FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 218402, February 14, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RAMIL GALICIA Y CHAVEZ, Accused-Appellants.
D E C I S I O N
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
This resolves the appeal filed by Ramil Galicia y Chavez (appellant) assailing the March 22, 2013 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR H.C. No. 04637 which affirmed the December 19, 2007 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 154, in Criminal Case Nos. 14821-D, 14822-D, 14823-D, and 14824-D finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 6, 11, 12, and 15, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Appellant was charged with violation of Sections 6, 11, l 2, and 15, Article II of RA 9165 allegedly committed as follows:
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 14821-D
(For violation of Section 6, Article II, RA 9165)
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:Aggrieved by the RTC's Decision, appellant appealed to the CA.
In the cases for violation of Section 6, R.A. 9165 (maintenance of a den)
x x x x
The accused Rosalino Babao and Ramil Galicia are hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 6 of R.A. 9165 and they are hereby sentenced to suffer life imprisonment; they are also ordered to pay a fine of P1,000,000.00 EACH.
x x x x
In the cases for violation of Section 11 of R.A. 9165 (possession of dangerous drugs)
The following accused are hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the charge of possession of dangerous drugs as charged against them in the information to wit:and each of them is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY to TWENTY (20) YEARS of imprisonment.
Ronnie Catubig Crim. Case No. 14618-D Aiko Escullar Crim. Case No. 14621-D Ramil Galicia Crim. Case No. 14822-D and Roy Bohol Montefero Crim. Case No. 14617-D
x x x x
Each of them is also ordered to pay a fine of P400,000.00
In the cases for violation of Section 12 of R.A. 9165 (possession of drug paraphernalia)
The accused ROSALINO BABAO, RAMIL GALICIA and ABUBACAR MAUNA SALIC are hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 12 of R.A. 9165 (possession of drug paraphernalia). They are hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of ONE (1) YEAR and ONE (1) DAY to THREE (3) YEARS of imprisonment.
Each of them is also ordered to pay a fine of P10,000.00
x x x x
In the cases for violation of Section 15 of R.A. 9165 (use of dangerous drugs)
The following accused are hereby found GUILTY, it being established beyond reasonable doubt after a confirmatory test that they used dangerous drugs (shabu/marijuana), to wit:
x x x x
20. Ramil Galicia - Crim. Case No. 14823-D
x x x x
They are hereby ordered to undergo rehabilitation in a government rehabilitation center for a period of ONE (1) YEAR or until they are fully cured/rehabilitated.
x x x x
SO ORDERED.10
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated 19 December 2007 issued by the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 154, in Criminal Case Nos. 14821-D, 14822-D, 14823[-D], and 14824[-D] is hereby AFFIRMEDDissatisfied with the CA's Decision, and after denial of his Motion for Reconsideration, appellant filed a Notice of Appeal12 dated December 19, 2014 manifesting his intention to appeal the CA Decision to this Court.
SO ORDERED.11
SEC. 6. Maintenance of a Den, Dive or Resort. - 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 or group of persons who shall maintain a den, dive or resort where any dangerous drug is used or sold in any form.A drug den is defined under Section 3(l) of RA 9165 as follows:
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 or group of persons who shall maintain a den, dive, or resort where any controlled precursor and essential chemical is used or sold in any form.
The maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed in every case where any dangerous drug is administered, delivered or sold to a minor who is allowed to use the same in such a place.
Should any dangerous drug be the proximate cause of the death of a person using the same in such den, dive or resort, the penalty of death and a fine ranging from One million (P1,000,000.00) to Fifteen million pesos (P15,000,000.00) shall be imposed on the maintainer, owner and/or operator.
If such den, dive or resort is owned by a third person, the same shall be confiscated and escheated in favor of the government: Provided, That the criminal complaint shall specifically allege that such place is intentionally used in the furtherance of the crime: Provided, further, That the prosecution shall prove such intent on the part of the owner to use the property for such purpose: Provided, finally, That the owner shall be included as an accused in the criminal complaint.
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.
To convict an accused under this section, the prosecution must show that the place he is maintaining is a den, dive, or resort where dangerous drug is used or sold in any form. Hence, two things must be established, thus: (a) that the place is a den - a place where any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential [chemical] is administered, delivered, stored for illegal purposes, distributed, sold, or used in any form; (b) that the accused maintains the said place. Hence, it is not enough that the dangerous drug or drug paraphernalia were found in the place. More than a finding that dangerous drug is being used thereat, there must also be a clear showing that the accused is the maintainer or operator or the owner of the place where the dangerous drug is used or sold.13 (Emphasis supplied)In this case however, the evidence relied upon by the RTC to convict the appellant of maintenance of a drug den consists of the following: (1) existence of drug paraphernalia inside the shanty known as Target No. 8; (2) the appellant's driver's license allegedly found in the living room; and (3) appellant's picture found inside the shanty.14
During cross examination, PO2 Beascan added:
[PROSEC. TOLENTINO:] Q: When you searched the area, what did you find out? A: [W]hen we searched target no. 8, we found some plastic sachets containing crystallin; substance, weighing scale, cell[ph]one, assorted lighters, wallet containing dollars and some coins. x x x x Q: And after these items were seized, what did you do with the person with whom you presented the search warrant? A: We told him his rights. Q: You mean to tell us you arrested him? A: Yes, sir. Q: What did you do next? A: We proceeded to our office, sir. Q: And to whom did you turn over the person of Ramil Galicia? A: To our office, sir[,] Q: By th way, how did you corne to know his name? A: By virtue of the ID we recovered from the target area, sir. Q: What kind of ID was that? A: Driver's license. sir. Q: Where did you find that driver's license? A: Inside the target area, sir. Q: In what part of the target area? A: In a small living room, sir. Q: What else did you find in that target area no. 8? A: Weighing scale, drug, aluminum foil.15
After scouring through the records of the case, the Court finds that the prosecution failed to clearly establish that the appellant was guilty of violation of maintenance of a drug den. From ihe testimonies of the arresting officers, it is clear that the prosecution failed to establish that the shanty where appellant was found was a place where dangerous drugs were sold or used. The prosecution's witnesses merely testified that when they entered Target No. 8, they found drug paraphernalia inside the shanty and sachets of crystalline substance in the person of the appellant. The prosecution failed to allege and prove an essential element of the offense - that dangerous drugs were being sold or used inside the shanty located at Target No, 8. What was clear was that appellant was caught in possession of shabu and drug paraphernalia. There was nothing in evidence that would indicate that the arresting officers saw that dangerous drugs were being sold and/or used at Target No. 8 in the course of the search of the premises. Since there was no evidence that dangerous drugs were sold and/or used in the shanty located at Target No. 8, appellant may not be held liable for violation of Section 6, Article II, RA 9165 on maintenance of a drug den.
Q: Now, Mr. Witness, during the time that you implemented the search warrant, you also said that you found specifically among others the driver's license of the accused Ramil Galicia. Where exactly did you find that driver's license? A: It is contained in a wallet, sir. Q: [W]here did you find that wallet containing the driver's license? A: In the sala, sir. Q: Were you able to see for yourself the driver's license? A: Yes, sir. x x x x Q: What was the address indicated in the driver's license? A: I cannot recall the address, sir. Q: Is it the same address as the address where you implemented the search warrant? A: No, sir. x x x x Q: So you are not sure if the address indicated in the driver's license is the same address as the one written on the search warrant you implemented as F. Soriano street? A: I am not sure, sir. x x x x Q: Since you are not surre whether the accused is really the owner of that target no. 8 because your only connection to this mutter is the driver's license, [is it] also possible that the accused is only a visitor? A: No, sir, because he has a picture inside the house.16
A person apprehended or arrested, who is found to be positive for use of any dangerous drug, after a confirmatory test, shall be imposed a penalty of a minimum of six (6) months rehabilitation in a government center for the first offense, subject to the provisions of Article VIII of this Act. If apprehended using any dangerous drug for the second time, he/she shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years and a fine ranging from Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) to Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00): Provided, That this Section shall not be applicable where the person tested is also found to have in his/her possession such quantity of any dangerous drug provided for under Section 11 of this Act, in which case the provisions stated therein shall apply.It is clear from the above that the Section 15 does not apply when a person charged with violation of Section 15, Article II, RA 9165 on use of dangerous drugs, is also found to have possession of such quantity of drugs provided under Section 11 of the same law. This means that appellant may not be charged separately of violation of Section 11 on illegal possession of dangerous drugs and of Section 15 on use of dangerous drug since it is clear from the above that the provisions of Section 11 shall apply. Illegal possession of dangerous drugs absorbs the use of dangerous drugs. This is especially true in this case since appellant was not caught in the act of using drugs. Instead he was caught in the act of possessing drugs and drug paraphernalia. For this reason, the Court dismisses Criminal Case No. 14823-D against appellant on use of dangerous drugs as the same is absorbed by Section 11 on illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
Section 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:SPO2 Agbalog testified that he confiscated the eight sachets of shabu from the appellant whom he identified in open court. His testimony was, as follows:
(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 (MDMA) or 'ecstasy', paramethoxyamphetamine (PMA), trimethoxyamphetamine (TMA), lysergic acid diethylamine (LSD), gamma hydroxybutyrate (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.
Section 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, injected, ingested or used a dangerous drug and shall be presumed to have violated Section 15 of this Act.
With regard to the alleged drug paraphetnalia found in the possession of appellant, PO2 Beascan testified that aside from the plastic sachets of shabu, they also found drug paraphernalia consisting of aluminum foil used for heating shabu, improvised aluminum foil tooters used for inhaling the smoke emitted when shabu is heated, disposable lighters, and weighing scales.
Q: And with these seized items [which] specially contains this plastic sachet, 8 packs containing crystalline substance upon seizing the same or confiscating the same at Target No. 8, what did you do? A: I turned it over to Robert Biascan, sir. Q: And what did this police officer do after you have turned it over to him? A: He made the markings, sir. Q: I am showing to you a plastic sachet, brown envelop will you please go over the same and tell us what is this in relation to this plastic sachet containing this shabu that you have found in Target No. 8? A: These are the same items that we have confiscated, sir. Q: And those were confiscated from where, Mr. Witness? A: From the accused Ramil Galicia, sir. Q: Where, from the person or in the place? A: From the person of the accused, sir. x x x x Q: What were the items that you have confiscated from the accused? A: These items, sir. These 8 plastic sachets, sir.17
Further, not all people who came into contact with the seized drugs are required to testify in court. There is nothing in Republic Act No. 9165 or in any rule implementing the same that imposes such requirement. As long as the chain of custody of the seized drug was clearly established not to have been broken and that the prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drugs seized, it is not indispensable that each and every person who came into possession of the drugs should take the witness stand. x x xWhat is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized drugs. In this case, the Court upholds the findings of the CA that the shabu and its paraphernalia that were presented in court were the same items seized from the appellant with its integrity and evidentiary value uncompromised.
Endnotes:
* Designated as addition member per October 18, 2017 raffle vice J. Jardeleza who recused due to prior action as Solicitor General.
1 CA rollo, pp. 352-372; penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion and concurred in by Associate Justices Vicente S.E. Veloso and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr.
2 Records, pp. 131-215; penned by Judge Abraham B. Borreta.
3 Id. at 1-2.
4 Id. at 32-33.
5 Id. at 35.
6 Id. at 38-39.
7 Id. at 12.
8 Spelled as "Biascan" in some parts of the records.
9 Spelled as "Partosa" in some parts of the records.
10 Id. at 210-215.
11 CA rollo, pp. 371-372.
12 Id. at 405-407.
13 CA rollo, pp. 361-362.
14 Records, pp. 189-190.
15 TSN, March 7, 2007, pp. 2-4.
16 Id. at 8-11.
17 TSN, April 18, 2007, pp. 7-8.
18 Records, pp. 15-16.
19 CA rollo, p. 369. See also records, p. 29.
20 639 Phil. 235, 251 (2010).