Supreme Court E-Library
Information At Your Fingertips


  View printer friendly version

866 Phil. 802

THIRD DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 237803, November 27, 2019 ]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. ALLAN ALON-ALON Y LIZARDA , ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

D E C I S I O N

ZALAMEDA, J.:

This is an appeal[1] seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision[2]   dated 27 November 2017  of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07364  which affirmed  with modification  the Judgment[3]   dated  18 February 2015 of  Branch 31, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Pedro City, Laguna, finding  accused-appellant  Allan  Alon-Alon  y  Lizarda  (accused-appellant) guilty  beyond  reasonable  doubt  of  violation  of    Section  5, Article II  of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165.[4]

Antecedents

Accused-appellant  was  charged in an  Information, [5]   the  accusatory portion of which states:
That  on  or  about  August   13.  2012,  in  the  Municipality  of  San Pedro,  Province  of Laguna,  Philippines, and within  the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,  the  above-named accused,  without  legal  authority,  did then  and  there  willfully,  unlawfully and  feloniously sell, distribute  and deliver    to   a police    poseur-buyer   for   P300.00    one   (1)   heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu),   a dangerous drug weighing  0.02 gram.

CONTRARY TO LAW.
Upon   arraignment[6]     accused-appellant  pleaded   not   guilty[7] to  the charge. After  pre-trial,[8] trial on the merits ensued.

Version of the Prosection

Acting  on a confidential  information,  a team was formed  to conduct a buy-bust  operation  against  accused-appellant who was allegedly  engaged  in rampant  illegal  drug trade activities  in San Pedro,  Laguna.   In the course of the buy-bust  operation,  accused-appellant sold to the poseur-buyer a plastic sachet  containing suspected  shabu  and,  in exchange,   obtained  payment  in the   amount   of   Three   Hundred    Pesos   (Php   300.00).    Upon   arrest of accused-appellant,  the   buy-bust   team   immediately  marked   the   buy-bust money  and  the  plastic  sachet  subject  of  the sale.   The    inventory  and the taking  of the photographs of the seized  items,  however,  were  only done  at the police station [9]  in the presence of accused-appellant and a member of the media.

The  seized  items  were  brought  to  the  crime  laboratory  for examination. Per Chemistry Report No. D-627-12, the specimen  was found positive for Methamphetamine  Hydrochloride.[10]

Version of the Defense

Accused-appellant  denied the allegations against him. He claimed that in the evening of 13 August 2012,  he was talking to a certain Angie, one of his tenants, when three (3) men arrived and entered his house. The men introduced themselves as police officers and ordered  them to bring out the shabu they were hiding. When he and Angie protested,  the police officers started  searching  his  house.  Unable  to  find  anything,  the  police  officers invited him to the police station for questioning where he was made to sign a piece of paper.  Eventually, he was charged for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. [11]

Ruling of the RTC

On   18  February   2015,   the   RTC   rendered   its   Judgment,[12]     the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE,  foregoing considered, judgment  is  hereby rendered finding Accused Allan Alon-Alon y Lizarda GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. He is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) Pesos without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
The period of his preventive imprisonment should be given full credit.

Let the plastic sachet of shabu subject matter of this case be immediately forwarded to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for its  disposition  as provided  by  law. The  P300.00  buy-bust  money  is ordered   forfeited   in  favour   of  the  government  and   deposited in the National  Treasury  through the Office of the Clerk of Court.

SO ORDERED.[13]
Ruling of the CA

The   CA   affirmed  the   Judgment  of   the   RTC   and   held   that   the prosecution  clearly   established  the  elements  of  illegal   sale   of  shabu.  It further   declared  that  the  chain   of  custody  was  not   broken   despite   non­ compliance  with   the  requirements  provided   in  Section  21  of   RA 9165, as  the  prosecution was  able  to  establish that  the  integrity and  evidentiary value  of the seized  item were  preserved from  its seizure until  its presentation in court. [14]

The  CA affirmed with  modification the  penalty   imposed  by the RTC, in that accused-appellant shall  be ineligible for parole. [15]

Hence, this appeal.

Issue

The sole  issue  in this case  is whether the CA correctly found  accused­ appellant guilty  beyond  reasonable doubt  of   illegal  sale  of dangerous drugs under RA 9165.

Ruling of the Court

The appeal  is meritorious.

An  appeal   in criminal   cases  throws  the  whole  case  open  for  review, and  the appellate court  has the duty  to correct, cite,  and  appreciate errors  in the appealed judgment, whether or not assigned or unassigned. The appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and renders such court competent to examine records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penallaw.[16]

Accused-appellant was charged with the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs,  defined  and penalized  under Section  5, Article  II of RA 9165.  To secure  a  conviction  for  illegal  sale  of  dangerous   drugs,  the following  essential  elements  must  be established:  (a)  the  identities  of the buyer  and  the seller,  the  object  of  sale,  and  consideration;   and  (b)  the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. Material  in the prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the sale took place, coupled with the presentation of the corpus delicti as evidence. [17]

In cases involving dangerous drugs, the confiscated  drug constitutes the very corpus  delicti  of the offense, and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt.[18] Jurisprudence teaches that  it is essential that the identity of  the seized drug be established with moral certainty, [19]   and   must   be  proven   with   exactitude   that  the substance   bought   during   the   buy-bust   operation   is  exactly   the  same substance offered in evidence before the court.[20]  In order to obviate any unnecessary  doubts  on  such  identity,  the  prosecution   has  to  show  an unbroken chain of custody over the same.[21]

Chain of custody means the duly recorded authorized  movements and custody of the seized drugs at each stage, from the time of confiscation to receipt for forensic laboratory examination  until their presentation  in court for  destruction.[22]    Section  21  of  RA  9165  laid  out  the  procedure    to  be followed by police officers:
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 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[.](Emphasis supplied)
The chain of custody  rule was further expounded in the Implementing Rules  and  Regulations   of  RA  9165.  Article  II,  Section  21 (a)  detailed  the procedure  as follows:
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,    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[.]
Based  on the  foregoing  provision,  the Court  enumerated   the links  in the chain  of custody  that  must  be shown  for the  successful  prosecution  of illegal   sale  of  dangerous   drugs,   i.e.,  first,   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.[23]    The chain of custody rule requires the testimony as to every link in the chain, describing how and from whom the seized evidence was received, its condition  in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain, and the precautions taken to ensure its integrity.[24]

As to the first link

The first link speaks of seizure and marking which should be done immediately at the place of arrest and seizure. It also includes the physical inventory  and taking  of  photographs  of  the  seized  or  confiscated  drugs, which should be done in the presence of the accused, a media representative, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official,[25] pursuant to Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, the applicable law at the time of the commission of the alleged offense.

In this case, the physical inventory and taking of photographs were conducted in the presence of the accused-appellant, with only a representative from the media.   The two (2) other required witnesses, i.e., a representative from the DOJ and an elected public official, were absent:
[Pros. De Leon:] What did you do after you arrived at the police station?

[P03 Avila:] We called the media man, conducted inventory, and we took pictures of the item together with the suspect and the media man, sir. [26]
As to the second and third links

According  to  prosecution  witness  P02   Rick  Jaison  Almadilla,  he turned over the seized items to P03  Pio Pievro Avila (P03 Avila)- one of the arresting officers, and not to the investigating officer, as mandated under the  law. Likewise,  it was P03 Avila who  brought  the same  to  the crime laboratory.[27] There was no mention, however,  on how he handled the said specimen   while  it  was  in  his  custody   until  he  brought   it  to  the  crime laboratory.

As to the fourth link

Forensic chemist Lalaine Ong Rodrigo testified that she received the specimen   from  their  receiving   clerk,  and  turned   it  over  to  the  evidence custodian for   safekeeping  after   her  examination    thereof.   She   likewise retrieved   the  same   from  the  evidence   custodian   before  presenting   it  in court.[28] However,   the  evidence   custodian   was  not  presented   in  court  in clear  disregard   of  the  mandate  that  every  link  in  the  chain  must  testify, describing the condition of the seized item when it was delivered, and the precautions  taken to ensure its integrity.[29]

All the foregoing  facts show a breach  in each of the link of the chain of custody, casting doubt as to the integrity  of the seized item.

To restate,  the  physical  inventory  and  taking  of  photographs of  the seized item were done in the presence of accused-appellant and a mere representative from the media as witness.  In People v. Seguiente,[30]  the Court acquitted  the accused  because of the absence  of a DOJ representative during the conduct  of inventory  and taking  of photographs. In said case, the Court keenly  noted  that  the  prosecution  failed  to  recognize  said  deficiency   and concluded  that said lapse, among others, effectively  produced  serious doubts on the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti.

As regards  the absence  of a testimony  from  P03 Avila as to how he handled   the  seized   item  from   receipt   until  he  brought   it  to  the  crime laboratory,  said  testimony  is imperative.  To be sure,  the  probability  on the integrity  and  identity  of the corpus  delicti  being compromised is present  in every   storage   or  transportation  of  the  prohibited   item,   be  it  from   the Philippine    National    Police   crime   laboratory    directly   to   the   court   or otherwise.[31]   Also, the non-presentation of the evidence  custodian  in court is similarly  fatal  to the prosecution's cause.  In People  v.  Ubungen,[32]  the Court ruled  that  absent  any testimony  on the  management,  storage,  and preservation of the seized illegal drug, the fourth link in the chain of custody could not be reasonably established.

The prosecution  failed   to
acknowledge and give a
justifiable ground for  
non-compliance with
Section 21 of RA 9165

It bears stressing  that what  makes  the observance  of  the chain  of custody even more crucial is that the shabu allegedly  sold by the accused­ appellant was only 0.02 gram.[33]  In People v. Holgado,[34] the Court declared that the 5 centigrams (0.05 gram) of shabu seized was miniscule; hence, the need for exacting compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165, thus:
While the miniscule amount of narcotics seized is by itself not a ground  for  acquittal,  this  circumstance  underscores  the  need  for  more exacting compliance  with Section 21. In Malillin v. People, this court said that "the likelihood of tampering, loss or mistake with respect to an exhibit is  greatest when the  exhibit   is  small  and  is  one   that  has  physical characteristics fungible in nature and similar in form to substances familiar to people in their daily lives. [35] (Citations omitted)
Despite  the  clear  failure  of the  police  officers  to  strictly  adhere  to Section   21  of   RA  9165,   We  are  cognizant   that   the   same   provision nevertheless provides a saving clause. It states that non-compliance with the requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary   value   of  the  seized   items   are  properly   preserved   by  the apprehending  officer  or  team,  shall  not  render  void  the  seizure  of,  and custody  over  said  items.  However,  this  clause  applies  only  where  the prosecution recognized the procedural lapses, and thereafter cited  justifiable grounds,[36]  which  must  be accompanied  by evidence  that  the integrity  and evidentiary value of the items are preserved.[37] Furthermore,  in People v. De Guzman,[38]   it was emphasized that the justifiable ground for non-compliance must  be  proven  as  a  fact,  because  the  courts  cannot  presume  what  these grounds  are or whether they even exist.

In this case, the saving  mechanism  of Section  21 cannot  be applied as the  prosecution   not  only  failed  to  acknowledge  the  infirmity,  much  less provide justification for the breaches in the links of the chain of custody.

Given the foregoing procedural lapses, serious uncertainty hangs over the  identity  of  the  seized  drug.   The  prosecution  failed  to  fully  prove  the elements  of the offense charged,  creating  a reasonable  doubt on the criminal liability  of the accused-appellant.[39] Consequently, there is no recourse  but to acquit accused-appellant.

WHEREFORE,   the  appeal   is  hereby   GRANTED.   The   assailed Decision  dated  27 November  2017 rendered  by the Court of Appeals  in CA­ G.R. CR-HC  No.  07364  is REVERSED  and  SET ASIDE.   Accordingly, accused-appellant ALLAN ALON-ALON  y LIZARDA  is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution  to prove his guilt beyond reasonable  doubt.  He is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention,  unless he is detained  for any lawful cause.

The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to IMPLEMENT  this  Decision  and  to  report  to  this  Court  the  action  taken hereon within five  (5) days from receipt.

SO ORDERED.


Leonen, J., (Chairperson), Gesmundo,* Carandang, Lazaro-Javier,** and Zalameda, JJ., concur.



*On leave.

** Designated as additional  Member of the Third Division per Special Order No. 2728.

[1]  Rollo, pp. 16-18.

[2] Id. at 2-15; penned by CA Associate Justice Victoria Isabel A. Paredes, with Associate Justices Jose C. Reyes, Jr. (now a Member of this Court) and Jane Aurora C. Lantion, concurring.

[3] CA rollo, pp. 86-91; penned by  RTC Presiding Judge Sonia T. Yu-Casano.

[4] Comprehensive  Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

[5] Records, p. I.

[6] Id. at 38.

[7] Id.

[8] Id. at 43-44.

[9] Rollo, pp. 5-6.

[10] Id.at6-7.

[11] TSN, 16 September 2014, pp. 4-7.

[12] CA rollo, .pp. 86-91.

[13] Id. at 91.

[14] Rollo,  pp. 9-14.

[15] Id. at 14.

[16] Cunanan v. People, G.R. No. 237116, 12 November 2018.

[17] People v. Alvarado, G.R. No. 234048, 23 April 2018, 862 SCRA 521, 534.

[18] Derilo v. People, 784 Phil. 679-694 (2016); G.R. 190466, 18 April 2016, 789 SCRA 517, 525.

[19] Largo v. People, G.R. No. 201293,  19 June 2019.

[20]   People  v. Bartolini, G.R. No. 215192, 27 July 2016, 798 SCRA 711.

[21]  People v. Ching, 819 Phil. 565-581  (2017); G.R. No. 223556, 09
October 2017, 842 SCRA 280.

[22] See Section  l(b) of Dangerous  Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002.

[21] People  v. Baltazar.  G.R. No. 229037,29 July 2019.

[24] People v. Havana, 776 Phil. 462-476 (2016); G.R. No. 198450, 11 January 2016,778 SCRA 524.

[25]  Id.

[26] TSN, 12 November 2013, p. 9.

[27]  TSN,26 June 2014, p.10; TSN, 12 November 2013, pp.10-11.

[28] TSN,  17 September 2013, p. 3.

[29] Supra at note  24.

[30] G.R. No. 218253, 20 June 2018, 867 SCRA 268.

[31]  People v. Carlit, G.R.  No. 227309, 16 August  2017.

[32]   G.R. No. 225497, 23 July 2018.

[33] Records, p. I.

[34] 741 PhiL 78 (2014); G.R. No. 207992, 11 August 2014,732 SCRA 554.

[35]  G.R. No. 207992, 11 August 2014, 732 SCRA 554, 576.

[36] People v. Hementiza, G.R. No. 227398, 22 March 2017, 821 SCRA 470, 494.

[37]  People v. Ga-a, G.R. No. 222559, 06 June 2018, 865 SCRA 220,260.

[38] 630 Phil. 627-655 (2010); G.R. No. 186498, 26 March 2010, 616 SCRA 652, 662.

[39] People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212-239 (2015); G.R. No. 212196, 12 January 2015,745 SCRA 221,248.

© Supreme Court E-Library 2019
This website was designed and developed, and is maintained, by the E-Library Technical Staff in collaboration with the Management Information Systems Office.