THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 220715, August 24, 2016
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. RONNIE BOY EDA Y CASANI, Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
PERALTA, J.:
On appeal is the December 10, 2014 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06470, which affirmed in toto the September 17, 2013 Joint Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 9, Balayan, Batangas, in Criminal Cases No. 6604 and 6605, convicting appellant Ronnie Boy Eda y Casani (Eda) of illegal possession and sale of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, commonly known as "shabu," in violation of Section 11, Paragraph 2 (3) and Section 5, respectively, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
On February 18, 2011, two (2) Informations were filed against Eda, charging him as follows:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Criminal Case No. 6604:In his arraignment, Eda entered a plea of "Not Guilty."5 Trial ensued while he was under detention. The prosecution presented PO2 Roman De Chavez Bejer, PO1 Reynante Brosas Briones, and PO3 Bryan De Jesus, who were part of the buy-bust team. Only Eda testified for the defense.
That on or about the 17th day of February, 2011, at about 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon, at Barangay Caloocan, Municipality of Balayan, Province of Batangas, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law, did then and there willfully and unlawfully have in her (sic) possession, custody and control four (4) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets referred to as specimens A-2 (RCB2) to A-5 (RCB5) in Chemistry Report No. BD-040-2011 each containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as "shabu", having a total weight of 0.08 gram, a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law.3chanrobleslaw
Criminal Case No. 6605:
That on or about the 17th day of February, 2011, at about 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon, at Barangay Caloocan, Municipality of Balayan, Province of Batangas, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law, did then and there willfully and unlawfully sell, deliver and give away one (1) heat-scaled transparent plastic sachet referred to as Specimen A-1 (RCB1) in Chemistry Report No. BD-040-2011, containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu, weighing 0.02 gram, a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law.4chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this Court hereby finds accused Ronnie Boy Eda y Casani GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for Violation of Section 11, paragraph 3, and Section 5, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and sentences him to suffer:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryThe RTC held that the prosecution established with moral certainty all the elements constitutive of the offenses that were charged against Eda. As to the illegal sale of shabu, it viewed:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryfor Crim. Case No. 6604 — the penalty of imprisonment for Twelve (12) Years, Four (4) Months and One (1) Day, as minimum, to Fourteen (14) Years and Six (6) months, as maximum, and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) with subsidiary imprisonment for non-payment thereof; and cralawlawlibraryLet the necessary mittimus be issued for the immediate transfer of the accused to the New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City, for the service of his sentence.
for Crim. Case No. 6605 - the penalty of Life imprisonment and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) with subsidiary imprisonment for non-payment thereof.
With costs.
SO ORDERED.12chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Herein prosecution witnesses testified in open Court categorically and convincingly. They evinced firmness and consistency all throughout their narrations of the subject incident. The Court finds their testimonies credible and worthy of credence.With respect to the illegal possession of shabu, it found:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
PO2 Bejer and PO1 Briones gave a detailed narration of every step of the entire operation, from receipt of the information from the civilian asset, the pre-operation, planning, actual conduct of the buy-bust operation, to the post-operation activities.
As declared in the Joint Sworn Statement (Exh. "A") by prosecution witness PO2 Bejer, herein accused was caught delivering one (1) heat-scaled transparent plastic sachet of shabu to the civilian asset. Although the asset was not presented in Court to testify, the actual transaction of sale was witnessed by PO2 Bejer. PO2 Bejer identified the accused as the same person he arrested during the buy-bust operation (t.s.n. [p.] 13 February 15, 2012). When the shabu subject of sale was presented in Court, PO2 Bejer identified it to be the same item sold to the asset by the accused because of the marking "RCB-1" which PO2 Bejer had written thereon (t.s.n. [p.] 4, May 29, 2012). PO1 Briones corroborated such testimony as he was near PO2 Bejer when the latter marked the shabu (t.s.n. [p.] 9, November 27, 2012). PO2 Bejer also identified in Court the buy-bust money recovered from the accused in the amount of Five Hundred Pesos with serial number DQ-247003 (t.s.n. [p.] 7, February 15, 2012).13chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
On the occasion of the accused's lawful arrest from the buy-bust operation, four (4) sachets of shabu (Exhs. "G-3" to "G-6") were recovered from his right pocket by PO1 Briones. PO1 Briones positively identified in open Court the four (4) sachets of shabu as the same shabu he recovered from the accused (t.s.n. [p.] 9, November 25, 2012). PO2 Bejer affirmed PO1 Briones' testimony on the basis of the markings "RCB-2", "RCB-3", "RCB-4", and "RCB-5" that he placed thereon (t.s.n. pp. 4-5, May 29, 2012). There is also no showing from the records of the case that herein accused was legally authorized by law to possess the four (4) plastic sachets of shabu.The RTC opined that Section 21 (1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations were properly observed in this case:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
It is a settled rule [that] mere possession of a prohibited drug constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of satisfactory explanation (People vs. De Jesus, G.R. No. 198794, February 6, 2013). The accused, instead of giving explanations on his absence of knowledge or animus possidendi of the shabu recovered in his possession, accepted the accusations against him (t.s.n. pp. 9 and 11, August 7, 2013).14chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Record shows that after PO2 Bejer recovered the shabu sold to the asset, he placed the marking "RCB-1" thereon. Such testimony was confirmed by PO1 Briones. PO1 Briones testified further that after he recovered from the body of the accused the four (4) plastic sachets of shabu, he turned them over to PO2 Bejer for marking (t.s.n. [p.] 9, November 27, 2012). During inventory, DOJ representative Benilda Diaz and Barangay Chairman Reynaldo Ballelos of Barangay Caloocan, Balayan, Batangas signed the Inventory Receipt of the Property Seized (Exh. "D") in the presence of herein prosecution witnesses. Photograph was taken by PO2 De Jesus during inventory. After a Request for Laboratory Examination (Exh. "H") was prepared, PO2 Bejer and PO1 Briones brought the seized drugs to the Crime Laboratory Office for examination, which yielded positive result for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, as evidence by Chemistry Report No. BD-119-2011 (Exh. "I"). The seized drugs were offered as evidence in Court and were positively identified by both PO2 Bejer and PO1 Briones on the basis of the markings thereon.15chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryFinally, Eda's claim of frame-up and planting of evidence was dismissed for his failure to adduce any clear and convincing evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of regularity in favor of the police officers.
Evidently, illegal sale was consummated when accused-appellant sold shabu to the civilian informant of PO2 Bejer. Likewise, it was duly established that the marked money used for the purchase of shabu was recovered from the accused-appellant. The laboratory report further proved that the plastic sachets with white crystalline substance, indeed, contained mcthamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. All of [the] aforementioned evidence were positively and categorically identified in court.Now before Us, Eda manifests that he repleads and adopts all the defenses and arguments raised in his Appellant's Brief filed before the CA.18 Similarly, the Office of the Solicitor General manifests that it adopts its Appellee's Brief in lieu of filing a Supplemental Brief.19chanrobleslaw
Consequently, the evidences (sic) submitted by the prosecution to convict the accused-appellant for illegal possession of prohibited drugs were all established in this case. The accused-appellant was found in possession of the five small plastic sachets of shabu, an item or object that is identified to be a prohibited or dangerous drug, that such possession by the accused-appellant of the five small plastic sachets of shabu is not authorized by law and that the accused-appellant freely and consciously possessed the dangerous drug.
x x x x
The prosecution was able to sufficiently establish the following circumstances showing an unbroken chain of custody over the shabu that was seized from herein accused-appellant:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary(1) PO2 Bejer, at the time when the accused-appellant was apprehended, marked the plastic sachets on site. The confiscated items and the accused-appellant were brought to [the] Barangay Hall of Caloocan, Balayan, Batangas, to complete the physical inventory report and this was witnessed by Benilda Diaz, Brgy. Captain Reynaldo Ballelos and Raul De Jesus;
(2) The arresting officers then brought the accused-appellant to [the] Balayan Police Station and thereafter requested a drug test and laboratory examination of the seized items;
(3) The arresting officers had turned-over the seized items to PO3 Dc Jesus; and cralawlawlibrary
(4) P/Insp. Llacuna then conducted a qualitative examination on the specimen and prepared a report which gave a positive result to the test for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The foregoing did not show any gap in the transfer of the seized items from one officer to another or even showed a scintilla of irregularity.17chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. - The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryIn People v. Ros,38 We held:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof;
(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination;
(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done under oath by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued within twenty- four (24) hours after the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of the dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not allow the completion of testing within the time frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided, however, That a final certification shall be issued on the completed forensic laboratory examination on the same within the next twenty-four (24) hours;
x x x
Notably, Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 serves as a protection for the accused from malicious imputations of guilt by abusive police officers. The illegal drugs being the corpus delicti, it is essential for the prosecution to prove and show to the court beyond reasonable doubt that the illegal drugs presented to the trial court as evidence of the crime are indeed the illegal drugs seized from the accused. In particular, Section 21, paragraph no. 1, Article II of the law prescribes the method by which law enforcement agents/personnel are to go about in handling the corpus delicti at the time of seizure and confiscation of dangerous drugs in order to ensure full protection to the accused. x x xIn the present case, the body of evidence adduced by the prosecution supports the conclusion that the integrity and evidentiary value of the subject shabu were successfully and properly preserved and safeguarded through an unbroken chain of custody. Both the testimonial and documentary evidence indubitably show the following:
Section 21, however, was not meant to thwart the legitimate efforts of law enforcement agents. The Implementing Rules and Regulations of the law clearly expresses that "non-compliance with [the] 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."
We likewise recognize that while the chain of custody should ideally be perfect and unbroken, it is not in reality "as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain." Thus, non-compliance with Section 21 does not automatically render illegal the arrest of an accused or inadmissible the items seized/confiscated. As the law mandates, what is vital is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized/confiscated illegal drugs since they will be used to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.39chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Endnotes:
* Designated Additional Member in lieu of Associate Justice Francis H. Jardeleza, per Raffle dated November 4, 2015; on leave.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Isaias P. Dicdican, with Associate Justices Socorro B. Inting and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes, concurring; rollo, pp. 2-13.
2 Records (Crim. Case No. 6605), pp. 188-203; CA rollo, pp. 52-67.
3 Records (Crim. Case No. 6604), p. 1.
4 Records (Crim. Case No. 6605), p. 1.
5 Records (Crim. Case No. 6604), p. 8; id. at 29.
6 Records (Crim. Case No. 6605), pp. 12-13.
7Id. at 15.
8Id. at 14, 19-22.
9Id. at 16.
10Id. at 17-18.
11Id. at 23.
12Id. at 202-203; CA rollo, pp. 66-67. (Emphasis in the original)
13Id. at 199; id. at 63.
14Id. at 200; id. at 64.
15 Id. at 201-202; id. at 65-66.
16Id. at 210-211, 216.
17Rollo, pp. 9-11; id. at 123-125.
18Id. at 2l.
19Id. at 26.
20 SEC 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. — The penalty of life imprisonment lo death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.
21People v. Raul Amaro y Catubay alias "Lalaks," G.R. No. 207517, June 1, 2016; People v. Eduardo Dela Cruz y Gumabat @ Eddie, G.R. No. 205414, April 4, 2016; People v. Lee Quijano Enad, G.R. No. 205764, February 3, 2016; and People v. Edwin Dalawis y Hidalgo, G.R. No. 197925, November 9, 2015.
22People v. Raul Amaro y Catubay alis "Lalaks," G.R. No. 207517, June 1, 2016; People v. Lee Quijano Enad, G.R. No. 205764, February 3, 2016; and People v. Edwin Dalawis y Hidalgo, G.R. No. 197925, November 9, 2015.
23People v. Raul Amaro y Catubay alias "Lalaks," G.R. No. 207517, June 1, 2016; People, v. Eduardo Dela Cruz y Gumabat @ Eddie, G.R. No. 205414, April 4, 2016; People v. Lee Quijano Enad, G.R. No. 205764, February 3, 2016; and People v. Edwin Dalawis y Hidalgo, G.R. No. 197925, November 9, 2015.
24 TSN, September 26, 2012, pp. 4-5.
25cralawred TSN, February 15, 2012, p. 13.
26 TSN, May 29, 2012, p. 4.
27 TSN, November 27, 2012, pp. 8-9.
28 TSN, February 15, 2012, p. 7.
29 SEC 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a line ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryx x x x
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be graduated as follows:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryx x x x
(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu," or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy", PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or less than three hundred (300) grams of marijuana.
30Sy v. People, 671 Phil 164, 180 (2011) and Miclat, Jr. v. People, 672 Phil. 191, 209 (2011).
31Id.
32 Records (Crim. Case No. 6605), pp. 9-11.
33 TSN, November 27, 2012, pp. 7-9.
34Id. at 9.
35 TSN, May 29, 2012, pp. 4-5.
36 See Miclat, Jr. v. People, supra note 30.
37Miclat, Jr. v. People, supra note 30.
38 G.R. No. 201146, April 15, 2015, 755 SCRA 518.
39People v. Ros, supra, at 536-537; See also People v. Eduardo Dela Cruz y Gumabat @ Eddie, G.R. No. 205414, April 4, 2016; People v. Jun Asislo y Matio, G.R. No. 206224, January 18, 2016; People v. Nicolas Lara III y Agatep, et al., G.R. No. 198796; and People v. Manuela Flores y Salazar @ Wella, G.R. No. 201365, August 3, 2015.
40 See People v. Lee Quijano Enad, G.R. No. 205764, February 3, 2016.
41Sy v. People, supra note 30, at 182 and Miclat, Jr. v. People, supra note 30, at 212.