THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 223142, January 17, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROLANDO SANTOS Y ZARAGOZA, Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
MARTIRES, J.:
This resolves the appeal of accused-appellant Rolando Santos y Zaragoza (Santos) seeking the reversal and setting aside of the 6 August 2014 Decision1 and 2 March 2015 Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals, Fourth Division (CA) in C.A.-G.R. CR-HC No. 05851, affirming the Decision3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 120, Caloocan City, in Criminal Case Nos. C-82010 and C-82011 finding him guilty of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs and Illegal Possession of Drug Paraphernalia under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, respectively.
In relation to Criminal Case No. C-82009 where Santos was charged for maintaining a drug den, Imee Baltazar Loquinario-Flores (LoquinarioFlores) who was found inside the house of Santos during the service of the search warrant, was charged with violation of Sec. 7, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165.7Crim. Case No. C-82009
(Violation of Sec. 6, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165)
That on or about the 21st day of August, 2009 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously maintain in his house at 21 Tagaytay St., Caloocan City, a drug den, dive or resort where dangerous drugs are habitually dispensed for use by the customers and addicts.4Crim. Case No. C-82010
(Violation of Sec. 11, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165)
That on or about the 21st day of August, 2009 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, without being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody, and control dried crushed leaves and seeds wrapped in a newsprint and contained in transparent plastic "tea bag" marked "ELS-21-8-09-06" weighing 1.0022 grams, when subjected for laboratory examination gave positive result to the tests for Marijuana, a dangerous drug.5Crim. Case No. C-82011
(Violation of Sec. 12, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165)
That on or about the 21st day of August, 2009 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, without being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have in his possession, custody, and control several strips of used aluminum foil in a transparent plastic bag, several pieces of used plastic sachet in a transparent "tea bag," and a plastic tube intended for sniffing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.6
Premises considered, this court finds and so holds the accused Rolando Santos y Zaragoza GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Sections 6, 11 and 12, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 and imposes upon him the following:The Ruling of the CA(1) In Crim. Case No. C-82009, the penalty of Life Imprisonment and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00);Further, in Crim. Case No. C-82012, accused Imee Baltazar Loquinario-Flores was likewise found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 7 of the above-cited law and imposes upon her the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00).
(2) In Crim. Case No. C-82010, the penalty of Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to Fourteen (14) years and a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00); and
(3) In Crim. Case No. C-82011, the penalty of Imprisonment of six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00).
The drugs and drug paraphernalia subject matter of these cases are hereby confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government to be dealt with in accordance with law.
SO ORDERED.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Decision dated 26 September 2012 of the lower court is MODIFIED as follows:Santos sought for a partial reconsideration32 of the decision of the CA insofar as it affirmed his conviction in Crim. Case Nos. C-82010 and C-82011. Finding no persuasive grounds or substantial bases to reconsider, however, the CA denied the motion.33SO ORDERED.
- The judgment in Criminal Case No. C-82010 finding the appellant Rolando Santos y Zaragoza guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 is hereby AFFIRMED;
- The judgment in Criminal Case No. C-82011 finding the appellant Rolando Santos y Zaragoza guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Possession of Drug Paraphernalia under Section 12, Article II of RA 9165 is hereby AFFIRMED;
- The judgment in Criminal Case No. C-82009 finding the appellant Rolando Santos y Zaragoza guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of maintaining a Drug Den under Section 6, Article II of RA 9165 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant Rolando Santos y Zaragoza is hereby ACQUITTED in Criminal Case No. C-82009 for insufficiency of evidence.
- The judgment in Criminal Case No. C-82012 finding the accused Imee Baltazar Lquinario-Flores guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Visiting a Drug Den under Section 7, Article II of RA 9165 is likewise REVERSED and SET ASIDE. She is hereby ACQUITTED in Criminal Case No. C-82012 for insufficiency of evidence.
ISSUES I.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED APPELLANT DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.II.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE PROSECUTION'S EVIDENCE NOTWITHSTANDING ITS FAILURE TO PROVE THE INTEGRITY AND IDENTITY OF THE ALLEGED CONFISCATED DRUGS.
It held that illegal possession of regulated drugs is mala prohibita, and, as such, criminal intent is not an essential element. However, the prosecution must prove that the accused had the intent to possess (animus posidendi) the drugs. Possession, under the law, includes not only actual possession, but also constructive possession. Actual possession exists when the drug is in the immediate possession or control of the accused. On the other hand, constructive possession exists when the drug is under the dominion and control of the accused or when he has the right to exercise dominion and control over the place where it is found. Exclusive possession or control is not necessary. The accused cannot avoid conviction if his right to exercise control and dominion over the place where the contraband is located, is shared with another.41The contention of Santos that the members of the raiding team gave an altogether different account as to who actually witnessed the implementation of the search warrant,42 is a trivial and inconsequential matter that does not affect the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. These matters do not deal with the central fact of the crime. Besides, it has been held, time and again, that minor inconsistencies and contradictions in the declarations of witnesses do not destroy the witnesses' credibility but even enhance their truthfulness as they erase any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony.43
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.55The exacting requirement as to the chain of custody of seized drugs and paraphernalia is highlighted in R.A. No. 9165 as follows:
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:On the one hand, the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) settles the proper procedure to be followed in Sec. 21(a) of R.A. No. 9165, 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;
The Court has explained in a catena of cases the four (4) links that should be established in the chain of custody of the confiscated item: 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.56
(a) 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 non-compliance with these requirement 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.
Anent the second and third links, on the same day that Saul arrived at the NBI RAID office after the service of the search warrant, he forthwith prepared the disposition form59 for the turnover of the seized items to the FCD. The seized items were received by the FCD on 21 August 2009 at 11:05 p.m. A certification60 dated 21 August 2009 was likewise issued by the FCD confirming that the confiscated items marked as "ELS-21-8-09-02", "ELS-21-8-09-04", and "ELS-21-8-09-05" yielded positive results for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, and positive results for marijuana for "ELS-21-8-09-06". On 25 August 2009, the FCD released its Dangerous Drugs Report Nos. DDM-09-0861 and DD-09-47.62
- five (5) pieces of disposable lighters "ELS-21-8-09"
- several pieces or strips of unused aluminum foil "ELS-21-8-09-01"
- several pieces/strips of used aluminum foil "ELS-21-8-09-02"
- several pieces unused small plastic sachet "ELS-21-8-09-03"
- several pieces used small plastic sachet "ELS-21-8-09-04"
- one (1) improvised plastic pipe "ELS-21-8-09-05"
- undetermined amount of marijuana leaves and seed wrapped in newspaper "ELS-21-8-09-06"
That he is an expert witness, and as such is of the receipt of a letter request dated 21 August 2009;As opposed therefore, to the claim of Santos, there was no significant gap in the chain of custody of the seized items. Moreover, the assertion of Santos that the forensic chemist did not testify to explain the measures undertaken to preserve the integrity and identity of the substance examined until their presentation in court,64 has no merit. As earlier mentioned, both the prosecution and the defense had agreed to dispense with the testimony of the forensic chemist upon stipulation on certain facts. Moreover, the defense counsel had the opportunity to cross-examine the forensic chemist but, as revealed by the records, his cross-examination never dealt on matters pertaining to the measures carried out by the NBI team to maintain the integrity of the confiscated items.
That attached to the letter request were several pieces/strips of used aluminum foil marked as ELS-21-8-09-02; several pieces of used small plastic sachet marked as ELS-21-8-09-04; one (I) improvised plastic pipe marked as ELS-21-8-09-05, and undetermined amount of marijuana leaves and seed wrapped in a newspaper marked as ELS-21-8-09-06;
That he conducted laboratory examination on the specimen submitted to their office, the result of which he reduced into writing as evidenced by Dangerous Drugs Report No. DDM-09-08, stating that upon examination conducted on the dried crushed leaves and seeds wrapped in a newsprint gave positive results for "marijuana" and by Dangerous Drugs Report No. DDM-09-47, stating that upon examinations conducted on the several strips of used aluminum foil in a transparent plastic bag; several pieces of used plastic sachets in a transparent "tea bag" and a plastic sachet tube gave positive results for the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, respectively;
That he issued a Certification dated 21 August 2009 to the effect that he conducted examination upon the above-mentioned specimen submitted to their office.63
| Very truly yours, |
(SGD) | |
WILFREDO V. LAPITAN | |
Division Clerk of Court |
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 2-21.
2 CA rollo, pp. 189-190.
3 Records, pp. 408-422.
4 Id. at 277.
5 Id. at 25.
6 Id. at 48.
7 Id. at 269, docketed as Crim. Case No. C-82012.
8 Id. at 174.
9 TSN, 29 March 2011, pp.10-12; TSN, 4 October 2011, pp. 15-17.
10 Records, p. 336, Exh. "O."
11 Id.; Exh. "O-1."
12 TSN, 4 October 2011, p. 18; TSN, 8 November 2011, pp. 4-6.
13 TSN, 8 November 2011, p. 8.
14 Records, p. 343-344; Exh. "G."
15 Records, pp. 347-348; Exhs. "N" and "N-1."
16 TSN, 4 October 2011, pp. 4-6; TSN, 29 September 2010, p. 10; TSN, 9 March 2011, p. 5.
17 TSN, 29 September 2010, pp. 7-10.
18 Exh. "K."
19 Exh. "L"
20 Exh. "M."
21 TSN, 29 September 2010, pp. 10-14, 24; TSN, 10 November 2010, pp. 4-6; TSN, 29 March 2011, pp. 15-16; TSN, 4 October 2011, p. 10.
22 Records, p. 345, Exh. "H."
23 Id. at 330-332, Exhs. "I", "I-1", and "I-2."
24 TSN, 29 September 2010, pp.14-17, 20 and 25-26.
25 TSN, 22 May 2012, pp. 3-4; TSN, 26 June 2012, pp. 3-7; TSN, 31 July 2012, pp. 4-5.
26 Records, pp. 408-422; penned by Judge Aurelio R. Ralar, Jr.
27 CA rollo, pp. 189-190; penned by Associate justice Rosmari D. Carandang and concurred in by Associate Justices Marlene Gonzales-Sison and Edwin D. Sorongon.
28Rollo, pp. 18-19.
29 Section 11. Effect of appeal by any of several accused. -
(a) An appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter;
x x x
30Rollo, p. 19.
31 Id. at 18-19.
32 CA rollo, pp. 173-179.
33 Id. at 189-190.
34People v. Calantiao, 736 Phil. 661, 674-675 (2014).
35 CA rollo, p. 58.
36 Id.
37 TSN, 29 September 2010, pp. 10-12.
38 TSN, 10 November 2010, pp. 4-5.
39People v. Dela Trinidad, 742 Phil. 347, 358 (2014).
40 593 Phil. 617, 625 (2008), citing People v. Tira, 474 Phil. 152, 173-174 (2004).
41People v. Dela Trinidad, supra note 39 at p. 348.
42 CA rollo, pp. 58-59.
43People v. Rebotazo, 711 Phil. 150, 172-173 (2013).
44People v. Salvador, 726 Phil. 389, 402 (2014).
45Zalameda v. People, 614 Phil. 710, 733 (2009).
46Luy v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 200087, 12 October 2016, 805 SCRA 710, 718-719; citing Gulmatico v. People, 562 Phil. 78, 87 (2007); People v. De Guzman, 564 Phil. 282, 290 (2007); People v. Cabugatan, 544 Phil. 468, 479 (2007); People v. Taan, 536 Phil. 943, 954 (2006); Perez v. People, 515 Phil. 195, 203-204 (2006); People v. Tonog, Jr., 477 Phil. 161, 177 (2004); People v. Genita, Jr., 469 Phil. 334, 341-342 (2004); People v. Pacheco, 468 Phil. 289, 299 (2004); People v. Abolidor, 467 Phil. 709, 716 (2004); People v. Santiago, 465 Phil. 151, 162 (2004).
47People v. Bontuyan, 742 Phil. 788, 798 (2014).
48People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 225 (2015).
49 CA rollo, p. 60.
50Tionco v. People, 755 Phil. 646, 654 (2015).
51 CA rollo, p. 62.
52Rontos v. People, 710 Phil. 328, 336-337 (2013).
53 Sec. 77, R.A. No. 9165.
54 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 81(b), Article IX of R.A. No. 9165.
55People v. Gonzales, 708 Phil. 121, 129-130 (2013).
56People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78, 94-95 (2014); citing People v. Nandi, 639 Phil. 134, 144-145 (2010).
57People v. Somoza, 714 Phil. 368, 387-388 (2013).
58 Records, p. 345, Exh. "H."
59 Id. at p. 201, Exh. "A."
60 Id. at 204, Exh. "D."
61 Id. at 202, Exh. "E."
62 Id. at 203, Exh. "F."
63 TSN, 11 November 2009, pp. 9-10.
64 CA rollo, p. 62.
65Zalameda v. People, supra note 45 at p. 740.
66People v. Dela Trinidad, supra note 39 at p. 360.
67 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:
(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.
68People v. Dela Trinidad, supra note 39 at p. 357.
69 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/herself, injected, ingested or used a dangerous drug and shall be presumed to have violated Section 15 of this Act.
70Zalameda v. People, supra note 45 at p. 727.