® Republic of the Whilippines Supreme Court Manila SECOND DIVISION PEOPLE OF THE GR. No.249990 PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff Applies, Present: PERLAS-BERNABE, S.J, = vers - Chairperson, HERNANDO, INTING, RANILO S, SUAREZ, DELOS SANTOS, and ‘Accused-Appellant. — GAERLAN,’ DECISION PERLAS-BERNABE, J: Assailed in this ordinary appeal isthe Decision? dated February 13, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR. CR-HC No. 01366-MIN, \hich affirmed the Decision’ dated September 4, 2013 of the Regional Teal Court of Panabo City, Branch 4 (RTC) in Criminal Case No. 284-2008, finding accused-appellant Ranilo S. Suarez (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, defined and penalized under Section 5, Antcle I! of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165," otherwise known as the “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002." ‘The Facts This case stemmed from an Information filed before the RTC charging accused-appeliant with Ulegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs. It was ‘esl Aon Menterer Spc On Ns 2780 Ma 11,200, 1 ns ne es go lowe Puno Munem Nem One Pn aeneon oe ceDesision 2 GR. No. 249900 alleged that in the aftemoon of July 16, 2008, operatives of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Regional Office, Davao "City ‘implemented a buy-bust operation in Panabo City, Davao Del Norte, ‘against accused-appellant, during which, one (I) transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance was recovered from him. The seized item was then placed inside a sealed evidence pouch, When the PDEA operatives noticed that people had started to gather around them, they, together with the accused-appellant, immediately left on board ther service vehicle. On the way to thei office, the PDEA operatives alighted the vehicle to conduct the marking of the seized item. Upon reaching the PDEA office, they tumed over the seized item and the buy-bust money, and presented accused-appellant, to the duty desk officer, Since the witnesses for the inventory and photography were not available at that time, Investigating Ofiver 2 Hazel B. Ortoyo (102 Ortoyo) took custody ofthe seized item and put it inside her locker at the office, with only she having accessed thereto. The following day, 102 Ontoyo brought the seized items to the crime laboratory in Eeoland, Davao City (which is geographically located Davao Del Sur) where the inventory and photography took place in the Presence ofthe representatives from the media and the Department of Justice (DON), an elected barangay official, and a photographer. Thereafter, the arresting officers brought accused-appellant and the seized item to the ilippine National Police (PNP) Provincial Crime Laborat ‘Tagum Citv, Davao Del Norte where, ater a qualitative examination, the Seized item tested positive for 0.1524 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride or sabia dangerous drug.® For his part, accused-appellant denied the charge against him, claiming, instead that during that time, he was playing volleyball at the public plaza when two (2) persons approached him, intraduced themselves 8s live-in partners, and inquired about his mother's house for rent. He then secompanied the ‘couple to the said house. Upon reaching the house accused-appellant noticed that the lady made a phone call, and all of @ sudden, seven (7) persons arrived in the area. Immediately thereafter, accused-appellant was handcuffed, fisked, and asked where he kept the ‘drugs. He claimed that the men found nothing from him. Subsequently, he was brought to the volleyball court, where the apprehending officers took and searched his bag, but also found nothing. He testified that he was brought to the erime laboratory, and that it was the first time he saw the alleged shabu? In a Decision* dated September 4, 2013, the RTC found accused- appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, and accordingly, sentenced him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment, and to pay a fine in the amount of 500,000.00." It ruled that the prosecution wasDecision GR.No.209999 able to sufficiently prove all the elements of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, and that the integrity of the corpus delicti was preserved. It gave credence to the clear and convincing testimonies of the prosecution Witnesses, and hence, should prevail aver the accused-appellant's "uncorroborated and self-serving defenses of denial and frame-up.!" Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed" tothe CA. In a Decision! dated February 13, 2019, the CA affirmed the RTC ruling, It ruled that the prosecution substantially complied with the statutory Fequitement for the admissibility ofthe seized item, as it found tha the cha of custody was continuous, and that the identity, integrity, and evidentiary value ofthe seized item were preserved, It held thatthe fact thatthe marking was only made inside the vehicle does not automatically impair the ‘evidentiary value ofthe seized item since to be able to ereate a first line in the chain of custody requirement, what is only required is that the marking bbe made in the presence of accused-appellant and upon immediate ‘confiscation, as inthis ease. Moreover, it gave credence to the testimony of 102 Ortoyo that she preserved the integrity ofthe seized item by keeping the same in her locker at the PDEA office, where she was the only one who had access, as well as to her explanation that the required witnesses were only available the following day. Finally, it did not give credence to accused appellants defenses of lrame-up and alibi since he filed to adduce clear and ‘convincing evidence to prove the ame!” Hence, thi natant appeal ‘The Issue Before the Court ‘The issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA correctly upheld accused-appellant's conviction forthe crime charged, ‘The Court’s Ruling ‘The appeal is meritorious, In cases for Illegal Sale and/or legal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under RA 9165," itis essential that the identity of the dangerous drug be ‘Stet o Appeal had Oster 7, 2014. Seah tebe ct de cnr) ey stn ‘ice 1 oA 916 ae ae eed a npn fn be eed Froid dg) auch poneon wana by ee tl) eae fe oh fom psied te wk ve ee Pepe Chap, RN 25065, Mah, 208 98 SERA Pe Ses CA Be Mh 1 SCRA PeDecision 4 GR.No, 249500 ‘established with moral certainty, considering thatthe dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime." Failing to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti renders the evidence for the State insuicient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and hence, warrants an acquittal.” ‘To establish the identity ofthe dangerous drugs with moral certainty, the prosecution must be able to account for each link of the chain of eustody from the moment the drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as ‘evidence of the crime.” As part of the chain of eustody procedure, the law requires, iter alia, thatthe marking, physical inventory, and photography of the seized items be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation of the same, In this regard, case law recognizes that “marking upon immediate confiscation contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team.” Hence, the filure to immediately mark the confiscated items at the place of arrest neither renders them inadmissible in evidence nor impairs the integrity of the seized drugs, as the conduct of marking at the nearest police station or office ofthe apprehending team is sufficient compliance with the rules on chain of custody. ‘The law further requires thatthe said inventory and photogmphy be ‘done inthe presence ofthe accused or the persan from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as wel as certain required witnesses, (@) if prior to the amondment of RA 9165 by RA 10610, “a representative from the media AND the [DOJ], and any elected public official” or (6) if after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, “fal elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service OR the media." The law requites the presence of these witnesses primarily “to ensute the establishment of the chain of custody and remove “any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence," Ppl Mrands, GR No. 2961, ay ‘SCH 3 13: less ei Pw Sume 753 Pl 343 348 [OST and Pept le ipa, W: Pale Smee i asl Maan Pople Moa Pa ronson Pr Rang el» Ha 9 i See Prope Gambo,C.Ne 2572, 202018, 97 SCRA 58, 56 and 57 cing eagle Uimpanb a38, 13%100 42) SSP Ose at 28 9 SA BE, el op Sine 40 Pepe Since maps nse i Pape» Me supe Mc te 1 Pt ssp ap Pept amatpan 6) Pl 4.885 OID, fon». Ppl, 69 Pi 22,270.27 Gath Seas Oe, HP 8 OT cg re Rowen 8 See Pope a, 791 Pa 18 10-61 010, md Pope Ral, 757 P36 35 IS. Sect 211 ni Atel 8 916 an pm lsat Repl | SeeSecten 21, Ar it of A 165 ana Re Tot See Perl Banal GH Ne 230, Sper 2018 ing ple Mian, nat Te set Po Ma i 9.Decision s GR.No.249990 Asa general rule, compliance with the chain of custody procedure is strictly enjoined as the Same has been regarded “not merely as & procedural technicality but as a matter of substantive law." This is because "(the law has been ‘crafted by Congress as safety precautions 10 address potential police abuses, especially considering that the penalty imposed may be life imprisonment" Nonetheless, the Court has recognized that due to varying field conditions, strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure may not always be possible. As such, the failure of the apprehending team to strictly comply with the same would not jpso facto render the seizure and custody over the items as void and invalid, provided that the prosecution satisfactorily proves that: (a) there is a justifiable ground for_non- compliance; and (4) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items Were properly preserved.”* The foregoing is based on the saving clause found in Section 21 (a),"" Anicle I of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165, which was lator adopted into the text of RA 10640." It should, however, be emphasized that for the saving clause to apply, the prosecution must duly explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses” and that the justifiable ground for non-compliance must be proven ss a fact, because the Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist” Notably, the Coun, in People ¥. Miranda," issued a defiitive reminder to prosecutors when dealing with drugs cases. Tt implored that “[sinee] the [procedural] requirements are clearly set forth in the law, the State retains the positive duty to account for any lapses in the chain of ‘custody of the drugsitems seized from the accused, regardless of whether or not the defense raises the same in the proceedings @ quo; otherwise it tisks the possibility of having a conviction overtured on grounds that go into the cevidence’s integrity and evidentiary value, albeit the same are raised only for the frst time on appeal, oF even not raised, become apparent upon further > See Pape Mia i Sean Poe» Mapa, GR No. 22505, Mach 3, 2017.80 SGUATDL Seti Pee inp pnt Ia See Por Sg No, ASS Ja 3007 85 SRA 16 4 cing Pople Un ‘See le Sah 50 Pi 215,214 2008 ‘Se Pele Amo 31 Pa S18 0, Sel oA Be FORA 4 pce te: Pan fr, no ‘identi ae he we ems are proper presed by Te apprevendig fren, ‘Shan ner sed ad nad such nte sed ata) ve el ews es ‘na Sion tof RA 10610 pein se “Prd, aly, Tha soacompans of the get tr van ney aye a Invalid oc rer and cy on aden Cemphn ap ‘Poole tae mane ‘el enon OP 9.Decision 6 GR.No. 269900 ‘As will be explained hereunder, the apprehending officers committed various irregularities which constitute as deviations from the chain of custody rule. First, while the Court find that the arresting officers were justified in ‘not immediately conducting the marking, inventory, and photography of the seized item at the place of serest as people had started to gather around them, itis highly imegular for them to stop the vehicle onthe highway in otder 10 mark the seized item, before arriving at the PDEA Regional Office, Davao City to conduct the same thereat. ‘Second, while the Court finds justifiable the conduct of inventory and Photography of the seized item the following morning in order for the arresting officers to secure the presence of the required witnesses, the ‘Court finds it regular that instead of bringing the required witnesses to the PDEA Regional Ofice, Davao City, they needlessly transported accused- appellant and the seized item to the crime laboratory in Evoland, Davao ity, forthe conduct of such activities. As aforestated, the marking, inventory, and photography of the seized item must be made either immediately after the arrest, or if there are justifiable reasons, at the nearest police station oat the nearest office ofthe apprehending team. Unfortunately, the prosecution failed to acknowledze, ‘much les, justify the foregoing deviations Third, after the conduct ofthe inventory and photography in the crime laboratory in Ecoland, Davao City, which is geographically located in Davao Del Sur, they again needlessly transported accused-appellant and the seized item to the PNP Provincial Crime Laboratory in Tagum City, Davao Del Norte. In an attempt to justify such course of action, the arresting officers reasoned thatthe seized item needs to undergo qualitative examination in the province where the buy-bust operation was implemented. However, contrary to the actuations of the aresting officers, there is nothing in RA ‘9165 of its IRR which requires that the erime laboratory of the province Where the buy-bust operation was implemented should be the one which shall conduct qualitative examination ofthe items seized therefrom. In view of the foregoing unjustified deviations from the chain of custody rule, the Court is constrained to conclude that the integrity and evidentiary value of the dangerous drug purportedly seized from accused= appellant was compromised, thereby warranting his acquittal The mre 8 in eme hap poe the crane! of RA. LL, mad ssh th reed tines re) mete pb fe (+ BO epstatien) mn epnae 5 SRSA Sein ae * SetaDecision 7 GR.No. 249990 WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision doted February 13, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR CR HC No. 01366- MIN is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused- appellant Ranilo S. Suarez is ACQUITTED of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ordered to cause his ‘immediate relense, unless he is being lawfully held in custody for any other Let entry of judgment be issued immediately SO ORDERED. esreta went hCneevane Senior Asoc Josie HERNANDO we ae /associate Justice Associate Justice Associate Justice SAMUEL H.GAERLAN Associate Justice ATTESTATION | attest thatthe conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the ease was assigned to the writer ofthe opinion of the Court's Division. rsteia af fet oERNAE Sonor Ase sce casperon Seed DisonDesision ® GR, No, 249990, CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Section 13, Article VILL of the Constitution, and the Division Chaimperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer ofthe opinion ofthe Cat's Division, DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Chief Istice