
1Rollo, pp. 12-13.
2Id. at 2-11; penned by Associate .Justice Agnes Reyes-Carpio with Associate Justices Rosmari D. Carandang (now a member of the Court) and Maria Elisa Sempio Diy, concurring.
3 CA rollo, pp. 14-15; rendered by Presiding Judge Dennis Patrick Z. Perez.
4 Records, p. 1.
5Id.
6Id. at 73.
7 TSN, May 15,2013, pp. 4-.5.
8Id. at 8.
9Id. at 9-10.
10 Records, p. 37.
11 CA rollo, p. 24.
12 TSN, August 14,2013, pp. 5-6.
13 CA rollo,p.15.
14 Id. at 1 8-39.
15 Id. at 26.
16Id. at 33-34.
17Id. at 35-36
18 Id. at 64-82.
20 Id. at 78-80.
21Rollo, p. 8.
22 Id. at 9-10.
23 Id.at 10.
24 Id.at 12-13.
25People v. Battung, G.R. No. 230717, June 20,2018.
26People v. Ahdula, G.R. No. 212192, November 21,2018.
27 People v. Malahanan, G.R. No. 241950, April 10,2019 citing People v. Suan, 627 Phil. 174, 188 (2010).
28 G.R. No. 228881, February 6, 20 I 9.
29Id. Citations omitted. Emphasis and underscoring omitted.
30 People v. Tumangong, G.R. No. 227015, November 26, 2018 citing People v. Caiz, 630 Phil. 637, 655 (2010).
31People v: Tumangong, supra.
32People v. Bricero, G.R. No. 218428, November 7, 2018 citing People v. Daria, Jr:, 615 Phil. 744, 767 (2009).
33People v. Bricero, supra citing Sales,: People, 602 Phil. 1047, 1053 (2009).
34People v. Yagao, G.R. No. 216725, February 18, 2019.
35 People v. Sipin, G.R. No. 224290, June 11, 2018.
36 Id.
37Casona v. People, G.R. No. 179757, Seprember 13, 2017,839 SCRA.448, 558.
38 Id.
39People v. Alboka, G.R. No. 212195, February 21, 2018, 856 SCRA 252, 270 citing People v. Ismael, G.R. No. 208093, February 20,2017, 818 SCRA 122. See also People v. Andrada, G.R. No. 232299, June 20,2018.
40People v. Belmonte, G.R. No. 224588, July 4, 2018.
41Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 587 (2008).
42Id.
43 Implementing Rules and Regulations Governing Accreditation of Drug Testing Laboratories in the Philippines.
44 Supra note 35.
45Id. Citmg People v. Amaro, 786 PhiL 139, 148(2016).
46An Act to further Strengthen the Anti-Drug Campaign of the Government, Amending For the Purpose Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, Otherwise Known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
47 People v. Alconde, G.R. No. 238117, February 4, 2019 citing People v. Mamalumpon, 767 Phil. 845, 855 (2015).
48 Section 21(1) and (2), Article II of RA 9165.
49 Section 2l,Article II ofRA 9165, as amended by RA 10640.
50People v. Alconde, supra note 47. 51 G.R. No. 228890, April I 8, 2018.
52Id.
53 Records, p. 44.
54 Id. at 7-8, 9-10.
55 TSN, May 15,2013, p. 9.
56People v. Cantalejo, 604 Phil. 658, 668 (2009).
57Id.
58 Supra note 35.
59 Id.
60People v. Alconde, supra note 47 citing People v. Manansalu, G.R. No. 229092, February 21, 2018.
61Peoplev. Santos, Jr:, 562 Phil. 458,473 (2007).