868 Phil. 374
LEONEN, J.:
That on or about the 4th day of June, 2008, in the City of Muntinlupa. Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law, did then and there willfully and unlawhrlly sell, trade, deliver and give away to another Methylamphetamine [sic] Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, weighing 0.16 gram, contained in one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet, in violation of the above-cited law.[4] (Emphasis in the original)The charge for the illegal possession of dangerous drugs against Enrique, read:
That on or about the 4th day of June, 2008, in the City of Muntinlupa, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law, did then and there willfully and unlawfully have in his possession custody and control Methylamphetamine [sic] Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, weighing 0.07 gram, contained in one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet, in violation of the above-cited law.[5]When arraigned on June 27, 2008, Sebilleno and Enrique pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged.[6] During the February 12, 2010 pre-trial conference, the following were admitted:
Joint trial then ensued.[8]
- The identity of the accused Gilbert Sebillano [sic] y Casabar as the same person charged in criminal case no. 08-399;
- That this Court has jurisdiction over the persons of the accused and over this case;
- That P/Chief Insp. Maridel Cuadra Rodis is the Forensic Chemist connected with the PNP Crime Laboratory, Camp Crame, Quezon City as of June 04. 2008 and that she is an expert in Forensic Chemistry;
- That pursuant to the Request for Laboratory Examination she conducted the same on the accompanying specimens which consist of two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets with markings "GSC" and "KE" containing yellowish substance suspected as shabu;
- The existence and due execution of the Request for Laboratory Examination and of the Physical Science Report No. D-228-08.[7]
WHEREFORE, premises considered and finding the accused GILBERT SEBILLENO y CASABAR, guilty beyond reasonable doubt, he is sentenced to LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a FINE of PHP500,000.00. The preventive imprisonment undergone by said accused shall be credited in his favor.In its January 26, 2015 Decision,[33] the Court of Appeals affirmed Sebilleno's conviction in toto. It likewise gave credence to the Police officers' testimonies and found that they were "replete with material details showing the elements of the crime[.]"[34] It ruled that the presumption that official duty was regularly performed was not overcome.[35]
As regards the other accused, KYLE ENRIQUE y DAMBA. for insufficiency of evidence, he is ACQUITTED of the crime charged. The warrant of arrest issued against him is hereby lifted and set aside without prejudice to the liability or the bondsman for its failure to produce him when required by the court to do so.
The drug evidence are ordered transmitted to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper disposition.
SO ORDERED.[32]
WHEREFORE, the trial court's Judgment dated September 30, 2013 convicting accused-appellant of violation of Section 5, Article II, RA No. 9165 is affirmed in toto.Thus, Sebilleno filed his Notice of Appeal.[39] Giving due course to his appeal per its March 4, 2015 Resolution,[40] the Court of Appeals elevated[41] the case records to this Court.
SO ORDERED.[38] (Emphasis in the original )
It is of paramount importance that the existence of the drug, the corpus delicti of the crime, be established beyond doubt. Its identity and integrity must he proven to have been safeguarded. Aside from proving the elements of the charges, the fact that the substance illegally possessed and sold was the same substance offered in court as exhibit must likewise be established with the same degree of certitude as that needed to sustain a guilty verdict. The chain of custody carries out this purpose as it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.[60] (Citations omitted)Contrary to the Solicitor General's position, the Police officers' testimonies are not enough to prove that the confiscated item from the accused was the same drug presented in court. Mallilin v. Peop/e[61] explained:
A unique characteristic of narcotic substances is that they are not readily identifiable as in fact they are subject to scientific analysis to determine their composition and nature. The Court cannot reluctantly close its eyes to the likelihood, or at least the possibility. that at any of the links in the chain of custody over the same there could have been tampering, alteration or substitution of substances from other cases - by accident or otherwise - in which similar evidence was seized or in which similar evidence was submitted for laboratory testing. Hence, in authenticating the same, a standard more stringent than that applied to cases involving objects which are readily identifiable must be applied, a more exacting standard that entails a chain of custody of the item with sufficient completeness if only to render it improbable that the original item has either been exchanged with another or been contaminated or tampered with.[62] (Emphasis supplied)The nature of narcotic substances necessarily entails heightened scrutiny. Further, "the likelihood of tampering, loss or mistake with respect to an exhibit is greatest when the exhibit is small."[63] Here, allegedly seized from the accused-appellant was 0.16 gram of suspected shabu.[64] Thus, we employ the heightened scrutiny which Mallillin espoused in evaluating evidence.
Lescano v. People[65] summarized the requisites under Section 21 (1), as amended by Republic Act No. 10640:
(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; (2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination; (3) A certification or the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done under oath by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued within twenty-four (24) hours after the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of the dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not allow the completion of testing with in the time frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided, however, That a final certification shall be issued on the completed forensic laboratory examination on the same within the next twenty-four (24) hours[.] (Emphasis supplied)
As regards the items seized and subjected to marking, Section 21(l) of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended, requires the performance of two (2) actions: physical inventory and photographing. Section 21(l) is specific as to when and where these actions must he done. As to when, it must be "immediately after seizure and confiscation." As to where, it depends on whether the seizure was supported by a search warrant. If a search warrant was served, the physical inventory and photographing must be done at the exact same place that the search warrant is served. In case or warrantless seizures, these actions must be done at the nearest Police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team. whichever is practicable.Noncompliance with Section 21 casts doubt on the integrity of the corpus delicti, and essentially, on accused's guilt.[67] Considering that the constitutional presumption of innocence mandates proof beyond reasonable doubt,[68] "conviction cannot be sustained if there is a persistent doubt on the identity of the drug."[69] Acquittal thus, ensues.
Moreover, Section 21(l) requires at least three (3) persons to be present during the physical inventory and photographing. These persons are: first, the accused or the person/s from whom the items were seized; second, an elected public official; and third, a representative of the National Prosecution Service. There are, however, alternatives to the first and the third. As to the first (i.e.. the accused or the person/s from whom items were seized), there are two (2) alternatives: first, his or her representative; and second, his or her counsel. As to the representative of the National Prosecution Service. a representative of the media may he present in his or her place.[66]
Without the insulating presence of the representative from the media or the Department of Justice or any elected public official during the seizure and marking of the sachets of shabu, the evils of switching, "planting" or contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-busts conducted under the regime of RA No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) again reared their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the sachets of shabu that were evidence herein of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused. Indeed, the insulating presence of such witnesses would have preserved an unbroken chain of custody.[74]This Court has previously held that attendance of third-party witnesses must be secured as early as the actual seizure of the items, and not only during inventory and taking of photographs.[75]
What is critical in drug cases is not the bare conduct of inventory, marking, and photographing. Instead, it is the certainty that the items allegedly taken from the accused retain their integrity, even as they make their way from the accused to an officer effecting the seizure, to an investigating officer, to a forensic chemist and ultimately, to courts where they are introduced as evidence. . .The Implementing Rules allow the conduct of inventory of the seized items and taking of photographs "at the nearest Police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable."[79] Deviations from the law may be excused, but the prosecution must plead and prove a justifiable ground.[80]
Section 21 (l)'s requirements are designed to make the first and second links foolproof. Conducting the inventory and photographing immediately after seizure, exactly where the seizure was done, or at a location as practicably close to it, minimizes, if not eliminates, room for adulteration or the planting of evidence[.][78] (Emphasis supplied)
The prosecution has the "burden of establishing the identity of the seized items." Considering the sequence of the people who have dealt with the confiscated articles, the prosecution failed to justify why three (3) other significant persons were not presented as witnesses. These persons were the desk officer who supposedly recorded the incident in the police blotter, the investigator who prepared the request for examination. and the Police officer who received the articles in the laboratory. "In effect, there is no reasonable guaranty as to the integrity of the exhibits inasmuch as it failed to rule out the possibility of substitution of the exhibits, which cannot but inure to its own detriment."[86] (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)PO1 Julaton's testimony that the confiscated items were turned over to PCI Rodis is insufficient. Jurisprudence requires that the Police officer who received the articles in the laboratory testify in court.[87] Neither does the Chemistry Report suffice.
Given the flagrant procedural lapse the Police committed in handling the seized shabu and the obvious evidentiary gaps in the chain of its custody, a presumption of regularity in the performance of duties cannot be made in this case. A presumption or regularity in the performance of official duty is made in the context of an existing rule of law or statute authorizing the performance of an act or duty or prescribing a procedure in the performance thereof. The presumption applies when nothing in the record suggests that the law enforcers deviated from the standard conduct of official duty required by law; where the official act is irregular on its face, the presumption cannot arise. In light of the flagrant lapses we noted, the lower courts were obviously wrong when they relied on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty.There were persistent doubts in the origins of the drugs supposedly seized from accused-appellant. The absence of the required witnesses during seizure, marking, inventory, and taking of photographs, along with the Police officers' failure to conduct these at the place of arrest, and their nonpresentation of material witnesses who handled the items; and, lastly, their utter failure to justify these blatant lapses, reveal a seriously compromised chain of custody. Taken together, these instances raise doubt on the integrity of the confiscated items and, ultimately, on the commission of the crime.
We rule, too, that the discrepancy in the prosecution evidence on the identity of the seized and examined shabu and that formally offered in court cannot but lead to serious doubts regarding the origins of the shabu presented in court. This discrepancy and the gap in the chain of custody immediately affect proof of the corpus delicti without which the accused must be acquitted.[89] (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)
It is lamentable that while our dockets are clogged with prosecutions under Republic Act No. 9165 involving small-time drug users and retailers, we are seriously short of prosecutions involving the proverbial "big fish." We are swamped with cases involving small fry who have been arrested for miniscule amounts. While they are certainly a bane to our society, small retailers are but low-lying fruits in an exceedingly vast network of drug cartels. Both law enforcers and prosecutors should realize that the more effective and efficient strategy is to focus resources more on the source and true leadership of these nefarious organizations. Otherwise, all these executive and judicial resources expended to attempt to convict an accused for 0.05 gram of shabu under doubtful custodial arrangements will hardly make a dent in the overall picture. It might in fact be distracting our law enforcers from their more challenging task: to uproot the causes of this drug menace. We stand ready to assess cases involving greater amounts of drugs and the leadership of these cartels.[91]