THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 213598, July 27, 2016
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MERCELITA1 ARENAS Y BONZO @ MERLY, Accused-Appellants.
D E C I S I O N
PERALTA, J.:
This is an appeal from the Decision2 dated January 22, 2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05533, which affirmed in toto the Decision dated April 16, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lingayen Pangasinan, Branch 38, in Criminal Case No. L-8966. The RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11 of Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
In an Information3 dated August 9, 2010, the appellant was charged as follows:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
That on or about August 6, 2010 in the evening, in Brgy. Poblacion, Sual, Pangasinan, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully and unlawfully sell two (2) heat-sealed plastic sachets of Metamphetamine (sic) Hydrochoride (Shabu), a prohibited drug, in exchange for P2,000.00 marked money to PO3 Benedict Julius B. Rimando, acting as poseur-buyer, and was likewise in possession, with intent to sell, one (1) heat-sealed plastic sachet of methamphetamine Hydrochoride (Shabu) without lawful authority to possess and sell the same.Upon her arraignment5 on August 25, 2010, she pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged. Pre-trial and trial thereafter ensued.
Contrary to Art. II, Section 5 of RA 9165.4chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, and the prosecution having established to a moral certainty the guilt of accused MERCILITA ARENAS y BONZO @ "Merly," this Court hereby renders judgment as follows:The RTC found that PO3 Rimando, who acted as the poseur-buyer during the buy-bust operation, positively identified appellant as the one who sold and handed him the two plastic sachets of shabu in the amount of P2,000.00 and the same person who received the marked money from him. It was also proven that during appellant's arrest, PO3 Rimando recovered one more plastic sachet of shabu in her possession, and he marked the three plastic sachets with his initials; and that every link in the chain of custody of the confiscated plastic sachets was also established. The RTC found that PO3 Rimando testified in a frank, spontaneous and straightforward manner and his credibility was not crumpled on cross examination, and it rejected appellant's defenses of denial and frame up.
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary1. For violation of Section 5, Art. II of RA 9165, this Court hereby sentences said accused to LIFE IMPRISONMENT, and to pay [a] fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00);
2. For violation of Section 11, Art. II of the same Act, this Court hereby sentences said Accused to a prison term of Twelve (12) Years and One (1) Day to Twenty (20) Years, and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00).
SO ORDERED.20chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The decision of the Regional Trial Court of Lingayen, Pangasinan, Branch 38 dated 16 April 2012 is AFFIRMED.21chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryHence, this appeal filed by appellant. Both appellant and the Solicitor General manifested that they are adopting their Briefs filed with the CA.
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.It was established that after PO3 Rimando seized the three plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance from appellant, he was in possession of the same from confiscation up to the police station.29 He marked the three plastic sachets at the police station, which was only 150 meters away from the scene,30 with "BJB-1", "BJB-2" and "BJB-3."31 He prepared the confiscation receipt in the presence of a barangay kagawad, a DOJ Prosecutor and an ABS-CBN Reporter, who all affixed their signatures therein, the appellant, PO1 Viray and PO2 Aficial.32 PO1 Viray then took photographs of the seized items, the preparation and signing of the confiscation receipt. PO3 Rimando then brought the request for laboratory examination prepared by PSI Llamas of the seized items and personally brought the same to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination.33chanrobleslaw
The alleged inconsistencies in the composition of the buy-bust team, in the identity and/or description of accused-appellant, and in the markings on the seized items are collateral matters and not essential elements of the crimes charged. Moreover, a scrutiny of these purported inconsistencies would show that the same are not conflicting at all.Anent the matter of the confiscation receipt bearing the date August 5, 2010 when the buy-bust happened on August 6, 2010, PO3 Rimando explained that he committed an error in placing the date August 5 which should be August 6.38 Moreover, it was established by the testimony of Kagawad Gulen that on August 6, 2010, he was called to witness the ii£ms confiscated from appellant and was asked to sit beside PO3 Rimando while the latter was preparing the confiscation receipt.39 Gulen even identified in court the confiscation receipt where his signature appeared.40chanrobleslaw
Although PO2 Viray testified that she was at the office at the time PO3 Rimando and PO2 Aficial were conducting the buy-bust operation, it does not necessarily mean that she was not part of the buy-bust team. PO2 Viray testified that before the conduct of the buy-bust operation, she was designated by PO3 Rimando to be the official photographer. She was told to take photographs after the subject operation, a task that she performed when accused-appellant was brought to the police station. This explains why PO3 Rimando included her in his testimony as one of the members of the buy-bust team.
Similarly the testimony of PO2 Aficial that he was with PO3 Rimando during the buy-bust operation is not conflicting with PO3 Rimando's enumeration of the member of the buy-bust team. PO2 Aficial was asked who was with [him] during the buy-bust operation and he merely answered the question of the counsel for the defense. PO2 Aficial was not asked who were the other members of the buy-bust team. His answer was consistent with PO3 Rimando's statement that when the latter gave the prearranged signal, he approached PO3 Rimando and they introduced themselves to accused-appellant as police officers.
x x x x
As regards the source of the information on the description of accused-appellant which enabled the poseur-buyer to identify her, the same is a trivial matter. Whether the information came from PSI Llamas or a confidential informant, the fact remains that a crime was committed by accused-appellant in the presence of the police officers who were members of the buy-bust team and who had the duty to immediately arrest her after the consummation of the transaction. The fact also remains that the description about the seller matched accused-appellant. x x x
As to the alleged discrepancies in the markings of the seized items, the same are clearly typographical errors. The transcript of PSI Malojo's testimony showed that she identified the markings on the seized plastic sachets as "BJB-1", "NJN-2" and "BJB-3." However, the follow-up question of the prosecutor clarified that she was actually referring to "BJB-1", "BJB-2" and "BJB-3", to wit:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryQ. I am showing you then Madam Witness three (3) plastic sachet (sic) will you go over the contain (sic) to the one you are testifying "BJB-1" to "BJB-3" (sic)?The universal practice is that exhibits or evidence are marked chronologically. It is highly unlikely that the second sachet would be marked "NJN-2" when the first one was marked "BJB-1" and the third one was marked "BJB-3". Notably, both Confiscation Receipt and Request for Laboratory Examination showed that the seized items were marked "BJB-1", "BJB-2" and "BJB-3" consistent with the testimony of PO3 Rimando. It should also be noted that in the computer keyboard, the letters "B" and "N" are beside each other. Hence, the only logical conclusion for the purported discrepancy is that the stenographer inadvertently pressed the letter "N" instead of the letter "B."37chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
A. Yes, sir.
The prevailing doctrine is that possession of marijuana is absorbed in the sale thereof, except where the seller is further apprehended in possession of another quantity of the prohibited drugs not covered by or included in the sale and which are probably intended for some future dealings or use by the seller.Here, it was established that PO3 Rimando was able to recover from appellant's possession another plastic sachet of shabu which was not the subject of the illegal sale; thus, she could be separately charged with illegal possession for the same.
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:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryClear from the foregoing, the quantity of the dangerous drugs is determinative of the penalty to be imposed for the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. We note, however, that the quantity of shabu found to be in appellant's possession was not indicated in the Information which is important as the law provides for the graduation of penalties. We cannot just rely on the quantity established by the prosecution, which the RTC did in imposing the penalty, without violating appellant's right to be informed of the accusation against her. The RTC imposed the minimum penalty provided by law since the quantity recovered from appellant's possession was less than 5 grams of shabu; however, it could have been different if the quantity recovered from appellant was more than 5 grams where the penalty imposable is 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), or even the maximum 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), because in this case, the Court could not impose the penalty provided by law in view of the non-allegation of the true quantity in the information.x x x x
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be graduated as follows:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary(1) ...
(2) ... 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.
Endnotes:
1 Spelled as "Mercilita" in the records of the trial court.
* Designated Additional Member in lieu of Associate Justice Francis H. Jardeleza, per Raffle dated September 8, 2014.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo, with Associate Justices Amy C. Lazaro-Javier and Pedro B. Corales, concurring; rollo, pp. 3-16.
3 Records, p. 1.
4Id.
5Id. at 27.
6 TSN, October 26, 2010, pp. 3-5.
7Id. at 6-8.
8Id. at 9-13.
9 TSN, August 23, 2011, pp. 2-3.
10 Exhibit "E," records, p. 10.
11 TSN, February 7, 2011, pp. 3-9.
12 Exhibit "F," records, p. 11.
13 Exhibit "H," id. at 54.
14 TSN, February 7, 2011, p. 8.
15Id.
16 TSN, July 18, 2011, p. 6.
17 TSN, January 31, 2012, pp. 3-9.
18 TSN, February 20, 2012, pp. 5-9.
19 Per Judge Teodoro C. Fernandez, CA rollo, pp. 44-53.
20Id. at 52-53.
21Rollo, p. 16.
22People v. Bautista, 682 Phil. 487, 498 (2012), citing People v. Naquita, 582 Phil. 422, 442-443 (2008); People v. Del Monte, 575 Phil. 579, 587 (2008); People v. Santiago, 564 Phil. 181, 193 (2007).
23 476 Phil. 513 (2004).
24 TSN, October 26, 2010, pp. 3-8.
25cralawred Miclat, Jr. v. People, 672 Phil. 191, 209 (2011).
26People v. Belocura, 693 Phil. 476, 490 (2012).
27 TSN, October 26, 2010, p. 8 .
28 Guidelines of the Custody and Disposition of Seized Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals and Laboratory Equipment.
29 TSN, October 26, 2010, p. 9; TSN, June 13, 2011, p. 4; TSN, September 19, 2011, p. 9.
30 TSN, October 26, 2010, p. 6.
31Id. at 9.
32Id. at 10-13.
33 TSN, June 13, 2011, p. 9.
34 TSN, February 7, 2011, pp. 4-5.
35Id. at. 8.
36 TSN, June 13, 2011, pp. 2-3.
37Rollo, pp. 8-10.
38 TSN, June 13, 2011, p. 8.
39 TSN, September 19, 2011, pp. 19-20.
40Id. at 21.
41People v. Chingh, 611 Phil. 208, 220 (2011).
42 Section 3, Rule 117, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrarySection 3. Grounds. — The accused may move to quash the complaint or information on any of the following grounds:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary(a) That the facts charged do not constitute an offense;43 Section 9, Rule 117, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides:
(b) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged;
(c) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the person of the accused;
(d) That the officer who filed the information had no authority to do so;
(e) That it does not conform substantially to the prescribed form;
(f) That more than one offense is charged except when a single punishment for various offenses is prescribed by law;
(g) That the criminal action or liability has been extinguished;
(h) That it contains averments which, if true, would constitute a legal excuse or justification; and cralawlawlibrary
(i) That the accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the offense charged, or the case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrarySection 9. Failure to move to quash or to allege any ground therefor. — The failure of the accused to assert any ground of a motion to quash before he pleads to the complaint or information, either because he did not file a motion to quash or failed to allege the same in said motion, shall be deemed a waiver of any objections based on the grounds provided for in paragraphs (a), (b), (g), and (i) of section 3 of this Rule.
44 344 Phil. 100, 120 (1997).
45 Section 5, Article II of Republic Act. No. 9165 provides:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryArticle II, Section 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.
46People v. Anabe, 644 Phil. 261, 286 (2010); Viray v. People, 720 Phil. 841, 854 (2013).
47 Section 11, Article II, RA No. 9165 provides:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrarySection 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:
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.