People vs. Crispo y Descalso

The prosecution must prove compliance with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, or provide justifiable grounds for non-compliance and show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved; otherwise, the accused must be acquitted. The saving clause does not apply absent proof of earnest efforts to secure the required witnesses, and mere statements of unavailability are flimsy excuses.

The case involves the prosecution of two individuals charged under RA 9165, the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," for drug-related offenses arising from a buy-bust operation conducted by the Manila Police District Station 4. The statutory framework requires strict compliance with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 regarding the custody and disposition of seized drugs, which mandates the presence of certain witnesses during inventory and photography to preserve the integrity of the corpus delicti. The offense was committed on November 19, 2012, before the amendment of Section 21 by RA 10640, so the original provisions of RA 9165 and its IRR govern the procedural requirements.

On November 19, 2012, at around 1:30 in the afternoon, a confidential informant tipped the Manila Police District Station 4 about the alleged illegal drug activities of a certain alias "Gogo," later identified as Crispo, at Ma. Cristina Street, Sampaloc, Manila. After coordinating with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, the MPD organized a buy-bust operation, with PO2 Dennis Reyes as the poseur buyer. Upon arrival at the area at around 5:30 in the afternoon, the CI and P02 Reyes saw Crispo talking to his runner, Herrera, and decided to approach them. As they went nearer, Herrera approached the CI and P02 Reyes while Crispo remained about five to six meters away. P02 Reyes signified his intention to buy shabu, prompting Herrera to get the marked money from him and approach Crispo to remit the money and obtain a sachet containing white crystalline substance. When Herrera handed the sachet to P02 Reyes, the latter performed the pre-arranged signal, causing his backups to rush into the scene and apprehend the accused-appellants. Upon frisking, the arresting officers recovered three other plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance from Crispo.

The accused-appellants and the seized items were taken to the barangay office where the arresting officers conducted the inventory and photography in the presence of two barangay kagawads, as indicated in the Receipt of Property/Evidence Seized. Laboratory examination confirmed that the sachets contained methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu. The accused-appellants pleaded not guilty and offered their own version of events. Crispo claimed he was on board a tricycle going to his niece's house when a car with five policemen in civilian clothes blocked his path, poked a gun at him, and told him "Mga pulis kami, sumama ka sa presinto." At the police station, the policemen demanded ₱30,000.00 for his release, threatening to plant evidence against him, and showed him four sachets of shabu. Herrera averred that he was riding a bicycle when he accidentally bumped a brown van, and three men alighted, arrested him, and took him to the police station, where an affidavit was prepared for him and he signed it without reading out of confusion.

During the trial, P03 Manolito Rodriguez, a member of the buy-bust team, testified that the inventory was conducted in the presence of two barangay kagawads, but confirmed that no DOJ or media representatives were present and that the accused were not assisted by counsel. The poseur-buyer, P02 Reyes, testified that he did not know whether coordination with the DOJ or media was made, and when asked why there were no DOJ or media representatives during the marking of evidence, he merely stated that they immediately proceeded to the barangay after the arrest, offering no further explanation.

• Ill-Motive of Arresting Officers: Accused-appellants imputed ill-motive against their arresting officers, alleging that the policemen demanded ₱30,000.00 from Crispo for his release and threatened to plant evidence against him, and that Herrera was arrested after accidentally bumping a brown van.
• Non-Compliance with Section 21: The accused-appellants challenged the procedural lapses in the chain of custody, specifically the absence of DOJ and media representatives during the inventory and photography of the seized items.

• Presumption of Regularity: The prosecution relied on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by the arresting officers and maintained that the elements of the crimes charged were established beyond reasonable doubt.
• Substantial Compliance: The prosecution argued that the absence of DOJ and media representatives during the inventory is not fatal to the case so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved.

• Death of Accused Pending Appeal: Whether Herrera's death pending appeal extinguished his criminal liability and required the dismissal of the case against him.
• Chain of Custody Compliance: Whether the prosecution's failure to comply with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, specifically the absence of DOJ and media representatives during the inventory without justifiable grounds, warranted Crispo's acquittal.

• Death of Accused Pending Appeal: Yes. Under Paragraph 1, Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is totally extinguished by the death of the convict as to personal penalties, and as to pecuniary penalties, liability is extinguished only when death occurs before final judgment. The criminal action against Herrera was extinguished, and the case against him was dismissed, declared closed and terminated.
• Chain of Custody Compliance: No. The conviction of Crispo was reversed because the arresting officers committed unjustified deviations from the prescribed chain of custody rule. The prosecution failed to provide justifiable grounds for the absence of DOJ and media representatives during the inventory, and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were compromised, warranting acquittal.

• Death of Accused Pending Appeal: The Court applied Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code, citing People vs. Jao, which summarized that the death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon. Since there was no longer a defendant to stand as the accused, the criminal case against Herrera was dismissed and declared closed and terminated.

• Chain of Custody Compliance: The Court emphasized that an appeal in criminal cases opens the entire case for review, and it is the duty of the reviewing tribunal to correct, cite, and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether assigned or unassigned. For Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, the prosecution must prove: (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. For Illegal Possession, the elements are: (a) the accused was in possession of an item identified as a prohibited drug; (b) such possession was not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. In both instances, the identity of the prohibited drug must be established with moral certainty, requiring an unbroken chain of custody.

The Court noted that Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, prior to its amendment by RA 10640, requires the apprehending team to conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused or his representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official. While strict compliance may not always be possible under varied field conditions, the saving clause in the IRR requires the prosecution to prove: (a) there is a justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. Citing People vs. Almorfe and People vs. De Guzman, the Court stressed that the justifiable ground must be proven as a fact, and the Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist.

In this case, the inventory was conducted in the presence of two elected public officials, but no DOJ or media representatives were present. P03 Rodriguez confirmed this fact, and P02 Reyes only feigned ignorance as to the reason for the absence, offering no plausible explanation. The Court cited People vs. Umipang, holding that the prosecution must show that earnest efforts were employed in contacting the representatives enumerated under the law, and that mere statements of unavailability without explanation of serious attempts are flimsy excuses. The Court concluded that the procedural lapses, left unjustified, militated against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt because the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti had been compromised. The Court emphasized that Section 21 is a matter of substantive law and cannot be brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality.

• Chain of Custody Rule — The prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of custody over seized drugs from the moment of seizure up to their presentation in court to prove the identity of the prohibited drug with moral certainty, as the drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus delicti. In this case, the failure to comply with the witness requirement under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, without justifiable grounds, compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, warranting acquittal.

• Saving Clause under Section 21, IRR of RA 9165 — Non-compliance with the procedure laid out in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 does not ipso facto render the seizure and custody over the items void and invalid, provided that the prosecution satisfactorily proves: (a) there is a justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. The justifiable ground must be proven as a fact, and the prosecution must show earnest efforts to secure the required witnesses; mere statements of unavailability are flimsy excuses.

• Death of the Accused Pending Appeal — Under Paragraph 1, Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code, the death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon (civil liability ex delicto in senso strictiore). The criminal action is extinguished because there is no longer a defendant to stand as the accused.

• "Without the insulating presence of the representative from the media or the [DOJ], or any elected public official during the seizure and marking of the [seized drugs], the evils of switching, 'planting' or contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-busts conducted under the regime of [RA] 6425 again reared their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the[said drugs] that were evidence herein of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused." — This passage from People vs. Mendoza articulates the rationale for the witness requirement under Section 21, emphasizing the need to prevent evidence tampering and preserve the integrity of the corpus delicti.

• "The Court strongly supports the campaign of the government against drug addiction and commends the efforts of our law enforcement officers against those who would inflict this malediction upon our people, especially the susceptible youth. But as demanding as this campaign may be, it cannot be more so than the compulsions of the Bill of Rights for the protection of liberty of every individual in the realm, including the basest of criminals." — This passage, echoed from People vs. Go, underscores that the government's anti-drug campaign cannot override constitutional protections of individual liberty, and law enforcers are not justified in disregarding individual rights in the name of order.

• "Since compliance with the procedure is determinative of the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti and ultimately, the fate of the liberty of the accused, the fact that any issue regarding the same was not raised, or even threshed out in the court/s below, would not preclude the appellate court, including this Court, from fully examining the records of the case if only to ascertain whether the procedure had been completely complied with, and if not, whether justifiable reasons exist to excuse any deviation." — This passage establishes the appellate court's duty to examine compliance with Section 21 even if not raised below, and to acquit the accused if no justifiable reasons exist for deviations.

• People vs. Jao, G.R. No. 225634, June 7, 2017 — Controlling precedent on the effect of the death of an accused pending appeal, holding that criminal liability and civil liability based solely thereon are extinguished.
• People vs. Mendoza, 736 Phil. 749 (2014) — Cited for the rationale behind the witness requirement under Section 21, emphasizing the evils of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence that the presence of witnesses prevents.
• People vs. Umipang, 686 Phil. 1024 (2012) — Cited for the rule that the prosecution must show earnest efforts were employed in contacting the required witnesses, and that mere statements of unavailability are flimsy excuses.
• People vs. Almorfe, 631 Phil. 51 (2010) — Cited for the requirement that the prosecution must explain the reasons behind procedural lapses and show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized evidence were preserved.
• People vs. De Guzman, 630 Phil. 637 (2010) — Cited for the rule that the justifiable ground for non-compliance must be proven as a fact, as the Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist.
• People vs. Comboy, G.R. No. 218399, March 2, 2016, 785 SCRA 512 — Cited for the principle that an appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and renders it competent to examine records, revise the judgment, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law.

• Section 5, Article II, RA 9165 — Defines and penalizes the Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs; the prosecution must prove the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, the consideration, the delivery of the thing sold, and the payment.
• Section 11, Article II, RA 9165 — Defines and penalizes the Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs; the prosecution must prove the accused was in possession of a prohibited drug, such possession was not authorized by law, and the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.
• Section 21, Article II, RA 9165 — Outlines the procedure for custody and disposition of seized drugs, requiring physical inventory and photography in the presence of the accused or his representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official; non-compliance under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved, shall not render the seizure void and invalid.
• Article 89, Paragraph 1, Revised Penal Code — Provides that criminal liability is totally extinguished by the death of the convict as to personal penalties, and as to pecuniary penalties, liability is extinguished only when death occurs before final judgment.
• Section 21(a), Article II, IRR of RA 9165 — Provides that the inventory and photography may be conducted at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team in instances of warrantless seizure, and that non-compliance under justifiable grounds will not render void and invalid the seizure so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.

Antonio T. Carpio (Acting Chief Justice, Chairperson), Diosdado M. Peralta, Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, and Andres B. Reyes, Jr.