G.R. No.

218253, June 20, 2018

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EVELYN SEGUIENTE Y

RAMIREZ, Accused-Appellant.

DECISION

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

This is an appeal from the Decision1 dated November 28, 2014 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01127-MIN affirming the Decision2 dated
June 25, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Zamboanga City, Branch 13,
in Criminal Case Nos. 22565 and 22566, finding Evelyn Seguiente y Ramirez
(appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 5 (Illegal
Sale of Shabu) and 11 (Illegal Possession of Shabu), Article II of Republic Act
(RA) No. 9165 otherwise known as The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002.

Version of the Prosecution

Shortly after noontime on April 17, 2006, SPO1 Samuel Tan Jacinto (SPO1
Jacinto) of the Zamboanga City Mobile Group, Zamboanga City Police Office,
received a tip from a confidential informant (CI) that a certain "Lyn" was
selling shahu on Love Drive, Lower Calarian, Zamboanga City. A team of police
officers was formed to conduct a buy-bust operation. The team was composed
of SPO1 Jacinto as the poseur-buyer with SPO1 Rammel C. Himor (SPO1 Himor)
and PO1 Julmin H. Ismula (PO1 Ismula) as back-ups. SPO1 Jacinto was
provided with a Php100 bill marked money with the pre-arranged signal of
nodding his head up and down.

Immediately after the briefing, the team together with the CI proceeded to the
target area and parked their vehicle in front of a flea market in Lower Calarian.
SPO1 Jacinto and the CI proceeded on foot towards Love Drive leaving behind
the back-up within viewing distance. SPO1 Jacinto and the CI approached "Lyn"
who was standing in front of a house. SPO1 Jacinto was introduced to appellant
as a prospective buyer. Appellant asked SPO1 Jacinto how much shabu he
wanted to buy and the latter replied Php100.00 worth. After SPO1 Jacinto gave
the pre-arranged signal, PO1 Ismula arrested appellant. PO1 Ismula then
searched appellant and recovered from her the marked money. When frisked,
PO1 Ismula found in appellant's possession another sachet of shabu. Thereafter,
appellant was brought to the Zamboanga City Mobile Office where SPO1 Jacinto
marked the sachet of shabu with his initials "STJ" while the sachet
of shabu recovered from appellant's possession was marked by PO1 Ismula with
his initials "JHI." After an inventory of the seized items,3 the latter were turned
over to the case investigator PO2 Nedzfar M. Hassan (PO2 Hassan) who also
placed his initials on the two sachets. A request4 for the laboratory examination
thereof was prepared and the seized items were brought by PO2 Hassan to the
Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory Regional Office 9 where they
were received by PO3 Rachel F. Pidor.

The seized suspected sachets of shabu were shown positive for

Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) weighing 0.0066 gram (sale)5 and
0.0049 gram (possession)6 per Chemistry Report No. D-094-20067 issued by
PSI Melvin Ledesma Manuel, Forensic Chemical Officer of PNP Regional Crime
Laboratory 9. Accordingly, appellant was charged in two separate Informations
for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165 before the RTC, Branch
13, Zamboanga City.

Upon arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty to the offenses charged.

Version of the Defense

Denying the charges and offering alibi, appellant averred that she was cooking
food when she observed a person being chased by five persons. One of them
approached appellant and ordered her to go with them. They brought her to
Suterville and then to the Zamboanga City Mobile Group Office where she was
told to give Php50,000.00 which was reduced to Php10,000.00 for her release.
When she could not provide the amount demanded, she was detained at the
city jail.

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

The RTC was convinced that the prosecution clearly showed that the sale of the
drugs between appellant and the poseur-buyer did take place and
the shabu subject thereof was brought and identified in court. Also established
was the fact that after appellant was apprehended and frisked, another sachet
of shabu was found in her possession. The RTC found the chain of custody of
the subject drugs was not broken and the integrity of the same was preserved.
It rejected appellant's defense of frame-up and denial.

Accordingly, on June 25, 2012, the RTC rendered its Decision finding appellant
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged. Thus:

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, this Court finds:

(1) In Criminal Case No. 22565, accused EVELYN SEGUIENTE y RAMIREZ guilty
beyond reasonable doubt tor violating Section 5, Article II of the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (R.A. 9165) and sentences [her] to suffer the penalty of
LIFE IMPRISONMENT and pay a fine of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS
(P500,000) without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency;
(2) In Criminal Case No. 22566, EVELYN SEGUIENTE y RAMIREZ guilty beyond
reasonable doubt x x x for violating Section 11, Article II of the Comprehensive
 Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (R.A. 9165) and sentences [her] to suffer the penalty of
12 YEARS AND 1 DAY TO 16 YEARS OF IMRPISONMENT and pay a fine of
THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P300,000) without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency;
The methamphetamine hydrochlorides used as evidence in these cases are
hereby ordered confiscated and the Clerk of Court is directed to turn over the
same to the proper authorities for disposition.

SO ORDERED.8

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC Decision. Thus:

WHEREFORE, the Decision dated 25 June 2012 of Branch 13, Regional Trial
Court, Zamboanga City, finding the accused-appellant Evelyn Seguiente y
Ramirez guilty of violations of Section 5 and Section 11. Article II of Republic
Act No. 9165, is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.9

Undeterred, appellant is now before this Court via the present appeal seeking a
reversal of her conviction based on the lone assigned error that:

The court a quo gravely erred in convicting herein accused-appellant despite the
failure of the prosecution to prove [her] guilt beyond reasonable doubt.10

Our Ruling

The appeal is meritorious.

In a prosecution for the illegal sale of drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA

9165, "the prosecution needs to [prove] sufficiently the identity of the buyer,
seller, object and consideration; and, the delivery of the thing sold and the
payment thereof. What is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually
took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the substance seized as
evidence."11 In the present case, the appellant was positively identified as seller
of the drugs to the poseur-buyer SPO1 Jacinto for a sum of Php100.00. subject
drug which yielded positive for shabu per Chemistry Report No. D-094-2006
was identified as the shabu sold and delivered to him by SPO1 Jacinto.

On the other hand, to prove "illegal possession of regulated or prohibited drugs,

the prosecution must establish the following elements: (1) the accused is in
possession of an item or object, which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2)
such possession is not authorized by law; and, (3) the accused freely and
consciously possessed the drug."12 As found by the courts below, all the
foregoing elements were proved beyond reasonable doubt. Appellant was
caught in possession of shabu, a dangerous drug. She failed to show that she
was authorized to possess the same. By her mere possession of the drug, there
is already a prima facie evidence of knowledge which she failed to rebut.

At the center of appellant's argument is the alleged failure of the prosecution to

account for the chain of custody of the seized drugs.

Appellant's main contention is anchored on the non-compliance by the police

officers regarding the requirement of RA 9165, i.e., the failure to conduct a
physical inventory and taking of the photograph of the seized drugs in his
presence and of the persons mentioned in the law.

Appellant questions the procedure done by the police officers, during the post
seizure custody and disposition of the confiscated or seized dangerous drugs.
According to her, the marking of the items seized was not done in her presence.
The physical inventory and taking of photographs was likewise not conducted in
her presence and the persons mentioned in the law. The inventory receipt
contained only the signature of the Intelligence Operative. The police operatives
did not offer any explanation on their non-compliance with these requirements.
She argues that these non-compliance made the legitimacy of the alleged buy-
bust operation doubtful.

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.13

A review of the records indubitably shows that the procedure laid down in RA
9165 was not followed.

The Court has already ruled that marking upon immediate confiscation does not
exclude the possibility that marking can be at the police station or office of the
apprehending team.14 However, while there was testimony about the marking of
the seized substance at the police station, there was no mention that the
marking was done in the presence of appellant. As ruled in People v.
Salonga,15 the marking "must always be done in the presence of the accused or
his representative."

Another procedural lapse committed by the arresting team was their non-
compliance with the photograph and physical inventory requirements under RA
9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR). Though there was a
Certificate of Inventory on record, the fact remains that the prosecution
admitted that it was not complete since the only signature appearing thereon
was that of the Intelligence Operative (SPO1 Himor).16 There was no mention
whether the inventory was done in the presence of appellant or her
representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department
of Justice and any elected public official. Worse, the arresting officer PO1 Ismula
was not even sure if an inventory was indeed made because he did not see the
person who signed it Hence, no inventory was prepared, signed and provided to
the appellant in the manner required by law.

Another crucial deviation from the procedure required by law was the failure to
take photographs of the seized items. This fact was admitted by the prosecution
during the request for admission by the defense.17 "The photographs were
intended by law as another means to confirm the chain of custody of the
dangerous drugs."18

Indeed, Section 21(a)19 of the IRR, as amended by RA 10640,20 provides a

saving clause in the procedure outline under Section 21 (1) of RA 9165.
However, before this saving clause to apply, the prosecution is bound to
recognize the procedural lapses, provide justifiable grounds for its non-
compliance and thereafter to establish the preservation of the integrity and
evidentiary value of the items seized.

In the present case, the prosecution offered no explanation on why the

procedure was not followed or whether there was a justifiable ground for failing
to do so. The prosecution did not bother to justify its lapses by conducting re-
direct examination or through rebuttal evidence despite the defense raising
such matters during the trial. "These lapses effectively produced serious doubts
on the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti especially in the face of
allegation of frame up."21  As ruled in People v. Relato,22 "[i]t is settled that the
State does not establish the corpus delicti when the prohibited substance
subject of the prosecution is missing or when substantial gaps in the chain of
custody of the prohibited substance raise grave doubts about the authenticity of
the prohibited substance presented as evidence in court. Any gap renders the
case for the State less than complete in terms of proving the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt."

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is GRANTED.

We REVERSE and SET ASIDE the November 28, 2014 Decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01127-MIN. Appellant Evelyn
Seguiente y Ramirez is hereby ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to
prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. She is ordered
immediately RELEASED from detention, unless she is confined for another
lawful cause.

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Superintendent, Correctional

Institute for Women-Mindanao Davao Prison & Penal Farm, Dujali, Davao del
Norte, for immediate implementation. The Superintendent of the Correctional
Institute for Women-Mindanao is DIRECTED to report the action taken to this
Court, within five days from receipt of this Decision.

SO ORDERED.