PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROGELIO N. DELA CRUZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
BUESER, J.:
“WHEREFORE, the prosecution having presented convincing evidence that the accused is liable for the offense charged and having proven her (sic) guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the Court hereby finds accused ROGELIO N. DELA CRUZ GUILTY of the offense charged for violation of Section II of R.A. 9165 and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY as minimum to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS and EIGHT (8) MONTHS as maximum of Reclusion Temporal and a fine of Php300,000.00.
SO ORDERED.”
The Facts
An Information for violation of Section II, Republic Act No. 9165 was filed against appellant, it reads –
“That on or about the 30th day of May, in the City of Angeles, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession custody and control one (11) heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing SHABU (METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE) with an aggregate weight of more or less THREE HUNDREDTHS OF A GRAM (0.03) which is a prohibited dangerous drug without authority whatsoever.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”
During arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty. Trial on the merits ensued.
Prosecution evidence tend to establish that –
On March 30, 2003, Police Station 4 of Balibago, Angeles City, received a call from a concerned citizen, informing them that the Dela Cruz brothers were seen in Purok 4, Barangay Amsic, Angeles City roaming armed with short firearms and hand grenades. Acting on the report, Special Weapons and Tactics Commander P/Supt. Dennis Pasngi (“P/Supt. Pasngi”) dispatched SWAT Team Bravo composed of P/SInsp Eduardo Tuazon, Jr. (P/SInspt Tuazon), SPO2 Arnel Mejiano (“SPO2 Mejiano”), PO2 Emerito Ramos (“PO2 Ramos”) and PO2 Emmet Nunag (“PO2 Nunag”) to assist the police officers of Police Station 5 in apprehending the Dela Cruz brothers.
Upon arrival at the target area, the team spotted the Dela Cruz brothers at the Hidden Valley Resort. When the Dela Cruz brothers saw the police operatives, an exchange of gunshots ensued. Eventually, appellant was apprehended. A body search on him yielded – (1) one caliber .38 revolver with no serial number with four empty cartridges and two live ammunitions in the chamber; (2) one caliber .357 magnum without serial numbers with two empty cartridges and four live ammunitions; (3) two arrows; and (4) one heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance (“confiscated item”). Appellant was thereafter taken to the police station.
At the station, PO2 Ramos marked the plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance, that he recovered from appellant’s right front pocket, with his initials “EMR.” PO2 Ramos then accomplished a confiscation receipt. The confiscated item was forwarded to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. Based on Chemistry Report No. D-125-2003, the confiscated item tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride otherwise known as shabu.
Appellant denied the allegations. He narrated that on March 30, 2003, he was walking by the creek in Pasig City when he saw male individuals in civilian clothes, armed with firearms, calling him. He did not know who they were so he ran away. They ran after him and was able to catch him. Upon catching him they started hitting him with their firearms and he was taken to the police station.
The Trial Court’s Ruling
After due proceedings, the trial court rendered its Decision and found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged, viz –
“From the evidence presented, PO2 Emmet Nunag has sufficiently established the following facts:
1. That it was PO2 Emerito Ramos who conducted the bodily search;
2. That one (1) heat sealed transparent plastic sachet was recovered from Rogelio Dela Cruz’s front right pocket; and
3. That the plastic sachet was marked by PO2 Ramos at the Police Station with his initial “EMR.”
All of the said facts support the theory of the prosecution that the accused was in possession of the plastic sachet containing suspected shabu. The same plastic sachet was brought to the PNP crime laboratory for examination and yielded positive as to the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a prohibited drug. The result is embodied in Chemistry Report No. D-127-2003. Furthermore, the same plastic sachet with the marking “EMR” was identified in open court.”
Hence, this appeal.
Issue
Appellant raises the sole assignment of error-
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED BECAUSE THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO OVERTHROW HIS CONSTITUTIONAL PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE.
This Court’s Ruling
Appellant claims that the prosecution failed to establish the continuous and unbroken chain of custody of the subject evidence hence, the evidentiary value of the recovered item is highly questionable.
The Office of the Solicitor General (“OSG”) seconded the appellant and manifested that appellant’s conviction be reversed.[2]
We find the appeal meritorious.
A successful prosecution for the sale of illegal drugs requires more than the perfunctory presentation of evidence establishing each element of the crime: the identities of the buyer and seller, the transaction or sale of the illegal drug and the existence of the corpus delicti.[3] In securing or sustaining a conviction under RA No. 9165, the intrinsic worth of these pieces of evidence, especially the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti, must definitely be shown to have been preserved. This requirement necessarily arises from the illegal drug’s unique characteristic that renders it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution either by accident or otherwise.[4] Thus, to remove any doubt or uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the seized drug, evidence must definitely show that the illegal drug presented in court is the same illegal drug actually recovered from the accused-appellant; otherwise, the prosecution for possession or for drug pushing under RA No. 9165 fails.
Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of RA No. 9165 lays down the procedures that the apprehending team should observe in handling the seized illegal drugs, it states –
“Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of RA No. 9165, states:
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.”
We are aware that the Implementing Rules of RA 9165 offer some flexibility and non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said item, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer.
However, in the case at bar, the prosecution miserably failed to show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized have been preserved.
PO2 Emmet Nunag, the lone prosecution witness, testified that it was PO2 Ramos who recovered the plastic sachet from the appellant and that the latter marked the seized item, with the initials “EMR”, upon arrival at the police station. This is where the link is broken. There is nothing on records that establish the various links in the chain of custody.
The first link in the chain of custody started with the seizure of the plastic sachet. The plastic sachet was confiscated by Officers Tuazon and Ramos. Thereafter, appellant and the seized item were taken to the police station. The second link was the turnover of the seized item from PO2 Ramos to the Police Investigator. While the marking “EMR” was done in the station by PO2 Ramos it was not shown who received the seized item after it was marked. P02 Nunag merely testified that Officer Ruben Calumag prepared the certification of initial field test. The third link was the submission of the seized item to the crime laboratory. The prosecution failed to present evidence pertaining to the identity of the person who submitted the seized item to the crime laboratory. Although the request for technical analysis was prepared by Police Senior Inspector Ramon Ancia, evidence does not show that it was Police Senior Inspector Ramon Ancia who received the seized item from PO2 Ramos and that it was he who took the seized item to the crime laboratory. Even Chemistry Report No. D-127-2003 does not identify the person who brought the seized item to the PNP crime laboratory for examination. Worse, PO2 Nunag could not identify the person who took the seized item to the crime laboratory. He testified that he was merely informed that the seized item had been forwarded.
The foregoing show the gaps in the chain of custody, from the seizure of the plastic sachet until it was presented in court. This to our mind leaves doubt that the plastic sachet offered in court is certainly the same one that was allegedly confiscated from the appellant.
In addition, the weight of the contents of the plastic sachet, as per the Certification of Field Test,[5] was 0.03 gram but in the Request for Technical Analysis, the weight was modified, with a handwritten annotation, to 0.0874 gram. No explanation was given as to how the actual weight was ascertained and why there was a discrepancy between the weight stated in the Confiscation Receipt and the Request for Technical Analysis. Even the Confiscation Receipt[6] stated the weight of the seized item as 0.03. Furthermore, the PNP crime laboratory did not conduct a quantitative examination to determine the real weight of the seized item but merely performed a qualitative examination to establish the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride.
In conclusion, We are not implying that accused-appellant did not commit the crime. What the Court is saying is that when measured against the required quantum of evidence in criminal cases, the case for the prosecution has miserably failed in [some] aspects. Simply put, if we are to be guided by the established rules of evidence, we can safely say that the guilt of accused-appellant was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.[7] Thus, We acquit the accused-appellant for failure of the prosecution – due to the broken chain of custody over the dangerous drugs allegedly recovered from him – to establish the required proof of guilt.[8]
We are not to end this decision without condemning the unjustified lapses committed by the buy bust team. It is lamentable that the judiciary has become the “whipping boy” whenever law enforcement agencies are put to task regarding their ineffective performance in the apprehension of violators of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Law. They blame the judges and justices for acquitting the suspects despite the fact that aforesaid acquittals were due to the ineptitude of the law enforcers. With this in mind, investigation of such serious lapses is only proper and it should be conducted by the concerned officials of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), and the Dangerous Drug Board (DDB). Whenever necessary, let appropriate punishment be imposed.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby REVERSE and SET ASIDE the Decision dated October 30, 2012, of the Regional Trial Court , Branch 57, of Angeles City in CRM. CASE No. DC-03-151. Accused-appellant Rogelio N. Dela Cruz is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention unless he is confined for another lawful cause.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Chairman of the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM), the PNP Chief, Chairperson of PDEA and Dangerous Drugs Board with the corresponding directive upon said agencies to, upon receipt hereof, conduct the necessary investigation regarding the lapses and improprieties observed in the implementation of Section 21 of the Implementing Rules and Regulation of R.A. No. 9165 and, thereafter, furnish this Court within sixty (60) days from notice hereof, the result of said investigation, failing in which will constrain us to issue a show cause order why they should not be cited for contempt.
SO ORDERED.
De Guia-Salvador (Chairman) and Garcia, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, p. 18.
[2] Office of the Solicitor General’s Manifestation and Motion, Id. at 55-61.
[3] People vs. Denoman, G.R. No. 171732, August 14, 2009.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Records, p.181.
[6] Records, p. 182.
[7] People vs. Isidro Comesario y Dacasin, supra.
[8] People vs. Gomer S. Climaco, supra.