G.R. No.

212160 February 4, 2015

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

DENNIS SUMILI, Accused-Appellant.

DECISION

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

Before the Court is an ordinary appeal1 assailing the Decision2 dated

January 29, 2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 01075,
which affirmed in toto the Decision3 dated August 10, 2009 of the Regional
Trial Court of Iligan City, Branch 3 (RTC) in Crim. Case No. 12595 finding
accused-appellant Dennis Sumili (Sumili) guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of violating Section 5,4 Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165,5 otherwise
known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."

The Facts

On June 30, 2006, an Information6 was filed before the RTC charging Sumili
of violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, viz.:

Crim. Case No. 12595

That, on or about June 7, 2006, in the City of Iligan, Philippines, and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, without having
been authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously sell one (1) sachet of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a
dangerousdrug commonly known as Shabufor the amount of ₱200.00.
Contrary to and in violation of Sec. 5, ART. II, RA 9165, otherwise known as
the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

City of Iligan, June 30, 2006.

According to the prosecution, on June 7, 2006, the Philippine Drug

Enforcement Agency Iligan City Sub-Office received a report from a
confidential informant that Sumili was selling shabu. Acting on the same,
SPO2 Edgardo Englatiera7 (SPO2 Englatiera) dispatched SPO2 Diosdado
Cabahug (SPO2 Cabahug) to conduct surveillance on Sumili, which
confirmed the truth and veracity of the aforesaid report. Consequently,
SPO2 Englatiera organized a team divided intotwo (2) groups and briefed
them on the buy-bust operation. He also prepared the marked money,
consisting of one (1) two hundred peso (₱200.00) bill, with serial number
L507313.8

At around 5:10 in the afternoon of the same day, the buy-bust team headed
to the target area. Upon arrival, the poseur-buyer approached Sumili’s
house to buy shabu. After Sumili let the poseur-buyer in, the latter gave the
pre-arranged signal that the sale has been consummated. Almost
immediately, the buy-bust team stormed the house but Sumili escaped by
jumping through the window, throwing the marked money at the roof
beside his house. The poseur-buyer turnedover the sachet of suspected
shabuto SPO2 Englatiera, who marked the same with "DC-1," representing
the initials of SPO2 Cabahug.9 SPO2 Englatiera then prepared a request for
laboratory examination and instructed Non-Uniform Personnel Carlito Ong
(NUP Ong) to bring the sachet together with the request to the PNP Crime
Laboratory for examination. However, NUP Ong failed to do so on the same
day as the PNP Crime Laboratory was already closed.10 It was only on June
9, 2006, or two (2) days after the buy-bust operation, that NUP Ong was able
to bring and turn-over the seized sachet to the PNP Crime Laboratory.11
Upon examination, it was confirmed thatsaid sachet contained 0.32 grams
of methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu.12

In his defense, Sumili denied selling shabu. He and his daughter claimed
that he was a fishball vendor, and that on the date and time of the incident,
he was at the market buying ingredients. When he returned to his
residence, his wife told him that policemen were looking for him.13 The
RTC Ruling

In a Decision14 dated August 10, 2009, the RTC found Sumili guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 and
accordingly, sentenced him to life imprisonment, and ordered him to pay a
fine in the amount of ₱500,000.00.15

The RTC found that a buy-bust operation indeed occurred where Sumili
sold the seized sachet to the poseur-buyer. In this regard, it gave credence
to the straightforward and categorical testimonies of prosecution witnesses
detailing how the police officers received information that Sumili was
selling shabu, investigated and confirmed that he indeed was selling shabu,
conducted the buy-bust operation, recovered, marked, and transmitted the
seized item from Sumilito the PNP Crime Laboratory, and that the
laboratory results yielded positive for shabu. Conversely, it did not give
weight to the defense testimonies which merely deniedthe existence of the
buy-bust operation and insisted that Sumili was not selling drugs.16

Dissatisfied, Sumili appealed17 his conviction to the CA.

The CA Ruling

In a Decision18 dated January 29, 2014, the CA affirmed Sumili’s conviction

in toto.19 It agreed with the RTC’s finding that a buy-bust operation
actually occurred, resulting in the seizure of a sachet containing shabu.20
Further, the CA also held thatdespite the police officers’ noncompliance
with the procedure enshrined in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, the
identity and integrity of the corpus delicti, or the seized drug itself, was
nevertheless preserved and, thus, Sumili’s conviction must be sustained.21

Finally, the CA opined that Sumili failed to rebut by clear and convincing
evidence the presumption ofregularity in the performance of official duties
enjoyed by the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation.22
Aggrieved, Sumili filed the instant appeal.23

The Issue Before the Court

The issue for the Court’s resolution is whether Sumili’s conviction for
violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 should be upheld.

The Court’s Ruling

The appeal is meritorious.

In order to convict an accused for violation of RA 9165, or the crime of sale

of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must establish the concurrence of the
following elements: (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.24 Note that what remains material for conviction is the proof
that the transaction actually took place, coupled with the presentation
before the court of the corpus delicti.25 It is also important that the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items be preserved. Simply
put, the dangerous drug presented in court as evidence against an accused
must be the same as that seized from him. The chain of custody
requirement removes any unnecessary doubts regarding the identity of the
evidence.26 As held in People v. Viterbo:27

In every prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5,

Article II of RA 9165, the following elements must concur: (a) the identities
of the buyer and the seller, object, and consideration; and (b) the delivery
of the thing sold and the corresponding payment for it. As the dangerous
drug itself forms an integral and key part of the corpus delicti of the crime,
it is thereforeessential that the identity of the prohibited drug be
established beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the prosecution must be able
to account for each link in the chain of custody over the dangerous drug,
fromthe moment it was seized from the accused up to the time it was
presented in court as proof of the corpus delicti.Elucidating on the
custodial chain process, the Court, in the case of People v. Cervantes [(600
Phil. 819, 836 [2009])], held:

As a mode of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires

that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to
support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims
it to be.1âwphi1 In context, this would ideally include testimony about
every link in the chain, from the seizure of the prohibited drug up to the
time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that everyone who touched
the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it
was and what happened to it while in the witness’ possession, the condition
in which it was received, and the condition in which it was delivered to the
next link in the chain. x x x.

The chain of custody requirement "ensures that unnecessary doubts

respecting the identity of the evidence are minimized if not altogether
removed."28 (Emphases and underscoring supplied)

To expand, Section 2129 of RA 9165 provides the "chain of custody rule"

outlining the procedure that the apprehending officers should follow in
handling the seized drugs, in order to preserve its integrity and evidentiary
value. It requires, inter alia, that: (a) the apprehending team that has initial
custody over the seized drugs immediately conduct an inventory and take
photographs of the same in the presence of the accused or the person from
whom such items were seized, orthe accused’s or the person’s
representative or counsel, a representative from the media, the
Department of Justice, and any elected public official who shall then sign
the copies of the inventory; and (b) the seized drugs be turned over to the
PNP Crime Laboratory within 24 hours from its confiscation for
examination purposes. While the "chain of custody rule" demands utmost
compliance from the aforesaid officers, Section 21 of the Implementing
Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165,30 as well as jurisprudence
nevertheless provide that noncompliance with the requirements of thisrule
will not automatically render the seizure and custody of the items void and
invalid, so long as: (a) there is a justifiable ground for such non-
compliance; AND(b) the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved. Hence, any divergence from the prescribed procedure must be
justified and should not affect the integrity and evidentiary value of the
confiscated items.31
After a judicious review of the records, the Court finds that the prosecution
failed to establish the identity of the substance allegedly confiscated from
Sumili due to unjustified gaps in the chain of custody, thus, militating
against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

As may be gleaned from the established facts, the buy-bust operation was
conducted on June 7, 2006. When SPO2 Englatieraseized the sachet from
Sumili, he marked the same with the initials "DC-1" and, later, he returned
to the police station to prepare the request for the examination of the
sachet’s contents. Thereafter, he ordered NUP Ong to bring the sachet as
well as the request to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. However,
NUP Ong failed to do so within 24 hours after the buy-bust operation as he
only delivered the sachet to the PNP Crime Laboratory on June 9, 2006, or
two (2) days after the buy-bust operation.No other than SPO2 Englatiera
and NUP Ong attested to these facts intheir respective testimonies, to wit:32
Prosecutor Celso Sarsaba (Pros. Sarsaba): Who prepared this request for
laboratory examination?

SPO2 Englatiera: I myself, sir.

Q: What did you do with the requestfor the laboratory examination

together with the one sachet of shabu?

A: I instructed [NUP Ong] to turn-over the evidence and bring for

laboratory examination (sic).

Q: Was [NUP Ong] able to bring the request for laboratory examination
together with the sachet of shabu to the crime laboratory on that same
day?

A: The following day.

Q: Why?
A: Because it was already 5:00 o’clock (sic) sir I think it was Friday sir, the
laboratory was already closed.

xxxx

As for NUP Ong:33

Pros. Sarsaba: And how about the one sachet of shabu allegedly bought
from the accused, who was in possession of that shabu at that time?

NUP Ong: SPO2 [Englatiera] placed it inside the cellophane attached

together with the request.

Q: And who was supposed to bring that request for laboratory

[examination] and the one sachet of shabuallegedly purchased from the
accused to the PNP crime laboratory?

A: No, it was already late at night so we agreed to do it on the following

day.

Q: So June 7, 2006, do you recall what day was that?

A: I think it was [a] Friday.

Q: And when did you bring this request for laboratory [examination] to the
[PNP] crime laboratory, on what date?

A: It was delivered on June 9, 2006.

xxxx

To justify the delay inthe turn-over of the corpus delicti, SPO2 Englatiera
and NUP Ong insist that the PNP Crime Laboratory was already closed on
June 7, 2006, and since it was a Friday, the delivery of the seized sachet was
only done on June 9, 2006. However, contrary to their claims, June 7, 2006
is not a Friday, but a Wednesday.34 Thus, if the PNP Crime Laboratory was
indeed closed on June 7, 2006, the delivery of the seized sachet could have
easily been done on the next day, or on June 8, 2006, instead of doing it two
(2) days after the buy-bust operation. This glaring fact, coupled with the
absence in the records as to who among the apprehending officers had
actual custody of the seized sachet from the time it was prepared for turn-
over until its delivery to the PNP Crime Laboratory, presents a substantial
and unexplained gap in the chain of custody of the alleged shabu seized
from Sumili. Undoubtedly, the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus
delicti had been compromised.

It must be emphasized that in criminal prosecutions involving illegal drugs,

the presentation of the drugs which constitute the corpus delicti of the
crime calls for the necessity of proving with moral certainty that they are
the same seized items.35 Failing in which, the acquittal of the accused on
the ground of reasonable doubt becomes a matter of right,36 as in this case.

In sum, since the identity of the prohibited drugs had not been established
by proof beyond reasonable doubt, Sumili's conviction must be
immediately set aside.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated January 29, 2014
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 01075 is hereby REVERSED
and SET ASIDE, and accordingly, accused-appellant Dennis Sumili is
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 his
immediate release, unless he is being lawfully held for any other reason.

SO ORDERED.

ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE

Associate Justice