THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 198796, September 16, 2015
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NICOLAS LARA III Y AGATEP AND RANDY ALCAYDE Y MAGUNDAYAO, ACCUSED, ABDUL MAMMAD Y MACDIROL, LADGER TAMPOY Y BAGAYAD AND HATA SARIOL Y MADDAS, Accused-Appellants.
D E C I S I O N
PERALTA, J.:
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari seeking for the reversal of the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated March 30, 2011 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04147. The CA affirmed the Joint Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 95, dated March 13, 2009 in Criminal Case Nos. Q-04-128604, Q-04-128605, Q-04-128606, and Q-04-12860, finding accused-appellants Abdul Mammad, Ladger Tampoy, and Hata Sariol, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5,3 Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165.4
The Informations charged Mammad, Tampoy, and Sariol with violation of Section 5, Article II, or Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, while three (3) separate charges for violating Section 11 or Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs were filed against Mammad, Nicolas Lara III y Agatep, and Randy Alcayde y Magundayao, to wit:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
The undersigned accuses ABDUL MAMMAD Y MACDIROL, LADGER TAMPOY Y BAGAYAD and HATA SARIOL Y MADDAS of Violation of Section 5, Art. II, RA 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), committed as follows:During arraignment, all of the accused pleaded not guilty to the charges against them.9 Thereafter, joint trial ensued.
That on or about the 4th day of August 2004 in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused conspiring together, confederating with and mutually helping one another, not being authorized by law to sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any dangerous drug, did, then and there willfully, and unlawfully sell, dispense, deliver, transport, distribute or act as broker in the said transaction, zero point twenty five (0.25) gram of white crystalline substance containing methyl amphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law.5
The undersigned accuses ABDUL MAMMAD Y MACDIROL, of Violation of Section 11, Art. II, RA 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), committed as follows:
That on or about the 4th day of August 2004 in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, not being authorized by law to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his/her/their possession and control, zero point sixteen (0.16) gram of white crystalline substance containing methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law.6
The undersigned accuses NICOLAS LARA Y AGATEP III of Violation of Section 11, Art. II, RA 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), committed as follows:
That on or about the 4th day of August 2004 in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, not being authorized by law to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his/her/their possession and control, zero point zero eight (0.08) gram of white crystalline substance containing methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law.7
The undersigned accuses RANDY ALCAYDE Y MAGUNDAYAO of Violation of Section 11, Art. II, RA 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), committed as follows:
That on or about the 4th day of August 2004 in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, not being authorized by law to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his/her/their possession and control, zero point zero six (0.06) gram of white crystalline substance containing methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law.8ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
WHEREFORE, the Court renders its joint decision in the following cases to wit:Thus, Mammad, Tampoy, and Sariol, the ones who were declared guilty, elevated the case to the CA. On March 30, 2011, the CA affirmed the trial court's Decision, thus:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
I. In Criminal Case No. Q-04-128604:
The Court finds accused ABDUL MAMMAD y MACDIROL, LADGER TAMPOY y BAGAYAD and HATA SARIOL y MADDAS "GUILTY" beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 5, Art. II of R.A. 9165, and each of them is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a FINE in the amount of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00);cralawlawlibrary
II. In Criminal Case No. Q-04-128605:
The Court finds accused ABDUL MAMMAD y MACDIROL "NOT GUILTY" considering that the prosecution Jailed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 11, Art. II of R.A. 9165;cralawlawlibrary
III. In Criminal Case No. Q-04-128606:
The Court finds accused NICOLAS LARA y AGATEP III "NOT GUILTY" considering that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 11, Art. II of R.A. 9165; and
IV. In Criminal Case No. Q-04-128607:
The Court finds accused RANDY ALCAYDE y MAGUNDAYAO "NOT GUILTY" considering that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 11, Art. II of R.A. 9165;cralawlawlibrary
The pieces of evidence subject matter of these cases are hereby ordered to be safely delivered to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for proper disposition.
IT IS SO ORDERED.10ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The Joint Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 95, dated 13 March 2009, finding accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, is hereby AFFIRMED.Hence, the instant appeal. Accused-appellants assert that the police officers failed to follow the procedures laid down in Section 21, Article II of R.A.No. 9165.
SO ORDERED.11ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
(a) The apprehending officer/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 non-compliance 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.ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryMoreover, there are links that must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation, to wit: (1) the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the turnover of the illegal drug seized to the investigating officer; (3) the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and (4) the turnover and submission of the illegal drug from the forensic chemist to the court.13
Endnotes:
* Designated Acting Member in lieu of Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes, per Special Order No. 2112 dated July 16, 2015.
** Designated additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Francis H. Jardeleza, per Special Order No. 2193 dated September 16, 2015.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo, with Associate Justices Josefina Guevara-Salonga, and Franchito N. Diamante, concurring; rollo, pp. 2-18.
2 Penned by Judge Henri Jean-Paul B. Inting; CA rollo, pp. 44-64.
3 Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs.
cralawlawlibrary
4 Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
5 CA rollo, p. 45.
6Id. at 45-46.
7Id. at 46.
8Id.
9Id. at 47.
10Id. at 63-64. (Emphasis in the original)
11Rollo p. 18. (Emphasis in the original)
12People v. Salvador, G.R. No. 190621, February 10, 2014, 715 SCRA 617, 633.
13Id. at 635.
14People v. Cardenas, G. R. No. 190342, March 21, 2012, 668 SCRA 827, 843.
15Rollo, p. 7.
16Id. at 16.