People vs. Cornel

Acquittal for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is required where the identity of the corpus delicti is not established beyond reasonable doubt due to unjustified non-compliance with the Section 21 chain-of-custody requirements. The sale transaction alone does not sustain conviction unless the substance bought during the buy-bust is proven with certitude to be exactly the same substance offered in evidence, through an unbroken chain of custody preserved under Section 21.

On December 15, 2013, PO1 Mark Anthony Angulo reported for work and a buy-bust operation was mounted against appellant Ramoncito Cornel y Asuncion. Coordination was made with the District Anti-Illegal Drugs and the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, which issued Control No. PDEA-RO-NCR 12/13-00175 as proof of receipt of the coordination form dated December 15, 2013. Led by PCI Gaylord Tamayo, a pre-operation plan designated PO1 Angulo as poseur-buyer, a one thousand peso bill was marked for use, a petty cash voucher was prepared for his receipt of the money, and the team proceeded to Barangay East Rembo, Makati City, arriving at around 7:30 in the evening for a final briefing by PCI Tamayo.

Thereafter, PO1 Angulo proceeded on foot to 23rd Street together with the regular informant. Before reaching their destination, they saw appellant at a store, where the informant introduced PO1 Angulo as a "tropa." In the course of conversation, PO1 Angulo asked appellant "kung meron ba" to which appellant replied "meron naman." When PO1 Angulo asked if he could see the item, appellant asked for payment first, took the buy-bust money and placed it in his pocket, then brought out the item from the same pocket and handed it to PO1 Angulo. The transaction having been consummated, PO1 Angulo gave the pre-arranged signal by removing his cap, grabbed appellant, and SPO1 Randy Obedoza arrived, introduced himself as a police officer, and placed appellant under arrest. An initial body search recovered the marked money, SPO1 Obedoza informed appellant of his constitutional rights, inventory was conducted at the barangay hall, PO1 Angulo turned the seized items over to duty investigator PO2 Michelle Gimena for referrals, a Request for Laboratory Examination was prepared, the items were submitted to the Scene of the Crime Operatives for examination, and photographs of the inventory and marking were taken at the barangay hall.

Appellant, for his part, interposed denial, testifying that he was on his way home when accosted by two men who introduced themselves as police officers. The Information charged that on December 15, 2013 in Makati, without license or authority, he wilfully sold 0.03 gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride for Php1,000.00. The lower courts found that the sachet was marked only upon arrival of the buy-bust team at the Barangay Hall of East Rembo in the presence of SPO1 Obedoza, appellant, and four barangay tanods, that inventory and a Chain of Custody and Inventory Receipt were prepared that same night, that PO1 Angulo turned the evidence over to PO2 Gimena and, after papers were drawn up by 10:15 P.M., it was returned to PO1 Angulo who delivered it to Forensic Chemist PSI Rendielyn L. Sahagun, who marked it D-941-13A RLS, with Chemistry Report No. D-941-13 and the evidence retained by the Southern Police District Crime Laboratory until presentation.

• Credibility of Poseur-Buyer: Petitioner argued that weight should not have been given to the testimony of PO1 Angulo despite irregularities casting doubt on his credibility and the veracity of his declarations.
• Legality of Warrantless Arrest: Petitioner argued that his warrantless arrest was illegal.
• Fruit of the Poisonous Tree: Petitioner argued that the allegedly confiscated shabu should have been rendered inadmissible as fruit of the poisonous tree.
• Delayed Marking: Petitioner argued that guilt was not established because operatives failed to mark the allegedly confiscated plastic sachet immediately after seizure.
• Irregular Inventory: Petitioner argued that irregularities attended the conduct of the inventory of the confiscated item.
• Broken Chain of Custody: Petitioner maintained that there was a broken chain of custody of the allegedly confiscated shabu, such that guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

• Illegal Sale – Corpus Delicti and Chain of Custody: Whether appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 where the identity of the dangerous drug was not established through an unbroken chain of custody.
• Section 21 Compliance – Marking, Inventory and Witnesses: Whether non-compliance with immediate marking and inventory in the presence of the required witnesses, without justifiable ground and without preservation of integrity, warrants acquittal.

• Illegal Sale – Corpus Delicti and Chain of Custody: No. Acquittal was required because the identity of the seized drug, which comprises the corpus delicti, was not established beyond reasonable doubt.
• Section 21 Compliance – Marking, Inventory and Witnesses: Yes. The marking and inventory at the barangay hall without media and DOJ representatives and without justifiable ground broke the chain of custody.

• Illegal Sale – Corpus Delicti and Chain of Custody: Conviction for illegal sale requires concurrence of (1) identity of buyer and seller, object and consideration, and (2) delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor, with proof that the sale actually happened and that the procured object presented in court is the same drugs seized from the accused. Because the illicit drugs comprise the corpus delicti, identity must be established beyond reasonable doubt and unnecessary doubts removed through the chain of custody. Here, delayed marking, inventory away from the place of seizure, and absence of required witnesses left the identity unproven, so guilt was not established to moral certainty.
• Section 21 Compliance – Marking, Inventory and Witnesses: Under the original Section 21(1) and its IRR applicable to the December 15, 2013 seizure, the team was required immediately after seizure to physically inventory and photograph in the presence of the accused or his representative, a media representative, the DOJ, and any elected public official. Non-compliance is excused only upon proof of justifiable ground plus preservation of integrity and evidentiary value, which must be proven as fact and cannot be presumed. The excuse of commotion and security was rejected as insufficient where eight officers, seven of them armed, could have contained the commotion and complied, and no explanation was given for the absence of media and DOJ representatives.

• Illegal sale of dangerous drugs; elements and corpus delicti — Conviction requires (1) identity of buyer and seller, object of sale and consideration, and (2) delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor. The sale must have actually happened and the object procured must be presented in court and shown to be the same drugs seized from the accused, since the confiscated drugs comprise the corpus delicti. Applied to acquit where the prosecution failed to prove with certitude that the substance offered in evidence was the same substance bought in the buy-bust.
• Identity of dangerous drug; chain of custody — Identity must be established beyond reasonable doubt; the substance bought during the buy-bust must be proven to be exactly the same substance offered before the court, with the illegal drug produced as exhibit. The chain of custody removes unnecessary doubts concerning identity of the evidence. Applied to find reasonable doubt where marking was delayed, inventory was not at the place of seizure, and required witnesses were absent.
• Section 21 inventory, photography and witnesses; saving clause — Immediately after seizure, the team must inventory and photograph in the presence of the accused or his representative, a media representative and the DOJ, and any elected public official under the old law, now an elected official and National Prosecution Service or media representative under R.A. No. 10640. Failure does not ipso facto void seizure provided the prosecution proves (a) justifiable ground for non-compliance and (b) integrity and evidentiary value were properly preserved, with reasons explained. Applied to reject the commotion/security justification and absence of explanation for missing witnesses, precluding resort to the saving clause.
• Presence of insulating witnesses — The presence of the three required persons guarantees against planting of evidence and frame-up and insulates apprehension and incrimination proceedings from taint of illegitimacy or irregularity. Applied in treating absence of media and DOJ representatives without valid reason as fatal to identity where no justifiable ground was shown.

• "the [procured] object is properly presented as evidence in court and is shown to be the same drugs seized from the accused." — States the second requisite for illegal sale, emphasizing that presentation of the identical corpus delicti is indispensable to conviction.
• "as it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence. are removed." — Defines the function of the chain of custody in preserving the identity and evidentiary value of the seized drug.
• "Provided, further, that non-compliance with 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 of and custody over said items" — States the saving clause in the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 that conditions excuse of procedural lapses on proven justification and preserved integrity.

• People vs. Ismael y Raclang, G.R. No. 208093, February 20, 2017 — Cited as authority for the two elements of illegal sale, the need to present the same drugs seized, and that confiscated drugs comprise the corpus delicti.
• People vs. Gatlabayan, 699 Phil. 240, 252 (2011) — Cited for the rule that identity of the dangerous drug must be established beyond reasonable doubt and proven with certitude to be the same substance bought and offered in evidence.
• People vs. Mirondo, 771 Phil. 345, 357 (2015) — Cited to reinforce that the exhibited substance must be the very same substance recovered from the suspect.
• People vs. Miranda, G.R. No. 229671, January 31, 2018 — Cited as recent articulation that strict Section 21 compliance may be excused only upon proof of justifiable ground and preserved integrity, which cannot be presumed.
• People vs. Sagana, G.R. No. 208471, August 2, 2017 — Cited for the purpose of required witnesses as guarantee against planting of evidence and frame-up.

• Section 5, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 — Punishes illegal sale of dangerous drugs; applied as the charge requiring proof of buyer-seller identity, object and consideration, and delivery and payment, with 0.03 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride allegedly sold for Php1,000.00.
• Section 21(1), R.A. No. 9165 (original) — Requires the apprehending team immediately after seizure to inventory and photograph in presence of accused or representative, media and DOJ representatives, and any elected public official who shall sign and receive copies; applied as the standard breached by delayed barangay-hall inventory without media and DOJ witnesses.
• Section 21(a), IRR of R.A. No. 9165 — Supplements Section 21 by allowing inventory at place of search or nearest police station or office in warrantless seizures and providing saving clause for non-compliance under justifiable grounds with preserved integrity; applied to reject unjustified deviation.
• Section 1, R.A. No. 10640 — Amends Section 21 to require presence of accused or representative with an elected official and National Prosecution Service or media representative; noted as inapplicable since the crime predated amendment, with legislative history on difficulty of compliance cited as background.

Carpio, Acting C.J. (Chairperson), Perlas-Bernabe, J., Caguioa, J., Reyes, Jr., J.