People vs. Mirondo

The narcotic substance itself constitutes the corpus delicti of a drug offense, and its presentation in court is indispensable to sustain a judgment of conviction; failure to introduce the subject narcotic substance as an exhibit during trial is fatal to the prosecution's cause. Photographs of the alleged drug cannot substitute for the actual presentation of the seized item in evidence.

The case involves the prosecution of Enrico Mirondo y Izon for illegal sale of shabu under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. In drug prosecutions, the narcotic substance constitutes the corpus delicti—the body of the crime—and its existence is a condition sine qua non to sustain a conviction. The constitutional presumption of innocence requires that guilt be proven beyond reasonable doubt, and the prosecution bears the onus probandi to establish every element of the offense with certitude.

On May 21, 2006, at around 3:00 in the afternoon, SP04 Melchor de la Peña received information from an informant that a certain "Erik Manok" was selling illegal drugs in his residence at Gitna, Barangay Cuyab, San Pedro, Laguna. The Chief of Police instructed him to conduct surveillance and, if the information proved true, to conduct a buy-bust operation. SP04 de la Peña called upon three police officers from the intelligence section—PO1 Alejandro Ame, SPO1 Arnel Gonzales, and PO1 Jifford Signap—to act as back-up arresting officers. PO1 Signap was designated as the poseur-buyer and was given ₱200.00 as marked money, while the civilian informant was assigned to act as the middleman.

PO1 Signap and the informant proceeded to the house of "Erik Manok," who turned out to be Mirondo, while the rest of the team waited in their service vehicle. The informant introduced PO1 Signap as a buyer, and PO1 Signap handed the ₱200.00 marked money to Mirondo, who in turn handed over a plastic sachet containing suspected shabu. After the sale was consummated, PO1 Signap made a missed call to SP04 de la Peña as the pre-arranged signal for the team to converge. PO1 Signap then introduced himself as a police officer, arrested Mirondo, and retrieved the marked money. He marked the plastic sachet with the initials "EM-B." The team brought Mirondo to the police station, prepared a Pre-Operational Plan, Certificate of Inventory, and a request for chemical laboratory examination. The examination disclosed that the substance tested positive for shabu.

Mirondo denied the charges, claiming that on the same day at around 2:00 in the afternoon, eight armed men destroyed their gate, forcibly entered his residence, and immediately handcuffed him without showing any warrant of arrest or search warrant. He claimed the group searched his residence but found nothing, and that he was forced to admit selling shabu while inside the vehicle but refused. Defense witnesses Emelinda Lizarda Capacete, a barangay councilor, and Gino Bergantinos corroborated that they saw Mirondo already handcuffed by armed men who had forcibly entered his house.

During trial, the prosecution never presented the subject plastic sachet containing shabu in evidence. The prosecution witnesses were not confronted with the seized item for identification, and neither PO1 Signap nor SP04 de la Peña testified as to the condition of the seized item while in their possession. Instead, the prosecution relied on photographs marked as Exhibits "I," "I-1," and "I-2" depicting Mirondo with the alleged shabu and the buy-bust money. The pre-trial order dated October 30, 2006 indicated that the "subject specimen was reserved for marking during trial," but no such marking ever occurred. The prosecution formally offered the plastic sachet as Exhibit "L-1-a," and the RTC admitted it per its Order dated October 21, 2009, despite its non-presentation.

• Frame-up and Fabrication: Mirondo asserted that the charge of illegal drug sale was a complete fabrication and frame-up, as no sufficient evidence was adduced to prove that a legitimate buy-bust operation was conducted against him.
• Non-Compliance with Section 21: He argued that the police operatives' omission to observe the procedures outlined in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, particularly on taking photographs and conducting physical inventory in the presence of the required personalities, created serious doubt on the existence of the allegedly confiscated drug.
• Broken Chain of Custody: He pointed out a material inconsistency between the testimonies of PO1 Signap and SP04 de la Peña as to who marked the subject narcotic before it was brought to the crime laboratory, and assailed the prosecution evidence for failing to establish the proper chain of custody, which shed uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the seized shabu.
• Non-Presentation of the Drug: He asserted that the plastic sachet containing 0.03 gram of shabu allegedly recovered from him was never presented before the trial court for identification.
• Presumption of Innocence: He contended that his constitutional right to presumption of innocence remained because there was reasonable doubt calling for his acquittal.

• In Flagrante Delicto Arrest: The OSG averred that Mirondo was caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu, which justified his warrantless arrest under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court.
• Unbroken Chain of Custody: The OSG submitted that the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody of the shabu seized from Mirondo during the buy-bust operation and that its authenticity and identity were not compromised.
• Elements Proven: The OSG asserted that all the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs had been duly proven by the prosecution.

• Corpus Delicti: Whether the prosecution's failure to present the confiscated shabu in evidence during trial is fatal to the conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
• Chain of Custody: Whether the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody of the seized shabu from the time of confiscation to its presentation in court.
• Presumption of Regularity: Whether the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties can cure the prosecution's failure to present the corpus delicti in court.

• Corpus Delicti: Yes. The failure to present the corpus delicti in evidence is fatal to the prosecution's cause. The second element of illegal sale of dangerous drugs—presentation of the illicit drug as evidence—was wanting, and the prosecution failed to prove the indispensable element of corpus delicti.
• Chain of Custody: No. The prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody. There was no clear and convincing showing that what was submitted for laboratory examination was the same shabu actually recovered from Mirondo, and the prosecution failed to provide details on post-examination custody.
• Presumption of Regularity: No. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties is a mere presumption that can be rebutted by contrary proof, and it is inferior to, and could not prevail over, the constitutional presumption of innocence.

• Corpus Delicti: For a successful prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must prove: (1) that the transaction or sale took place; (2) that the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) that the buyer and seller were identified. The narcotic substance itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense, and its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction. In this case, the subject 0.03 gram of shabu was never presented in evidence during trial for identification by the prosecution witnesses, albeit the same had been formally offered. The prosecution instead endeavored to establish the existence and identity of the narcotic substance through mere photographs depicting Mirondo together with the subject shabu and the buy-bust money. Citing People vs. Remigio, the Court wrote that "a picture is not worth a thousand words" in drug cases—the image without the thing even prevents the telling of a story, and it is indispensable for the prosecution to present the drug itself in court. The plastic sachet was formally offered as Exhibit "L-1-a" and admitted by the RTC despite its non-presentation, which fatally flawed the decision of conviction.

• Chain of Custody: The failure to produce the corpus delicti could not be cured by the stipulation entered into by the prosecution and defense when Forensic Chemical Officer Daisy Catibog Ebdane was called to testify. First, it was not clearly and convincingly shown that what was submitted for laboratory examination was the same shabu actually recovered from Mirondo. Second, the defense made no stipulation that the alleged confiscated substance was the same substance the forensic chemist examined and found positive for shabu, and there was no stipulation regarding the ultimate source of the drug submitted for examination. Third, the forensic chemist did not testify at all as to the identity of the person from whom she received the specimen. Lastly, the forensic chemist failed to testify regarding the handling of the specimen in the laboratory and the analytical result of the qualitative examination. There were also nagging questions about post-examination custody—who exercised custody after the chemical examination and how the specimen was handled, stored, and safeguarded pending its presentation in court—which created a gap in the chain of custody raising reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti.

• Presumption of Regularity: The RTC and CA relied on the evidentiary presumption that official duties had been regularly performed. However, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties can be rebutted by contrary proof, being a mere presumption, and more importantly, it is inferior to, and could not prevail over, the constitutional presumption of innocence. The failure to produce the corpus delicti in court strongly militates against the prosecution's cause because it not only casts doubt on the existence and identity of the subject shabu but likewise tends to discredit, if not negate, the claim of regularity in the conduct of official police operation. The Court found no further need to discuss the merits of Mirondo's defense of denial and frame-up, as the conviction of an accused must be based on the strength of the prosecution evidence and not on the weakness or absence of evidence of the defense.

• Corpus Delicti in Drug Cases — The narcotic substance itself constitutes the corpus delicti, the body or substance of the crime, and the fact of its existence is a condition sine qua non to sustain a judgment of conviction. The prosecution must prove with certitude that the narcotic substance confiscated from the suspect is the same drug offered in evidence before the court. Failure to introduce the subject narcotic substance as an exhibit during trial is fatal to the prosecution's cause.

• Elements of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs — The essential elements are: (1) that the transaction or sale took place; (2) that the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) that the buyer and seller were identified. Implicit in all these is the need for proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the confiscated prohibited or regulated drug as evidence.

• Presumption of Regularity vs. Presumption of Innocence — The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties can be rebutted by contrary proof, being a mere presumption, and it is inferior to, and could not prevail over, the constitutional presumption of innocence. The failure to produce the corpus delicti in court tends to discredit, if not negate, the claim of regularity in the conduct of official police operation.

• Photographs as Substitute for the Drug Itself — In drug cases, a picture is not worth a thousand words; the image without the thing even prevents the telling of a story. It is indispensable for the prosecution to present the drug itself in court, and photographs of the allegedly confiscated items cannot substitute for the actual presentation of the corpus delicti.

• "It is essential that the prosecution must prove with certitude that the narcotic substance confiscated from the suspect is the same drug offered in evidence before the court. As such, the presentation in court of the corpus delicti establishes the fact that a crime has actually been committed. Failure to introduce the subject narcotic substance as an exhibit during trial is, therefore, fatal to the prosecution's cause." — This passage articulates the foundational doctrine of the case: the corpus delicti must be presented in court, and its non-presentation is fatal to the prosecution.

• "In this case, no illegal drug was presented as evidence before the trial court. As pointed out by appellant, what were presented were pictures of the supposedly confiscated items. But, in the current course of drugs case decisions, a picture is not worth a thousand words. The image without the thing even prevents the telling of a story. It is indispensable for the prosecution to present the drug itself in court." — Quoted from People vs. Remigio, this passage establishes that photographs cannot substitute for the actual presentation of the drug in evidence.

• "Let it be underscored that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties can be rebutted by contrary proof, being a mere presumption, and more importantly, it is inferior to, and could not prevail over, the constitutional presumption of innocence." — This passage clarifies the hierarchy between the evidentiary presumption of regularity and the constitutional presumption of innocence, holding that the former cannot overcome the latter.

• "The accused has no burden to prove his innocence and the weakness of the defense he interposed is inconsequential. He must be acquitted and set free as the prosecution failed to overcome the presumption of innocence in his favor." — This passage reaffirms the rule that conviction must be based on the strength of the prosecution's evidence, not on the weakness of the defense.

• People vs. Gatlabayan, 699 Phil. 240, 252 (2011) — Cited for the doctrine that the identity of the dangerous drug must be established beyond reasonable doubt, and it must be proven with certitude that the substance bought during the buy-bust operation is exactly the same substance offered in evidence before the court.
• People vs. Remigio, G.R. No. 189277, December 5, 2012, 687 SCRA 336 — Controlling precedent for the proposition that photographs of the allegedly confiscated items cannot substitute for the presentation of the drug itself in court; quoted extensively for the "picture is not worth a thousand words" doctrine.
• People vs. Fermin, 670 Phil. 511, 520 (2011) — Cited for the doctrine that the narcotic substance constitutes the corpus delicti of the crime.
• People vs. Kamad, 624 Phil. 289, 299 (2010) — Cited for the rule that an appeal in a criminal case throws the whole records open for review.
• People vs. Morales, 630 Phil. 215, 227-228 (2010) — Cited for the exception to the general rule that trial court findings of fact are entitled to great weight, where facts of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied.
• People vs. De la Cruz, 591 Phil. 259, 269 (2008) — Cited for the essential elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
• People vs. Ramon Frondozo, 609 Phil. 188, 198 (2009) — Cited for the doctrine that the narcotic substance itself constitutes the corpus delicti and its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction.
• People vs. Magat, 588 Phil. 395, 407 (2008) — Cited for the rule that the presumption of regularity in official duties is inferior to the constitutional presumption of innocence.
• People vs. Coreche, 612 Phil. 1238, 1250 (2009) — Cited for the proposition that gaps in the chain of custody raise reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti.
• People vs. Suan, 627 Phil. 174, 192-193 (2010) — Cited for the rule that conviction must be based on the strength of the prosecution's evidence, not on the weakness of the defense.

• Section 5, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 — The provision defining and penalizing the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, under which Mirondo was charged and convicted. The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove all its elements, particularly the presentation of the corpus delicti in evidence.
• Section 21, Republic Act No. 9165 — The provision outlining the chain of custody requirements for seized drugs, including the taking of photographs and physical inventory in the presence of required personalities. Mirondo argued non-compliance with this provision, though the Court's ruling focused on the more fundamental failure to present the drug itself.
• Section 5(a), Rule 113, Rules of Court — The provision on warrantless arrests of persons caught in flagrante delicto, which the OSG invoked to justify Mirondo's arrest. The Court did not need to pass upon this issue given the prosecution's failure to prove the corpus delicti.
• Section 13, Article VIII, 1987 Constitution — The constitutional provision on the certification of decisions by the Chief Justice, referenced in the certification portion of the decision.

• Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion (Acting Chairperson)
• Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta
• Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo
• Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen

N/A — No dissenting opinions were noted in the provided case text.