THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 205787, November 22, 2017
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PABLO ARPOSEPLE Y SANCHEZ AND JHUNREL SULOGAOL Y DATU, Accused-Appellants.
D E C I S I O N
MARTIRES, J.:
This resolves the appeal of Pablo Arposeple y Sanchez (Arposeple) and Jhunrel Sulogaol y Datu1 (Sulogaol) from the 3 October 2011 Decision2 of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA G.R. CR-HC No. 00865 which affirmed, but with modification as to the fine imposed in Criminal Case No. 12853, the 20 November 2007 Omnibus Decision3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Criminal Case Nos. 12852 to 12854.
When arraigned, both appellants pleaded not guilty; thus, the consolidated trial of these cases took place.CRIM. CASE NO. 12852
(Viol. of Sec. 5, Art. II, R.A. 9165)
That on or about the 21st day of September 2005, in the City of Tagbilaran, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating together, and mutually helping one another, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously, and knowingly, without any legal purpose, sell, transfer, deliver and give away One (1) transparent cellophane sachet containing small amount of white powdered substance commonly known as shabu powder which could no longer be measured in terms of weight, but could not be more than 0.01 gram, for and in consideration of the amount of Five Hundred Pesos (P500.00) Philippine currency, the accused knowing fully well that the above-mentioned substance which contains METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE is a dangerous drug and that they did not have any lawful authority, permit or license to sell the same, to the damage and prejudice of the Republic of the Philippines.
Acts committed contrary to the provisions of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, repealing R.A. 6425, as amended.4CRIM. CASE NO. 12853
(Viol. of Sec. 11, Art. II, R.A. 9165)
That on or about the 21st day of September 2005, in the City of Tagbilaran, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating together, and mutually helping one another, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously, and knowingly have in their possession, custody, and control two (2) pcs. empty transparent cellophane sachets containing suspected shabu leftover which could no longer be measured in terms of weight, but could not be more than 0.01 gram, the accused knowing fully well that the above-mentioned substance which contains Methamphetamine Hydrochloride is a dangerous drug and that they did not have any lawful authority, permit or license to possess the same, to the damage and prejudice of the Republic of the Philippines.
Acts committed contrary to the provisions of Section II, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, repealing R.A. 6425, as amended.5CRIM. CASE NO. 12854
(Viol. of Sec. 12, Art. II, R.A. 9165)
That on or about the 21st day of September 2005, in the City of Tagbilaran, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating together, and mutually helping one another, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously and knowingly have in their possession, custody and control to wit: two (2) pcs. rolled aluminum foil used as tooter; two (2) pcs. folded aluminum foil; two (2) pcs. disposable lighters; one (1) pc. bamboo clip; and one (1) pc. half blade, the accused knowing fully well that the abovementioned items are the instruments, apparatus or paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting or introducing dangerous drug into the body, and that he did not have any lawful authority, permit or license to possess the same, to the damage and prejudice of the Republic of the Philippines.
Acts committed contrary to the provisions of Section 12, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, repealing R.A. No. 6425, as amended.6
WHEREFORE, in Criminal Case No. 12852, the court finds accused Pablo Arposeple y Sanchez and Jhunrel Sulogaol y Datu, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Violation of Section 5, Article II, of R.A. 9165, embraced in the afore-quoted information. There being no aggravating nor mitigating circumstance adduced and proven at the trial, the said accused are each hereby sentenced to the indivisible penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P300,000.00 Pesos, with the accessory penalties of the law, and to pay the costs.The Ruling of the CA
In Criminal Case No. 12853, the court finds accused Pablo Arposeple y Sanchez, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Violation of Section 11, Article II, of R.A. 9165, embraced in the aforequoted information. There being no aggravating nor mitigating circumstance adduced and proven at the trial, the said accused is hereby sentenced to the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY, as minimum, to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P200,000.00 Pesos, with the accessory penalties of the law, and to pay the costs.
In Criminal Case No. 12854, the court finds accused Pablo Arposeple y Sanchez, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Violation of Section 12, Article II, of R.A. 9165, embraced in the aforequoted information. There being no aggravating nor mitigating circumstance adduced and proven at the trial, the said accused is hereby sentenced to the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of from SIX (6) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY, as minimum, to FOUR (4) years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P25,000.00 Pesos, with the accessory penalties of the law, and to pay the costs.
The charges against accused Jhunrel Sulogaol, under Criminal Case Nos. 12853 and 12854 are hereby ordered dismissed and the said accused acquitted, for insufficiency of evidence.
Accused, being detention prisoners are hereby credited in full of the period of their preventive imprisonment.
In compliance with Par. 4, Section 21 of R.A. 9165, the evidence in these cases consisting of one (1) sachet of shabu, with an aggregate weight of 0.01 gram, and paraphernalia with Shabu leftovers are hereby ordered confiscated, destroyed and/or burned, subject to the implementing guidelines of the Dangerous Drugs Board as to the proper disposition and destruction of such item.
SO ORDERED.55
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant appeal is DENIED. Accordingly, the assailed 20 November 2007 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 2 of Tagbilaran City, Bohol is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The fine imposed to Pablo Arposeple y Sanchez in Criminal Case No. 12853 is hereby increased to Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php300,000.00)
No pronouncement as to costs.61
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED APPELLANTS OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO PROVE THEIR GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
2. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided, that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.62In consonance with this constitutional provision, the burden of proof rests upon the prosecution63 and the accused must then be acquitted and set free should the prosecution not overcome the presumption of innocence in his favor.64 Conversely, in convicting the accused all the elements of the crime charged must be proven beyond reasonable doubt,65 viz:
Sec. 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. - x x x Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.66Settled in our jurisprudence is the rule that the conviction of the accused must rest, not on the weakness of the defense, but on the strength of the prosecution. The burden is not on the accused to prove his innocence.67
Narcotic substances are not readily identifiable. To determine their composition and nature, they must undergo scientific testing and analysis. Narcotic substances are also highly susceptible to alteration, tampering, or contamination. It is imperative, therefore, that the drugs allegedly seized from the. accused are the very same objects tested in the laboratory and offered in court as evidence. The chain of custody, as a method of authentication, ensures that unnecessary doubts involving the identity of seized drugs are removed.79Equally significant therefore as establishing all the elements of violations of R.A. No. 9165 is proving that there was no hiatus in the chain of custody of the dangerous drugs and paraphernalia. It would be useless to still proceed to determine the existence of the elements of the crime if the corpus delicti had not been proven beyond moral certainty. Irrefragably, the prosecution cannot prove its case for violation of the provisions of R.A. No. 9165 when the seized items could not be accounted for or when there were significant breaks in their chain of custody that would cast doubt as to whether those items presented in court were actually those that were seized. An enlightened precedent provides for the meaning of chain of custody, viz:
Chain of custody is defined as "the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction." Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition.80The stringent requirement as to the chain of custody of seized drugs and paraphernalia was given life in the provisions of R.A. No. 9165, viz:
Section 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:The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165 provides the proper procedure to be followed in Sec. 21(a) of the Act, viz:
(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;
Even the Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) - the policy-making and strategy-formulating body in the planning and formulation of policies and programs on drug prevention and control tasked to develop and adopt a comprehensive, integrated, unified and balanced national drug abuse prevention and control strategy81 - has expressly defined chain of custody involving the dangerous drugs and other substances in the following terms in Sec. 1(b) of DDB Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002,82 to wit:
- The apprehending office/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: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further that noncompliance 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.
b. "Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition.83Jurisprudence dictates the links that must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.84
The first stage in the chain of custody is the marking of the dangerous drugs or related items. Marking, which is the affixing on the dangerous drugs or related items by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his initials or signature or other identifying signs, should be made in the presence of the apprehended violator immediately upon arrest. The importance of the prompt marking cannot be denied, because succeeding handlers of the dangerous drugs or related items will use the marking as reference. Also, the marking operates to set apart as evidence the dangerous drugs or related items from other material from the moment they are confiscated until they are disposed of at the close of the criminal proceedings, thereby forestalling switching, planting, or contamination of evidence. In short, the marking immediately upon confiscation or recovery of the dangerous drugs or related items is indispensable in the preservation of their integrity and evidentiary value.85The prosecution claimed that the body search conducted by Ramos on Arposeple yielded the seized items. The inventory of the items by Bagotchay outside Tara's house was witnessed by the appellants, two kagawads, and a representative each from the DOJ and the media. Except for the appellants, the witnesses to the inventory including Jimenez, as team leader, and Tara, as representative of the appellants, affixed their respective signatures on the certificate of inventory. Noteworthy, nothing was mentioned in the certificate of inventory as to the marking of the seized items considering that the certificate contained a plain enumeration of the items, viz:
One (1) pc. transparent cellophane sachet containing suspected shabu powderRamos, Tabuelog, and Jimenez failed to explain how and when the seized items were marked. Ramos stated that after the inventory of the items the appellants were brought to the police station for proper disposition, i.e., the booking of the appellants, and the team's preparation of their report.87 Ramos and Tabuelog executed their respective affidavits88 relative to the buy-bust operation but both failed to mention anything therein as to what had happened to the seized items after the inventory and when these were probably brought to the police station for marking.
Two (2) pcs. empty transparent cellophane sachets containing suspected shabu leftover
Two (2) pcs. rolled aluminum foil used for tooter
Two (2) pcs. folded aluminum foil
Two (2) pcs. disposable lighters
One (1) pc. bamboo clip
One (1) pc. half blade
One (1) pc. five hundred peso bill as marked money bearing SN# GY 558660
One (1) pc. one hundred peso (P100) bill
One (I) pc. playing card plastic case86
We have usually presumed the regularity of performance of their official duties in favor of the members of buy-bust teams enforcing our laws against the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. Such presumption is based on three fundamental reasons, namely: first, innocence, and not wrongdoing, is to be presumed; second, an official oath will not be violated; and, third, a republican form of government cannot survive long unless a limit is placed upon controversies and certain trust and confidence reposed in each governmental department or agent by every other such department or agent, at least to the extent of such presumption. But the presumption is rebuttable by affirmative evidence of irregularity or of any failure to perform a duty. Judicial reliance on the presumption despite any hint of irregularity in the procedures undertaken by the agents of the law will thus be fundamentally unsound because such hint is itself affirmative proof of irregularity.It must be noted that the chemistry report100 of De Guzman mentioned that the specimens submitted for examination contained either small amount101 or traces102 only of white substance which tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. The informations in Crim. Case Nos. 12852 and 12853 respectively refer to a transparent cellophane sachet and two empty transparent cellophane sachets, each of which contained shabu weighing not more than 0.01 grams. Recent cases103 have highlighted the need to ensure the integrity of seized drugs in the chain of custody when only a minuscule amount of drugs had been allegedly seized from the accused. Pertinently, we have held that "[c]ourts must employ heightened scrutiny, consistent with the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt, in evaluating cases involving minuscule amounts of drugs ... [as] they can be readily planted and tampered [with]."104
The presumption of regularity of performance of official duty stands only when no reason exists in the records by which to doubt the regularity of the performance of official duty. And even in that instance the presumption of regularity will not be stronger than the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. Otherwise, a mere rule of evidence will defeat the constitutionally enshrined right to be presumed innocent. Trial courts are instructed to apply this differentiation, and to always bear in mind the following reminder issued in People v. Catalan:x x x We remind the lower courts that the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty could not prevail over the stronger presumption of innocence favoring the accused. Otherwise, the constitutional guarantee of the accused being presumed innocent would be held subordinate to a mere rule of evidence allocating the burden of evidence. Where, like here, the proof adduced against the accused has not even overcome the presumption of innocence, the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty could not be a factor to adjudge the accused guilty of the crime charged.
Moreover, the regularity of the performance of their duty could not be properly presumed in favor of the policemen because the records were replete with indicia of their serious lapses. As a rule, a presumed fact like the regularity of performance by a police officer must be inferred only from an established basic fact, not plucked out from thin air. To say it differently, it is the established basic fact that triggers the presumed fact of regular performance. Where there is any hint of irregularity committed by the police officers in arresting the accused and thereafter, several of which we have earlier noted, there can be no presumption of regularity of performance in their favor.
Very truly yours, (SGD) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN Division Clerk of Court |
"WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, we REVERSE and SET ASIDE the 3 October 2011 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00865. Accused-appellants Pablo Arposeple y Sanchez and Jhunrel Sulogaol y Datu are hereby ACQUITTED of the crimes charged for failure of the prosecution ot prove their guilty beyond reasonable doubt. They are ordered IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention unless they are otherwise legally confined for another cause.NOW, THEREFORE, You are hereby ordered to immediately release PABLO ARPOSEPLE y SANCHEZ and JHUNREL SULOGAOL y DATU unless there are other lawful causes for which they should be further detained, and to return this Order with the certificate of your proceedings within five (5) days from notice hereof.
Let a copy of this Decision be sent to the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa city, for immediate implementation. The Director of Corrections is directed to report the action he has taken to this Court within five (5) days from receipt of this Decision.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours, WILFREDO V. LAPITAN Division Clerk of Court By: (SGD) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG III Deputy Division Clerk of Court |
Endnotes:
1 Variably referred as "Jhunrel Sulogaol y Dato" in some parts of the rollo.
2Rollo, pp. 3-16. Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo L. Delos Santos and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon Paul. L. Hernando and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes.
3 Records (Crim. Case No. 12852), pp. 155-164.
4 Records (Crim. Case No. 12852), pp. 1-2.
5 Records (Crim. Case No. 12853), pp. 1-2.
6 Records (Crim. Case No. 12854), pp. 1-2.
7 Exh. "N." (TSN, 6 June 2006), p. 7.
8 TSN, 6 June 2006, pp. 5-8 and 10.
9 Id. at 8-9.
10 Records (Crim. Case No. 12852), p. 158; English translation: "Let us just give him Bay."
11 Id.; English translation: "Ok, let us just give."
12 TSN, 9 May 2006, pp. 12-15.
13 Exh. "L."
14 Exh. "M."
15 Exh. "O."
16 Exhs. "P" and "P-1."
17 Exhs. "Q" and "Q-1."
18 Exhs. "R" and "R-1."
19 Exh. "S."
20 Exh. "T."
21 Exh. "U."
22 Exh. "N."
23 TSN, 9 May 2006, pp. 15-29.
24 TSN, 25 May 2006, pp. 14-16.
25 Record of Documentary Evidence, p. 5; Exh. "C."
26 TSN, 9 May 2006, pp. 30-31.
27 TSN, 4 July 2006, p. 16.
28 TSN, 25 May 2006, p. 17.
29 Record of Documentary Evidence, pp. 1-4; Exhs. "A" and "B."
30 TSN, 9 May 2006, p. 32; TSN, 25 May 2006, p. 17.
31 Record of Documentary Evidence, p. 6; Exh. "G."
32 Id. at 7; Exh. "H."
33 TSN, 18 April2006, pp. 6-9.
34 Record of Documentary Evidence, p. 8; Exh. "I."
35 Id. at 9; Exh. "J."
36 Id. at 11; Exh. "K."
37 Id. at 9; Exh. "J-1."
38 Id. at 11; Exh. "K-1."
39 TSN, 18 April 2006, pp. 16-26.
40 TSN, 17 October 2006, pp. 4-7.
41 Id. at 7-9.
42 Id. at 9-13.
43 TSN, 10 May 2007, pp. 4-5 and 9-11.
44 Id. at 12-15.
45 Id. at 16-20.
46 TSN, 22 May 2007, pp. 3-10.
47 Id. at 10-14.
48 Id. at 14-17
49 Id. at 17-20.
50 Id. at 21-28.
51 TSN, 28 June 2007, pp. 5-9.
52 Id. at 10-15.
53 Id. at 18-23.
54 Records (Crim. Case No. 12852), pp. 155-164; presided by Judge Baudilio K. Dosdos.
55 Id. at 163-164.
56Rollo, pp. 3-16. Penned by Associate Justice and Chairperson Edgardo L. Delos Santos, and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon Paul L. Hernando and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes.
57 Id. at 11.
58 Id.
59 Id. at 12-13.
60 Id. at 14.
61 Id. at 15.
62 Sec. 14(2), Art. III of the 1987 Constitution.
63People v. Patentes, 126 Phil. 590, 606 (2014).
64People v. Cruz, 736 Phil. 564, 580 (2014).
65Ngo v. People, 478 Phil. 676, 680 (2004).
66 Rule 133, Rules of Court.
67Macayan. Jr. v. People, 756 Phil. 202, 214 (2015).
68People v. Tamaño, et al., G.R. No. 208643, 5 December 2016.
69Gamboa v. People, G.R. No. 220333, 14 November 2016.
70Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. - The penalty of life imprisonment to 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.
The penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) 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 controlled precursor and essential chemical, or shall act as a broker in such transactions.
If the sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution or transportation of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical transpires within one hundred (100) meters from the school, the maximum penalty shall be imposed in every case.
For drug pushers who use minors or mentally incapacitated individuals as runners, couriers and messengers, or in any other capacity directly connected to the dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemical trade, the maximum penalty shall be imposed in every case.
If the victim of the offense is a minor or a mentally incapacitated individual, or should a dangerous drug and/or a controlled precursor and essential chemical involved in any offense herein provided be the proximate cause of death of a victim thereof, the maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed.
The maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed upon any person who organizes, manages or acts as a "financier" of any of the illegal activities prescribed in this Section.
The penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years of imprisonment and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who acts as a "protector/coddler" of any violator of the provisions under this Section.
71Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. - The penalty of life imprisonment to 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 possess any dangerous drug in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof:
(1) 10 grams or more of opium;
(2) 10 grams or more of morphine;
(3) 10 grams or more of heroin;
(4) 10 grams or more of cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride;
(5) 50 grams or more of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu";
(6) 10 grams or more of marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil;
(7) 500 grams or more of marijuana; and
(8) 10 grams or more of other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDA) or "ecstasy", paramethoxyamphetamine (PMA), trimethoxyamphetamine (TMA), lysergic acid diethylamine (LSD), gamma hydroxyamphetamine (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, as determined and promulgated by the Board in accordance to Section 93, Article XI of this Act.
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be graduated as follows:
(1) Life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), if the quantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu" is ten (10) grams or more but less than fifty (50) grams;
(2) Imprisonment of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are five (5) grams or more but less than ten (10) 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 three hundred (300) grams or more but less than five (hundred) 500) grams of marijuana; and
(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.
72Section 12. Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs. - The penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and a fine ranging from Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) to Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess or have under his/her control any equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body: Provided, That in the case of medical practitioners and various professionals who are required to carry such equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia in the practice of their profession, the Board shall prescribe the necessary implementing guidelines thereof.
The possession of such equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia fit or intended for any of the purposes enumerated in the preceding paragraph shall be prima facie evidence that the possessor has smoked, consumed, administered to himself/herself, injected, ingested or used a dangerous drug and shall be presumed to have violated Section 15 of this Act.
73People v. Montevirgen, 723 Phil. 534, 543 (2013).
74People v. Ismael, G.R. No. 208093, 20 February 2017.
75People v. Minanga, 751 Phil. 240, 248 (2015).
76People v. Villar, G.R. No. 215937, 9 November 2016.
77Rollo, p. 11.
78 G.R. No. 219829, 18 January 2017.
79 Id.
80People v. Ameril, G.R. No. 203293, 14 November 2016.
81 Sec. 77, R.A. No. 9165.
82 Guidelines on the Custody and Disposition of Seized Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, and Laboratory Equipment pursuant to Section 21, Article II of the IRR of RA No. 9165 in relation to Section 8l(b), Article IX of RA No. 9165.
83People v. Gonzales, 708 Phil. 121, 129-130 (2013).
84People v. Poja, G.R. No. 215937, 9 November 2016.
85People v. Ismael, supra note 74, citing People v. Gonzales, supra note 83 at 130-131.
86 Record of Documentary Evidence, p. 5.
87 TSN, 6 June 2006, pp. 15-18.
88 Record of Documentary Evidence, pp. 1-4; Exhs. "A" and "B."
89 TSN, 18 April 2006, pp. 12-14.
90 Record of Documentary Evidence, p. 6; Exh. "G."
91People v. Reyes, G.R. No. 199271, 19 October 2016, citing People v. Mendoza, 736 Phil. 749, 761 (2014).
92 Record of Documentary Evidence, p. 8; Exh. "I."
93People v. Ameril, supra note 80.
94People v. Tamaño, supra note 68.
95 576 Phil. 576 (2008), cited in People v. /smael, supra note 74.
96 Id. at 587.
97Rontos v. People, 710 Phil. 328, 335 (2013).
98People v. Jaafar, supra note 78.
99People v. Goco, G.R. No. 219584, 17 October 2016.
100 Record of Documentary Evidence, p. 7; Exh. "H."
101 Id.; Specimen "A."
102 Id.; Specimens "8," "B-1"; "C" and "C-1."
103People v. Jaafar, supra note 78, citing People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78, 81 (2014); Tuano v. People, G.R. No. 205871, 28 September 2016; and People v. Caiz, G.R. No. 215340, 13 July 2016, 797 SCRA 26, 58.
104People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78, 100 (2014).
105People v. Tamaño, supra note 68.
106Rontos v. People, supra note 97 at 335.
107Gamboa v. People, supra note 69.
108People v. Ismael, supra note 74.