 |
|||
|
| |||
CONTRARY TO LAW.6 The prosecution alleged that at around five (5) o’clock in the afternoon of August 3, 2005 and after receiving information about Año’s drug activities at Daangbakal, Guitnangbayan II, Police Officer (PO) 2 Ruel T. Ayad (P02 Ayad), PO1 Aldwin Ortilla (POl Ortilla), and POl Jenesis A. Acuin7 (PO1 Acuin) formed a buy-bust team designating P02 Ayad as the poseur-buyer, with POl Ortilla and PO1 Acuin as back-ups, and marked two (2) ₱100.00 bills to be used in the operation.8 Thereafter, the team headed to the house of Año where P02 Ayad knocked on the door and upon seeing Año, whispered that he "wants to score" worth P200.00. Año replied that he has drugs with him and gave P02 Ayad a transparent plastic sachet, while the latter simultaneously handed the marked money as payment. As Año placed the money inside his pocket, P02 Ayad introduced himself as a policeman, causing Año to flee. Fortunately, P02 Ayad caught Año and asked him to empty his pockets which produced the two (2) ₱100.00 bills. Due to the commotion caused by Año's relatives who were preventing his arrest, the team moved at a distance of around 100 meters from the place of arrest, marked the confiscated sachet, and completed the inventory thereat. Barangay Captain Leo S. Buenviaje (Brgy. Captain Buenviaje) witnessed and signed the Inventory of Seized/Confiscated Items,9 photographs were also taken in the presence of Año, P02 Ayad, and PO1 Acuin.10 On the same day, P02 Ayad delivered the seized sachet to the Crime Laboratory where it was turned over to Police Inspector Forensic Chemist Beaune V. Villaraza (FC Villaraza) for examination. In Laboratory Report No. D-198-09,11 FC Villaraza confirmed that the seized sachet was positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug.12 Upon arraignment, Año pleaded not guilty and denied the charges leveled against him. He claimed that on said date, he was at home celebrating the 4th birthday of his nephew when suddenly, three police officers whom he identified to be P02 Ayad, PO1 Ortilla, and PO1 Acuin, forcibly arrested him and brought him to the police station for inquiry. The following day, he learned that he was being charged of drug pushing.13 The RTC Ruling In a Decision14 dated October 1, 2012, the RTC found Año guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5 of RA 9165, sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of ₱500,000.00.15 The RTC found all the elements for the prosecution of sale of dangerous drugs present, noting that the identity of Año as the seller of the illegal drug was clearly established when he was arrested in fiagrante delicto during a buy-bust operation.16 Aggrieved, Año elevated his conviction before the Court of Appeals (CA).17 The CA Ruling In a Decision18 dated December 4, 2015, the CA upheld the RTC ruling,19 likewise finding that all the elements constituting the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs were present. Moreover, it ruled that the apprehending officers duly complied with the chain of custody rule under Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165, as P02 Ayad testified in detail the links in the chain of custody of the seized drug from the time of its confiscation until its presentation in court as evidence. Hence, this appeal. The Issue Before the Court The issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not Año is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. The Court’s Ruling The appeal is meritorious. At the outset, it must be stressed that an appeal in criminal cases opens the entire case for review and, thus, it is the duty of the reviewing tribunal to correct, cite, and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned.20 "The appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and renders such court competent to examine records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law."21 Here, Afio was charged with the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, defined and penalized under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. In order to secure the conviction of an accused charged with Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, the prosecution must prove: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment.22 It is likewise essential for a conviction that the drugs subject of the sale be presented in court and its identity established with moral certainty through an unbroken chain of custody over the same. In cases like this, the prosecution must be able to account for each link in the chain of custody over the dangerous drug from the moment of seizure up to its presentation in court as evidence of the corpus delicti.23 In this relation, Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 provides the chain of custody rule, outlining the procedure that police officers must follow in handling the seized drugs in order to ensure that their integrity and evidentiary value are preserved.24 Under the said section, prior to its amendment by RA 10640,25 the apprehending team shall, among others, immediately after seizure and confiscation conduct a physical inventory and take photographs of the seized items in the presence of the accused or theperson from whom such items were seized, or his representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall then sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy of the same; and the seized drugs must be turned over to the PNP Crime Laboratory within twenty-four (24) hours from confiscation for examination purposes.26 In the case of People v. Mendoza,27 the Court stressed that "[w]ithout 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 [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 [said drugs] that were evidence herein of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused. Indeed, the x x x presence of such witnesses would have preserved an unbroken chain of custody."28 The Court, however, clarified that under varied field conditions, strict compliance with the requirements of Section 21of RA9165 may not always be possible.29 In fact, the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 - which is now crystallized into statutory law with the passage of RA 1064030- provide that non-compliance with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 - under justifiable grounds - will not automatically render void and invalid the seizure and custody over the seized items so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer or team.31 In other words, the failure of the apprehending team to strictly comply with the procedure laid out in Section 21 of RA 9165 and its IRR does not ipso facto render the seizure and custody over the items as void and invalid, provided that the prosecution satisfactorily proves that: (a) there is justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.32 In People v. Almorfe,[[33]] the Court explained that for the above-saving clause to apply, the prosecution must explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses, and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized evidence had nonetheless been preserved.34 Also, in People v. De Guzman,35 it was emphasized that the justifiable ground for non-compliance must be proven as a fact, because the Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist.36 After a judicious study of the case, the Court finds that there are substantial gaps in the chain of custody of the seized items from Año which were unfortunately, left unjustified, thereby putting into question their integrity and evidentiary value. As the prosecution submits, upon Año's arrest, PO1 Ortilla called Brgy. Captain Buenviaje to witness the marking and to sign the inventory. After which, P02 Ayad marked the sachet of shabu subject of the sale with Año's intials, "NDRA," while PO1 Ortilla prepared an inventory of the seized items, which was signed by Brgy. Captain Buenviaje as witness, and had them photographed. Thereafter, the buy-bust team escorted Año to the police station and turned over the sachet for examination to FC Villaraza. While the fact of marking and inventory of the seized item was established by the attached Inventory of Seized/Confiscated Items,37 the records are glaringly silent as to the presence of the required witnesses, namely, the representatives from the media and the DOJ. To reiterate, Section 21 (1) of RA 9165, prior to its amendment by RA 10640, as well as its IRR requires the presence of the following witnesses during the conduct of inventory and photography of the seized items: (a) the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel; (b) any elected public official; and (c) a representative from the media and the DOJ.38 In their absence, the prosecution must provide a credible explanation justifying the noncompliance with the rule; otherwise, the saving clause under the IRR of RA 9165 (and now, the amended Section 21, Article II of RA 9165) would not apply. Here, no such explanation was proffered by the prosecution to justify the procedural lapse. It then follows that there are unjustified gaps in the chain of custody of the items seized from Año, thereby militating against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which resultantly warrants his acquittal.39 It is well-settled that the procedure under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 is a matter of substantive law, and cannot be brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality; or worse ignored as an impediment to the conviction of illegal drug suspects.40 As a final note, the Court finds it fitting to echo its recurring pronouncement in recent jurisprudence on the subject matter:
In this light, prosecutors are strongly reminded that they have the positive duty to prove compliance with the procedure set forth in Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended. As such, they must have the initiative to not only acknowledge but also justify any perceived deviations from the said procedure during the proceedings before the trial court. Since compliance with this procedure is determinative of the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti and ultimately, the fate of the liberty of the accused, the fact that any issue regarding the same was not raised, or even threshed out in the court/s below, would not preclude the appellate court, including this Court, from fully examining the records of the case if only to ascertain whether the procedure had been completely complied with, and if not, whether justifiable reasons exist to excuse any deviation. If no such reasons exist, then it is the appellate court's bounden duty to acquit the accused, and perforce, overturn a conviction. WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated December 4, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 06127 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Nestor Año y Del Remedios is ACQUITTED of the crime charged. The Director of Bureau of Corrections is ordered to cause his immediate release, unless he is being lawfully held in custody for any other reason.1avvphi1 SO ORDERED. ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE WE CONCUR: ANTONIO T. CARPIO
ANDRES B. REYES, JR. C E R T I F I C A T I O N Pursuant to the Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, 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 Footnotes *Acting Chief Justice per Special Order No. 2539 dated February 28, 2018. 1 See Notice of Appeal dated January 7, 2016; rollo, pp. 14-15. 2 Rollo, pp. 2-13. Penned by Associate Justice Noel G. Tijam (now a member of the Court) with Associate Justices Francisco P. Acosta and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. concurring. 3 CA rollo, pp. 45-53. Penned by Judge Josephine Zarate Fernandez. 4 Entitled "AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFORE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on June 7, 2002. 5 Records, pp. 1-2. 6 Id. at 1. 7 "P02 Jenesis Acuin" in some parts of the records. 8 See rollo, pp. 3-4. 9 See Inventory of Seized/Confiscated Items dated August 3, 2009; records, p. 14. 10 See id. at 17 and 48. 11 Id. at 65. 12 See id. See also rollo, pp. 3-5. 13 See rollo, pp. 3 and 5-6. 14 CA rollo, pp. 45-53. 15 Id. at 53. 16 See id. at 51-53. 17 See Notice of Appeal dated November 14, 2012; records, p. 175. 18 Rollo, pp. 2-13. 19 Id. at 12. 20 See People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 225 (2015). 21 People v. Comboy, G.R. No. 218399, March 2, 2016, 785 SCRA 512, 521. 22 People v. Sumili, 753 Phil. 342, 348 (2015). 23 See People v. Viterbo, 739 Phil. 593, 601 (2014). See also People v. Alagarme, 754 Phil. 449, 459-460 (2015). 24 See People v. Sumili, 753 Phil. 342, 349-350 (2015). 25 Entitled "AN ACT TO FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE ANTI-DRUG CAMPAIGN OF THE GOVERNMENT, AMENDrNG FOR THE PURPOSE SECTION 21 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE 'COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002"' approved on July 15, 2014. 26 See Section 21 (I) and (2), Article II of RA 9165. 27 736 Phil. 749 (2014). 28 Id. at 764; emphases and underscoring supplied. 29 See People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214, 234 (2008). 30 Section 1 of RA 10640 states:
31 See Section 21 (a), Article II, of the IRR of RA 9165. See also People v. Ceralde, G.R. No. 228894, August 7, 2017. 32 See Peoplev. Goco, G.R. No. 219584, October 17, 2016, 806 SCRA 240, 252. 33 631 Phil. 51 (2010). 34 See id. at 60. 35 630 Phil. 63 7 (2010). 36 Id. at 649. 37 Records, p. 14. 38 See Section 21 (1), Article II of RA 9165 and Section 21 (a), Article II of its IRR. 39 People v. Lintag, G.R. No. 219855, September 6, 2016, 802 SCRA 257, 267. 40 See People v. Macapundag, G.R. No. 225965, March 13, 2017, citing People v. Umipang, 486 Phil. 1024, 1038 (2012). 41 People v. Go, 457 Phil. 885, 925 (2003), citing People v. Aminnudin, 246 Phil. 424, 434-435 (1988). The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation 
| |||
