\'11'
3L\epublic of tbe llbilippines
$)upreme ~ourt
;!ffilanila
SECOND DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE G.R. No. 240541
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
Present:
CARPIO, J, Chairperson,
- versus - PERLAS-BERNABE,
CAGUIOA,
J. REYES, JR., and
REY BARRION y SILVA, HERNANDO,* JJ
Accused-Appellant.
Promulgated:
x------------------------------------------------------- ------~--~---~-~-~~~sk----x
DECISION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Assailed in this ordinary appeal 1 is the Decision 2 dated January 30,
2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08406, which
affirmed the Decision3 dated April 29, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court of
Lipa City, Batangas, Branch 12 (RTC) in Criminal Case No. 0453-2011,
finding accused-appellant Rey Barrion y Silva (Barrion) guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, defined
and penalized under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165,4
otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
Designated Additional Member per Special Order Nos. 2629 and 2630 dated December 18, 2018.
See Notice of Appeal dated February 20, 2018; rollo, pp. 19-20.
Id. at 2-18. Penned by Associate Justice Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles with Associate Justices
Rosmari D. Carandang (now a member of this Court) and Jane Aurora C. Lantion, concurring.
CA ro/lo, pp. 57-64. Penned by Judge Danilo S. Sandoval.
4
Entitled "AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING
REPUBLIC ACT No. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED,
PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on June 7, 2002.
J
Decision 2 G.R. No. 240541
The Facts
This case stemmed from an Information 5 filed before the R TC
charging Barrion of the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs. The
prosecution alleged that at about seven (7) o' clock in the evening of August
10, 2011, members of the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs - Special Operation
Task Group6 successfully implemented a buy-bust operation against Barrion,
during which one (1) plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance
was recovered from him. P02 Dan Gonzales (P02 Gonzales) then marked
the seized item at the place of arrest, and thereafter, brought it to the police
station along with Barrion. Thereat, P02 Gonzales placed the seized item in
a bigger plastic sachet and marked the same accordingly. The seized item
was then inventoried 7 in the presence of Rodel Limbo (Limbo), a
Department of Justice (DOJ) representative, and Teresita N. Reyes (Reyes),
a barangay councilor. 8 Finally, the seized item was brought to the crime
laboratory, where, upon examination, 9 the contents thereof tested positive
for 0.04 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous
drug. 10
For his part, Barrion denied the charges against him, claiming instead,
that at around seven (7) o' clock in the evening of August 10, 2011, he was
already detained at the police headquarters, and thus, the testimony of the
prosecution that he was apprehended at that time was not true. He likewise
averred that at past four (4) o' clock in the afternoon of even date, he was
onboard a tricycle when police officers blocked his way, pointed guns at
him, ordered him to alight from the vehicle, put him in handcuffs, and asked
him where he gets shabu. When he denied any knowledge about the matter,
he was brought to the police station. 11
In a Decision 12 dated April 29, 2016, the RTC found Barrion 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 P500,000.00. It ruled that the prosecution was able to establish all
the elements of the crime charged, as well as the identity and integrity of the
corpus delicti. Finally, it gave credence to the positive identification of the
police officers who enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance
of their official duties, and hence, should prevail over Barrion's defense of
denial. 13 Aggrieved, Barrion appealed 14 to the CA.
Dated August 11, 2011. Records, p. 1-2.
Id. at 5.
See undated Inventory of Confiscated/Seized Items; id. at 140.
Rollo, p. 4. See also TSN, January 22, 2013, p. 19.
See Chemistry Report No. BD-198-2011 dated August 10, 2011; records, p. 144.
10
See rollo, pp. 3-6. See also CA rollo, pp. 59-61.
11
See rollo, pp. 6-7. See also CA rollo, pp. 61-62.
12
CA rollo, pp. 57-64.
1
' See id. at 63-64.
14
See Notice of Appeal dated May 12, 2016; id. at 15.
kl
Decision 3 G.R. No. 240541
In a Decision 15 dated January 30, 2018, the CA affirmed the RTC
ruling. It held that all the elements of the crime charged were duly
established, considering that Barri on was caught in flagrante delicto selling
shabu during a buy-bust operation conducted by the police officers. Finally,
it ruled that the prosecution was able to prove the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized item. 16
Hence, this appeal seeking that Barrion's conviction be overturned.
The Court's Ruling
The appeal is meritorious.
In cases for Illegal Sale and/or Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs
under RA 9165, 17 it is essential that the identity of the dangerous drug be
established with moral certainty, considering that the dangerous drug itself
forms an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime. 18 Failing to prove
the integrity of the corpus delicti renders the evidence for the State
insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and
hence, warrants an acquittal. 19
To establish the identity of the dangerous drug with moral certainty,
the prosecution must be able to account for each link of the chain of custody
from the moment the drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as
evidence of the crime. 20 As part of the chain of custody procedure, the law
requires, inter alia, that the 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 "[m]arking upon
immediate confiscation contemplates even marking at the nearest police
15
Rollo, pp. 2-18.
16
See id. at l 0-17.
17
The elements of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 are: (a) the
identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing
sold and the payment; while the elements of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11,
Article II of RA 9165 are: (a) the accused was in possession of an item or object identified as a
prohibited drug; (b) such possession was not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and
consciously possessed the said drug. (See People v. Crispo, G .R. No. 230065, March 14, 2018; People
v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 231383, March 7, 2018; People v. Magsano, G.R. No. 231050, February 28,
2018; People v. Manansala, G.R. No. 229092, February 21, 2018; People v. Miranda, G.R. No.
229671, January 31, 2018; and People v. Mamangon, G.R. No. 229102, January 29, 2018; all cases
citing People v. Sumili, 753 Phil. 342, 348 [2015] and People v. Bio, 753 Phil.730, 736 [2015].)
18
See People v. Crispo, id.; People v. Sanchez, id.; People v. Magsano, id.; People v. Manansala, id.;
People v. Miranda, id.; and People v. Mamangon, id. See also People v. Viterbo, 739 Phil. 593, 601
(2014).
19
See People v. Gamboa, G.R. No. 233702, June 20, 2018, citing People v. Umipang, 686 Phil. 1024,
1039-1040 (2012).
20
See People v. Afio, G.R. No. 230070, March 14, 2018; People v. Crispo, supra note 17; People v.
Sanchez, supra note 17; People v. Magsano, supra note 17; People v. Manansala, supra note 17;
People v. Miranda, supra note 17; and People v. Mamangon, supra note 17. See also People v. Viterbo,
supra note 18.
J
Decision 4 G.R. No. 240541
station or office of the apprehending team." 21 Hence, the failure 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 of the
apprehending team is sufficient compliance with the rules on chain of
custody. 22
The law further requires that the said inventory and photography be
done in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were
seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses,
namely: (a) if prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, 23 "a
representative from the media and the [DOJ], and any elected public
official"; 24 or (b) if after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, "an
elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution
Service or the media." 25 The law requires the presence of these witnesses
primarily "to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and remove
any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence." 26
As a general rule, compliance with the chain of custody procedure is
strictly enjoined as the same has been regarded "not merely as a procedural
technicality but as a matter of substantive law." 27 This is because "[t]he law
has been crafted by Congress as safety precautions to address potential
police abuses, especially considering that the penalty imposed may be life
imprisonment." 28
Nonetheless, the Court has recognized that due to varying field
conditions, strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure may not
always be possible. 29 As such, the failure of the apprehending team to
strictly comply with the same would not ipso 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 ( b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items
are properly preserved. 30 The foregoing is based on the saving clause found
21
People v. Mamalumpon, 767 Phil. 845, 855 (2015), citing lmson v. People, 669 Phil. 262, 270-271
(2011). See also People v. Ocfemia, 718 Phil. 330, 348 (2013), citing People v. Resurreccion, 618 Phil.
520, 532 (2009).
22
See People v. Tumulak, 791 Phil. 148, 160-161 (2016); and People v. Rollo, 757 Phil. 346, 357 (2015).
23
Entitled "AN ACT TO FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE ANTI-DRUG CAMPAIGN OF THE GOVERNMENT,
AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE SECTION 21 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE
'COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, '"approved on July 15, 2014.
24
Section 21 (I) and (2), Article II of RA 9165; emphasis and underscoring supplied.
25
Section 21 (I), Article II of RA 9165, as amended by RA I 0640; emphasis and underscoring supplied.
26
See People v. Bangalan, G.R. No. 232249, September 3, 2018, citing People v. Miranda, supra note
17. See also People v. Mendoza, 736 Phil. 749, 764 (2014).
27
See People v. Miranda, id. See also People v. Macapundag, G.R. No. 225965, March 13, 2017, 820
SCRA 204, 215, citing People v. Umipang, supra note 19, at 1038.
28
See People v. Segundo, G .R. No. 205614, July 26, 2017, citing People v. Umipang, id.
29
See People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214, 234 (2008).
30
See People v. Almorfe, 631 Phil. 51, 60 (20 l 0).
J
Decision 5 G.R. No. 240541
in Section 21 (a), 31 Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations
(IRR) of RA 9165, which was later adopted into the text of RA 10640. 32 It
should, however, be emphasized that for the saving clause to apply, the
prosecution must duly explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses, 33
and that the justifiable ground for non-compliance must be proven as a fact,
because the Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even
exist. 34
Anent the witness requirement, non-compliance may be permitted if
the prosecution proves that the apprehending officers exerted genuine and
sufficient efforts to secure the presence of such witnesses, albeit they
eventually failed to appear. While the earnestness of these efforts must be
examined on a case-to-case basis, the overarching objective is for the Court
to be convinced that the failure to comply was reasonable under the given
circumstances. 35 Thus, mere statements of unavailability, absent actual
serious attempts to contact the required witnesses, are unacceptable as
justified grounds for non-compliance. 36 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 fully
well that they would have to strictly comply with the chain of custody rule. 37
Notably, the Court, in People v. Miranda, 38 issued a definitive
reminder to prosecutors when dealing with drugs cases. It implored that
"[since] 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 drugs/items seized from the accused, regardless of whether or
not the defense raises the same in the proceedings a quo; otherwise, it risks
the possibility of having a conviction overturned on grounds that go into the
evidence's integrity and evidentiary value, albeit the same are raised only for
the first time on appeal, or even not raised, become apparent upon further
review." 39
31
Section 21 (a), Article II of the IRR of RA 9165 pertinently states: "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(.]"
32
Section 1 of RA 10640 pertinently states: "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."
33
People v. Almorfe, supra note 30.
34 People v. De Guzman, 630 Phil. 637, 649 (2010).
35
See People v. Manansala, supra note 17.
36 See People v. Gamboa, supra note 19, citing People v. Umipang, supra note 19, at I 053.
37
See People v. Crispo, supra note 17.
38
Supra note 17.
39
See id.
fl./
Decision 6 G.R. No. 240541
In this case, there was a deviation from the witness requirement as the
conduct of the inventory and photography was not witnessed by a media
representative. This may be gleaned from the Inventory of
Confiscated/Seized Items 40 which only shows the presence of Limbo, a DOJ
representative, and Reyes, an elected public official, i.e., a barangay
councilor. Such finding is confirmed by the testimony of the team leader,
SPOI 4 1 Emmanuel Angelo Umali (SPOI Umali), to wit:
[Atty. Ismael Macasaet]: Who prepared the inventory m
relation to this case?
[SPO I Umali]: I, sir, as the team leader.
Q: Was there any representative of the DOJ available at the
police station when you arrived from the operation?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: When did you see the representative of the DOJ for the first
time?
A: When we were already in the police station, he arrived, sir.
Q: You called him or somebody called him?
A: Somebody called him, sir.
Q: How long after you arrived from the police station did the
representative of the DOJ arrive?
A: More or less thirty (30) minutes, sir.
Q: How about the elected official? When did the elected
official arrive at the police station? After your arrival from the
operation?
A: He was with us, sir.
Q: There was no media representative who arrived?
A: None, sir.
Q: So you were not able to contact the media?
A: We called, sir. 42
As earlier stated, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to account for
these witnesses' absence by presenting a justifiable reason therefor or, at the
very least, by showing that genuine and sufficient efforts were exerted by the
apprehending officers to secure their presence. Here, while SPO 1 Umali
acknowledged the absence of a media representative during the conduct of
inventory, he failed to offer any reasonable justification for the same. As
already discussed, mere statements claiming that they tried to call the media
representative, without, however, showing that they exerted earnest efforts
to secure his presence, are insufficient to trigger the operation of the saving
clause. In view of this unjustified deviation from the chain of custody rule,
the Court is therefore constrained to conclude that the integrity and
40
Records, p. 140.
41
"P03" in some parts of the records.
42
TSN,January27,2014,pp.17-18.
rJ
Decision 7 G.R. No. 240541
evidentiary value of the item purportedly seized from Barrion was
compromised, which consequently warrants his acquittal.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated
January 30, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08406 is
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Rey
Barrion y Silva is ACQUITTED of the crime charged. The Director of the
Bureau of Corrections is ordered to cause his immediate release, unless he is
being lawfully held in custody for any other reason.
SO ORDERED.
AAQ_ lv-Ji/
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Senior Associate Justice
Chairperson
f,~
NS. CAGUIOA E C. REYES, JR.
Associate Justice
~-
RAMONPAULL.HERNANDO
Associate Justice
ATTEST AT ION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.
Q4:.~
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
Decision 8 G.R. No. 240541
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the
Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
