Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83696:57805&catid=1588&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 04:35:01+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 205821, October 01, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GARRY DELA CRUZ Y DE GUZMAN, Accused-Appellant.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GARRY DELA CRUZ Y DE GUZMAN, Accused-Appellant.
This resolves an appeal from a conviction for violation of Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
That on or about September 14, 2004, in the City of Zamboanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law to sell, deliver, transport, distribute or give away to another any dangerous drugs, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, SELL AND DELIVER to PO1 WILFREDO BOBON y TARROZA, a member of the PNP, who acted as buyer, one (1) small heat-sealed transparent plastic pack containing white crystalline substance having a total weight of 0.0120 gram which when subjected to qualitative examination gave positive result to the tests for the presence of METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE (shabu) knowing the same to be a dangerous drug.
That on or about September 14, 2004, in the City of Zamboanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, have in his possession and under his custody and control six (6) pieces heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets each containing white crystalline substance, each weighing as follows: 1) 0.0135 gram; 2) 0.0183 gram; 3) 0.0542 gram; 4) 0.0197 gram; 5) 0.0100 [gram]; and 6) 0.0128 gram or a total of 0.1285 gram; which when subjected to qualitative examination gave positive result to the tests for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) knowing same to be a dangerous drug.
2. In Criminal Case No. 5451 (20921), accused GARRY DELA CRUZ y DE GUZMAN guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violating Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 and sentences him to suffer the penalty of TWELVE YEARS AND ONE DAY to FOURTEEN YEARS of imprisonment and pay a fine of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P300,000) without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
The methamphetamine hydrochloride used as evidence in these cases are hereby ordered confiscated to be turned over to the proper authorities for disposition.
In the resolution18 dated April 15, 2013, this court noted the records forwarded by the Court of Appeals and informed the parties that they may file their supplemental briefs.
On June 6, 2013, the Office of the Solicitor General filed a manifestation and motion,19 on behalf of the People of the Philippines, noting that it would no longer file a supplemental brief as the brief it filed with the Court of Appeals had adequately addressed the arguments and issues raised by dela Cruz.
On August 7, 2013, dela Cruz filed a manifestation20 indicating that he, too, would no longer file a supplemental brief and that he was instead re-pleading, adopting, and reiterating the defenses and arguments in the brief he filed before the Court of Appeals.
For resolution is the issue of whether dela Cruz’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for violating Sections 5 and 11 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 was established. Subsumed in the resolution of this issue are the issues raised by dela Cruz in the brief he filed with the Court of Appeals, foremost of which is whether the prosecution was able to establish compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
In actions involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must first be established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took place and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.
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.
The significance of complying with Section 21’s requirements cannot be overemphasized. Non-compliance is tantamount to failure in establishing identity of corpus delicti, an essential element of the offenses of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. By failing to establish an element of these offenses, non-compliance will, thus, engender the acquittal of an accused.
Indeed, 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. Graham vs. State positively acknowledged this danger. In that case where a substance later analyzed as heroin—was handled by two police officers prior to examination who however did not testify in court on the condition and whereabouts of the exhibit at the time it was in their possession—was excluded from the prosecution evidence, the court pointing out that the white powder seized could have been indeed heroin or it could have been sugar or baking powder. It ruled that unless the state can show by records or testimony, the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit at least between the time it came into the possession of police officers until it was tested in the laboratory to determine its composition, testimony of the state as to the laboratory’s findings is inadmissible.
The prosecution’s sweeping guarantees as to the identity and integrity of seized drugs and drug paraphernalia will not secure a conviction. Not even the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties will suffice. In fact, whatever presumption there is as to the regularity of the manner by which officers took and maintained custody of the seized items is “negated.”31 Republic Act No. 9165 requires compliance with Section 21.
After a closer look, the Court finds that the linkages in the chain of custody of the subject item were not clearly established. As can be gleaned from his forequoted testimony, PO1 Collado failed to provide informative details on how the subject shabu was handled immediately after the seizure. He just claimed that the item was handed to him by the accused in the course of the transaction and, thereafter, he handed it to the investigator.
There is no evidence either on how the item was stored, preserved, labeled, and recorded. PO1 Collado could not even provide the court with the name of the investigator. He admitted that he was not present when it was delivered to the crime laboratory. It was Forensic Chemist Bernardino M. Banac, Jr. who identified the person who delivered the specimen to the crime laboratory. He disclosed that he received the specimen from one PO1 Cuadra, who was not even a member of the buy-bust team. Per their record, PO1 Cuadra delivered the letter-request with the attached seized item to the CPD Crime Laboratory Office where a certain PO2 Semacio recorded it and turned it over to the Chemistry Section.
In view of the foregoing, the Court is of the considered view that chain of custody of the illicit drug seized was compromised. Hence, the presumption of regularity in the performance of duties cannot be applied in this case.
Given the flagrant procedural lapses 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 of 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.
In this case, the Regional Trial Court acknowledged that no physical inventory of the seized items was conducted.40 Similarly, there is nothing in the records to show that the seized items were photographed in the manner required by Section 21. Likewise, none of the persons required by Section 21 to be present (or their possible substitutes) have been shown to be present.
The Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals assert that dela Cruz must nevertheless be convicted as “it had been clearly established that the identity of the items were [sic] properly preserved.”41 They anchor this conclusion on PO1 Bobon’s having supposedly kept the seized sachets in his own pockets: one (1) sachet in his right pocket and six (6) sachets in his left pocket.
The circumstance of PO1 Bobon keeping narcotics in his own pockets precisely underscores the importance of strictly complying with Section 21. His subsequent identification in open court of the items coming out of his own pockets is self-serving.
The prosecution effectively admits that from the moment of the supposed buy-bust operation until the seized items’ turnover for examination, these items had been in the sole possession of a police officer. In fact, not only had they been in his possession, they had been in such close proximity to him that they had been nowhere else but in his own pockets.
Keeping one of the seized items in his right pocket and the rest in his left pocket is a doubtful and suspicious way of ensuring the integrity of the items. Contrary to the Court of Appeals’ finding that PO1 Bobon took the necessary precautions, we find his actions reckless, if not dubious.
Even without referring to the strict requirements of Section 21, common sense dictates that a single police officer’s act of bodily-keeping the item(s) which is at the crux of offenses penalized under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, is fraught with dangers. One need not engage in a meticulous counter-checking with the requirements of Section 21 to view with distrust the items coming out of PO1 Bobon’s pockets. That the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals both failed to see through this and fell — hook, line, and sinker — for PO1 Bobon’s avowals is mind-boggling.
Moreover, PO1 Bobon did so without even offering the slightest justification for dispensing with the requirements of Section 21.
Section 21, paragraph 1, of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, includes a proviso to the effect that “noncompliance of (sic) 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.” Plainly, the prosecution has not shown that – on September 14, 2004, when dela Cruz was arrested and the sachets supposedly seized and marked – there were “justifiable grounds” for dispensing with compliance with Section 21. All that the prosecution has done is insist on its self-serving assertion that the integrity of the seized sachets has, despite all its lapses, nevertheless been preserved.
As in People v. Garcia, the mere marking of seized paraphernalia, will not suffice to sustain a conviction in this case.
The miniscule amount of narcotics supposedly seized from dela Cruz amplifies the doubts on their integrity. In total, the seven (7) sachets supposedly contained all of 0.1405 gram of shabu. This quantity is so miniscule it amounts to little more than 7% of the weight of a five-centavo coin (1.9 grams) or a one-centavo coin (2.0 grams).
As the integrity of the corpus delicti of the crimes for which dela Cruz is charged has not been established, it follows that there is no basis for finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. It is proper that dela Cruz be acquitted.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision dated May 31, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00869-MIN is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Garry dela Cruz y de Guzman is hereby ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless he is confined for any other lawful cause.
Let a copy of this decision be furnished the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to report to this court within five days from receipt of this decision the action he has taken. Copies shall also be furnished the Director General of the Philippine National Police and the Director General of the Philippine Drugs Enforcement Agency for their information.
The Regional Trial Court is directed to turn over the seized sachets of shabu to the Dangerous Drugs Board for destruction in accordance with law.
Carpio, (Chairperson), Brion, Del Castillo, Mendoza, and Leonen, JJ., concur.
1People v. Holgado, G.R. No. 207992, August 11, 2014 [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
9 CA rollo, p. 41.
21People v. Morales, G.R. No. 172873, March 19, 2010, 616 SCRA 223, 235 [Per J. Del Castillo, Second Division], citing People v. Darisan et al., 597 Phil. 479, 485 (2009) [Per J. Corona, First Division] and People v. Partoza, 605 Phil. 883, 890 (2009) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
22 G.R. No. 207992, August 11, 2014 [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
23People v. Morales, G.R. No. 172873, March 19, 2010, 616 SCRA 223, 236 [Per J. Del Castillo, Second Division].
24People v. Laxa, 414 Phil. 156, 170 (2001) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division], as cited in People v. Orteza, G.R. No. 173051, July 31, 2007, 528 SCRA 750, 758 [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
25 G.R. No. 173474, August 29, 2012, 679 SCRA 318 [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].
27 576 Phil. 576 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
29 G.R. No. 184760, April 23, 2010, 619 SCRA 389 [Per J. Perez, Second Division].
31People v. Navarrete, G.R. No. 185211, June 6, 2011, 650 SCRA 609, 618 [Per J. Carpio-Morales, Third Division]. See also People v. Ulat, G.R. No. 180504, October 5, 2011, 650 SCRA 607 [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, First Division].
32 588 Phil. 395 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
34 G.R. No. 188905, July 13, 2010, 625 SCRA 123 [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].
35 Id. at 133, citing People v. Zaida Kamad, G.R. No. 174198, January 19, 2010, 610 SCRA 295 [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
37 People v. Holgado, G.R. No. 207992, August 11, 2014 [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
38 599 Phil. 416 (2009) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
40 CA rollo, p. 41.
43 CA rollo, p. 41.
44 G.R. No. 207992, August 11, 2014 jurisprudence/2014/august2014/207992.pdf> [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.