G.R. No. 250927

G.R. No. 250927, November 29, 2022,
♦ Decision, Rosario, [J]
♦ Concurring Opinion, Caguioa, [J]
♦ Concurring Opinion, Gesmundo, [CJ]
♦ Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, Kho, [J]
♦ Separate Opinion, Leonen, [J]

MARIO NISPEROS Y PADILLA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

In warrantless arrests on account of buy-bust operations, the required witnesses must be present "at or near" the place of apprehension, i.e., within the vicinity, in order to comply with the statutory rule that the inventory should be conducted immediately after the seizure and confiscation. Since they may be present "near" the place of apprehension, they need not witness the arrest itself or the seizure or confiscation of the drugs or drug paraphernalia. They only need to be readily available to witness the immediately ensuing inventory.

Petitioner Mario Nisperos y Padilla (petitioner) assails in his Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court the Decision2 dated August 5, 2019 and the Resolution3 dated November 7, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11472, which affirmed the Judgment4 dated March 13, 2018 and Resolution5 dated April 23, 2018 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tuguegarao City, Cagayan, Branch 1 in Crim. Case No. 17489 convicting him for Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

Petitioner was charged with violation of Sec. 56 of R.A. No. 91657 in an Information8 dated September 18, 2015, the accusatory portion of which reads:

That on June 30, 2015, in the City of Tuguegarao, Province of Cagayan, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused MARIO NISPEROS y PADILLA, without authority of law and without any permit to sell, transport, deliver, and distribute dangerous drugs, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, sell and distribute one (1) piece heat(-)sealed transparent plastic sachet containing METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE, commonly known as 'shabu', a dangerous drug weighing 0.7603 grams, to PO1 MICHAEL B. TURINGAN, who is a member of the PNP, assigned at the 2nd Regional Public Safety Batallion (2PRSB) based at Camp Adduru, Tuguegarao City, and who acted as poseur(-)buyer; that when the accused handed to the poseur(-)buyer the heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing the dangerous drugs, the poseur(-)buyer in turn gave to the accused the agreed purchase price of the dangerous drugs in the amount of [₱]3,000.00, consisting of two (2) pieces genuine [₱]500.00 peso-bill bearing Serial Nos. BU211023 and CH966702, and two (2) pieces fake [₱]1,000.00 peso-bill both bearing Serial No. CY118978 which were previously marked and used as buy-bust money; that this led to the immediate arrest of the accused and the recovery of the buy-bust money from his possession, control, and custody along Soriano Street, Pallua Norte, this city, by members of the PNP assigned at the 2nd Regional Public Safety Batallion (2PRSB), Camp Adduru, this city, who formed the buy-bust team, and who acted in coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), Regional Office No. 2, Camp Marcelo Adduru, Tuguegarao City; that the buy-bust operation also led to the confiscation of the dangerous drugs.

When arraigned, petitioner entered a plea of NOT GUILTY to the offense charged.10

According to the evidence for the prosecution, PO1 Michael Turingan was designated as poseur-buyer in a buy-bust operation conducted pursuant to information provided by a confidential informant that a certain "Junjun" of Pallua, Tuguegarao City was selling shabu and looking for a possible buyer. PO1 Turingan was introduced as the buyer of the ordered shabu to petitioner who handed to him one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance. PO1 Turingan handed petitioner the buy-bust money which was later recovered from the latter when bodily searched by PO1 Derel Sunico. An inventory was subsequently conducted at the place of transaction in the presence of petitioner, Department of Justice (DOJ) representative Ferdinand Gangan and Barangay Captain Desiderio Taguinod. Gangan testified that the item was unmarked when the same was first presented to them during the inventory. Hence, PO1 Turingan marked the sachet in front of him. The specimen was then turned over to P02 Edmar Delayun of the crime laboratory who, in turn, transmitted the same to forensic chemist PSI Alfredo Quintero, who conducted the qualitative examination thereon which yielded a positive result for methamphetamine hydrochloride. Thereafter, PSI Quintero brought the specimen to the trial court where it was presented and identified by PO1 Turingan, formally offered, and admitted in evidence.11

For the part of the defense, petitioner denied the allegations contained in the Affidavit of the poseur-buyer for being fabricated and unfounded. He also testified that the chain of custody rule was not properly observed.12

After trial on the merits, the RTC promulgated its Judgment dated March 13, 2018 finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged and sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of ₱500,000.00. It thereafter denied his motion for reconsideration.13

On appeal,14 the CA, in its assailed Decision15 dated August 5, 2019, found that the prosecution was able to establish beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of illegal sale of shabu. Further, the identity and evidentiary value of the seized illegal drug were properly preserved by the apprehending team.16 It affirmed petitioner's conviction with modification as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The Judgment dated 13 March 2018 and Resolution dated 23 April 2018 of the Regional Trial Court of Tuguegarao City, Cagayan, Branch 01 in Crim. Case No. 17489, finding accused-appellant Mario Nisperos y Padilla guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment, and to pay a fine in the amount of Php500,000.00, are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that he shall not be eligible for parole.

The CA also denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration in its assailed Resolution18 dated November 7, 2019.

In summary, petitioner argues that the apprehending team failed to strictly follow the chain of custody rule as laid down in Sec. 2120 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640,21 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations22 (IRR).

Considering that the CA imposed the penalty of life imprisonment, petitioner should have filed a notice of appeal before the CA and not a petition for review on certiorari before this Court.23 Nonetheless, in the interest of substantial justice, We shall excuse the procedural faux pas and treat the petition as an ordinary appeal.

We further note that the petition was filed with a docket fee payment deficiency of ₱80.00 and lacks certified true copies of the assailed Decision and Resolution of the CA, which, under Sec. 5,24 Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, are sufficient grounds for the dismissal thereof.1aшphi1 However, We have, in the past, glossed over such procedural defects25 especially when the petition is meritorious, as in the case at bench.

In the prosecution of drugs cases, the procedural safeguards under the chain of custody procedure embodied in Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, are material, as their compliance affects the corpus delicti which is the dangerous drug, controlled precursor, essential chemical, drug instrument or paraphernalia, and/or laboratory equipment itself, and warrants the identity and integrity of said item/s seized by the apprehending officers.26 Chain of custody refers to the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction.27 Failure to comply, however, with Sec. 21 shall not render void and invalid the seizure of illegal drugs or items provided that (a) there is a justifiable ground for non-compliance and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.28

The mandatory witnesses must be present at or near the place of apprehension in order for the immediate conduct of the inventory.

In alleging failure of the buy-bust team to comply with the chain of custody rule, petitioner asserts that the required witnesses were not present at the time of his arrest. He cites People v. Supat29 where We ruled that "it is their presence at the time of seizure and confiscation that would belie any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drug."

Similarly, in People v. Tomawis,30 We held that since the phrase "immediately after seizure and confiscation" means that the inventory and taking of photographs of the drugs were intended by the law to be made immediately after said seizure, it follows that the witnesses required to be present during the inventory should already be present at the time of apprehension—a requirement that can easily be complied with considering that a buy-bust operation is a planned activity.31 We emphasized that:

The presence of the three witnesses at the time of seizure and confiscation of the drugs must be secured and complied with at the time of the warrantless arrest; such that they are required to be at or near the intended place of the arrest so that they can be ready to witness the inventory and photographing of the seized and confiscated drugs "immediately after seizure and confiscation."32

We are not unmindful of the fact that the presence of the mandatory witnesses at the time of apprehension may pose a serious risk to their lives and to the buy-bust operation. However, since they may also be present "near" and not necessarily "at" the place of apprehension, We stress that they are not required to witness the arrest and the seizure or confiscation of the drugs or drug paraphernalia. They need only be readily available to witness the immediately ensuing inventory.

Here, while the purported sale transpired at 11:30 AM of June 30, 2015, the inventory took place half an hour later. While Barangay Captain Taguinod was already present at the place of transaction, DOJ representative Gangan arrived only at 12 noon. Without his presence, the inventory could not be conducted for lack of one required witness. Given that the inventory was done at the place of seizure and did not need to be performed at the nearest police station or the nearest office of the apprehending team, the buy-bust team should have been able to conduct the same immediately after the seizure, were it not for the tardy arrival of the DOJ representative. Certainly, his late arrival is not a justifiable ground for the delay. The buy-bust team only had itself to blame for not ensuring that all required witnesses were readily available for them to be able to immediately conduct the inventory.

We find, therefore, that the buy-bust team unjustifiably deviated from the chain of custody rule when only one of the mandatory witnesses was readily available at the place of transaction, thus constraining the buy-bust team to conduct the inventory only half an hour after the seizure and confiscation of the drugs.

Marking is the first stage in the chain of custody33 and serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of the criminal proceedings, thus preventing switching, "planting," or contamination of evidence.34 While the rule on marking is not found in statute, Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, requires that the seized item/s be properly marked for identification.35 The Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Guidelines on the IRR of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 likewise require that the apprehending or seizing officer mark the seized item/s immediately upon seizure and confiscation.36 Administrative rules and regulations have the force and effect of law.37 When promulgated in pursuance of the procedure or authority conferred upon the administrative agency by law, rules and regulations partake of the nature of a statute.38 The Court has stated the rationale for this in the following manner:

This is so because statutes are usually couched in general terms, after expressing the policy, purposes, objectives, remedies and sanctions intended by the legislature. The details and the manner of carrying out the law are often times left to the administrative agency entrusted with its enforcement. In this sense, it has been said that rules and regulations are the product of a delegated power to create new or additional legal provisions that have the effect of law.39

In People v. Sanchez,40 We emphasized when and in whose presence marking must be conducted:

Consistency with the "chain of custody" rule requires that the "marking" of the seized items – to truly ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence — should be done (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator (2) immediately upon confiscation. This step initiates the process of protecting innocent persons from dubious and concocted searches, and of protecting as well the apprehending officers from harassment suits based on planting of evidence under Section 29 and on allegations of robbery or theft. (Emphasis in the original.)

It is undisputed in this case that the poseur-buyer failed to mark the seized items immediately upon confiscating it. In fact, they were only marked during the inventory itself.41 No justifiable ground was proffered to excuse the belated marking. Since the first link of the chain was not even established, We find it unnecessary to discuss the other links of the chain. Verily, there was no chain to even speak of. With the belated marking and conduct of the inventory of the seized drugs, the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti are seriously compromised and the acquittal of petitioner is warranted.

In order to guide the bench, the bar, and the public, particularly our law enforcement officers, the Court hereby adopts the following guidelines:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated August 5, 2019 and Resolution dated November 7, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11472 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Mario Nisperos y Padilla is ACQUITTED of the crime charged on the ground of reasonable doubt, and is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention unless he is being lawfully held for another cause. Further, petitioner is ORDERED TO PAY the docket fee deficiency of ₱80.00.

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections for immediate implementation. The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to report to this Court within five (5) days from receipt of this decision the action he has taken. Copies shall also be furnished to the Secretary of Justice, the Police General46 of the Philippine National Police, the Chairperson of the Dangerous Drugs Board, and the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for their information.

Hernando, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, Zalameda, M. Lopez, Gaerlan, J. Lopez, and Singh, JJ., concur.