SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 238117, February 04, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. EDWIN ALCONDE Y MADLA AND JULIUS QUERQUELA* Y REBACA, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
D E C I S I O N
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
This is an ordinary appeal1 filed by accused-appellants Edwin Alconde y Madla (Alconde) and Julius Querquelay Rebaca (Querquela; collectively, accused-appellants) assailing the Decision2 dated November 29, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01578-MIN, which affirmed the Decision3 dated November 10, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court of Misamis Oriental, Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 23 (RTC) in Crim. Case Nos. CR-DRG-2015-414 and CR-DRG-2015-415, finding: (a) Alconde guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165,4 otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002;" and (b) accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of the same Act.
Endnotes:
* "Queruela" and "Queruella" in some parts of the records and the TSN.
** On official leave.
*** Designated Additional Member per Special Order Nos. 2629 and 2630 dated December 18, 2018.
1 See Notice of Appeal dated December 21, 2017; rollo, pp. 18-19.
2 Id. at 3-17. Penned by Associate Justice Oscar V. Badelles with Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas, concurring.
3 CA rollo, pp. 46-64. Penned by Presiding Judge Vincent F. B. Rosales.
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 Crim. Case No. CR-DRG-2015-414 is for violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 or Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs (records [Crim. Case No. CR-DRG-2015-414], pp. 2-3), while Crim. Case No. CR-DRG-2015-415 is for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 or Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs (records [Crim. Case No. CR-DRG-2015-415], pp. 2-3).
6 "Angke," "Aki," and "Akie" in some parts of the TSN.
7 See rollo, p. 4.
8 See id. See also TSN, September 16, 2015, pp. 11-13.
9 See id. See also TSN, October 8, 2015, p. 12.
10 See id. at 4-5. See also TSN, September 16, 2015, pp. 17-18.
11 See id. See also Property Receipt dated August 10, 2015; records (Crim. Case No. CR-DRG-2015-414), p. 7.
12 See Chemistry Report No. D-591-2015 dated August 10, 2015; id. at 10.
13 See rollo, pp. 6-7.
14 See id. at 7.
15 CA rollo, pp. 46-64.
16 See id. at 63.
17 See id. at 57-63.
18 See id. at 63.
19 See Notice of Appeal dated December 21, 2017; rollo, pp. 18-19.
20 Id. at 3-17.
21 Id. at 17.
22 See id. at 13-14.
23 See id. at 15-17.
24 The elements of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 are: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment; while the elements of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 are: (a) the accused was in possession of an item or object identified as a prohibited drug; (b) such possession was not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. (See People v. Crispo, G.R. No. 230065, March 14, 2018; People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 231383, March 7, 2018; People v. Magsano, G.R. No. 231050, February 28, 2018; People v. Manansala, G.R. No. 229092, February 21, 2018; People v. Miranda, G.R. No. 229671, January 31, 2018; and People v. Mamangon, G.R. No. 229102, January 29, 2018; all cases citing People v. Sumili, 753 Phil. 342, 348 [2015) and People v. Bio, 753 Phil.730, 736 [2015]).
25 See People v. Crispo, id.; People v. Sanchez, id.; People v. Magsano, id.; People v. Manansala, id.; People v. Miranda, id.; and People v. Mamangon, id. See also People v. Viterbo, 739 Phil. 593, 601 (2014).
26 See People v. Gamboa, G.R. No. 233702, June 20, 2018, citing People v. Umipang, 686 Phil. 1024, 1039-1040 (2012).
27 See People v. Año, G.R. No. 230070, March 14, 2018; People v. Crispo, supra note 16; People v. Sanchez, supra note 16; People v. Magsano, supra note 16; People v. Manansala, supra note 24; People v. Miranda, supra note 24; and People v. Mamangon, supra note 24. See also People v. Viterbo, supra note 25.
28People v. Mamalumpon, 767 Phil. 845, 855 (2015), citing Jmson v. People, 669 Phil. 262, 270-271 (2011). See also People v. Ocfemia, 718 Phil. 330, 348 (2013), citing People v. Resurreccion, 618 Phil. 520, 532 (2009).
29 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.
30 Section 21 (1) and (2), Article II of RA 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations.
31 Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640.
32 See People v. Miranda, supra note 24. See also People v. Mendoza; 736 Phil. 749, 764 (2014).
33 See People v. Miranda, id. See also People v. Macapundag, G.R. No. 225965, March 13, 2017, 820 SCRA 204, 215, citing People v. Umipang, supra note 26, at 1038.
34 See People v. Segundo, G.R. No. 205614, July 26, 2017, citing People v. Umipang, id.
35 See People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214, 234 (2008).
36 See People v. Almorfe, 631 Phil. 51, 60 (2010).
37 Section 21 (a), Article II of the IRR of RA 9165 pertinently states: "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."
38 Section 1 of RA 10640 pertinently states: "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."
39 See People v. Manansala, supra note 24.
40 See TSN, September 16, 2015, p. 35