PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RAMONCITO CORNEL Y ASUNCION, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People of the Philippines versus Cornel

The Case

This is the appeal of Ramoncito Cornel, whom the People charged with the illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act Number 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. After a buy-bust operation in Makati City, the trial court convicted him and the Court of Appeals affirmed in full. The Supreme Court reverses and acquits. The case matters because it is a clean teaching vehicle on the chain of custody and on the strict requirements of Section 21 — the provision that governs the physical inventory and photograph of seized drugs — and on when the saving clause may excuse non-compliance. It also shows the Court refusing to accept a convenient excuse for a procedural lapse.

Procedural History

The Regional Trial Court, Branch 64, Makati City, after trial, found Cornel guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act Number 9165. It sentenced him to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of 500,000 pesos, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. The trial court held that all the elements of the offense were proved, that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved under the chain of custody rule, and that his defense of denial could not overcome the positive testimony of the prosecution.

Cornel appealed to the Court of Appeals, which, in a decision dated June 9, 2016, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the trial court in toto. The appellate court ruled that the illegal sale was established beyond reasonable doubt, that the arrest during a legitimate buy-bust operation was valid, that denial is looked upon with disfavor, and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the shabu were clearly established. Cornel then brought the matter to the Supreme Court by appeal, assigning as errors the weight given to the poseur-buyer's testimony, the legality of his warrantless arrest, the admissibility of the seized drug, the failure to mark the sachet immediately, the irregularities in the inventory, and the broken chain of custody.

Facts

On December 15, 2013, a buy-bust operation was planned against Cornel after coordination with the District Anti-Illegal Drugs office and the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency. A pre-operation plan designated PO1 Mark Anthony Angulo as poseur-buyer, and a marked one thousand peso bill was provided for the operation. The team arrived at Barangay East Rembo, Makati City at around 7:30 in the evening, and after a final briefing PO1 Angulo proceeded on foot with the regular informant.

They found Cornel at a store. The informant introduced PO1 Angulo as a companion, and when asked whether he had stock, Cornel replied that he did. Cornel asked for payment first, took the buy-bust money and placed it in his pocket, then brought out the item from the same pocket and handed it to PO1 Angulo. PO1 Angulo gave the pre-arranged signal by removing his cap, and the back-up arrived. Cornel was arrested, the marked money was recovered in an initial body search, and he was informed of his constitutional rights.

The inventory was conducted not at the place of arrest but at the barangay hall, where photographs and markings were taken. The seized items were then turned over to the duty investigator, a request for laboratory examination was prepared, and the specimen was submitted to the crime laboratory. Cornel's defense was denial: he claimed he was on his way home when two men who introduced themselves as police officers accosted him.

Issues

• Whether or not the guilt of the accused was proven beyond reasonable doubt despite the alleged irregularities in the testimony of the poseur-buyer.
• Whether or not the warrantless arrest of the accused was illegal.
• Whether or not the seized drug is inadmissible as a fruit of the poisonous tree.
• Whether or not the failure to mark the seized plastic sachet immediately after seizure invalidates the seizure.
• Whether or not the irregularities in the conduct of the inventory of the confiscated item are fatal to the prosecution.
• Whether or not the chain of custody of the seized drug was broken.

Applicable Provisions

Section 5, Article II of Republic Act Number 9165, the provision under which Cornel was charged, provides:

On the 15th day of December 2013, in the City of Makati, the Philippines, accused, without the necessary license or prescription and without being authorized by law, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver, and give away Methamphetamine Hydrochloride weighing zero point zero three (0.03) gram, a dangerous drug, in consideration of Php1,000.00. Contrary to law.

This is the very language of the Information, and it frames the elements the prosecution had to prove.

Section 21, paragraph 1 of Republic Act Number 9165, as it stood when the crime was committed, provides:

(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.

This is the heart of the case: the inventory and photograph must be done immediately, and in the presence of the accused and the three required witnesses.

Section 21, paragraph (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act Number 9165 provides:

(a) The apprehending officer/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: 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, further, that non-compliance with 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 of and custody over said items.

This supplies the saving clause: non-compliance under justifiable grounds does not invalidate the seizure if integrity and evidentiary value are preserved.

Section 21 of Republic Act Number 9165, as amended by Republic Act Number 10640, provides:

(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 person/s 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.

The Court notes that this amendment took effect only on July 15, 2014, so the original Section 21 and its Implementing Rules govern this case.

Ruling

The appeal is meritorious. On the first issue, the Court holds that in a prosecution for illegal sale, the identity of the dangerous drug must be established beyond reasonable doubt, because the drug itself is the corpus delicti — the very body of the offense. It must be shown with certitude that the substance bought in the buy-bust operation is exactly the same substance offered in evidence. The chain of custody serves that purpose by removing unnecessary doubts about identity.

On the arrest and the admissibility of the drug, the Court resolves the case on the chain of custody rather than on the legality of the warrantless arrest. The decisive failure is the non-compliance with Section 21.

On the marking and the inventory, the Court finds the prosecution's explanation insufficient. PO1 Angulo testified that the inventory was not conducted at the place of arrest but at the barangay hall. The Court notes that the arresting team was composed of eight police officers, seven of them armed, and only the poseur-buyer was unarmed. Such a number could easily have contained the commotion and proceeded with the immediate inventory. The Court quotes the poseur-buyer's own testimony that they moved to the barangay hall for security purposes, and that he could not recall reporting the commotion. Absent any justifiable reason, the team should have conducted the inventory immediately upon seizure.

The Court also stresses that no explanation and no valid reason were given for the absence of a representative from the media and the Department of Justice during the inventory. The saving clause cannot apply, because the prosecution must explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses and prove the justifiable ground as a fact; the Court cannot presume what those grounds are or that they even exist. The identity of the seized item not having been established beyond reasonable doubt, acquittal follows.

Doctrine

In every prosecution for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the corpus delicti — the body of the offense — is the drug itself, and its identity must be proved beyond reasonable doubt: the substance presented in court must be the very same substance seized from the accused.

Section 21 of Republic Act Number 9165 requires that the apprehending team, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the drugs in the presence of the accused or his representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official. Non-compliance does not ipso facto invalidate the seizure, but the saving clause applies only if the prosecution proves two things: that there is a justifiable ground for non-compliance, and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved. The justifiable ground must be proved as a fact; it is never presumed. A bare claim of commotion or security concern, contradicted by the presence of a numerically superior armed team, is not a justifiable ground.

Disposition

The Court reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals, acquitted Ramoncito Cornel for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and ordered his immediate release unless he is confined for some other lawful cause.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the drug is the corpus delicti, and the saving clause in Section 21 requires a justifiable ground proved as a fact plus preserved integrity and evidentiary value. Examiners use this case to test whether you can distinguish a valid excuse for a procedural lapse from a mere convenience, and whether you know that the original Section 21 governs crimes committed before the 2014 amendment.