THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 206766, April 06, 2016 ]PEOPLE v. EDUARDO YEPES +
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EDUARDO YEPES, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
DECISION
PEOPLE v. EDUARDO YEPES +
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EDUARDO YEPES, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
DECISION
PEREZ, J.:
Before us for review is the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB CR HC No. 01007 dated 21 September 2012, which dismissed the appeal of accused-appellant Eduardo Yepes and affirmed with modification the Judgment[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 28 of Catbalogan City in Criminal Case Nos. 6125-6126 finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Accused-appellant was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, to wit:
The prosecution presented as witnesses Police Officer 2 Ervin Anno (PO2 Ariño), Police Senior Inspector Benjamin Aguirre Cruto (P/S Insp. Cruto) PO2 Roy Lapura (PO2 Lapura), Senior Police Officer 4 Romy dela Cruz (SPO4 dela Cruz), PO3 Nelson Lapeciros (PO3 Lapeciros) and PO3 Jay Ilagan (PO3 Ilagan).
PO2 Ariño testified that on 29 July 2004, at around 6:20 in the evening, he was with PO2 Lapura and PO2 Arthur Perdiso (PO2 Perdiso) at Purok 6, Barangay Guindapunan, Catbalogan City to conduct a buy-bust operation on a person yet to be identified and accompanied by their police asset. The operation had been authorized by Police Inspector Carlos G. Vencio in the afternoon of the same day. The police asset whose name PO2 Ariño failed to remember on the witness stand, arrived in a motorcycle with accused-appellant as passenger. PO2 Ariño, as poseur buyer, then asked accused-appellant if he had some stuff and the latter nodded. PO2 Ariño gave him two (2) One Hundred Peso (P100.00) bills in exchange for a small sachet of what PO2 Ariño believed to be shabu based on its appearance. PO2 Ariño removed his cap to signal the consummation of the operation to his companions who had been hiding behind a concrete wall about 5-6 meters away. When his companions arrived and arrested accused-appellant, PO2 Ariño headed for the police station to report the outcome of the operation. Thereat, he surrendered the plastic sachet to PO3 Ilagan.[4]
PO2 Lapura confirmed that they had not been informed about the identity of the suspect before the buy-bust operation and that the police asset was to identify him for them. During the buy-bust operation, PO2 Lapura together with PO2 Perdiso and SPO4 dela Cruz been stationed more or less ten (10) meters from the location of the alleged buy-bust operation. PO2 Lapura saw accused-appellant and PO2 Ariño hand one another something and when the latter executed the pre-arranged signal, PO2 Lapura and PO2 Perdiso approached them. PO2 Lapura informed the accused-appellant of his constitutional rights and conducted a body search on the latter which yielded two (2) small plastic sachets and two (2) pieces of One Hundred Peso (P100.00) bills. PO2 Lapura subsequently handed the sachets to SPO4 dela Cruz who had remained at their original location and the bills to PO3 Ilagan at the police station. On cross-examination, PO2 Lapura stated that from his vantage point, he could not see the plastic sachet but merely saw accused-appellant hand PO2 Ariño something. He also stated that he cannot ascertain whether it was shabu due to the distance.[5]
SPO4 dela Cruz narrated that he had been waiting at the barangay hall when the buy-bust team together with accused-appellant passed by en route to the police station. PO2 Ariño handed him three (3) sachets. SPO4 dela Cruz proceeded to examine the contents of one of the sachets. His conclusion that the same was shabu is embodied in a Certification of Drug Field Test dated 29 July 2004.[6]
PO3 Ilagan, as evidence custodian, testified that three (3) sachets of shabu had been surrendered to him at the police station by officers PO2 Ariño and Lapura. He marked the evidence as "JFI" and submitted them to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for examination.[7]
PO3 Lapeciros stated that he had photocopied five (5) pieces of One Hundred Peso (P100.00) bills and had them subscribed by the Office of the Clerk of Court for use in buy-bust operations.[8]
P/S Insp. Cruto testified that he had conducted a physical examination of the substance alleged to be shabu.[9] His positive findings are encapsulated in Chemistry Report No. D-276-2004.[10]
Accused-appellant testified on his behalf and vehemently denied the indictment. He narrated that on the date of the alleged buy-bust operation, he had just come from the public cemetery and was walking to the town proper when a person named Lagrimas, known to be a police asset, came around driving a motorcycle. Lagrimas requested accused-appellant to ride with him in his motorcycle and he acceded. Near the grandstand in Barangay Guindapunan, Lagrimas parked the motorcycle with several police officers, more than ten (10) of them, within distance. The police officers approached them and handcuffed accused-appellant. Lagrimas pulled out shabu from his shirt, gave it to one of the police officers who attempted to put it inside accused-appellant's pocket which the latter was able to resist. The police officers brought accused-appellant to the police station and there was shown the sachet of shabu but he denied any charges. The police officers told him "here, so that you can go free, because according to you, you have not committed any crime, here is Two Hundred (P200.00) Pesos marked money, go to Guinsorongan, buy this 'shabu', to whoever you will give the money, that is the one we will apprehend." When accused-appellant refused the request, he was placed inside the detention cell.[11]
On 19 December 2008, the RTC rendered judgment finding accused-appellant guilty of illegal sale of a dangerous drug. The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision reads:
Accused-appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on 18 February 2009.[15] On 21 September 2012, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed judgment affirming with modification the trial court's decision. The Court of Appeals found accused-appellant guilty of the crime charged, or violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165.
Accused-appellant appealed his conviction before this Court. In a Resolution[16] dated 08 July 2013, accused-appellant and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) were asked to file their respective supplemental briefs if they so desired. Both parties manifested that they will no longer file supplemental briefs as their arguments in their respective briefs are already sufficient.[17]
Accused-appellant asserts that the shabu was planted by the police officers and that there was no sufficient proof that the prosecution witnesses had indeed seen him sell shabu. In addition, the police officers failed to observe the proper procedure in the handling, custody and disposition of the seized drug.
The Court finds merit in the appeal.
The RTC anchored accused-appellant's conviction fundamentally on the testimonial evidence of the prosecution. The RTC brushed aside accused-appellant's defense of denial ruling that his evidence failed to overturn the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties on the part of the police officers. Similarly, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the RTC, also lending greater credence to the testimonial evidence of the prosecution. According to the Court of Appeals, said evidence was found to have sufficiently established the elements of the crime charged, as well as the fact of preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the drug specimens seized. The appellate court also upheld the presumption of regularity in favor of the police officers.
The Court reviewed the records of the instant case and saw a different story. The police officers had indeed committed serious lapses in procedure in the conduct of the buy-bust operation on 29 July 2004. The Court also finds that the evidence for the prosecution falls short of the exacting degree of proof beyond reasonable doubt required under our criminal laws.
Generally, the trial court's findings of fact, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal. This rule, however, admits of exceptions and does not apply where facts of weight and substance with direct and material bearing on the final outcome of the case have been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied as in the case at bar.[18]
To secure a conviction for illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must be present: (a) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for the thing. It is material to establish that the transaction or sale actually took place, and to bring to the court the corpus delicti as evidence.[19] Proof beyond, reasonable doubt in criminal prosecutions for the sale of illegal drugs demands that unwavering exactitude be observed in establishing the corpus delicti, the body of crime whose core is the confiscated illicit drug.[20]
The reason for this the Court elucidated in People v. Tan,[21] to wit:
Even assuming that an entrapment operation in truth had been made, the presumption that police officers enjoy is also overcome by evidence of their procedural lapses in the handling of the seized drug. In illegal drugs cases, the identity and integrity of the drugs seized must be established with the same unwavering exactitude as that required to arrive at a finding of guilt.[24]
The procedure set forth in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 is intended precisely to ensure the identity and integrity of dangerous drugs seized. This provision requires that upon seizure of illegal drug items, the apprehending team having initial custody of the drugs shall (a) conduct a physical inventory of the drugs and (b) take photographs thereof (c) in the presence of the person from whom these items were seized or confiscated and (d) a representative from the media and the Department of Justice and any elected public official (e) who shall all be required to sign the inventory and be given copies thereof.
Section 21 was laid down by Congress as a safety precaution against potential abuses by law enforcement agents who might fail to appreciate the gravity of the penalties faced by those suspected to be involved in the sale, use or possession of illegal drugs. Under the principle that penal laws are strictly construed against the government, stringent compliance therewith is fully justified.[25]
In the present case, the procedure was not observed at all. Such noncompliance raises questions whether the illegal drug items were the same ones allegedly seized from accused-appellant.
Although justifiable grounds may excuse noncompliance with the' requirements of Section 21 as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved, the police officers in the present case presented no justifiable reason for the non-observance of the procedure. Lamentably, both RTC and the Court of Appeals failed to even note at all that there were deficiencies in the handling of the seized evidence much less inquire into the reasons for the non-observance of procedure.
Most important, the Court finds as established fact that the integrity and evidentiary value of the illegal drugs seized were not shown to have been preserved. Contrarily, the records of the case bear out the glaring fact that the chain of custody of the seized illegal drugs was broken even at the very first link thereof.
To recall, the testimonial evidence of the prosecution could not even be sure about the number of sachets seized from accused-appellant and to whom it was first handed to by PO2 Ariño. PO2 Ariño testified that he handed it to PO3 Ilagan at the police station who in turn testified that he received three (3) sachets from both PO2 Ariño and PO2 Lapura. PO2 Lapura said that he gave two (2) sachets to SPO4 dela Cruz who had been remained at his original post. SPO4 dela Cruz however stated that at the barangay hall where he had been staying the whole time, PO2 Ariño handed him three (3) sachets. These are confusing testimonies of witnesses who are themselves confused.
Corpus delicti is the "actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged."[26] In illegal drug cases, it refers to the illegal drug item itself.[27] When there are reservations about the identity of the illegal drug item allegedly seized from the accused, the actual commission of the crime charged is put into serious question and courts have no alternative but to acquit on the ground of reasonable doubt.
Even if accused-appellant failed to present evidence with respect to his defense of denial or the ill motive that impelled the police officers to falsely impute upon him the crime charged, the same is of no moment. The evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own weight and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense.[28] If the prosecution cannot establish the guilt of accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt, the defense is not even required to adduce evidence. The presumption of innocence on the part of accused-appellant in this case thus must be upheld.
WHEREFORE, we REVERSE and SET ASIDE the Decision dated 21 September 2012 of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CEB CR HC No. 01007. Accused-appellant Eduardo Yepes 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 another lawful cause.
Let a copy of the 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 the action taken thereon within five (5) days from receipt of this Decision.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Peralta, Del Castillo,* and Reyes, JJ., concur.
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs / Mesdames:
Please take notice that on April 6, 2016 a Decision, copy attached hereto, was rendered by the Supreme Court in the above-entitled case, the original of which was received by this Office on May 26, 2016 at 3:00 p.m.
TO: The Director
Bureau of Corrections
1770 Muntinlupa City
GREETINGS:
WHEREAS, the Supreme Court on April 6, 2016 promulgated a Decision in the above-entitled case, the dispositive portion of which reads:
GIVEN by the Honorable PRESBITERO VELASCO, JR., Chairperson of the Third Division of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, this 6th day of April 2016.
* Additional Member per Raffle dated 10 February 2016.
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-12; Penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando with Associate Justices Carmelita Salandanan-Manahan and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles concurring.
[2] Records, pp. 175-190; Penned by Judge Sibanah E. Usman.
[3] Id. at 1-2.
[4] TSN, 26 July 2006, pp. 4-11.
[5] TSN,7 March 2007, pp. 8-18.
[6] TSN, 24 May 2007, pp. 4-7.
[7] TSN, 20 June 2007, pp. 12-21.
[8] Id. at 4-8.
[9] TSN, 7 February 2007, pp. 5-7.
[10] Exhibit Folder, p. 10.
[11] TSN, 27 February 2008, 4-18.
[12] Records, p. 190.
[13] Id. at 205-207.
[14] Id. at 214; Order dalcd 9 February 2009.
[15] Id. at 215.
[16] Rollo, p. 16.
[17] Id. at 25.
[18] See People v. Kamad, 624 Phil. 289, 299-300 (2010).
[19] People v. Secreto, G.R. No. 198115, 27 February 2013, 692 SCRA 298, 306-307.
[20] People v. Beran, G.R. No. 203028, 15 January 2014, 715 SCRA 165, 186 citing People v. Pagaduan, 641 Phil. 432 (2010).
[21] 401 Phil. 259, 273 (2000).
[22] People v. Cañete, 433 Phil. 781, 794 (2002).
[23] People v. Ladrillo, 377 Phil. 904, 917 (1999).
[24] Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 586-587 (2008).
[25] Rontos v. People, G.R. No. 188024, 5 June 2013, 697 SCRA 372, 379-380.
[26] People v. Roble, 663 Phil. 147, 157 (2011).
[27] People v. Alejandro, 671 Phil. 33, 44 (2011).
[28] People v. De Guzman, 630 Phil. 637, 655 (2010).
Accused-appellant was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, to wit:
That on or about the 29th day of July 2004, at about 6:20 o'clock in the evening, more or less, at vicinity of Purok 6, Barangay Guindapunan, Municipality of Catbalogan, Province of Samar, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with deliberate intent to gain and without being authorized by law, did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and hand over One (1) Heat sealed transparent plastic bag containing white crystalline substance called methylamphetaminc Hydrocholoride locally known as "shabu", a dangerous drug, having the following marking and net weight, to wit: "A-1-("JFI-1")-0.03 gram", as per Chemistry Report No. D-276-2004, to PO1 Ervin A. Ariño who acted as poseur-buyer in a "buy-bust" operation conducted by the Samar Provincial Police Office (PPO) of Catbalogan, Samar, as evidenced by the Two (2) pieces of One Hundred Pesos Bills (P100.00) marked money with Serial Numbers RN535127 and QJ837907, respectively.[3]At his arraignment, accused-appellant, pleaded not guilty. Trial ensued.
The prosecution presented as witnesses Police Officer 2 Ervin Anno (PO2 Ariño), Police Senior Inspector Benjamin Aguirre Cruto (P/S Insp. Cruto) PO2 Roy Lapura (PO2 Lapura), Senior Police Officer 4 Romy dela Cruz (SPO4 dela Cruz), PO3 Nelson Lapeciros (PO3 Lapeciros) and PO3 Jay Ilagan (PO3 Ilagan).
PO2 Ariño testified that on 29 July 2004, at around 6:20 in the evening, he was with PO2 Lapura and PO2 Arthur Perdiso (PO2 Perdiso) at Purok 6, Barangay Guindapunan, Catbalogan City to conduct a buy-bust operation on a person yet to be identified and accompanied by their police asset. The operation had been authorized by Police Inspector Carlos G. Vencio in the afternoon of the same day. The police asset whose name PO2 Ariño failed to remember on the witness stand, arrived in a motorcycle with accused-appellant as passenger. PO2 Ariño, as poseur buyer, then asked accused-appellant if he had some stuff and the latter nodded. PO2 Ariño gave him two (2) One Hundred Peso (P100.00) bills in exchange for a small sachet of what PO2 Ariño believed to be shabu based on its appearance. PO2 Ariño removed his cap to signal the consummation of the operation to his companions who had been hiding behind a concrete wall about 5-6 meters away. When his companions arrived and arrested accused-appellant, PO2 Ariño headed for the police station to report the outcome of the operation. Thereat, he surrendered the plastic sachet to PO3 Ilagan.[4]
PO2 Lapura confirmed that they had not been informed about the identity of the suspect before the buy-bust operation and that the police asset was to identify him for them. During the buy-bust operation, PO2 Lapura together with PO2 Perdiso and SPO4 dela Cruz been stationed more or less ten (10) meters from the location of the alleged buy-bust operation. PO2 Lapura saw accused-appellant and PO2 Ariño hand one another something and when the latter executed the pre-arranged signal, PO2 Lapura and PO2 Perdiso approached them. PO2 Lapura informed the accused-appellant of his constitutional rights and conducted a body search on the latter which yielded two (2) small plastic sachets and two (2) pieces of One Hundred Peso (P100.00) bills. PO2 Lapura subsequently handed the sachets to SPO4 dela Cruz who had remained at their original location and the bills to PO3 Ilagan at the police station. On cross-examination, PO2 Lapura stated that from his vantage point, he could not see the plastic sachet but merely saw accused-appellant hand PO2 Ariño something. He also stated that he cannot ascertain whether it was shabu due to the distance.[5]
SPO4 dela Cruz narrated that he had been waiting at the barangay hall when the buy-bust team together with accused-appellant passed by en route to the police station. PO2 Ariño handed him three (3) sachets. SPO4 dela Cruz proceeded to examine the contents of one of the sachets. His conclusion that the same was shabu is embodied in a Certification of Drug Field Test dated 29 July 2004.[6]
PO3 Ilagan, as evidence custodian, testified that three (3) sachets of shabu had been surrendered to him at the police station by officers PO2 Ariño and Lapura. He marked the evidence as "JFI" and submitted them to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for examination.[7]
PO3 Lapeciros stated that he had photocopied five (5) pieces of One Hundred Peso (P100.00) bills and had them subscribed by the Office of the Clerk of Court for use in buy-bust operations.[8]
P/S Insp. Cruto testified that he had conducted a physical examination of the substance alleged to be shabu.[9] His positive findings are encapsulated in Chemistry Report No. D-276-2004.[10]
Accused-appellant testified on his behalf and vehemently denied the indictment. He narrated that on the date of the alleged buy-bust operation, he had just come from the public cemetery and was walking to the town proper when a person named Lagrimas, known to be a police asset, came around driving a motorcycle. Lagrimas requested accused-appellant to ride with him in his motorcycle and he acceded. Near the grandstand in Barangay Guindapunan, Lagrimas parked the motorcycle with several police officers, more than ten (10) of them, within distance. The police officers approached them and handcuffed accused-appellant. Lagrimas pulled out shabu from his shirt, gave it to one of the police officers who attempted to put it inside accused-appellant's pocket which the latter was able to resist. The police officers brought accused-appellant to the police station and there was shown the sachet of shabu but he denied any charges. The police officers told him "here, so that you can go free, because according to you, you have not committed any crime, here is Two Hundred (P200.00) Pesos marked money, go to Guinsorongan, buy this 'shabu', to whoever you will give the money, that is the one we will apprehend." When accused-appellant refused the request, he was placed inside the detention cell.[11]
On 19 December 2008, the RTC rendered judgment finding accused-appellant guilty of illegal sale of a dangerous drug. The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court hereby sentences the accused EDUARDO YEPES Y CINCO, beyond reasonable doubt for Violation of Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165 and, thus, punishes him to suffer a penalty of life imprisonment to death and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00). But however, acquits the accused of illegal possession of shabu under Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165.Accused-appellant moved for a reconsideration and re-opening of the case, tendering a joint affidavit executed by four (4) affiants stating that no buy-bust operation took place on 29 July 2004, and that about the time of the alleged operation, accused-appellant was working at another place and that, the latter is of good moral character and enjoys good standing in their community.[13] This the RTC denied.[14]
Mr. Victor Templonuevo, OIC, Provincial Warden, is hereby directed to deliver the living body of accused Yepes to Abuyog Penal Colony immediately upon receipt of this judgment, unless otherwise, detained for some other causes. With cost de oficio.[12]
Accused-appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on 18 February 2009.[15] On 21 September 2012, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed judgment affirming with modification the trial court's decision. The Court of Appeals found accused-appellant guilty of the crime charged, or violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165.
Accused-appellant appealed his conviction before this Court. In a Resolution[16] dated 08 July 2013, accused-appellant and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) were asked to file their respective supplemental briefs if they so desired. Both parties manifested that they will no longer file supplemental briefs as their arguments in their respective briefs are already sufficient.[17]
Accused-appellant asserts that the shabu was planted by the police officers and that there was no sufficient proof that the prosecution witnesses had indeed seen him sell shabu. In addition, the police officers failed to observe the proper procedure in the handling, custody and disposition of the seized drug.
The Court finds merit in the appeal.
The RTC anchored accused-appellant's conviction fundamentally on the testimonial evidence of the prosecution. The RTC brushed aside accused-appellant's defense of denial ruling that his evidence failed to overturn the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties on the part of the police officers. Similarly, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the RTC, also lending greater credence to the testimonial evidence of the prosecution. According to the Court of Appeals, said evidence was found to have sufficiently established the elements of the crime charged, as well as the fact of preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the drug specimens seized. The appellate court also upheld the presumption of regularity in favor of the police officers.
The Court reviewed the records of the instant case and saw a different story. The police officers had indeed committed serious lapses in procedure in the conduct of the buy-bust operation on 29 July 2004. The Court also finds that the evidence for the prosecution falls short of the exacting degree of proof beyond reasonable doubt required under our criminal laws.
Generally, the trial court's findings of fact, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal. This rule, however, admits of exceptions and does not apply where facts of weight and substance with direct and material bearing on the final outcome of the case have been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied as in the case at bar.[18]
To secure a conviction for illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must be present: (a) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for the thing. It is material to establish that the transaction or sale actually took place, and to bring to the court the corpus delicti as evidence.[19] Proof beyond, reasonable doubt in criminal prosecutions for the sale of illegal drugs demands that unwavering exactitude be observed in establishing the corpus delicti, the body of crime whose core is the confiscated illicit drug.[20]
The reason for this the Court elucidated in People v. Tan,[21] to wit:
[B]y the very nature of anti-narcotics operations, the need for entrapment procedures, the use of shady characters as informants, the ease with which sticks of marijuana or grams of heron can be planted in pockets or hands of unsuspecting provincial hicks, and the secrecy that inevitably shrouds all drug deals, the possibility of abuse is great. Thus, the courts have been exhorted to be extra vigilant in trying drug cases lest an innocent person is made lo suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug offenses. Needless to state, the lower court should have exercised the utmost diligence and prudence in deliberating upon accused-appellants guilt. It should have given more serious consideration to the pros and cons of the evidence offered by both the defense and the State and many loose ends should have been settled by the trial court in determining the merits of the present case.The Court carefully examined the pieces of evidence on record, read the testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution and the defense, and noted the following material points:
- Only the police asset/informant and PO2 Ariño had personal knowledge of the buy-bust operation, if at all one was clone. Interestingly, the prosecution never presented the police asset. Neither had any statement been taken from him which was material considering that he was the lone source of information regarding accused-appellant's supposed illegal activities. It is noteworthy that the identity of the accused-appellant had not been known to any of the participants of the buy-bust team and that he could only be identified through the police asset. It is also remarkable that PO2 Ariño could not remember the police asset's name on the witness stand. No surveillance was conducted to identify the alleged drug-pusher who would be the subject of the entrapment. There was even no evidence regarding the dependability or reliability of the police asset.
- PO2 Ariño testified that immediately after his companions apprehended accused-appellant, he went back to the police station to report the incident and hand over one (1) plastic sachet to PO3 Ilagan. His actuations were not according to procedure. PO2 Ariño left the scene shortly. There was no mention that he marked the sachet, nor that he took photographs and made an inventory of the same. PO2 Ariño stated that he had the sachet marked but could not recall its marking. Most importantly, PO2 Ariño stated that he surrendered only one (1) sachet and that he surrendered the same to PO3 Ilagan.
- PO2 Lapura was positioned with SPO4 dela Cruz and PO2 Perdiso some ten (10) meters away from the location of the buy-bust operation. He admitted that he merely observed the gestures of the PO2 Ariño and accused-appellant and that he could not ascertain from his vantage point whether the plastic sachet indeed contained shabu. PO2 Lapura also testified that his body search on accused-appellant yielded two (2) small plastic sachets and two (2) pieces of One Hundred Peso (P100.00) bills. PO2 Lapura handed the sachets to SPO4 dela Cruz who had remained at their original post and the bills to PO3 Ilagan at the police station.
- SPO4 dela Cruz did not witness the buy-bust operation as he had waited at the barangay hall. There, PO2 Ariño allegedly handed him three (3) sachets. He opened one (1) sachet, tasted it and concluded that the same and the other two (2) sachets all contained shabu.
- PO3 Ilagan testified that, as evidence custodian, three (3) sachets of shabu had been surrendered to him at the police station by officers PO2 Ariño and Lapura. He marked the evidence as "JFI" and submitted them to PDEA for examination. There was no mention whether the marking had been made in the presence of accused-appellant.
- PO3 Lapeciros and P/S Insp. Cruto only performed limited tasks and had no personal knowledge of the buy-bust operation.
Even assuming that an entrapment operation in truth had been made, the presumption that police officers enjoy is also overcome by evidence of their procedural lapses in the handling of the seized drug. In illegal drugs cases, the identity and integrity of the drugs seized must be established with the same unwavering exactitude as that required to arrive at a finding of guilt.[24]
The procedure set forth in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 is intended precisely to ensure the identity and integrity of dangerous drugs seized. This provision requires that upon seizure of illegal drug items, the apprehending team having initial custody of the drugs shall (a) conduct a physical inventory of the drugs and (b) take photographs thereof (c) in the presence of the person from whom these items were seized or confiscated and (d) a representative from the media and the Department of Justice and any elected public official (e) who shall all be required to sign the inventory and be given copies thereof.
Section 21 was laid down by Congress as a safety precaution against potential abuses by law enforcement agents who might fail to appreciate the gravity of the penalties faced by those suspected to be involved in the sale, use or possession of illegal drugs. Under the principle that penal laws are strictly construed against the government, stringent compliance therewith is fully justified.[25]
In the present case, the procedure was not observed at all. Such noncompliance raises questions whether the illegal drug items were the same ones allegedly seized from accused-appellant.
Although justifiable grounds may excuse noncompliance with the' requirements of Section 21 as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved, the police officers in the present case presented no justifiable reason for the non-observance of the procedure. Lamentably, both RTC and the Court of Appeals failed to even note at all that there were deficiencies in the handling of the seized evidence much less inquire into the reasons for the non-observance of procedure.
Most important, the Court finds as established fact that the integrity and evidentiary value of the illegal drugs seized were not shown to have been preserved. Contrarily, the records of the case bear out the glaring fact that the chain of custody of the seized illegal drugs was broken even at the very first link thereof.
To recall, the testimonial evidence of the prosecution could not even be sure about the number of sachets seized from accused-appellant and to whom it was first handed to by PO2 Ariño. PO2 Ariño testified that he handed it to PO3 Ilagan at the police station who in turn testified that he received three (3) sachets from both PO2 Ariño and PO2 Lapura. PO2 Lapura said that he gave two (2) sachets to SPO4 dela Cruz who had been remained at his original post. SPO4 dela Cruz however stated that at the barangay hall where he had been staying the whole time, PO2 Ariño handed him three (3) sachets. These are confusing testimonies of witnesses who are themselves confused.
Corpus delicti is the "actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged."[26] In illegal drug cases, it refers to the illegal drug item itself.[27] When there are reservations about the identity of the illegal drug item allegedly seized from the accused, the actual commission of the crime charged is put into serious question and courts have no alternative but to acquit on the ground of reasonable doubt.
Even if accused-appellant failed to present evidence with respect to his defense of denial or the ill motive that impelled the police officers to falsely impute upon him the crime charged, the same is of no moment. The evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own weight and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense.[28] If the prosecution cannot establish the guilt of accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt, the defense is not even required to adduce evidence. The presumption of innocence on the part of accused-appellant in this case thus must be upheld.
WHEREFORE, we REVERSE and SET ASIDE the Decision dated 21 September 2012 of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CEB CR HC No. 01007. Accused-appellant Eduardo Yepes 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 another lawful cause.
Let a copy of the 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 the action taken thereon within five (5) days from receipt of this Decision.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Peralta, Del Castillo,* and Reyes, JJ., concur.
May 26, 2016
Sirs / Mesdames:
Please take notice that on April 6, 2016 a Decision, copy attached hereto, was rendered by the Supreme Court in the above-entitled case, the original of which was received by this Office on May 26, 2016 at 3:00 p.m.
Very truly yours,
(SGD)WILFREDO V. LAPITAN
Division Clerk of Court
(SGD)WILFREDO V. LAPITAN
Division Clerk of Court
ORDER OF RELEASE
TO: The Director
Bureau of Corrections
1770 Muntinlupa City
GREETINGS:
WHEREAS, the Supreme Court on April 6, 2016 promulgated a Decision in the above-entitled case, the dispositive portion of which reads:
"WHEREFORE, we REVERSE and SET ASIDE the Decision dated 21 September 2012 of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CEB CR HC No. 01007. Accused-appellant Eduardo Yepes 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 another lawful cause.NOW, THEREFORE, You are hereby ordered to immediately release EDUARDO YEPES unless there are other causes for which he should be further detained, and to return this Order with the certificate of your proceedings within five (5) days from notice hereof.
Let a copy of the 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 the action taken thereon within five (5) days from receipt of this Decision.
SO ORDERED."
GIVEN by the Honorable PRESBITERO VELASCO, JR., Chairperson of the Third Division of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, this 6th day of April 2016.
Very truly yours,
(SGD)WILFREDO V. LAPITAN
Division Clerk of Court
(SGD)WILFREDO V. LAPITAN
Division Clerk of Court
* Additional Member per Raffle dated 10 February 2016.
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-12; Penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando with Associate Justices Carmelita Salandanan-Manahan and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles concurring.
[2] Records, pp. 175-190; Penned by Judge Sibanah E. Usman.
[3] Id. at 1-2.
[4] TSN, 26 July 2006, pp. 4-11.
[5] TSN,7 March 2007, pp. 8-18.
[6] TSN, 24 May 2007, pp. 4-7.
[7] TSN, 20 June 2007, pp. 12-21.
[8] Id. at 4-8.
[9] TSN, 7 February 2007, pp. 5-7.
[10] Exhibit Folder, p. 10.
[11] TSN, 27 February 2008, 4-18.
[12] Records, p. 190.
[13] Id. at 205-207.
[14] Id. at 214; Order dalcd 9 February 2009.
[15] Id. at 215.
[16] Rollo, p. 16.
[17] Id. at 25.
[18] See People v. Kamad, 624 Phil. 289, 299-300 (2010).
[19] People v. Secreto, G.R. No. 198115, 27 February 2013, 692 SCRA 298, 306-307.
[20] People v. Beran, G.R. No. 203028, 15 January 2014, 715 SCRA 165, 186 citing People v. Pagaduan, 641 Phil. 432 (2010).
[21] 401 Phil. 259, 273 (2000).
[22] People v. Cañete, 433 Phil. 781, 794 (2002).
[23] People v. Ladrillo, 377 Phil. 904, 917 (1999).
[24] Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 586-587 (2008).
[25] Rontos v. People, G.R. No. 188024, 5 June 2013, 697 SCRA 372, 379-380.
[26] People v. Roble, 663 Phil. 147, 157 (2011).
[27] People v. Alejandro, 671 Phil. 33, 44 (2011).
[28] People v. De Guzman, 630 Phil. 637, 655 (2010).