SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 223556, October 09, 2017
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MANUEL LIM CHING, Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Assailed in this ordinary appeal1 is the Decision2 dated June 30, 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01724, which affirmed the Decision3 dated June 17, 2013 of the Regional Trial Court of Catarman, Northern Samar, Branch 19 (RTC) in Criminal Case Nos. C-3522, C-3523, and C-3533 finding accused-appellant Manuel Lim Ching (Ching) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 11, 12, and 5 of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165,4 otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," respectively.
The prosecution alleged that on June 29, 2003, and after the conduct of surveillance on the suspected illegal drug activities of Ching, as well as a test-buy wherein a civilian asset purchased one (1) sachet of suspected shabu worth P300.00, Police Superintendent Isaias B. Tonog (P/Supt. Tonog), formed a buy-bust team composed of, among others, Police Officer 1 Mauro Ubaldo Lim (PO1 Lim), the designated poseur-buyer, with the rest of the members serving as backup officers.9 At around four (4) o'clock in the afternoon of even date, the team proceeded to Ching's house located at Purok 4, Barangay Jose Abad Santos, Catarman, Northern Samar and upon arrival thereat, PO1 Lim approached Ching and bought a sachet of suspected shabu worth P500.00, handing as payment the marked money. As soon as PO1 Lim received the sachet, he gave the pre-arranged signal and the other team members, who were stationed more or less 15-20 meters from the target area, approached, causing Ching to run and hide in his room. The team followed Ching inside his house where he was eventually arrested for selling shabu.10 A subsequent search of the premises produced the following: two (2) sachets in a chicken cage outside the house, two (2) sachets on the wooden frames nailed to a wall inside the house, and one (1) sachet found in a pail outside the house. Similarly, the following drug paraphernalia were recovered in an adjacent makeshift structure outside the house: twenty-three (23) pieces of aluminum foil, six (6) pieces of improvised tooters, one (1) piece of plastic tooter, seven (7) pieces of disposable lighters, one (1) pair of scissors, two (2) pieces of cutter blade, one (1) piece of alcohol lamp and one (1) piece of color blue plastic case.11 The sachets of shabu were sealed and labeled "MLC-1 to MLC-9" after which, they were brought to the Northern Samar Police Provincial Office, Camp Carlos Delgado,12 where P/Supt. Tonog signed four (4) Receipts for Property Seized13 as witnessed by barangay officials Benito Calindong, Leon Rosales, and Felipe Aurel.14Criminal Case No. C-3522
That on or about the 29th of June 2003, at about 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon, more or less, in Purok 4, Barangay Jose Abad Santos, Municipality of Catarman, Province of Northern Samar, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with deliberate intent to violate the said provision of the law, did then and there, [willfully], unlawfully, and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control the following items, to wit[:]of methamphetamine hydrochloride popularly known as "shabu" a regulated drug without first securing the necessary permit or license to possess the same from competent authority which therefore is an open violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, in particular Possession of Dangerous Drugs.
- One (1) sachet of "shabu" with estimated weight of (0.2) grams worth P300.00
- One (1) sachet of "shabu" with an estimated weight of (0.2) grams worth P500.00
- Five (5) sachets of "shabu" with an estimated weight of (5.3) grams
CONTRARY TO LAW.5Criminal Case No. C-3523
That on or about the 29th day of June 2003, at about 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon more or less, in Purok 4, Barangay Jose Abad Santos, Municipality of Catarman, Province of Northern Samar, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with deliberate intent to violate the said provisions of the law, did then and there, [willfully], unlawfully, [and] feloniously have in his possession, custody and control the following drug paraphernalia, to wit:1.) Twenty three (23) pcs. of aluminum foils;without first securing the necessary permit or license to possess the dangerous drugs' Paraphernalia, Tools and instruments the same from competent authority which therefore is an open violation of Section 12, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.
2.) Six (6) pcs. improvised aluminum tooters;
3.) One (1) pc. plastic tooter;
4.) One (1) pc. alcohol lamp;
5.) One ( l) pc. plastic case color blue;
6.) Seven (7) pcs. disposable lighters;
7.) One (1) pc. scissor;
8.) Two (2) pcs. cutter blade;
CONTRARY TO LAW.6Criminal Case No. C-3533
That on or about the 29th day of June, 2003 at about 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon, at Purok 4, Barangay Jose Abad Santos, Municipality of Catarman, Province of Northern Samar, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with deliberate intent to violate the above provisions of the law, did then and there, [willfully], unlawfully and feloniously sold to police poseur-buyer PO1 Mauro Ubaldo Lim one (1) sachet of methamphetamine hydrochloride popularly known as "shabu" a regulated drug weighing 0.2 gram valued at Three Hundred (P300.00) Pesos and other sachet of the same substance weighing 0.2 gram valued at Five Hundred (P500.00) Pesos to a total of Eight Hundred (P800.00) Pesos, Philippine Currency without first securing the necessary permit or license from any competent authority to do the same.
CONTRARY TO LAW.7Criminal Case No. C-3524
That on or about the 29th day of June, 2003, at about 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon more or less, in Purok 4, Barangay Jose Abad Santos, Municipality of Catarman, Province of Northern Samar Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with deliberate intent to violate the said provision of the law, did then and there, intentionally, unlawfully and feloniously maintain and keep a drug den in his residence where methamphetamine hydrochloride popularly known as "shabu" are stored, distributed, traded and used by his visitors and where drug paraphernalia/tools/instruments are kept without first securing the necessary permit or license to maintain and sell the same from competent authority which therefore is an open violation of Section 6, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 or Maintenance of a Drug Den.
CONTRARY TO LAW.8
Q: Before going to Tacloban City purposely to submit the shabu that were confiscated during the buy-bust operation at the place or residence of accused Manuel Lim Ching, did you exercise due diligence to see to it that the same specimen or shabu confiscated from Manuel Lim Ching were the same specimen that were submitted to the PDEA?While the fact of marking of the seized items was clear from such testimony and the inventory evidenced by the attached Receipt for Property Seized, the same was glaringly silent as to the taking of photographs and the conduct of an inventory in the presence of a representative from the media and the DOJ. In the case of People v. Mendoza,50 the Court stresses that "[w]ithout the insulating presence of the representative from the media [and] the Department of Justice, or any elected public official during the seizure and marking of the [seized drugs], the evils of switching, 'planting' or contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-bust conducted under the regime of [RA] 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) again reared their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the [said drugs] that were evidence herein of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused. Indeed, the insulating presence of such witnesses would have preserved an unbroken chain of custody."51
A: Yes, sir.
Q: In what way did you exercise due diligence and effort to see to it that the very same shabu that were submitted to the PDEA?
A: The sachet of shabu was placed in a plastic and it was sealed, then it was placed also in another brown envelope and together with the request and it was sealed and after that in the evening, we rode early for Tacloban and submitted it to the PDEA.
Q: Did you make any specific markings to see to it that the same shabu that you were able to confiscate from Manuel Lim Ching were the same shabu to be submitted at the PDEA?
A: Yes, sir because before we submitted it to the PDEA, we wrote a letter on the shabu, the name of the suspect for example, Manuel Lim Ching, we put it MLC 1 up to how many numbers of shabu confiscated, if for example MLC 1 MLC 2 up to MLC 9.49
Endnotes:
1 See Notice of Appeal dated August 5, 2015; rollo, pp. 20-22.
2 Id. at 4-19. Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo L. Delos Santos with Associate Justices Renato C. Francisco and Edward B. Contreras concurring.
3 Records (Crim. Case No. C-3522), pp. 375-391. Penned by Judge Norma Megenio-Cardenas.
4 Entitled "AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," APPROVED ON JUNE 7, 2002.
5 Records (Crim. Case No. C-3522), pp. 22-23.
6 Records (Crim. Case No. C-3523), pp. 19-20.
7 Records (Crim. Case No. C-3533), p. 29.
8 CA rollo, p. 47.
9 See rollo, p. 7.
10 See id. at 7-8. See also TSN, February 28, 2005, p. 7.
11 Id. at 8.
12 See Excerpt from the Police Blotter; records (Crim. Case No. C-3523), pp. 10-11.
13 See records (Crim. Case No. C-3523), pp. 6-9.
14 See rollo, p. 8. See also records (Crim. Case No. C-3523), pp. 6-9.
15 See Acknowledgement Form dated July 9, 2003 signed by PO3 Bautista; records (Crim. Case No. C-3533), p. 22.
16 See Certification dated July 9, 2003 signed by P/Sr. Insp. Cruto; records (Crim. Case No. C-3533), p. 23. See also rollo, p. 9.
17 Records (Crim. Case No. C-3533), p. 24.
18 See Chemistry Report No. D-300-2003 of P/Sr. Insp. Cruto stating that the sachets marked with: A-1- ("MLC-1") - 0.1 Ogram; A-2- ("MLC-2") - 0.20gram; A-3- ("MLC-3") 0.25gram; A-4 ("MLC-4") - 1.00 gram; A-5 ("MLC-5") - 0.06 gram; A-6- ("MLC-6") - 0.08 gram; A-8 marked as "MLC-8"; and A-9 marked as "MLC-9" all tested positive for shabu, while the A-7 sachet marked with "MLC-7"- 3.40 grams tested negative for dangerous drugs. (Id. at 24. See also rollo, p. 9.)
19Rollo, p. 7.
20 See id. at 9-11.
21 Records (Crim. Case No. C-3522), pp. 375-391.
22 Id. at 382.
23 Id. at 385.
24 Id. at 390.
25 Id.
26 See id. at 380-382.
27 See id. at 382-385.
28 See id. at 385-390.
29 See Notice of Appeal dated July 8, 2013; id. at 396-397.
30Rollo, pp. 4-19.
31 See id. at 13-18.
32 See id. at 18.
33 See Gamboa v. People, G.R. No. 220333, November 14, 2016; citations omitted.
34People v. Bio, 753 Phil. 730, 736 (2015).
35 See People v. Bontuyan, 742 Phil. 788, 799 (2014).
36People v. Sumili, 753 Phil. 342, 348 (2015).
37 See People v. Viterbo, 739 Phil. 598, 601 (2014).
38 See People v. Sumili, supra note 36, at 349-350.
39 See Section 21 (1) and (2), Article II of RA 9165.
40 See People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214, 232 (2008).
41 Entitled "AN ACT TO FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE ANTI-DRUG CAMPAIGN OF THE GOVERNMENT, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE SECTION 21 OF REPUBLIC ACT No. 9165, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE 'COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002,'" approved on July 15, 2014, Section 1 of which states:SECTION 1. Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of2002", is hereby amended to read as follows:42 See Section 21 (a), Article II of the IRR of RA 9165.
"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:
"(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the persons from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media 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, finally, That noncompliance of 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 and custody over said items.
x x x x"
43 See People v. Goco, G.R. No. 219584, October 17, 2016.
44 631 Phil. 51 (2010).
45 Id. at 60.
46 630 Phil. 637 (2010).
47 Id. at 649.
48 See CA rollo, pp. 40-44.
49 TSN, April 11, 2005, pp. 10-11.
50 736 Phil. 749 (2014).
51 Id. at 764.
52 See G.R. No. 220333, November 14, 2016.
53 See id.
54 See id.; citations omitted.