866 Phil. 569
REYES, J. JR., J.:
In Criminal Case No. 10-1979-MNAccused-appellant was also indicted for illegal sale of shabu, committed as follows:
That on or about the 5th day of November 2010, in the City of Malabon, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being a private person and without authority of law, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control two (2) small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets with markings "HAB/JSCI-2-11-5-10" containing 0.03 gram of white crystalline substance and "HAB/JSCI-3-11-5-10" containing 0.02 gram of white crystalline substance, which substance when subjected to qualitative examination gave positive result for Methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]
In Criminal Case No. 10-1980-MNUpon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
That on or about the 5th day of November 2010, in the City of Malabon, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being a private person and without authority of law, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to [poseur]-buyer PO1 HERBERT A. BAGAIN, JR., in the amount Php500.00 one (1) small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with markings "HAB/JSCI-1-11-5-10" containing 0.02 gram of white crystalline substance, which substance when subjected to qualitative examination gave positive result for Methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[4]
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing[,] judgment is rendered as follows:Aggrieved, accused-appellant elevated an appeal before the CA.
In Criminal Case No. 10-1979-MN for Violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the accused JOSEPH STA. CRUZ y ILUSORIO is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00).
In Criminal Case No. 10-1980-MN for Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the accused JOSEPH STA. CRUZ y ILUSORIO is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P500,000.00) PESOS.
All the specimen subject of these cases are forfeited in favor of the government to be disposed of under the rules governing the same.
SO ORDERED.[12]
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED. The Joint Decision dated October 30, 2017 of the Malabon City Regional Trial Court, Branch 72, in the cases docketed as Criminal Case No. 10-1979-MN and Criminal Case No. 10-1980-MN is AFFIRMED.Hence, this appeal. Accused-appellant and the People manifested that they would no longer file a Supplemental Brief, taking into account the thorough and substantial discussions of the issues in their respective appeal briefs before the CA. Accused-appellant reiterated that the buy-bust team failed to follow the procedure mandate in Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
SO ORDERED.[13]
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.Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 states:
SEC. 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:Supplementing the above-quoted provision, Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165 mandates:
(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)
SEC. 21. x x xOn July 15, 2014, R.A. No. 10640 was approved to amend R.A. No. 9165, thus:
(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[.] (Emphasis supplied)
(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. (Emphasis supplied)Since the offenses were committed on November 5, 2010, the Court must evaluate the apprehending officers' compliance with the chain of custody requirement in accordance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.
The phrase "immediately after seizure and confiscation" means that the physical inventory and photographing of the drugs were intended by the law to be made immediately after, or at the place of apprehension. It is only when the same is not practicable that the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. 9165 allow the inventory and photographing to be done as soon as the buy-bust team reaches the nearest police station or the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team. In this connection, this also means that the three required witnesses should already be physically present at the time of the conduct of the physical inventory of the seized items which, as mentioned, must be immediately done at the place of seizure and confiscation - a requirement that can easily be complied with by the buy-bust team considering that the buy-bust operation is, by its nature, a planned activity. (Emphasis supplied)In this case, the physical inventory and photographing of the confiscated items were done at the police station and only a media representative was present.[18] There were no elected public official and representative from the DOJ. In fact, the physical inventory and photographing of the seized items were not even made in the presence of accused-appellant.
The prosecution bears the burden of proving a valid cause for non-compliance with the procedure laid down in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended. It has the positive duty to demonstrate observance thereto in such a way that during the trial proceedings, it must initiate in acknowledging and justifying any perceived deviations from the requirements of law. Its failure to follow the mandated procedure must be adequately explained, and must be proven as a fact in accordance with the rules on evidence. It should take note that the rules require that the apprehending officers do not simply mention a justifiable ground, but also clearly state this ground in their sworn affidavit, coupled with a statement on the steps they took to preserve the integrity of the seized items. Strict adherence to Section 21 is required where the quantity of illegal drugs seized is miniscule, since it is highly susceptible to planting, tampering or alteration of evidence.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) [T]heir 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.[20]Further, earnest efforts to secure the attendance of the necessary witnesses must be proven. People v. Ramos,[21] requires:
It is well to note that the absence of these required witnesses does not per se render the confiscated items inadmissible. However, a justifiable reason for such failure or a showing of any genuine and sufficient effort to secure the required witnesses under Section 21 of [R.A. No.] 9165 must be adduced. In People v. Umipang, the Court held that the prosecution must show that earnest efforts were employed in contacting the representatives enumerated under the law for "a sheer statement that representatives were unavailable without so much as an explanation on whether serious attempts were employed to look for other representatives, given the circumstances is to be regarded as a flimsy excuse." Verily, mere statements of availability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses are unacceptable as justified grounds for noncompliance. These considerations arise from the fact that police officers are ordinarily given sufficient time - beginning from the moment they have received the information about the activities of the accused until the time of his arrest - to prepare for a buy-bust operation and consequently, make the necessary arrangements beforehand knowing full well that they would have to strictly comply with the set procedure prescribed in Section 21 of [R.A. No.] 9165. As such, police officers are compelled not only to state reasons for their non-compliance, but must in fact, also convince the Court that the exerted earnest efforts to comply with the mandated procedure, and that under the given circumstances, their actions were reasonable.[22] (Citation omitted, emphasis supplied)While it is true that less than strict compliance with the guidelines stated in Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 does not necessarily render void and invalid the confiscation and custody over the evidence obtained, the saving clause would only be set in motion when these requisites are satisfied: 1) the existence of justifiable grounds; and 2) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the police officers.[23]