THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 237803, November 27, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. ALLAN ALON-ALON Y LIZARDA , ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
ZALAMEDA, R.V., J.:
This is an appeal1 seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision2 dated 27 November 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07364 which affirmed with modification the Judgment3 dated 18 February 2015 of Branch 31, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Pedro City, Laguna, finding accused-appellant Allan Alon-Alon y Lizarda (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165.4
That on or about August 13. 2012, in the Municipality of San Pedro, Province of Laguna, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without legal authority, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, distribute and deliver to a police poseur-buyer for P300.00 one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug weighing 0.02 gram.Upon arraignment6 accused-appellant pleaded not guilty7 to the charge. After pre-trial,8 trial on the merits ensued.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding Accused Allan Alon-Alon y Lizarda GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. He is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) Pesos without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
The period of his preventive imprisonment should be given full credit.
Let the plastic sachet of shabu subject matter of this case be immediately forwarded to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for its disposition as provided by law. The P300.00 buy-bust money is ordered forfeited in favour of the government and deposited 111 the National Treasury through the Office of the Clerk of Court.
SO ORDERED.13
Section 21. Custody and DL position 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:
The chain of custody rule was further expounded in the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165. Article II, Section 21 (a) detailed the procedure as follows:(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[.](Emphasis supplied)
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, 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[.]Based on the foregoing provision, the Court enumerated the links in the chain of custody that must be shown for the successful prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, i.e., 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.23 The chain of custody rule requires the testimony as to every link in the chain, describing how and from whom the seized evidence was received, its condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain, and the precautions taken to ensure its integrity.24
[Pros. De Leon:] What did you do after you arrived at the police station?[P03 Avila:] We called the media man, conducted inventory, and we took pictures of the item together with the suspect and the media man, sir. 26
While the miniscule amount of narcotics seized is by itself not a ground for acquittal, this circumstance underscores the need for more exacting compliance with Section 21. In Malillin v. People, this court said that "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. 35 (Citations omitted)Despite the clear failure of the police officers to strictly adhere to Section 21 of RA 9165, We are cognizant that the same provision nevertheless provides a saving clause. It states that non-compliance with the requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer or team, shall not render void the seizure of, and custody over said items. However, this clause applies only where the prosecution recognized the procedural lapses, and thereafter cited justifiable grounds,36 which must be accompanied by evidence that the integrity and evidentiary value of the items are preserved.37 Furthermore, in People v. De Guzman,38 it was emphasized that the justifiable ground for non-compliance must be proven as a fact, because the courts cannot presume what these grounds are or whether they even exist.
Endnotes:
*On leave.
** Designated as additional Member of the Third Division per Special Order No. 2728.
1 Rollo, pp. 16- I 8.
2 Id. at 2-15; penned by CA Associate Justice Victoria Isabel A. Paredes, with Associate Justices Jose C. Reyes, Jr. (now a Member of this Court) and Jane Aurora C. Lantion, concurring.
3 CA rollo, pp. 86-91; penned by RTC Presiding Judge Sonia T. Yu-Casano.
4Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of2002.
5 Records, p. I.
6Id. at 38.
7 Id.
8 Id. at 43-44.
9Rollo, pp. 5-6.
10 Id.at6-7.
11 TSN, 16 September 2014, pp. 4-7.
12 CA rollo, .pp. 86-91.
13 Id. at 91.
14 Rollo, pp. 9-14.
15 Id. at 14.
16Cunanan v. People, G.R. No. 237116, 12 November 2018.
17People v. Alvarado, G.R. No. 234048, 23 April 2018, 862 SCRA 521, 534.
18Derilo v. People, 784 Phil. 679-694 (2016); G.R. 190466, 18 April2016, 789 SCRA 517, 525.
19Largo v. People, G.R. No. 201293, 19 June 2019.
20 People v. Bartolini, G.R. No. 215192, 27 July 2016, 798 SCRA 711.
21 People v. Ching, 819 Phil. 565-581 (2017); G.R. No. 223556, 09
October 2017, 842 SCRA 280.
22 See Section l(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002.
21People v. Baltazar. G.R. No. 229037,29 July 2019.
24 People v. Havana, 776 Phil. 462-476 (2016); G.R. No. 198450, 11 January 2016,778
SCRA 524.
25 Id.
26 TSN, 12 November 2013, p. 9.
27 TSN,26June2014,p.10;TSN, 12November 2013,pp.10-ll.
28 TSN, 17 September 20 13, p. 3.
29 Supra at note 24.
30 G.R. No. 218253,20 June 2018,867 SCRA 268.
31 People v. Carlit, G.R. No. 227309, 16 August 2017.
32 G.R. No. 225497, 23 July 2018.
33 Records, p. I.
34 741 PhiL 78 (2014); G.R. No. 207992, 11 August 2014,732 SCRA 554.
35 G.R. No. 207992, 11 August 2014, 732 SCRA 554, 576.
36 People v. Hementiza, G.R. No. 227398, 22 March 2017, 821 SCRA 470, 494.
37 People v. Ga-a, G.R. No. 222559, 06 June 2018, 865 SCRA 220,260.
38 630 Phil. 627-655 (201 0); G.R. No. 186498, 26 March 2010, 616 SCRA 652, 662.
39People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212-239 (2015); G.R. No. 212196, 12 January 2015,745 SCRA 221,248.