FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 227187, March 04, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. ERIC L. SEVILLA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
This resolves the appeal filed by appellant Eric L. Sevilla (appellant) assailing the July 29, 2016 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA G.R. CR HC No. 01396-MIN, which affirmed the December 1, 2014 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 34, Panabo City in Criminal Case Nos. CrC 211-2010 and CrC 212-2010, finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5 (illegal sale of dangerous drugs) and Section 11 (illegal possession of dangerous drugs), Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165,3 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Appellant was charged with violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165 in two separate Informations
Criminal Case No. Crc 211-2010When arraigned on July 30, 2010, appellant pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged against him. The two criminal cases were then tried jointly by the trial court.
That on or about May 26, 2010, in the City of Panabo, Davao, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, without being authorized by law, willfully, unlawfully and knowingly traded, sold and delivered two (2) packs of dried marijuana leaves wrapped with a newspaper, a dangerous drug, to IO1 Julius A. Magdadaro, who was acting as a poseur-buyer in a legitimate buy bust operation, taking and receiving one (1) marked money of One Hundred [P]eso (P100.00) bill with [S]erial number D627328.
CONTRARY TO LAW.4
Criminal Case No. Crc 212-2010
That on or about May 26, 2010, in the City of Panabo, Davao, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, without being authorized by law, willfully, unlawfully and knowingly had in his possession, control and custody Ten (10) packs of dried marijuana leaves wrapped in a newspaper, a dangerous drug, with a total weight of more or less 55.8873 grams.
CONTRARY TO LAW.5
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:Ruling of the Court of Appealsxxxx
- Finding accused Eric L. Sevilla guilty beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. CrC No. 211-2010 of selling marijuana defined and penalized under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165. Accordingly, he is sentenced to suffer in this case the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay fine in the amount of Php500,000.00;
- Finding accused Eric L. Sevilla guilty beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. CrC No. 212-2010 of illegal possession of marijuana defined and penalized under Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165. Accordingly, he is sentenced to suffer in this case the indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum period to thirteen (13) years as maximum period and to pay fine in the amount of Php300,000.00.
SO ORDERED.6
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision dated 1 December 2014 rendered by the Regional Trial Court, 11th Judicial Region, Branch 34 of Panabo City in Criminal Case Nos. CrC 211-2010 and CrC 212-2010 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.7
(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 Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Section 21 of RA 9165 also provide that:
(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 noncompliance 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;There is no dispute that IO1 Magdadaro, who acted as poseur-buyer during the buy-bust operation, marked the seized marijuana at the place and time of the arrest. The buy-bust team then proceeded immediately to the Panabo City Police Station where they conducted the inventory of the seized items and took photographs thereof in the presence of appellant, Leonida Sevilla, appellant's representative, Benigno Gumban, Jr. from the media, elected official Eduardo Alas, and Ian Dionela of the DOJ. Indeed, the police officers complied the requirements of the law contrary to the protestation of appellant.
During trial, the prosecution was able to establish that after arresting accused-appellant, IO1 Julius A. Magdadaro marked the two packs of marijuana subject of the buy-bust transaction with his signature and his initials, "JAM". On the other hand, the ten packs of marijuana seized from accused-appellant were marked by SO2 Bryan P. Ponferrada with his signature and his initials, "BPP". The said items were marked at the scene of the crime in the presence of accused-appellant. Thereafter, IO1 Magdadaro and SO2 Ponferrada brought the seized illegal drugs, along with accused-appellant, to the Panabo City Police Station where they conducted the physical inventory and took photographs of the accused-appellant and the seized items. During this time, the two packs of marijuana subject of the buy-bust transaction remained in the possession of IO1 Magdadaro while the ten packs of marijuana seized from accused-appellant remained in the possession of SO2 Ponferrada.Thus, we uphold the findings of the CA that the integrity and evidentiary value of the marijuana presented in court was duly preserved and uncompromised. We see no reason to disturb the findings of the CA as to the guilt of appellant.
Then, IO1 Magdadaro and SO2 Ponferrada brought the seized illegal drugs to the Provincial Crime Laboratory in Tagum City for laboratory examination as evidenced by the Letter Request dated 26 May 2010. The seized items were then duly received by SPO2 Romeo Obrero of the Provincial Crime Laboratory. Upon receiving the seized illegal drugs, SPO2 Obrero then weighed the said items and thereafter placed his signature and final weight of the specimens on each pack. After weighing the specimens, SPO2 Obrero turned the same over to PO1 Jeffrey Cambalon, the Evidence Custodian of the Provincial Crime Laboratory. The seized illegal drugs were then turned over by PO1 Jeffrey Cambalon to P/Supt. Julieta G. Razonable, the Forensic Chemist of the Provincial Crime Laboratory, who conducted the chemical examination on the seized items. After the examination conducted by P/Supt. Razonable, all the seized items were found positive for the presence of marijuana as evidenced by Chemistry Report No. D-040DN-2010 dated 26 May 2010. P/Supt. Razonable then placed the markings "A1" and "A2", as well as her signature and the case control number, on the two packs of marijuana subject of the buy-bust transaction. P/Supt. Razonable also placed the markings "B1" to "B10", as well as her signature and the case control number, on each of the ten packs of marijuana seized from accused-appellant. The twelve individually marked packs of marijuana were then turned over to the evidence custodian of the Provincial Crime Laboratory, PO1 Calambon. The same marked packs of marijuana were duly identified by the prosecution witnesses during the trial.
Based on the foregoing, there can be no doubt that the prosecution was able to sufficiently establish a clear and unbroken chain of custody of the seized illegal drugs in the case at bar.11
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 3-15; penned by Associate Justice Rafael Antonio M. Santos and concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo T. Lloren and Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas.
2 CA rollo, pp. 24-33; penned by Presiding Judge Dax Gonzaga Xenos.
3 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: June 7, 2002.
4 Records, Folder, p. 1.
5 Id.
6 CA rollo, p. 33.
7Rollo, p. 14.
8People v. SPO3 Ara, 623 Phil. 939, 955 (2009).
9People v. Manalao, 703 Phil. 101, 114 (2013).
10People v. Del Mundo, G.R. No. 208095, September 20, 2017, 840 SCRA 327, 338.
11Rollo, pp. 12-14.
12 AN ACT PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION OF DEATH PENALTY IN THE PHILIPPINES. Approved: June 24, 2006.