SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 229183, February 17, 2021
LEONIDES QUIAP Y EVANGELISTA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
R E S O L U T I O N
LOPEZ, J.:
The validity of search and compliance with the chain of custody of dangerous drug are the core issues in this Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assailing the Court of Appeals' (CA) Decision dated September 1, 2016 in CA-G.R. CR No. 37675, which affirmed the Regional Trial Court's (RTC) judgment of conviction.
That on or about March 4, 2011, in the Municipality of Pila, Province of Laguna and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, not being authorized or pem1itted by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, control and custody one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.18 gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride otherwise known as shabu[,] a dangerous drug.Leonides denied the accusation and claimed that on March 4, 2011, at about 11:00 a.m., he was on board a jeepney going home after visiting his cousin's house in Brgy. Labuin, Pila, Laguna.15 The jeepney was flagged down, and about two to three men instructed him to alight from the vehicle. The men handcuffed, frisked, and brought him to the police station where he was left incarcerated.
CONTRARY TO LAW.14 (Emphasis supplied.)
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused LEONIDES QUIAP [y] EVANGELISTA GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of Violation of Section 11, Article II, R.A. [No.] 9165 and sentencing h[im] to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate term of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months, as maximum, and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos ([P]300,000.00).Leonides elevated the case to the CA docketed as CA-G.R. CR No. 37675. Leonides questioned the validity of his arrest and raised the failure of the police officers to comply with the proper handling and custody of dangerous drug, i.e. the marking was not made at the place of seizure, the insulating witnesses were absent during the physical inventory, and no photograph of the confiscated item was taken.
The specimen of shabu subject of this case with a weight of 0.18 gram is ordered confiscated in favor of the government and the Branch Clerk of Court is hereby ordered to transmit the same to the appropriate government agency for proper disposition.
SO ORDERED.17 (Emphasis in the original.)
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The Judgment dated 28 May 2015 of the Regional Trial Court of Santa Cruz, Laguna, Branch 28 in Criminal Case No. SC-14520, finding accused-appellant Leonides Quiap y Evangelista guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 11, Article n of Republic Act No. 9165 and sentencing him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months, as maximum, and to pay a fine of Php300,000.00 is AFFIRMED.chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryLeonides sought reconsideration but was denied.20 Hence, this recourse. Leonides insists on the illegality of his warrantless arrest and the inadmissibility of the confiscated item as evidence. Likewise, Leonides reiterates the lapses in the handling of dangerous drug that compromised the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti. On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) argues that the instant case involves a valid stop and frisk. Leonides was "nataranta" when PO2 Garcia flagged down and boarded the jeepney. This is enough reason to raise suspicion that Leonides is hiding a wrongdoing. Further, the prosecution proved each and every link in the chain of custody, and established that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated item were preserved.
SO ORDERED.19 (Emphases in the original.)
[Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of RA 9165]In earlier cases, this Court ruled that the deviation from the standard procedure in Section 21 dismally compromises the evidence, unless (1) such non-compliance was under justifiable grounds; and (2) the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team.29 Later, we emphasized the importance of the presence of the three (3) insulating witnesses during the physical inventory and the photograph of the seized items.30 In People v. Lim,31 it was explained that in case the presence of any or all the insulating witnesses was not obtained, the prosecution must allege and prove not only the reasons for their absence, but also the fact that earnest efforts were made to secure their attendance, thus:cralawred
(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.
[Section 21(a), Article 11 of the IRR of RA 9165]
(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. (Emphases supplied.)
It is well to note that the absence of these required witnesses does not per se render the confiscated items inadmissible. However, a justifiable reason for such failure or a showing of any genuine and sufficient effort to secure the required witnesses under Section 21 of RA 9165 must be adduced. In People v. Umipang, the Court held that the prosecution must show that earnest efforts were employed in contacting the representatives enumerated under the law for "a sheer statement that representatives were unavailable without so much as an explanation on whether serious attempts were employed to look for other representatives, given the circumstances is to be regarded as a flimsy excuse." Verily, mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses are unacceptable as justified grounds for noncompliance. These considerations arise from the fact that police officers are ordinarily given sufficient time - beginning from the moment they have received the information about the activities of the accused until the time of his arrest - to prepare for a buy-bust operation and consequently, make the necessary arrangements beforehand knowing full well that they would have to strictly comply with the set procedure prescribed in Section 21 [Article II] of R.A. 9165. As such, police officers are compelled not only to state reasons for their non-compliance, but must in fact, also convince the Court that they exerted earnest efforts to comply with the mandated procedure, and that under the given circumstances, their actions were reasonable. (Emphasis, underscoring, and italics in the original.)Undeniably, the presence of the insulating witnesses is the first requirement to ensure the preservation of the identity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs.32 In People v. Caray,33 we ruled that the corpus delicti cannot be deemed preserved absent any acceptable explanation for the deviation from the procedural requirements of the chain of custody rule. Similarly, in Matabilas v. People.34 sheer statements of unavailability of the insulating witnesses, without actual serious attempt to contact them, cannot justify non-compliance.
Moreover, the link between the investigating officer and the forensic chemist was not established with certainty. The police officers did not describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the seized item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the dangerous drug. The records show that SPO2 Macabajon received the specimen from PO3 Sales. Yet SPO2 Macabajon did not testify on how the seized item fell into the hands of the forensic chemist PSI Bombasi. The stipulated testimony of PSI Bombasi is insufficient to explain this gap.37 In People v. Pajarin,38 this Court identified the following matters which are ordinarily covered by the testimony of the forensic chemist who examines the seized items: (1) that he received the seized article as marked, properly sealed, and intact; (2) that he resealed it after examination of the content; and (3) that he placed his own marking on the same to ensure that it could not be tampered pending trial.39 Should the parties decide to dispense with the attendance of the police chemist, they should stipulate that the latter would have testified that he took the precautionary steps mentioned. Nonetheless, these circumstances were not stipulated by the parties.
PROSECUTOR: Q: You said that you brought [Leonides] to the police station and you were the one who was in the custody of the plastic sachet when you arrived at the police station. What did you do with the plastic sachet when you arrived at the police station? A: I marked it with the initials of the suspect, sir.x x x x Q: After you have made the markings on the plastic sachet which you found from the accused, what did you do next? A: I gave it to SPO1 Sales, the investigator of this case, sir.x x x x Q: What did SPO1 Sales do with the plastic sachet of shabu which you have marked? A: He made a request for laboratory examination, sir.x x x x Q: What happened after the request for laboratory examination was prepared by officer Sales with respect to the said plastic sachet of shabu? A: He brought the plastic sachet to the crime lab, sir.35x x x x COURT: x x x Q: Where did you ask the accused 10 unwrap [the plastic sachet]? A: Inside the jeepney, [Ma'am]. Q: Where did you mark the specimen? A: At the police station, mam. Q: Have you prepared any inventory of seized evidence? A: No, [Ma'am].x x x x Q: Did you issue any receipt evidencing that you have the specimen which you forwarded to [SPO1 Sales] is the one and the same specimen allegedly confiscated from the accused? A: No, [Ma'am]. Q: Was it ever reported in any record book that the specimen which you allegedly confiscated from the accused which you marked at the police station was the same specimen which you have forwarded in the absence of any receipt, was it ever reported? A: We have it blottered after we apprehend [sic] alias Kacho. Q: You mean to say that what you have blottered is the fact of his arrest? A: Yes, [Ma'am]. Q: And the fact of confiscation? A: Yes, [Ma'am]. Q: But never the fact of turning it over to the evidence custodian? Not that fact, correct? A: Yes, [Ma'am].36
Endnotes:
* Designated as additional Member per Raffle dated February 3, 2020.
1Rollo, pp. 11-31.
2 Records, pp. 6-7. See also TSN, August 16, 2013, p. 3.
3 TSN, August 16, 2013, pp. 5 and 14.
4Id. at 3-4. See also TSN, November 7, 2014, pp. 3-6.
5Supra note 1.
6 TSN, August 16, 2013, pp. 4-5.
7 Id. at 5 and 14.
8 Id. at 6.
9 Id. at 7.
10Id. at 9-10. See also TSN November 7, 2014, pp. 3-4; and records, p. 9.
11 SPO2 Macabajon's name was not indicated; records, p. 9. See also TSN, August 16, 2013, pp. 9-10; November 7, 2014, p. 4.
12 Id. at 41-42; and 66.
13Rollo, p. 12.
14 Id.
15 TSN, October 9, 2014, p. 2.
16Rollo, pp. 75-79; penned by Presiding Judge Iluminado M. Dela Peña.
17Id. at 79.
18 Id. at 35-53; penned by Associa1e Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Amy C. Lazaro-Javier (now a Member of this Court) and Carmelita Salandanan Manahan.
19 Id. at 50.
20Rollo, pp. 55-56.
21 See People v. Tumaneng, 347 Phil. 56, 74-75 ( 1997); and People vs. Mahusuy, 346 Phil. 762, 769 (1997).
22 See Dolera v. People, 614 Phil. 655, 666 (2009), citing People v. Timon, 346 Phil. 572, 593 (1997); and People v. Nazareno, 329 Phil. 16, 22 (1996).
23 See People v. Solayao, 330 Phil. 811, 818-819 (1996), citing Posadas v. CA, 2116 Phil. 306, 310 (1990).
24People v. Chua, 444 Phil. 757, 768 (2003), citing Malacat v. CA, 347 Phil. 462, 379-382 (1997).
25People v. Partoza, 605 Phil. 883, 891 (2009). See also People v. Cariño, G.R. No. 233336, January 14, 2019; People v. Crispo, 828 Phil. 416, 436-437 (2018); See People v. Sanchez, 827 Phil. 457, 472-473 (2018); People v. Magsano, 826 Phil. 947, 964-965 (2018); People v. Manansala, 826 Phil. 578, 586 (2018); People v. Miranda, 824 Phil. 1042, 1053-1054 (2018); and People v. Mamangon, 824 Phil. 728, 741 (2018).
26People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 30-31 (2017).
27People v. Bugtong, 826 Phil. 628, 638-639 (2018).
28 RA No. 10640 took effect on August 7, 2014 See OCA Circular No. 77-2015 dated April 23, 2015. As amended, it is now mandated that the conduct of physical inventory and photograph of the seized items must be in the presence of (1) the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, (2) with an elected public official, and (3) a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
29People v. De la Cruz, 591 Phil. 259, 271-272 (2008), citing Dissenting Opinion of Justice Arturo D. Brion in People v. Agulay, 588 Phil. 247, 286; See People v. Nazareno, 559 Phil. 387, 393 (2007); See People v. Santos, Jr., 562 Phil. 458, 472-473 (2007).
30People v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 233535, July 1, 2019.
31 G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018.
32People v. Flores, G.R. No. 241261, July 29, 2019, People v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 233535, July 1, 2019; and People v. Maralit y Casilang, G.R. No. 232381, August 1, 2018.
33 G.R. No. 245391, September 11, 2019.
34 G.R. No. 243615, November 11, 2019.
35 TSN, August 16, 2013, pp. 8-10.
36Id. at 16-18.
37 Records, pp. 40-41. The contents of PSI Bombasi's stipulated testimony are: (1) she is an expert in forensic chemistry; (2) her office received a request for laboratory examination from MPS, Pila, Laguna for the examination of the specimen alleged to have been found in possession of [Leonides]; (3) upon receipt of the letter request, she conducted examination on the said specimen, and after conducting laboratory examination, the same gave positive result for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride; (4) she reduced her findings into writing as embodied in Chemistry Report No. LD-005-11; (5) that [she] has no knowledge as to the source of the specimen; (6) [she] was not the one who received the specimen from the person who brought it to the crime laboratory; (7) that [Leonides] was not present during the examination; (8) that [Leonides] was not furnished with a copy of the result of the examination; (9) that there are other substance which when treated with the same reagent will react the same way as if they contain illegal drugs although those substance do not contain illegal drugs; and (10) that there were no photographs of the specimen attached to the laboratory examination.
38 654 Phil. 461 (2011).
39 Id. at 466.
40People v. Cañete, 433 Phil. 781, 794 (2002); and Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 593 (2008).
41People v. Dela Cruz, 589 Phil. 259, 272 (2008).