Case Digest: People v. Kendo, G.R. No. 247713. June 23, 2021

 

CASE TITLE: People v. Kendo
GR No/ Date: G.R. No. 247713. June 23, 2021
People of the Philippines	Alma Kendo y Isla Teng Kendo y Isla
FACTS: Accused-appellants Alma Kendo y Isla and Teng Kendo y Isla were convicted by the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the Regional Trial Court's (RTC) decision finding them guilty under Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). Charges: Criminal Case No. 2015-4606-D-MK:  Both were charged with violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 (illegal sale of dangerous drugs). Criminal Case No. 2015-4607-D-MK:  Alma was charged with violating Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 (illegal possession of dangerous drugs). Prosecution's Version: On January 8, 2015, a buy-bust operation was conducted based on a tip from a confidential informant who informed Marikina City Police about the selling of illegal drugs by a certain Alma and her companion at the vicinity of the Marikina City Sports Center and Amang Rodriguez Medical Center. Chief Police Inspector Jerry Flores formed a team for the buy-bust operation, including PO2 Saboriendo. PO2 Norbeno B. Saboriendo acted as the poseur-buyer and arresting officer in the buy-bust operation. PO2 Saboriendo received marked buy-bust money with his initials "NBS" and conducted surveillance with the team. At 7:20 p.m., PO2 Saboriendo met the suspects, Alma and her companion, and purchased shabu. Alma handed him a sachet of shabu after receiving the marked money (two P500.00 bills). PO2 Saboriendo signaled the arrest by placing his backpack in front of him, leading to the arrest of Alma and her companion. The team recovered additional sachets of shabu and marked the evidence in the presence of witnesses. An inventory of seized items was conducted and photographed. Defense's Version: The defense presented Alma as its sole witness.  Alma testified that on November 8, 2015, at about 7:00 p.m., they were kidnapped, beaten, and electrocuted by unidentified men who later identified themselves as police officers. She claimed that they were brought to SOCO for drug testing and were forced to urinate. RTC: Found the accused-appellants guilty. Alma was sentenced to life imprisonment for the sale of drugs and to 12 to 20 years for possession.  Teng received a similar life sentence for the sale of drugs. CA: Affirmed the RTC's decision. Modified Alma's sentence for possession to 20 years and 1 day, with a fine of Php 400,000. The CA upheld the integrity of the prosecution's evidence and the chain of custody, rejecting the defense's claims.
ISSUE: Whether the CA erroneously convicted them of the crimes charged despite the substantial gaps in the chain of custody of the confiscated shabu, which rendered their identity and integrity doubtful. YES
DECISION/DOCTRINE: NOTICE There is merit in the appeal. To sustain a conviction for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must establish the following elements: In actions involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must first be established: proof that the transaction or sale took place and  the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence. On the other hand, in prosecutions for illegal possession of a dangerous drug, it must be shown that  the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug, such possession is not authorized by law, and the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug.  Similarly, in this case, the evidence of the corpus delicti must be established beyond reasonable doubt.  In the prosecution of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the corpus delicti must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime. Thus, the identity of the dangerous drugs must be established with moral certainty.  To remove any doubt as to the identity of the seized dangerous drugs, the prosecution must be able to prove that the illegal drug seized from the suspects is the very same substance adduced in court. In this regard, Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended, prescribes the standard in preserving the corpus delicti in illegal drug cases, viz.: 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. xxx xxx xxx The abovementioned provision embodies the chain of custody rule. Chain of custody refers to the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody thereof, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition.  In relation to the foregoing, the prosecution must establish the following links in the chain of custody: 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 from the forensic chemist to the court.  After a thorough review of the records, the Court opines that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs in violation of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. We focus on the second and fourth links. The second link pertains to the turnover of the seized drugs to the investigating officer for purposes of conducting proper investigation and for the preparation of the necessary documents of the developing criminal case. In this regard, accused-appellants allege that no evidence was adduced on how the arresting officers turned over the alleged seized items to the police investigator or to their evidence custodian when the same were brought to the police station, thereby failing to account for the second link in the chain of custody. We agree. The records fail to identify the police officer who conducted the investigation after the buy-bust team brought the accused-appellants to the police station, or whether the seized shabu was indeed transmitted to an investigating officer. PO2 Saboriendo merely testified that after inventory of the seized shabu and their visit to Amang Rodriguez Medical Center, the buy bust team travelled to the police station, then to the EPD Crime Laboratory for laboratory examination of the seized specimens and turnover to PC1 Libres, the forensic chemist.  While case records show that the request for laboratory examination was prepared by CP1 Flores, it was not stated whether he conducted the investigation or if he handled the seized drug while in the course of accomplishing the necessary documents for its transfer to the crime laboratory. Thus, a gap exists on who had custody during and after the investigation and how the seized sachets of shabu were stored and preserved during such time. We note from an examination of the Chain of Custody Form 46 and PO2 Saboriendo's testimony that he may have held on to the seized specimen from the time he recovered it from the appellants until he personally delivered the same for laboratory examination, and thus he could arguably account for the condition of the same while it was in his custody until turnover to PC1 Libres. Assuming this to be the case, we nevertheless find that the failure to turn over the specimens to the investigating officer remains a serious procedural breach which necessarily casts doubt on the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. In cases wherein the apprehending officer remained in possession of the seized items until turnover to the forensic chemist, we acquitted the accused for, among others, failure of the apprehending police officer to transfer the seized items to the investigating officer.  We stress that without identifying the officer to whose custody the seized item was actually entrusted at the police station, the second link in the chain of custody may not be deemed established.  Accused-appellants contend that although the testimony of the forensic chemist was dispensed with, her intended testimony did not include the condition of the specimen at the time it was submitted for forensic examination, and how the items were taken care of during and after the qualitative examination. We agree. The prosecution is not precluded from dispensing with the testimony of the forensic chemist and entering into a stipulation with the defendant on the testimony of the forensic chemist. Nevertheless, establishing the chain of custody in drugs cases remains mandatory. Where parties stipulate on the testimony of the forensic chemist, such stipulation should include the precautionary steps required in order to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item, thus:  the forensic chemist received the seized item as marked, properly sealed, and intact,  he or she resealed it after examination of the content, and he or she placed his or her own marking on the same to ensure that it could not be tampered pending trial Absent any testimony regarding the management, storage, and preservation of the illegal drug allegedly seized herein after its examination, the fourth link in the chain of custody of the seized items could not be deemed established to a moral certainty.  In the case at bar, the parties stipulated on the proposed testimony and dispensed with the presentation of PCI Libres, the forensic chemist. However, the stipulation was confined to her receipt of the request for laboratory examination, the identity of the specimens she received from PO2 Saboriendo, and the results of the examination of the seized specimens. The parties' stipulation did not mention that the abovementioned precautionary steps were in fact done by the forensic chemist to preserve their integrity and evidentiary value, nor discuss how the seized items were handled and stored post-examination. Moreover, the failure to show as to who brought the seized items before the trial court is considered a serious breach of the chain of custody rule.  Here, the records do not show how the drugs were turned over to the court. The Minutes and Pre-Trial Order indicate that the sachets containing the seized specimens were brought to the court during pre-trial, and then marked as exhibits C to F. Thereafter, during the direct examination of PO2 Saboriendo, the fiscal opened the orange and brown pouch and took out the plastic sachets containing the specimens for the identification of the witness. 55 There was no mention on who turned over the drugs to the court, or how the fiscal acquired the sachets. Given the foregoing, we find that the prosecution also failed to establish the fourth link of the chain of custody. We concede that the realities and variables of actual police operations usually make an unbroken chain of custody physically and legally impossible. Thus, the saving clause in RA 9165, as amended, provides that the failure of the apprehending team to strictly comply with the chain of custody would not ipso facto render the seizure and custody over the items as void, provided that the prosecution satisfactorily proves that: there is a justifiable ground for noncompliance, and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. For the saving clause to apply, the prosecution must duly explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses, and 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.   However, the Court finds that the prosecution may not seek refuge in the said clause. To begin with, the prosecution's failure to account for two links in the chain of custody is too substantial to merit the relaxation of the rules, and significantly casts doubt on the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated shabu. The prosecution likewise failed to at least allege and then prove any specific reason to explain these lapses in procedure. It is settled that in criminal cases, the accused's guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.  This burden lies with the prosecution. In this case, the failure of the drug enforcement officers to observe the chain of custody rule has compromised the integrity of the seized items and ultimately cast reasonable doubt on the guilt of accused-appellants. Accordingly, their acquittal is in order. WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The assailed August 1, 2018 Decision rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09662 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellants Alma Kendo y Isla and Teng Kendo y Isla are ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. They are ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless they are confined for any other lawful cause. Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Director General, Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City and the Superintendent, Correctional Institution for Women, Mandaluyong City, for immediate implementation. Furthermore, the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections and the Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for Women are both DIRECTED to report to this Court the action they have taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution. Let entry of judgment be issued immediately. SO ORDERED." By authority of the Court: (SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court