People of the Philippines vs. Maricel Patacsil y Moreno

SECOND DIVISION

August 6, 2018

G.R. No. 234052

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. MARICEL PATACSIL y MORENO, Accused-Appellant

DECISION

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

Before the Court is an ordinary appeal1 filed by accused-appellant Maricel Patacsil y Moreno (Patacsil) assailing the Decision2 dated March 30, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07298, which affirmed the Joint Decision3 dated February 5, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City, Branch 44 (RTC) in Crim. Case Nos. 2012-0497-D and 2012-0498-D, finding Patacsil guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165,4 otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."

The Facts

This case stemmed from two (2) Informations5 filed before the RTC charging Patacsil with the crimes of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, the accusatory portions of which state:

Criminal Case No. 2012-0497-D

That on or about the 28th of September 2012, in the City of Dagupan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, MARICEL PATACSIL [y] MORENO, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and criminally, have in her possession, custody and control Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu) contained in five (5) sealed plastic sachets, all weighing .357 gram, without authority to possess the same.

Contrary to Article II, Section 11, R.A. 9165.6

Criminal Case No. 2012-0498-D

That on or about the 28th day of September 2012, in the City of Dagupan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused MARICEL PATACSIL [y] MORENO, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and criminally, sell and deliver to a poseur-buyer Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu) contained in one (1) heat-sealed plastic sachet, weighing more or less 0.033 gram, in exchange for ₱300.00, without authority to do so.

Contrary to Article II, Section 5, R.A. 9165.7

The prosecution alleged that at around two (2) o'clock in the afternoon of September 28, 2012 and acting upon a tip of an asset regarding Patacsil's purported illegal drug activities at Torio's Compound, Sitio Silungan, Bonuan, Binloc, Dagupan City, the police officers of the Dagupan Police Station organized a buy-bust operation with P03 Francisco S. Meniano, Jr. (PO3 Meniano) acting as the poseur-buyer. Upon arriving at the target area, the asset introduced PO3 Meniano to Patacsil as someone who wanted to buy shabu. When PO3 Meniano handed over the marked money to Patacsil, the latter took out one (1) plastic sachet containing suspected shabu from her cellphone pouch and gave the same to P03 Meniano. As soon as P03 Meniano ascertained the plastic sachet's contents, he performed the pre-arranged signal, prompting the buy-bust team to rush. in and arrest Patacsil. During the arrest, the police officers inspected Patacsil's cellphone pouch and recovered five (5) more plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance therefrom. The buy-bust team then took Patacsil and the seized plastic sachets, first to the hospital for medical examination, and thereafter, to the police station for marking and inventory procedures. Finally, the seized plastic sachets were taken to the PNP Crime Laboratory where it was confirmed that they indeed contain methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu,8 a dangerous drug.9

In her defense, Patacsil pleaded not guilty to the charges against her and offered her version of the events.1awp++i1 She narrated that on the day she was arrested, she just arrived home after visiting her live-in partner in jail, when suddenly, six (6) men in civilian clothes appeared in front of her house, with two of them putting their hands around her shoulder, and at a gun point, told her to kneel down in front of her house. After the men briefly searched her abode, she was then taken to the police station where she was forbidden to talk to her relatives. She was then taken to a hospital for medical reasons, and subsequently charged with the aforesaid crimes.10

The RTC Ruling

In a Joint Decision11 dated February 5, 2015, the RTC found Patacsil guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged, and accordingly, sentenced her as follows: (a) in Criminal Case No. 2012-0497-D, to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years, and to pay a fine in the amount of ₱300,000.00; and (b) in Criminal Case No. 2012-498-D to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine in the amount of ₱500,000.00.12

The RTC held that the prosecution was able to establish all the elements of the crimes charged as it was shown that Patacsil sold to PO3 Meniano one (1) plastic sachet of shabu, and that after her arrest, five (5) more plastic sachets of shabu were found in her possession. It found that Patacsil' s bare denial cannot overcome the positive testimony of the police officers who conducted the buy bust operation. It likewise observed that Patacsil failed to advance ill motives on the part of the police officers to impute such grave crimes against her, as she even admitted during cross examination that she came to know PO3 Meniano only when the latter testified during trial.13

Aggrieved, Patacsil appealed14 to the CA.

The CA Ruling

In a Decision15 dated March 30, 2017, the CA affirmed the RTC ruling in toto.16 It upheld Patacsil's conviction, holding that the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the crimes charged. It further ruled that PO3 Meniano's failure to immediately mark the seized items and to let the witnesses sign the confiscation receipt does not ipso facto result in unlawful arrest nor in the inadmissibility of evidence, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved.17 It found that contrary to Patacsil's claim, she was validly arrested in flagrante delicto, thereby, making the seized items admissible.18

Hence, this appeal.

The Issue Before the Court

The issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA correctly upheld Patacsil' s conviction for the crimes charged.

The Court's Ruling

The appeal has merit.

Preliminarily, it must be stressed that an appeal in criminal cases opens the entire case for review and, thus, it is the duty of the reviewing tribunal to correct, cite, and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned.19 "The appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and renders such court competent to examine records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law."20

Here, Patacsil was charged with the crimes of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, respectively defined and penalized under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165. Notably, in order to properly secure the conviction of an accused charged with Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, the prosecution must prove: (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.21 Meanwhile, in instances wherein an accused is charged with Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, the prosecution must establish the following elements to warrant his conviction: (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.22

Case law states that in both instances, it is essential that the identity of the prohibited drug be established with moral certainty, considering that the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime. Thus, in order to obviate any unnecessary doubt on the identity of the dangerous drugs, the prosecution has to show an unbroken chain of custody over the same and account for each link in the chain of custody from the moment the drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as evidence of the crime.23

In this relation, Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 outlines the procedure which the police officers must follow when handling the seized drugs in order to preserve their integrity and evidentiary value.24 Under the said section, prior to its amendment by RA 10640,25 the apprehending team shall, among others, immediately after seizure and confiscation conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his 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 of the same, and the seized drugs must be turned over to the PNP Crime Laboratory within twenty-four (24) hours from confiscation for examination.26 In the case of People v. Mendoza,27 the Court stressed that "[w]ithout the insulating presence of the representative from the media or the [DOJJ, or any elected public official during the seizure and marking of the [seized drugs], the evils of switching, ''planting' or contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-busts conducted under the regime of [RAJ 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 [said drugs) that were evidence herein of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused. Indeed, the x x x presence of such witnesses would have preserved an unbroken chain of custody."28

The Court, however, clarified that under varied field conditions, strict compliance with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 may not always be possible.29 In fact, the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 - which is now crystallized into statutory law with the passage of RA 1064030 - provide that the said inventory and photography may be conducted at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team in instances of warrantless seizure, and that non-compliance with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 - under justifiable grounds - will not render void and invalid the seizure and custody over the seized items so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer or team.[[31]] In other words, the failure of the apprehending team to strictly comply with the procedure laid out in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 and its IRR does 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 justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.32 In People v. Almorfe,[[33]] the Court explained that for the above-saving clause to apply, the prosecution must explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses, and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized evidence had nonetheless been preserved.34 Also, in People v. De Guzman,35 it was emphasized 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.36

After a judicious study of the case, the Court finds that the arresting officers committed unjustified deviations from the prescribed chain of custody rule, thereby putting into question the integrity and evidentiary value of the dangerous drugs allegedly seized from Patacsil.

Here, a plain examination of PO3 Meniano's handwritten Confiscation Receipt37 dated September 28, 2012 - which stood as the inventory receipt - shows that while PO3 Meniano claims that representatives from the media witnessed the conduct of inventory, no such representatives signed the document. Further, it also appears that no public elected official was present when such inventory was made. When asked about these procedural deviations by both the prosecution and defense lawyers, PO3 Meniano testified as follows:

[Prosecutor Ann Karen Go]: This confiscation receipt states the serial nos. as well as number- of sachets that you were able to buy and confiscate from Maricel Patacsil, it also states that the witnesses are media representatives, who were the media representatives because they are not named in this confiscation receipt?

[PO3 Meniano J: There are two (2) media representatives present but I could no longer remember, they are from GMA and ABS-CBN.

Q: Can you tell this Honorable Court the reason why they did not sign this confiscation receipt, Mr. Witness?

A: Because I was in a hurry in submitting the confiscation receipt, I forgot to let them sign.

x x x x

[Atty. Sylvania Vinoya-Gonzales]: Mr. Witness, you forgot to invite barangav officials and you forgot to ask the media representatives to sign as witnesses. Why, how many were you during that time, where was the Investigator?

[PO3 Meniano): I did not forget to call them. They were not around.

Q: Who were' not around?

A: The barangay officials.

Q: What about the media representatives?

A: It is because the shabu was asked to be submitted so, we forgot to let the media representatives to sign.38 (Emphases and underscoring supplied)

At this point, it is well to note that the absence of these required witnesses does not per se render the confiscated items inadmissible.39 However, a justifiable reason for such failure or a showing of any genuine and sufficient effort to secure the required witnesses under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 must be adduced.40 Mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses are unacceptable as justified grounds for non-compliance.41 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 full well that they would have to strictly comply with the set procedure prescribed in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165.42

In this case, PO3 Meniano himself admitted that no public elected official, e.g., barangay officials, was present during the inventory because "they were not around" and that he simply forgot to let the media representatives sign the inventory receipt because he "forgot" to do so. Verily, these flimsy excuses do not justify a deviation from the required witnesses rule, hence, the Court is impelled to conclude that the integrity and evidentiary value of the items purportedly seized from Patacsil - which constitute the corpus delicti of the crimes charged - have been compromised.43 It is well-settled that the procedure in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 is a matter of substantive law, and cannot be brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality; or worse, ignored as an impediment to the conviction of illegal drug suspects.44 As such, since the prosecution failed to provide justifiable grounds for non-compliance with the aforesaid procedure, Patacsil's acquittal is perforce in order.

As a final note, the Court finds it fitting to echo its recurring pronouncement in recent jurisprudence on the subject matter:

The Court strongly supports the campaign of the government against drug addiction and commends the efforts of our law enforcement officers against those who would inflict this malediction upon our people, especially the susceptible youth. But as demanding as this campaign may be, it cannot be more so than the compulsions of the Bill of Rights for the protection of liberty of every individual in the realm, including the basest of criminals. The Constitution covers with the mantle of its protection the innocent and the guilty alike against any manner of high-handedness from the authorities, however praiseworthy their intentions.

Those who are supposed to enforce the law are not justified in disregarding the right of the individual in the name of order. Order is too high a price for the loss of liberty.xx x.45

"In this light, prosecutors are strongly reminded that they have the positive duty to prove compliance with the procedure set forth in Section 21[, Article II] of RA 9165, as amended. As such, they must have the initiative to not only acknowledge but also justify any perceived deviations from the said procedure during the proceedings before the trial court. Since compliance with the procedure is determinative of the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti and ultimately, the fate of the liberty of the accused, the fact that any issue regarding the same was not raised, or even threshed out in the court/s below, would not preclude the appellate court, including this Court, from fully examining the records of the case if only to ascertain whether the procedure had been completely. complied with, and if not, whether justifiable reasons exist to excuse any deviation. If no such reasons exist, then it is the appellate court's bounden duty to acquit the accused, and perforce, overturn a conviction."46

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated March 30, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07298 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Maricel Patacsil y Moreno is ACQUITTED from the crimes charged. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ordered to cause her immediate release, unless she is being lawfully held in custody for any other reason.

SO ORDERED.

ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABEAssociate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ANTONIO T. CARPIOSenior Associate JusticeChairperson

ANDRES B. REYES, JR.Associate Justice

C E R T I F I C A T I O N

Pursuant to the Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, 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.

ANTONIO T. CARPIOSenior Associate Justice(Per Section 12, Republic Act No. 296,The Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended)

Footnotes

1 See Notice of Appeal dated April 20, 2017; rollo, pp. 17-18.

2 Id. at 2-16. Penned by Associate Justice Leoncia Real-Dimagiba with Associate Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting concurring.

3 CA Rollo, pp. 48-56. Penned by Judge Genoveva Coching-Maramba.

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.

5 Both dated September 29, 2012. Records (Crim. Case 2012-0497-D), pp. 1-2; and records (Crim. Case No. 2012-0498-D), pp. 1-2.

6 Records (Crim. Case 2012-0497-D), p. I.

7 Records (Crim. 2012-0498-0), p. I.

8 See Chemistry Report No. D-143-12L dated September 29, 2012; records (Crim. Case 2012-0497-D), p. 54.

9 See rollo, pp. 3-5. See also CA rollo, pp. 50-52.

10 See rollo, pp. 3 and 5-6. See also CA rollo, pp. 52-53.

11 CA rollo, pp. 48-56.

12 Id. at 56.

13 See id. at 53-55.

14 See Notice of Appeal dated February 9, 2015; records (Crim. Case 2012-0497-D), pp. 139-140.

15 Rollo, pp. 2-16.

16 Id. at 15

17 See id. at 8-13.

18 See id. at 13-l5.

19 See People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 225 (2015).

20 People v. Comboy, G.R. No. 218399, March 2, 2016, 785 SCRA 512, 521.

21 People v. Sumili, 753 Phil. 342, 348 (2015).

22 People v Bio, 753 Phil. 730, 736 (2015).

23 See People v. Manansala, G.R. Ne. 229092, February 21, 2018, citing People v. Viterbo, 739 Phil. 593, 601 (2014). See also People v. Alivio, 664 Phil. 565, 576-580 (2011) and People v. Deniman, 612 Phil. 1165, 1175 (2009).

24 See People v. Sumili, supra note 21, at 349-350.

25 Entitled "AN ACT TO FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE ANTI-DRUG CAMPAIGN OF THE GOVERNMENT, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE SECTION 21 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, 0THERWlSE KNOWN AS THE 'COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002,"' approved on July 15, 2014. The crime subject of this case was allegedly committed before the enactment of RA 10640, or on September 28, 2012.

26 See Section 21 (1) and (2), Article 11 of RA 9165.

27 736 Phil. 749 (2014).

28 Id. at 764; emphases and underscoring supplied.

29 See People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214, 234 (2008).

30 Section 1 of RA 10640 states:

SECTION l. Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002", is hereby amended to read as follows:

"SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. - The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:

"(1) 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 persons 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.

x x x x"

31 See Section 21 (a), Article II of the IRR of RA 9165. See also People v. Ceralde, G.R. No. 228894, August 7, 2017.

32 See People v. Gaea, G .R. No. 219584, October 17, 2016, 806 SCRA 240, 252.

33 631 Phil. 51 (2010).

34 Id. at 60.

35 630 Phil. 637 (2010).

36 Id. at 649.

37 Records (Crim. Case No. 2012-0497-D), p. 112.

38 TSN, February 24, 2014, pp. 11 and 18.

39 People v. Umipang, 686 Phil. 1024, 1052 (2012).

40 See id. at 1052-1053.

41 See id. at l053.

42 See People v. Crispo, G.R. No. 230065, March 14, 2018.

43 See People v. Sumili, supra note 21, at 352.

44 See People v. Macapundag, G .R. No. 225965, March 13, 2017, citing People v. Umipang, supra note 39, at 1038 (2012).

45 See People v. Mamangon, G.R. No. 229102, January 29, 2018; and People v. Go, 457 Phil. 885, 925 (2003), citing People v. Aminnudin, 246 Phil. 424, 434-435 (1988).

46 See People v. Miranda, G.R. No. 229671, January 31, 2018.