THIRD DIVISION
August 7, 2019
G.R. No. 225210
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee
vs.
LARRY SULTAN y ALMADA, Accused-Appellant
D E C I S I O N
LEONEN, J.:
Unless an unbroken chain of custody over items allegedly seized during drug operations is established, the constitutional right to be presumed innocent prevails. Ultimately, doubt in the corpus delicti-the drugs and drug paraphernalia that were the alleged objects of a drug offense-impels the acquittal of an accused.
For this Court's resolution is an appeal challenging the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court, finding accused-appellant Larry Sultan y Almad (Sultan) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Article II, Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Two (2) separate Informations were filed against Sultan for violating the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The charge for violation of Section 5, for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, read:
Criminal Case Nos. 12-37189
That on or about the 6th day of December, 2012, in the City of Bacolod, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the herein accused, not being authorized by law to sell, trade, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drugs, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver or give away One (1) small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, also known as Shabu, a dangerous drug, with a weight of 0.080 gram of white crystalline substance, with marking "LAS-A" to the CAID-SOTG, BCPO, Bacolod City poseur-buyer PO2 Tony D. Hechanova in a buy-bust operation in exchange on One (1) piece One Thousand peso bill bearing Serial No. QJ921640 with SYR marking, in violation of aforementioned law.3
Meanwhile, the charge for violation of Section 11, for the illegal possession of dangerous drugs, read:
Criminal Case Nos. 12-37188
That on or about the 6th day of December, 2012, in the City of Bacolod, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the herein accused, not being authorized by law to possess any dangerous drugs, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and under his custody and control, THREE (3) big heat-sealed plastic sachets with the following weights and markings:
1) "LAS B-1" 2.982
2) "LAS B-2" 3.256
3) "LAS B-3" 2.572
TOTAL WEIGHT 8.810 containing white crystalline substance with a total weight of 8.810 grams, containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, without the corresponding license or prescription therefore (sic), in violation of aforementioned law. 4
When arraigned on December 18, 2012, Sultan pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged. Trial then followed. 5
The prosecution presented three (3) witnesses: (1) Police Superintendent Santiago Y. Rapiz (Superintendent Rapiz); (2) Police Officer 2 Tony D. Hechanova (PO2 Hechanova); and (3) Police Chief Inspector Paul Jerome S. Puentespina (Chief Inspector Puentespina). For the defense, Sultan and Marian M. Batungara (Batungara) took the witness stand. 6
According to the prosecution, at around 2:00 p.m. on December 6, 2012, Superintendent Rapiz was informed that a certain Larry Sultan was engaging in the illegal trade of shabu. Accordingly, he assembled a buy-bust team, designating PO2 Hechanova as the poseur-buyer. PO2 Hechanova received a marked ₱1,000.00 bill for the transaction.7
Later that day, PO2 Hechanova and the confidential asset rode a jeep to the Sea Breeze Hotel on San Juan Street, Bacolod City.8
Upon arrival, they approached Sultan, who was standing at the hotel's main door. The confidential asset inquired if Sultan has ₱1,000.00 worth of shabu. Confirming that he had it, Sultan handed PO2 Hechanova an elongated sachet containing white crystalline substance in exchange for the marked money. As soon as the transaction occurred, the asset placed a missed call to the team, which then rushed to the scene. Meanwhile, PO2 Hechanova introduced himself as a police officer and arrested Sultan.9
Upon frisking Sultan, PO2 Hechanova recovered three (3) plastic sachets of suspected shabu in his left pocket. He then informed Sultan of the nature and cause of his arrest and apprised him of his constitutional rights. 10
Sultan was then brought to the barangay hall of Barangay 12, Bacolod City where PO2 Hechanova marked the plastic sachets. The inventory and photographing of the seized items were made in the presence of Punong Barangay Demapanag and Kagawad Gomez. 11
Subsequently, PO2 Hechanova requested a laboratory examination of the seized sachets' contents at the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory Office Six, Camp Montelibano, Bacolod City. 12 PO2 Edwin Albarico (PO2 Albarico) received the specimen, 13 after which he gave it to Chief Inspector Puentespina who examined the seized items, which tested positive for shabu. 14
Testifying in his defense, Sultan denied possessing and selling shabu. He claimed that at around 2:00 p.m. on December 6, 2012, he was booking a room with Batungara at the Sea Breeze Hotel when he received a call from a friend, Erwin Elibaldo (Elibaldo). When Elibaldo allegedly expressed his desire to pay his debt, Sultan arranged for their meeting in the hotel. A few minutes later, Elibaldo arrived with two (2) strangers, whom Sultan later came to know as police officers. They approached Sultan, took his sling bag, and arrested him.15
Then, the officers brought him to Superintendent Rapiz's office at a certain JMP Building. 16 Superintendent Rapiz allegedly talked about bargaining, but it did not make sense to Sultan. Afterwards, he was brought to a barangay hall, where the police officers opened his sling bag and marked its contents, which, according to Sultan, did not include shabu. 17
Batungara corroborated Sultan's testimony. 18
In its November 27, 2013 Decision, 19 the Regional Trial Court found, Sultan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, and Section 11, for the illegal possession of dangerous drugs, under Article II of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act.20
The Regional Trial Court ruled that the prosecution established all the elements of the crimes and satisfactorily proved the identity of the dangerous drugs. It found PO2 Hechanova's "candid and straightforward testimony"21 deserving of full faith and credit, finding no ill motive on his part.22 The dispositive portion of the Decision read:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered, as follows:
(a) In Criminal Case No. 12-37189, finding Accused-Defendant LARRY SULTAN y ALMADA GUILTY, beyond reasonable doubt, of Section 5, Article II, Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Act of 2002. He is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱500,000.00); (b) In Criminal Case No. 12-37188, finding Accused-Defendant LARRY SULTAN y ALMADA GUILTY, beyond reasonable doubt, of Section 11, Article II, Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Act of 2002. He is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of twenty (20) years and one (1) day and to pay a fine of Four Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱400,000.00).
(c) The dangerous drug subject matter of these cases (Exhibits "C" to "F") are hereby confiscated in favor of the government pursuant to Section 20, RA. No. 9165 and ordered to be turned-over to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), Regional Office Six (6) for destruction;
(d) The Jail Warden of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology, Male Dormitory, Barangay Taculing, Bacolod City is hereby ORDERED to IMMEDIATELY TRANSFER Accused-Defendant LARRY SULTAN y ALMADA to the National Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City, Metro Manila, for the service of his sentence pursuant to OCA Circular No. 40-2013; and,
[e] No pronouncement as to cost.
SO ORDERED.23 (Emphasis in the original)
In its October 20, 2015 Decision,24 the Court of Appeals affirmed Sultan's conviction in toto. It dismissed as trivial the prosecution's failure to identify who had custody of the seized evidence at all times. 25 Maintaining that what is important is the preservation of the seized items' integrity, the Court of Appeals held that "the testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain."26 The dispositive portion of its Decision read:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal is DENIED. The 27 November 2013 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City, Branch 52 finding Larry Sultan y Almada guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA. No. 9165, in Criminal Case Nos. 12-37188 and 12-37189 is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.27 (Emphasis in the original)
Thus, Sultan filed his Notice of Appeal.28 Giving due course to his appeal per its April 22, 2016 Resolution,29 the Court of Appeals elevated30 the case records to this Court.
In its August 10, 2016 Resolution, 31 this Court noted the case records and informed the parties that they may file their supplemental briefs. On November 13, 2018, accused-appellant filed his Supplemental Brief. 32 For its part, the Office of the Solicitor General, on behalf of plaintiff-appellee People of the Philippines, manifested that it would no longer file a supplemental brief.33
In his Brief,34 accused-appellant asserts that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming his conviction despite the prosecution's failure to prove are unbroken chain of custody. He assails the police officer's unjustified marking of the seized items at the barangay hall instead of at the place o 1 confiscation. 35 He argues that the non-presentation of PO2 Albarico, the police officer who allegedly received the specimen for examination, cas1, doubt on the identity and integrity of the seized items. 36
On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General maintains in its Brief37 that the prosecution duly established all the elements of the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. It further avers that the chain of custody was properly established. 38
For this Court's resolution is the lone issue of whether or not accused-appellant Larry Sultan y Almada is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Article II, Sections 5 and 11 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act.
This Court grants the appeal and acquits accused-appellant.
I
Settled are the elements required to sustain convictions for violations of Section 5, for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, and Section 11, for the illegal possession of dangerous drugs, of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. These are enumerated in People v. Que:39
In actions involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must first be established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took place and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.
On the other hand, in prosecutions for illegal possession of a dangerous drug, it must be shown that (1) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug, (2) such possession is not authorized by law, and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug. Similarly, in this case, the evidence of the corpus delicti must be established beyond reasonable doubt.40
In both cases, the corpus delicti is the illicit drug seized from the accused. 41 In People v. Sagana: 42
"[I]t is of paramount importance that the existence of the drug, the corpus delicti of the crime, be established beyond doubt." Its identity and integrity must be proven to have been safeguarded. Aside from proving the elements of the charges, "the fact that the substance illegally possessed and sold [was] the same substance offered in court as exhibit must likewise be established with the same degree of certitude as that needed to sustain a guilty verdict." The chain of custody carries out this purpose "as it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed."43
Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640, outlines the requirements for the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered drugs and/or drug paraphernalia:
SECTION 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 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 persons 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 noncompliance 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[;]
(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination; (3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued immediately upon the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not allow the completion of testing within the time frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided, however, That a final certification shall be issued immediately upon completion of the said examination and certification[.] (Emphasis supplied)
Noncompliance with Section 21 engenders doubt on the integrity of the corpus delicti. When the corpus delicti is cast in doubt, an accused's guilt is also cast in doubt-warranting acquittal.44
Que explained how Republic Act No. 10640, in amending Republic Act No. 9165, relaxed what Section 21(1) required:
It was relaxed with respect to the persons required to be present during the physical inventory and photographing of the seized items. Originally under Republic Act No. 9165, the use of the conjunctive "and" indicated that Section 21 required the presence of all of the following, in addition to "the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel":
First, a representative from the media;
Second, a representative from the Department of Justice; and
Third, any elected public official.
As amended by Republic Act No. 10640, Section 21 (1) uses the disjunctive "or," i.e., "with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media." Thus, a representative from the media and a representative from the National Prosecution Service are now alternatives to each other.45 (Emphasis in the original, citations omitted)
Because he buy-bust operation occured in 2012, prior to Section 21's amendment, the original text of the law applies. Yet, operating under either version still leads this Court to the same ruling in this case: the prosecution failed to show the police officers' strict compliance with Section 21. Two (2) barangay officials witnessed the marking, inventorying, and photographing of the seized items. Beyond that, no representatives from both the media and the Department of Justice were present.
The required witnesses must not only be present during the inventorying and photographing, but as early as the seizure of items.46 People v. Mendoza47 underscores the danger that follows when these required third-party witnesses are absent in securing the custody of the seized items:
Without the insulating presence of the representative from the media or the Department of Justice, or any elected public official during the seizure and marking of the sachets of shabu, the evils of switching, "planting" or contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-busts conducted under the regime of RA 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 sachets of shabu that were evidence herein of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused. Indeed, the insulating presence of such witnesses would have preserved an unbroken chain of custody.48
Moreover, Section 21 mandates the conduct of inventory and taking of photographs "immediately after seizure and confiscation," which means that these must be done at the place of the arrest. Que explained:
What is critical in drug cases is not the bare conduct of inventory, marking, and photographing. Instead, it is the certainty that the items allegedly taken from the accused retain their integrity, even as they make their way from the accused to an officer effecting the seizure, to an investigating officer, to a forensic chemist, and ultimately, to courts where they are introduced as evidence. . . .
Section 21 (1)'s requirements are designed to make the first and second links foolproof. Conducting the inventory and photographing immediately after seizure, exactly where the seizure was done, or at a location as practicably close to it, minimizes, if not eliminates, room for adulteration or the planting of evidence[.]49 (Emphasis supplied)
Under the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, the physical inventory and photographing of the seized items may be done "at the nearest police station or at the nearer. office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable." Evidently, the barangay hall, as in this case, is not an alternative.
While deviations may be condoned under justifiable grounds, the prosecution must plead and prove that justifiable ground.50 This Court has decried sweeping, unsubstantiated references to exceptions from Section 21's requirements in Sagana:51
[T]he prosecution cannot simply rely on the saving clause provided for under the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165. While non-conformity with the strict directive of Section 21 is not essentially prejudicial to its claim, the lapses committed by the police officers "must be recognized and explained in terms of their justifiable grounds and the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized must be shown to have been preserved."52 (Emphasis in the original, citation omitted)
People v. Lim53 considered excusable situations:
It must be alleged and proved that the presence of the three witnesses to the physical inventory and photograph of the illegal drug seized was not obtained due to reason/s 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.54 (Citation omitted)
Here, the prosecution has never bothered to prove, let alone plead, any situation akin to those contemplated in Lim to excuse the police enforcers deviation from the law's simple requirements. This casts doubt on the integrity of the items supposedly seized and, ultimately, on the commission of the crimes.
II
The chain of custody rule removes unnecessary doubts on the identity of the dangerous drugs presented in court.55 Officers who come into possession of seized drugs must show how they handled and preserved the integrity of the seized drugs while in their custody.56 In Mallillin v. People:57
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into 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.58 (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)
People v. Nandi59 identified four (4) links which should be established in the chain of custody of the confiscated item:
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.60[F]irst,