THIRD DIVISION
JULY 23, 2018
G.R. No. 225497
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee
vs.
MARCIANO UBUNGEN Y PULIDO, Accused-Appellant
D E C I S I O N
MARTIRES, J.:
This is an appeal from the 31 March 2015 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04686, which affirmed the 29 July 2010 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 66, San Fernando City, La Union (RTC), in Criminal Case No. 7580, convicting defendant-appellant Marciano Ubungen y Pulido (Marciano) for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
THE FACTS
In an Information, dated 12 February 2007, Marciano was charged with the crime of violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The accusatory portion of the information reads:
That on or about the 17th day of January 2007, in the City of San Fernando (La Union), Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing methamphetamine hydrochloride otherwise known as "shabu," weighing ZERO POINT ZERO FIFTY FOUR (0.054) gram to one PO1 ABUBO who posed as poseur buyer thereof and in consideration of said shabu, used marked money, two (2) hundred peso bills (₱200.00) with Serial Nos. AH425840 and AB205120, without first securing the necessary permit or license from the proper government agency.
CONTRARY TO LAW.3
On 21 March 2007, Marciano was arraigned and, with the assistance of counsel, pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.4
Evidence for the Prosecution
The prosecution presented two witnesses, namely: PO1 Jimmy Abubo (PO1 Abubo), the police officer who acted as the poseur-buyer; and PO1 Armando Bautista (PO1 Bautista), a police officer detailed at the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) at the time material to the case, and a member of the buy-bust team.
The prosecution also presented the forensic chemist, Police Inspector Meilani Joy R. Ordofio (PI Ordoño), but the RTC dispensed with her testimony in an Order,5 dated 18 September 2008, in view of the defense's admission of the stipulations offered by the prosecution with respect to the following: (1) the specimen as indicated in the Chemistry Report; (2) the findings as stated in the Chemistry Report; and (3) the due execution and genuineness of the Chemistry Report. 6
The combined testimonies of the prosecution witnesses tended to establish the following:
On 17 January 2007, at around 8:30 a.m., PO1 Abubo was in their office at the Philippine National Police, Region 1, 2nd Regional Mobile Group (2nd RMG), Bio, Tagudin, Ilocos Sur, when a friend arrived and reported to him the rampant selling of shabu at Pagdalagan, San Fernando City, La Union, by a certain "Ciano." PO1 Abubo referred the matter to his Commanding Officer, Police Senior Inspector Christopher Rebujio (PSI Rebujio) who, in turn, relayed the information to the PDEA Region I.7
After verifying that "Ciano" was included in the PDEA's watchlist, PO1 Abubo, the informant, and four (4) other police officers from 2nd RMG proceeded to the PDEA office at San Fernando City, La Union, for a briefing. 8 Thereafter, a team consisting of 2nd RMG personnel and PDEA agents was formed to conduct an entrapment operation. Two (2) one hundred-peso bills were prepared as marked money, and PO1 Abubo was designated as the poseur-buyer. 9 The team then proceeded to the house of "Ciano" at Pagdalagan, San Fernando City, La Union. 10
Later, PO1 Abubo and the informant arrived outside the target's house, 11 while the other members of the buy-bust team, including PO1 Bautista and a certain PO1 Lagto, positioned themselves in the vicinity. 12 The informant introduced "Ciano" to PO1 Abubo as Marciano Ubungen; 13 while PO1 Abubo was introduced as the buyer of shabu. Marciano then asked how much PO1 Abubo wanted to buy. PO1 Abubo replied he was buying shabu worth ₱200.00 and handed Marciano the marked bills. Marciano entered his house and when he came back, he handed one (1) small plastic sachet to PO1 Abubo. 14 Immediately after receiving the sachet, PO1 Abubo called PO1 Lagto by cellphone, their pre-arranged signal. 15 Thereafter, the members of the buy-bust team arrested Marciano and recovered the marked bills from him. 16 Meanwhile, PO1 Abubo placed the markings "JA" on the plastic sachet. 17
After the buy-bust operation, Marciano was taken to the PDEA office in San Fernando City, La Union, where they conducted an inventory and prepared the booking sheet, affidavit of arrest, request for physical examination of Marciano, and request for laboratory examination of the specimen seized from him. 18
Chemistry Report No. D-004-07, 19 dated I 7 January 2007, and prepared by PI Ordoño revealed that the contents of a small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet marked as "A JA" tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. However, PI Ordoño did not take the witness stand to verify the contents of Chemistry Report No. D-004-07 because the RTC dispensed with her testimony in view of the stipulations reached by the parties.
The prosecution further submitted in evidence the following, among others: (1) Request for Laboratory Examination of the contents of the heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet seized from Marciano, signed by PSI Rebujio (Exhibit "D")20 ; (2) Certificate of Inventory, signed by PO1 Abubo (Exhibit "E")21 ; (3) two ₱100-bills (Exhibit "F")22 ; and (4) Chemistry Report No. D-004-07, prepared by PI Ordoño (Exhibit "G"). 23
Evidence for the Defense
On its part, the defense presented Marciano himself and his nephew, Gilbert Ubungen (Gilbert). Their combined testimonies sought to establish Marciano's innocence, as follows:
On 17 January 2007, at around three o'clock in the afternoon, Marciano, together with Gilbert, Wilfredo 'Pido' Pancho (Wilfredo), and Ricky Ducusin were drinking at a neighbor's house in Padalagan Norte, San Fernando City, La Union, when six non-uniformed policemen arrived. The policemen arrested Marciano, Gilbert, and Wilfredo and brought them to Camp Diego Silang in San Fernando City, La Union, where they were detained for three (3) days.24 On the third day of their detention, the three were brought to Camp Florendo in San Fernando City, La Union, for drug tests. Afterwards, Marciano was brought back to Camp Diego Silang; Pido and Gilbert were released.25
In fine, Marciano denied the accusations against him. He insisted that no explanation was given him on why he was arrested or made to undergo drug tests.26
The RTC Ruling
In its decision, the RTC found Marciano guilty of violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The trial court gave credence to the testimonies of PO1 Abubo and PO1 Bautista ratiocinating that they gave a candid, clear, and straightforward narration of the events leading to the arrest of Marciano. In fine, the trial court was convinced that the prosecution was able to establish all the elements of illegal sale of drugs. The dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Marciano Ubungen GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 and is hereby sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of five hundred thousand pesos (₱500,000.00).
SO ORDERED.27
Aggrieved, Marciano appealed before the CA.
The CA Ruling
In its assailed decision, the CA affirmed that of the RTC. The appellate court concurred with the trial court's assessment that the prosecution, through the testimony of PO1 Abubo, had successfully established the elements of the crime of illegal sale of drugs. It was also convinced that the integrity and evidentiary value of the drug seized from Marciano was preserved by the prosecution. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant APPEAL is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the Decision dated July 29, 2010 rendered by RTC, Branch 66, City of San Fernando, La Union, in Criminal Case No. 7580 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.28
Hence, this appeal.
ISSUES
Marciano manifested that he would re-plead and adopt all the arguments raised in his Appellant's Brief, dated 28 March 2011, 29 as follows:
I.
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN RENDERING A JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO ESTABLISH ACCUSEDAPPELLANT'S GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
II.
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE PROCEDURAL LAPSES ON THE PART OF THE POLICE OFFICERS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE SEIZED ILLEGAL DRUG.
III.
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN RENDERING A JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO ESTABLISH EVERY LINK IN THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY.30
THE COURT'S RULING
The appeal is meritorious.
Jurisprudence teaches that to secure a conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the prosecution must establish the following elements: (I) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and its consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. 31 What is material is the proof that the accused peddled illicit drugs, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti. 32
In cases of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the dangerous drug seized from the accused constitutes the campus delicti of the offense. Thus, it is of utmost importance that the integrity and identity of the seized drugs must be shown to have been duly preserved. The chain of custody rule performs this function as it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.33
The chain of custody is established by testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered in 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. 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. 34
In particular, the following links should be established in the chain of custody of the confiscated item: 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. 35
With these considerations and after a thorough review of the records of this case, the Court opines that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs in violation of Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The identity of the subject drug was therefore not established with moral certainty.
As already stated, the only witnesses presented by the prosecution are PO1 Abubo and PO1 Bautista who both participated in the buy-bust operation allegedly conducted against Marciano. While the two witnesses were able to establish the first link in the chain of custody with their respective testimonies regarding the arrest of Marciano and the seizure of the prohibited drug from him as well as the marking thereof, their testimonies were insufficient to establish the remaining three (3) links in the chain of custody.
First, the prosecution failed to show the second link in the chain of custody as no testimony was offered relating to the transmittal of the subject sachet from the arresting officer to the investigating officer. During his direct examination, PO1 Abubo narrated the actions his team took after the buy-bust operation. He also enumerated the documents which would prove that the said actions were indeed undertaken, thus:
PROS. MANGIBIN:
Q. Now Mr. Witness, after arresting the accused, you went to PDEA, what did you do there?
A. The subject and the confiscated evidence were submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory for technical analysis, sir.
Q. Do you have documents to show that you have done that Mr. Witness?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What are those documents, Mr. Witness?
A. The Certificate of Inventory, the Crime Laboratory Examination, sir.36
PO1 Abubo's testimony, however, is silent as to the name of the investigating officer to whom the seized sachet of drug was transmitted, or on whether he transmitted the confiscated item to an investigating officer in the first place. The prosecution's Exhibit "E" or the Certificate of Inventory also failed to disclose the person who received the seized drug from PO1 Abubo. While the said document was signed by PO1 Abubo, no addressee or recipient was indicated therein.
The prosecution's Exhibit "D" or the Request for Laboratory Examination also suffers from substantially the same infirmity. While the said request was signed by PSI Rebujio and addressed to the Chief of the Crime Laboratory of Camp Florendo in San Fernando City, there was no indication of how and from whom PSI Rebujio received the subject sachet. Likewise, there was no mention of the person who submitted the specimen to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. Thus, there is uncertainty as to who had custody of the sachet from the time it left the custody of PO1 Abubo.
Even assuming arguendo that PSI Rebujio could be considered as the investigating officer to whom PO1 Abubo transmitted the seized specimen, and from whom PI Ordoño received the specimen which she examined, no mention was made on how PSI Rebujio handled the said specimen while it was in his custody. This is indispensable because the prosecution must satisfy the court that every person who had custody of the exhibit took the necessary precaution to preserve the integrity of the said evidence as well as to ensure that no opportunity would be afforded any other person to contaminate the same.
Clearly, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the documentary evidence presented failed to establish the second link in the chain of custody of the subject drug.
Second, there exists serious doubt that the sachet confiscated by PO1 Abubo from Marciano is the same specimen submitted to and examined by the forensic chemist. As such, the third link in the chain of custody of the subject transparent plastic sachet was not established.
In his testimony, PO1 Abubo recalled the marking he placed on the sachet which he bought as poseur-buyer. He confirmed that the sachet presented before the RTC is the same sachet containing the illegal drug; thus:
PROS. MANGIBIN:
Q. Now, after doing that, was there anything that happened after that?
A. After that I immediately marked the plastic containing white crystalline with marking JA, sir.
Q. Now, I am showing to you a transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance, will you please go over if this is the one you are referring to?
A. (After examining) Yes, sir.
Q. Why do you say that that was the exact item that was given to you?
A. I have a marking JA, sir.37 [emphases supplied]
POI Abubo's testimony, however, is materially inconsistent with Chemistry Report No. D-004-07. In the said report, PI Ordoño stated that the specimen submitted to her was a plastic sachet marked as "AJA," thus:
SPECIMEN SUBMITTED:
A - One (1) small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet marked as "A JA" containing 0.054 gram of white crystalline substance. xxx 38 [emphasis supplied]
Because of this discrepancy between the marking on the sachet seized by PO1 Abubo and the marking on the sachet submitted to the crime laboratory, it could not be reasonably and safely concluded that they are one and the same.
Indeed, it is possible that the forensic chemist committed a typographical error when she typed the marking "AJA" instead of "JA" in her chemistry report. The Court, however, could not just accept this supposition considering that the prosecution gave no explanation for this glaring and obvious variance. As such, there is reasonable doubt that the third link in the chain of custody - the transfer of the sachet from the investigating officer to the forensic chemist- was not complied with.
Finally, compliance with the fourth link in the chain of custody was not satisfactorily demonstrated by the prosecution. It must be recalled that the trial court dispensed with the testimony of PI Ordoño, the forensic chemist, in view of the stipulation entered into by the prosecution and the defense during the hearing of the case on 18 September 2008.
In People v. Pajarin,39 the Court ruled that in case of a stipulation by the parties to dispense with the attendance and testimony of the forensic chemist, it should be stipulated that the forensic chemist would have testified that he took the precautionary steps required in order to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item, thus: (1) that the forensic chemist 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.40
In this case, there is no record that the stipulations between the parties contain the aforesaid conditions.
In its Order, dated 18 September 2008, wherein it dispensed with the testimony of PI Ordoño, the trial court enumerated the stipulations agreed upon by the parties which were made the bases of the order:
In today's hearing, Public Prosecutor Bonifacio Mangibin and defense counsel Atty. Alexander Andres stipulated on the following:
1) The specimen as indicated in the Chemistry Report;
2) The findings as stated in the Chemistry Report; and
3) The due execution and genuineness of the Chemistry Report.41
Clear from the foregoing is the lack of the stipulations required for the proper and effective dispensation of the testimony of the forensic chemist. While the stipulations between the parties herein may be viewed as referring to the handling of the specimen at the forensic laboratory and to the analytical results obtained, they do not cover the manner the specimen was handled before it came to the possession of the forensic chemist and after it left her possession. 42 Absent any testimony regarding the management, storage, and preservation of the illegal drug allegedly seized herein after its qualitative examination, the fourth link in the chain of custody of the said illegal drug could not be reasonably established.
The lapses committed by the prosecution and the law enforcers herein could not be considered minor. Indeed, establishing every link in the chain of custody is crucial to the preservation of the integrity, identity, and evidentiary value of the seized illegal drug. Failure to demonstrate compliance with even just one of these links creates reasonable doubt that the substance confiscated from the accused is the same substance offered in evidence.
In this case, the prosecution miserably failed to establish three out of the four links in the chain of custody.1avvphi1 As a consequence of this serious blunder, the Court finds the acquittal of accused-appellant Marciano to be in order.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. Accordingly, the appealed 31 March 2015 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G .R. CRHC No. 04686, which affirmed the 29 July 2010 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 66, San Fernando City, La Union, in Criminal Case No. 7580 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Defendant-appellant Marciano Ubungen y Pulido is hereby ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention unless he is detained for any other lawful cause.
SO ORDERED.
SAMUEL R. MARTIRES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
Chairperson
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice |
MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN
Associate Justice |
ALEXANDER G. GESMUNDO
Associate Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decisionhad been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to the Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Senior Associate Justice
(Per Section 12, R.A. 296, The Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended)
Footnotes
1 Rollo, pp. 2-10.
2 Records, pp. 114-121.
3 Id. at I.
4 Id. at 27.
5 Id. at 69.
6 Id. at 68.
7 TSN, dated 13 August 2008, pp. 4-5.
8 Id. at 5-6, 26.
9 Id. at 6.
10 Id. at 8.
11 Id.
12 TSN, dated 17 March 2009, p. 7.
13 TSN, dated 13 August 2008, p. 35.
14 Id. at 8-9, 36.
15 Id. at 9.
16 TSN, dated 17 March 2009, p. 9.
17 TSN, dated 13 August 2008, p. 10.
18 Id. at 10-11.
19 Records, p. 21; Exhibit "G."
20 Id. at 20.
21 Id. at 22.
22 Id. at 23.
23 Id. at 21.
24 TSN, dated I 6 July 2009, pp 4··6; TSN, dated 25 August 2009, pp. 4-7.
25 Id. at 7; TSN, dated 25 August 2009, p. 9.
26 Id. at 8-9.
27 Records, p. 121.
28 Rollo, p. 10.
29 Id. at 18.
30 CA rollo, p. 36.
31 People v. Alberto, 625 Phil. 545, 554(2010), citing People v. Dumlao, 584 Phil. 732, 739-740 (2009).
32 People vs. Chua Tan lee, 457 Phil. 443, 449 (2003).
33 People v. Ismael, G.R. No. 208093, 20 February 2017.
34 Id.
35 People v. Nandi, 639 Phil. 134, 144-145 (2010).
36 TSN, dated 13 August 2008, pp. 11-12.
37 Id. at 10.
38 Records, p. 21.
39 654 Phil. 461 (2011).
40 Id. at 466.
41 Records , p. 69.
42 People v. Sanchez. 590 Phil. 214, 237-238 (2008).
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
