SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 227217, February 12, 2020
JESSIE TOLENTINO Y SAMIA, PETITIONER, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
REYES, A., JR., J.:
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision2 dated April 14, 2016 and Resolution3 dated September 9, 2016 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06902, which affirmed the Decision dated April 30, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tarlac City, Branch 64, in Criminal Case No. 16068, finding Jessie Tolentino y Samia (petitioner) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5,4 Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
That on or about February 13, 2009 at around 1:30 o'clock in the afternoon, in the City of Tarlac, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused without being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally sell, trade and deliver three (3) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing dried Marijuana fruiting tops, a dangerous drugs (sic)[,] to a poseur buyer, weighing 2.700 grams more or less.On April 15, 2009, the petitioner was arraigned and entered a plea of not guilty. Pre-trial was held on June 2, 2009. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.7
CONTRARY TO LAW.6
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this Court finds the [petitioner] guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged (Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs) and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment. Likewise, he is ordered to pay a fine of P500,000.00On appeal, the CA affirmed the findings of the RTC and held that on the basis of the evidence presented by the prosecution, there is no iota of doubt that the identity and integrity of the seized dangerous drugs or the corpus delicti have been safeguarded and preserved.21 The appellate court further ratiocinated that it is of no moment that representatives from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the media were not present to witness the seizure and inventory of these items because the Implementing Rules and Regulation (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165 offers flexibility with regard to compliance with the "Chain of Custody" rule, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.22 The decretal portion of the Decision23 dated April 14, 2016 reads:
The Branch Clerk of Court is hereby directed to immediately transmit to the PDEA the subject item for proper disposal.20
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Appeal is DENIED for lack of merit. The challenged Decision dated 30 April 2014 of the [RTC], Branch 64 of Tarlac City in Criminal Case No. 16068 is AFFIRMED.Hence, the present petition.
SO ORDERED.24
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. - 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:It bears emphasis that the amendment that was introduced by R.A. No. 10640 in Section 21 prescribes a physical inventory and photograph of the seized items 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, plus two other witnesses, particularly, (1) an elected public official, and (2) a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media, who shall sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. Proponents of the amendment recognized that the strict implementation of the original Section 2127 of R.A. No. 9165 could be impracticable for the law enforcers' compliance,28 and that the stringent requirements could unduly hamper their activities towards drug eradication. The amendment then substantially included the saving clause that was actually already in the IRR of the former Section 21, indicating that non-compliance with the law's 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 seizures and custody over confiscated items.
(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 person/s 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 non-compliance 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.
x x x x (Emphases ours)
People v. Morales explained that failure to comply with paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of [R.A. No.] 9165 implie[s] a concomitant failure on the part of the prosecution to establish the identity of the corpus delicti. It "produce[s] doubts as to the origins of the [seized paraphernalia]."In the same vein, the Court, in People v. Mendoza,31 explained that the presence of these witnesses would not only preserve an unbroken chain of custody but also prevent the possibility of tampering with, or "planting" of, evidence, viz.:
Compliance with Section 21's chain of custody requirements ensures the integrity of the seized items. non-compliance with them [tarnishes] the credibility of the corpus delicti around which prosecutions under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act revolve. Consequently, they also tarnish the very claim that an offense against the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act was committed. x x x.30 (Citations omitted)
Without the insulating presence of the representative from the media or the [DOJ], or any elected public official during the seizure and marking of the [seized drugs], the evils of switching, "planting" or contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-busts conducted under the regime of [R.A.] 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 [said drugs] that were evidence herein of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused. x x x.32Since the offense subject of this petition was committed before the amendment introduced by R.A. No. 10640, the old provisions of Section 21 and its IRR should apply, to wit:
(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[.]Under the law, a physical inventory and photograph of the items that were purportedly seized from the accused should have been made at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable. The entire procedure must likewise be made in the presence of the accused or his representative or counsel and three witnesses, namely: (1) an elected public official; (2) a representative from the DOJ; AND (3) a representative from the media. These individuals shall then be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
It must be emphasized that the prosecution must be able to prove a justifiable ground in omitting certain requirements provided in Sec. 21 such as, but not limited to the following: (1) media representatives are not available at that time or that the police operatives had no time to alert the media due to the immediacy of the operation they were about to undertake, especially if it is done in more remote areas; (2) the police operatives, with the same reason, failed to find an available representative of the National Prosecution Service; (3) the police officers, due to time constraints brought about by the urgency of the operation to be undertaken and in order to comply with the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code in the timely delivery of prisoners, were not able to comply with all the requisites set forth in Section 21 of R.A. [No.] 9165.34 (Citation omitted)The above-ruling was again reiterated by the Court in People v. Sipin35 where it provided additional grounds that would serve as valid justification for the relaxation of the rule on mandatory witnesses, viz.:
The prosecution never alleged and proved that the presence of the required witnesses was not obtained for any of the following reasons, such as: (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.36 (Citation omitted and emphasis deleted)The failure of the police officers to provide a reasonable excuse or justification for the absence of the other witnesses clearly magnified the lack of concrete effort on their part to comply with the requirements of Section 21. The absence of these witnesses constitutes a substantial gap in the chain of custody and raises doubts on the integrity and evidentiary value of the items that were allegedly seized from the petitioner. It militates against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
To conclude, judicial notice is taken of the fact that arrests and seizures related to illegal drugs are typically made without a warrant; hence, subject to inquest proceedings. Relative thereto, Sections 1 (A.1.10) of the Chain of Custody [IRR] directs:Simply put, the prosecution cannot simply invoke the saving clause found in Section 21 - that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items have been preserved - without justifying their failure to comply with the requirements stated therein. Even the presumption as to regularity in the performance by police officers of their official duties cannot prevail when there has been a clear and deliberate disregard of procedural safeguards by the police officers themselves. The Court's ruling in People v. Umipang41 is instructive on the matter:A.1.10. Any justification or explanation in cases of non-compliance with the requirements of Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, shall be clearly stated in the sworn statements/affidavits of the apprehending/seizing officers, as well as the steps taken to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized/confiscated items. Certification or record of coordination for operating units other than the PDEA pursuant to Section 86 (a) and (b), Article IX of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 shall be presented.While the above-quoted provision has been the rule, it appears that it has not been practiced in most cases elevated before Us. Thus, in order to weed out early on from the courts' already congested docket any orchestrated or poorly built-up drug-related cases, the following should henceforth be enforced as a mandatory policy:
- In the sworn statements/affidavits, the apprehending/seizing officers must state their compliance with the requirements of Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, and its IRR.
- In case of non-observance of the provision, the apprehending/seizing officers must state the justification or explanation therefor as well as the steps they have taken in order to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized/confiscated items.
- If there is no justification or explanation expressly declared in the sworn statements or affidavits, the investigating fiscal must not immediately file the case before the court. Instead, he or she must refer the case for further preliminary investigation in order to determine the (non) existence of probable cause.
- If the investigating fiscal filed the case despite such absence, the court may exercise its discretion to either refuse to issue a commitment order (or warrant of arrest) or dismiss the case outright for lack of probable cause in accordance with Section 5, Rule 112, Rules of Court.40 (Citations omitted)
Minor deviations from the procedures under R.A. [No.] 9165 would not automatically exonerate an accused from the crimes of which he or she was convicted. This is especially true when the lapses in procedure were "recognized and explained in terms of justifiable grounds." There must also be a showing "that the police officers intended to comply with the procedure but were thwarted by some justifiable consideration/reason." However, when there is gross disregard of the procedural safeguards prescribed in the substantive law (R.A. [No.] 9165), serious uncertainty is generated about the identity of the seized items that the prosecution presented in evidence. This uncertainty cannot be remedied by simply invoking the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties, for a gross, systematic, or deliberate disregard of the procedural safeguards effectively produces an irregularity in the performance of official duties. As a result, the prosecution is deemed to have failed to fully establish the elements of the crimes charged, creating reasonable doubt on the criminal liability of the accused.The prosecution's failure to justify its non-compliance with the requirements found in Section 21, specifically, the presence of the three required witnesses during the actual inventory of the seized items, is fatal to their case.
For the arresting officers' failure to adduce justifiable grounds, we are led to conclude from the totality of the procedural lapses committed in this case that the arresting officers deliberately disregarded the legal safeguards under R.A. [No.] 9165. These lapses effectively produced serious doubts on the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti, especially in the face of allegations of frame-up. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, we must resolve the doubt in favor of accused-appellant, "as every fact necessary to constitute the crime must be established by proof beyond reasonable doubt."
As a final note, we reiterate our past rulings calling upon the authorities "to exert greater efforts in combating the drug menace using the safeguards that our lawmakers have deemed necessary for the greater benefit of our society." The need to employ a more stringent approach to scrutinizing the evidence of the prosecution - especially when the pieces of evidence were derived from a buy-bust operation - "redounds to the benefit of the criminal justice system by protecting civil liberties and at the same time instilling rigorous discipline on prosecutors."42 (Citations omitted)
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 10-31.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion, with Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela, concurring; id. at 32-47.
3 Id. at 48-49.
4 SEC. 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.
x x x x
5Rollo, pp. 33-34.
6 Id. at 34.
7 Id.
8 Id. at 33.
9 Id. at 36.
10 Id. at 35-36.
11 Id. at 36.
12 Id.
13 Id.
14 Id. at 37.
15 Id.
16 Id. at 38.
17 Id.
18 Id.
19 Id. at 38-39.
20 Id. at 33.
21 Id. at 40-41.
22 Id. at 45.
23 Id. at 32-47.
24 Id. at 46.
25People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 29 (2017).
26 Took effect on July 23, 2014.
27 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. - 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:
(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 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[.]
28See People of the Philippines v. Ramoncito Cornel, G.R. No. 229047, April 16, 2018.
29 G.R. No. 212994, January 31, 2018, 853 SCRA 487.
30 Id. at 503-504.
31 736 Phil. 749 (2014).
32 Id. at 764.
33 G.R. No. 219953, April 23, 2018.
34 Id.
35 G.R. No. 224290, June 11, 2018.
36 Id.
37 679 Phil. 268 (2012).
38 Id. at 277-278.
39 G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018.
40 Id.
41 686 Phil. 1024 (2012).
42 Id. at 1053-1054.
43 Article III (Bill of Rights), Section 14(2) of the Constitution mandates:
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.
44 G.R. No. 210610, January 11, 2018, 851 SCRA 1.
45 Id. at 30.