Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83269:57269&catid=1585&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 10:55:18+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 203434, July 23, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARCELINO VITERBO y REALUBIT AND RONALD VITERBO y REALUBIT, Accused-Appellants.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARCELINO VITERBO y REALUBIT AND RONALD VITERBO y REALUBIT, Accused-Appellants.
Upon qualitative examination, Police Inspector Josephine Macura Clemen (P/Insp. Clemen), a forensic chemist, found that the contents of the two (2) plastic sachets submitted for analysis, which weighed 0.0932 gram and 0.0869 gram, respectively, yielded positive results for methamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as shabu. Her findings were contained in Chemistry Report No. D-089-0315 dated March 5, 2003.
That at or about five o’clock in the afternoon of March 4, 2003 at Mabini Street, Barangay Tinago, City of Ligao, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and helping one another, having in their possession, custody and control methamphetamine hydrochloride commonly known as “shabu”, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell two heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets with a total weight of 0.1801 gram of shabu, a prohibited drug, to a poseur-buyer in consideration of the amount of FIVE HUNDRED PESOS (P500.00) without any authority or permit from the concerned government agency to possess and sell the same.
In a Judgment23 dated March 24, 2008, the Regional Trial Court of Ligao City, Branch 14 (RTC), in Crim. Case. No. 4591, convicted accused-appellants as charged and sentenced each of them to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and ordered them to pay a fine in the amount of P500,000.00.
Dissatisfied, accused-appellants are now before the Court praying for their acquittal through the instant appeal.
The sole issue to be resolved by the Court is whether or not accused-appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165.
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.
While non-compliance with the prescribed procedural requirements will not automatically render the seizure and custody of the items void and invalid, this is true only when (a) there is a justifiable ground for such non-compliance, and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.41 Hence, any divergence from the prescribed procedure must be justified and should not affect the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated items.
A punctilious examination of the records in this case shows that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the substance allegedly confiscated from the accused-appellants, militating against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Now, who brought that request to the PNP Crime Laboratory together with the alleged shabu?
At that time when we brought that request together with the item, I was with another person but I could not remember anymore the said person because during that time I was already tired.
What time did you go to the Crime Laboratory, what time?
Were you able to deliver the request as well as the suspected methamphetamine hydrochloride?
We were not able to give the item together with the request letter because no one was there anymore although there were people there but the chemist was no longer there. So, we have to return back the following morning.
You mean, the persons who were inside the Crime Laboratory were not authorized to receive the request?
They were authorized to do that however, during that time the chemist was not there.
You said that the following morning you returned back to the PNP Crime Laboratory, that was already March 5 because you conducted the buy-bust operation March 4, is it not?
What time did you go back to the Crime Laboratory?
More or less 9:00 o’clock in the morning.
And who was the person who delivered the request as well as the substance to be examined?
The following day, I did not have any participation in the handing over of the request as well as the alleged shabu. It was member of the PDEA and CIDG who brought said request and alleged shabu to the Crime Laboratory.
Now, you were not one of those who brought the request as well as the suspected drug?
Yes. That night when we went there, I was there together with another person but the following day, I was not with them anymore.
From the Crime Laboratory, you were still in possession of the specimens, is that correct?
Then you went back to the PDEA Office at Camp Ola, is that correct?
When you arrived at the PDEA Office at Camp Ola, you were still in possession of the two (2) plastic sachets, is that correct?
Yes, Sir after that I turned it over to the PDEA member.
To whom did you turn over that particular specimens?
So, Captain Vargas was in possession of the two (2) plastic sachets after you turned it over to him?
Did Captain Vargas issue any receipt to you acknowledging receipt of those two specimens?
Now, can you tell this Honorable Court how it came about that you were, that you came in possession of these two (2) specimens submitted to you for chemical examination?
It was given to me by the duty receiving clerk on that day in the person of Ofelia Garcia, Sir.
When you said receiving clerk, which office are you referring to?
Receiving clerk of our office, Regional Crime Laboratory, Region V.
All right. Now, was there any information relayed to you by the receiving clerk regarding these two (2) plastic sachets, these specimens?
Yes, Sir. She told me that she received the specimens and she turned it over to me together with the letter request coming from the PDEA of Region V, Sir.
Why, what do you mean by PDEA?
All right. Who was the signatory of that letter requesting you for chemical examination?
Now, again Madam Witness, the specimens, specimen A as well as B were turned over to your office not directly, rather were turned over to you by the requesting party, am I right?
By the receiving clerk, Sir.
No, I mean the specimens A and B were turned over to you by the requesting party?
What do you mean by requesting party?
What do you mean by requesting party? The one requested for the chemical examination?
The party who requested for the chemical examination of the specimens.
Well, according to the witness from the PDEA.
Precisely, Your Honor I am asking the witness whether her office received the specimens from the requesting party.
Obviously there was already an answer. The specimen was turned over by the PDEA to the receiving clerk. The receiving clerk gave it to her for examination.
Based on the foregoing testimonies, therefore, it has been established that P/Insp. Clemen received the plastic sachets from their clerk, Ofelia Garcia (Garcia), who, in turn, accepted it together with the laboratory request from a representative of the PDEA. However, the records are devoid of evidence to indicate the PDEA member/agent who specifically delivered the items to her.
Clearly, while the custodial link began and ended with SPO4 Cardona, there were substantial gaps in the chain of custody of the seized items, particularly the events that transpired from the time the items left the hands of SPO4 Cardona on the night of March 4, 2003 and turned over to the possession of “Captain Vargas,” as well as the identity of the PDEA agent who brought them together with the laboratory request to Garcia, the receiving clerk of the crime laboratory, in the morning of the following day. While the laboratory request was prepared and signed by PS/Insp. Vargas, whom the Court reasonably presumes to be the same “Captain Vargas” referred to in SPO4 Cardona’s testimony, there is dearth of evidence showing that he was the same person who brought the items to Garcia, taking into consideration the fact that the laboratory request accompanying the items was signed/delivered by “PO2 Zamora.” These are crucial missing links in this case which should have been clearly accounted for in order to establish the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.
The prosecution’s case is further weakened by the fact that the seized items were delivered not on the same day of the buy-bust operation, but only the following day. To the Court’s mind, the considerable amount of time that had transpired from the conduct of the buy-bust operation until the same were brought for laboratory examination, especially when viewed together with the above-mentioned considerations, figures into a gaping hiatus in the chain of custody of the said items, which is extremely fatal to the cause of the prosecution.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. Accused-appellants Marcelino Viterbo y Realubit and Ronald Viterbo y Realubit are hereby ACQUITTED of the crime of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ordered to cause their immediate release, unless they are being lawfully held for any other cause. Accordingly, the Decision dated February 29, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03409 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
1Rollo, pp. 2-13. Penned by Associate Justice Michael P. Elbinias, with Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao and Agnes Reyes-Carpio, concurring.
4 Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN), November 27, 2003, p. 7.
5 “Police Officer 3” in some parts of the records.
7 TSN, November 27, 2003, p. 22; TSN, August 17, 2005, pp. 6-7.
8 TSN, November 27, 2003, p. 12.
10 Id. at 14-17, 24-25, and 36-37; rollo, p. 4.
14 See CA rollo, p. 86.
18 See TSN, January 17, 2007, pp. 8-10.
19 See id. at 6-8.
20 See id. at 10-12.
21 See id. at 13-15.
22 See id. at 15-18.
23 CA rollo, pp. 29-46. Penned by Presiding Judge Edwin C. Ma-alat.
27 See id. at 44-45.
28 Brief for the Accused-Appellant; id. at 73-75.
29 See id. at 75-78.
34 See id. at 10-11.
35 People v. Adrid, G.R. No. 201845, March 6, 2013, 692 SCRA 683, 697.
37 See People v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 188107, December 5, 2012, 687 SCRA 318, 329.
38 600 Phil. 819 (2009).
40People v. Adrid, supra note 35, at 697.
41People v. Martinez, G.R. No. 191366, December 13, 2010, 637 SCRA 791, 813.
42 TSN, November 27, 2003, pp. 18-20.
45 TSN, September 18, 2003, pp. 13-14.
46 TSN, September 18, 2003, pp. 21-22.
47 See People v. Almorfe, G.R No. 181831, March 29, 2010, 617 SCRA 52, 61.
48 See Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 593 (2008).

References: v. 
 v. 
 V.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.