Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83860:58457&catid=1589&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 11:13:26+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 200877, November 12, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHARVE JOHN LAGAHIT, Accused-Appellant.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHARVE JOHN LAGAHIT, Accused-Appellant.
Two separate Informations,3 both dated 1 September 2003, were filed against appellant for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, for allegedly (a) selling 0.49 gram of marijuana; and (b) being in illegal possession of 0.88 gram of marijuana.
x x x, a dangerous drug/s.4 (Emphasis supplied).
a dangerous drug, without being authorized by law.5 (Emphasis supplied).
When arraigned, appellant pleaded NOT GUILTY to both charges.6 Pre-trial was conducted. Trial on the merits followed.
To counter the evidence of the prosecution, the defense presented the lone testimony of the appellant, who interposed denial and suggested a frame-up for his exculpation.
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding [herein appellant] CHARVE JOHN LAGAHIT GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Section 5, Article II, [Republic Act No. 9165] and sentences him to LIFE IMPRISONMENT, plus fine in the amount of Three Hundred Thousand (P300,000.00) Pesos; and [i]n CBU-67097, the court also finds him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Section 11, Article II, [Republic Act No. 9165], and sentences him to a penalty of imprisonment of TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY, as minimum, to TWENTY (20) YEARS, as maximum, plus fine in the amount of Two Hundred Thousand (P200,000.00) Pesos.
The four hand rolled marijuana sticks in CBU-67096 and the eight rolled marijuana sticks in CBU-67097 are hereby confiscated in favor of the government and destroyed pursuant to law.
The trial court found that the elements for the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of marijuana were sufficiently established by the evidence of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court held that appellant’s weak testimony cannot prevail over the straightforward, frank, and honest testimony of PO3 Lawas, Jr., a police officer, who was just doing his duty. In the same manner, the trial court stated that PO3 Lawas, Jr. and the two barangay tanod, who participated in the buy-bust operation, were properly performing their duties as they were not inspired by any improper motive.
On appeal,15 the Court of Appeals, in its Decision dated 17 March 2011, affirmed the guilty verdict and the sentence imposed by the trial court.
Appellant contends that the prosecution failed to prove the identity of the corpus delicti as its sole witness never testified as to how he was able to recover the four sticks of handrolled marijuana cigarettes, which are the corpus delicti of the crime of illegal sale of marijuana from the possession of the poseur-buyer. This failure leaves lingering doubt if indeed the marijuana was sold by the appellant to the poseur-buyer. Appellant posits that the four sticks of handrolled marijuana cigarettes submitted by the prosecution could be objects totally different from that which was allegedly, or was not that which was actually seized during the buy-bust operation.
Appellant further argues that there was non-compliance with the requirements set forth in Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, i.e., the physical inventory and the taking of photographs of the seized items.
Appellant also believes that the non-presentation of the police officers who conducted the inquest proceedings and marked the seized drugs is fatal to the prosecution’s case as a crucial link in the chain of custody of the illegal drugs was not established by such omission.
Simply put, the issue for resolution is whether there is sufficient evidence to establish appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged.
This Court rules in the negative.
In People v. Gatlabayan24 citing People v. Kamad,25 this Court enumerated the links that the prosecution must establish in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation to be as follows: 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 by the forensic chemist to the court.
A careful perusal of the records shows that while the identities of the seller and the buyer and the consummation of the transaction involving the sale of illegal drug on 29 August 2003 have been proven by the prosecution through the testimony of PO3 Lawas, Jr., this Court, nonetheless, finds the prosecution evidence to be deficient for failure to adequately show the essential links in the chain of custody, particularly how the four sticks of handrolled marijuana cigarettes subject of the sale transaction came into the hands of PO3 Lawas, Jr. from the trusted informant, who was the designated poseur-buyer.
From the foregoing set of facts, there was no mention how the four sticks of handrolled marijuana cigarettes, which were the subject of the sale transaction, came into the hands of PO3 Lawas, Jr. from the trusted informant. PO3 Lawas, Jr.’s testimony was lacking as to when, where and how the said four sticks of handrolled marijuana cigarettes sold by the appellant to the trusted informant were turned over to him by the latter. In the same manner, PO3 Lawas, Jr. failed to state that he actually seized the sold four sticks of handrolled marijuana cigarettes. Considering that PO3 Lawas, Jr. was not the poseur-buyer and he was not even with the poseur-buyer during the sale transaction as he was on the opposite side of the road, the turning over to him by the trusted informant of the four sticks of handrolled marijuana cigarettes sold by the appellant was the supposed first link in the chain of custody. Unfortunately, the prosecution failed to establish the same. This Court cannot overlook this evidentiary gap as it involves the identification of the sold four sticks of handrolled marijuana cigarettes. In the absence of the aforesaid link in the chain of custody, doubt arises if, indeed, the recovered four sticks of handrolled marijuana cigarettes that PO3 Lawas, Jr. brought to the barangay hall and then to the Mabolo Police Station; subsequently marked by Barangay Tanod Nicor; later brought to the crime laboratory; and examined by the forensic chemist, which yielded positive for marijuana, were the same drugs actually sold by the appellant to the trusted informant.
Now, going to the crime of illegal possession of marijuana, there is also no doubt that the prosecution was able to fully satisfy all the elements of the crime. The prosecution, however, failed to show that the apprehending team complied with the required procedure for the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized and/or surrendered dangerous drugs set forth in Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.
(a) 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).
(a) 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; 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 officers/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items. (Emphasis supplied).
In the present case, the records are bereft of any indication that would show that the prosecution was able to establish the apprehending team’s compliance with the above procedural safeguards. The records similarly do not contain any physical inventory report or photograph of the confiscated items. Even the lone prosecution witness never stated in his testimony that he or any member of the buy-bust team had conducted a physical inventory or taken pictures of the items. Although PO3 Lawas, Jr. testified that the seized drugs subject of the illegal possession case had been marked, nowhere can it be found that the marking thereof was done in the presence of the appellant or any of the above-mentioned third-party representatives.
Indeed, it is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items that is of utmost importance in determining the admissibility of the evidence presented in court, especially in cases of buy-bust operations. That is why Congress saw fit to fashion a detailed procedure in order to ensure that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated items would not be compromised. The marking of the seized items was only a piece in a detailed set of procedural safeguards embodied in [Republic Act No. 9165]. If the arresting officers were unable to comply with the other requirements, they were under obligation to explain why the procedure was not followed and prove that the reason provided a justifiable ground. Otherwise, the requisites under the law would merely be fancy ornaments that may or may not be disregarded by the arresting officers at their own convenience.33 (Emphasis supplied).
In view of the foregoing, serious doubt exists whether the drugs subject of the illegal possession case presented in court were the same as those recovered from the appellant. Thus, the prosecution likewise failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the corpus delicti in the crime of illegal possession of marijuana.
All told, the prosecution failed to establish the element of corpus delicti with the prescribed degree of proof required for successful prosecution of both sale and possession of prohibited drugs, thus, no valid conviction for the crimes charged can result.
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 17 March 2011 in CA-G.R. CEB-CR HC. No. 000867, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant CHARVE JOHN LAGAHIT is hereby ACQUITTED based on reasonable doubt, and is ordered to be 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 (5) days from receipt of this Decision the action he has taken. Copies shall also be furnished the Director General, Philippine National Police, and the Director General, Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, for their information.
Velasco, Jr.,* Leonardo-De Castro,** (Acting Chairperson), Del Castillo,*** and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.
** Per Special Order No. 1861 dated 4 November 2014.
*** Per Special Order No. 1862 dated 4 November 2014.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon with Associate Justices Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos and Socorro B. Inting, concurring. Rollo, pp. 3-10.
2 Penned by Judge Meinrado P. Paredes. CA rollo, pp. 29-31.
3 Records, pp. 19-20 and 31-32.
6 Per RTC Order and Certificate of Arraignment both dated 18 November 2003. Id. at 36-37.
7 RTC Order dated 5 October 2006. Id. at 94.
8 Testimony of PO3 Lawas, Jr., TSN, 10 January 2007, pp. 3-7; Testimony of PO3 Lawas, Jr., TSN, 11 January 2007, pp. 3-6.
9 Id. at 3-8 and 10-11; Id. at 4 and 10-11.
10 Id. at 8-13; Id. at 2 and 9-13.
11 Id. at 11-15; Id. at 2.
13 Testimony of the appellant, TSN, 17 January 2007, pp. 3-7.
14 CA rollo, pp. 30-31.
15 Per Notice of Appeal dated 29 August 2007. Records, p. 123.
16 Brief for the [Appellant] dated 17 April 2009. CA rollo, p. 16.
17People v. Climaco, G.R. No. 199403, 13 June 2012, 672 SCRA 631, 640.
18 People v. Barba, G.R. No. 182420, 23 July 2009, 593 SCRA 711, 717.
19 People v. Climaco, supra note 17 at 641.
21 People v. Barba, supra note 18 at 717.
22Malillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 587 (2008).
23People v. Climaco, supra note 17 at 642.
24 G.R. No. 186467, 13 July 2011, 653 SCRA 803, 816-817.
25 G.R. No. 174198, 19 January 2010, 610 SCRA 295, 307-308.
26 Testimony of PO3 Lawas, Jr., TSN, 10 January 2007, pp. 11-15; Testimony of PO3 Lawas, Jr., TSN, 11 January 2007, p. 2; Per Request for Laboratory Examination dated 29 August 2003 and Certification of the Forensic Chemist dated 30 August 2003 (See Folder of Exhibits).
28People v. Bernardino, G.R. No. 171088, 2 October 2009, 602 SCRA 270, 292.
29People v. Lorenzo, G.R. No. 184760, 23 April 2010, 619 SCRA 389, 402.
30People v. Morales, G.R. No. 172873, 19 March 2010, 616 SCRA 223, 242.
31 G.R. No. 197371, 13 June 2012, 672 SCRA 604.
34 People v. Santos, Jr., 562 Phil. 458, 473 (2007).
35People v. Ancheta, supra note 31 at 620.

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