THIRD DIVISION
G. R. No. 216632, March 13, 2019
AUGUSTO REGALADO Y LAYLAY, PETITIONER, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
LEONEN, J.:
This resolves a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assailing the Court of Appeals January 29, 2015 Decision2 in CA-G.R. CR No. 36216. The Court of Appeals upheld the Regional Trial Court November 23, 2011 Decision3 in Criminal Case No. 08-03 finding Augusto Regalado y Laylay (Regalado) guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violating Article II, Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
On January 31, 2003, two (2) informations were filed before the Regional Trial Court, charging Regalado with two (2) counts of violating Article II, Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165.4 The informations read:
In Crim. Case No. 08-03:On arraignment, Regalado pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged. Trial then ensued.6
That on or about the 17th day of December 2002, at around 2:00 o 'clock (sic) in the afternoon, at barangay (sic) Sibuyao, municipality (sic) of Torrijos, province (sic) of Marinduque, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did[,] then and there[,] wil[l]fully, unlawfully[,] [and] feloniously possess Cannabis Sativa (Marijuana) weighing not more than 300 grams, not being authorized by law to possess the same.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
In Crim. Case No. 09-03:
That on or about the 17th day of December 2002, at around 2:00 o 'clock (sic) in the afternoon, at barangay (sic) Sibuyao, municipality (sic) of Torrijos, province (sic) of Marinduque, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did[,] then and there[,] wil[l]fully, unlawfully[,] [and] feloniously possess Cannabis Sativa (Marijuana) weighing not more than 300 grams, not being authorized by law to possess the same.
CONTRARY TO LAW.5 (Emphasis in the original, citations omitted)
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the accused Augusto Regalado y Laylay is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of (sic) violation of Section 11 of R.A. 9165 in Criminal Case No. 08-03. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, he is hereby sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 12 years and one day as minimum to 14 years and eight months, as maximum and is fined P300,000 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. He is hereby acquitted in Criminal Case No. 09-03.On appeal, Regalado argued that the trial court erred when it appreciated the evidence despite the apprehending team's failure to prove the integrity and identity of the seized items under Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. He contended that the trial court erred in deviating from the established rule that by itself, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty should not prevail over his presumed innocence.24
The property bond posted for his temporary liberty is hereby ordered cancelled.
Let the marijuana subject matter of these cases be disposed of in the manner provided by law.
SO ORDERED.23 (Emphasis in the original)
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The assailed disposition of the RTC in Crim. Case No. 08-03 is AFFIRMED. Costs against the Accused-Appellant.According to the Court of Appeals, the prosecution sufficiently proved and established the elements of the crime of illegal possession of marijuana.27 It ruled that the prosecution's lapses were not fatal, since it had nonetheless preserved the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated items. This, it: held, was enough to establish Regalado's guilt.28
SO ORDERED.26 (Emphasis in the original)
[PROSECUTOR]: What happened when you reached the house of Augusto Regalado?PO1 Pedrigal testified that he had kept the seized items until they were marked at the police station where they conducted the inventory. The seized items were then turned over to PO2 Llante, who also testified bringing the items to the crime laboratory for examination. This was confirmed by Chief Inspector Tria, the forensic chemist who prepared the report stating that the seized items were marijuana.48
[PO1 PEDRIGAL]: When I reached the house of Augusto Regalado his wife named Marilyn confronted me, sir.
[PROSECUTOR]: What did she do or say when she confronted you?
[PO1 PEDRIGAL]: I told her, sir, (sic) "meron kayo ngayon, bibili ako".
[PROSECUTOR]: What happened when you say (sic) those words?
[PO1 PEDRIGAL]: She told me that her husband is not in the house and she ordered her daughter to fetch him, sir.
[PROSECUTOR]: What happened regarding the order?
[PO1 PEDRIGAL]: I waited for several minutes and her daughter arrived followed by Augusto Regalado and I asked him "meron kayo ngayon?["]
[PROSECUTOR]: And what happened when you uttered those words to him?
[PO1 PEDRIGAL]: He asked me "taga saan ka"? and I told him, from Marlangga and he asked me how many and I told him only two (2).
[PROSECUTOR]: When you told him only two (2), what happened next?
[PO1 PEDRIGAL]: So, he entered the house while I waited outside near the door and when he came out he was holding a plastic sachet and he handed it to me and in exchange I handed to him money in different denominations in the amount of Two Hundred Pesos (P200.00).
[PROSECUTOR]: What transpired next after you handed to him the P200.00?
[PO1 PEDRIGAL]: He accepted the marked money from me and he handed to me the plastic sachet and he put the money in his pocket and after that I made a signal to my co-policemen and then I shouted "pulis ako" and then I retrieved the marked money from his pocket and we arrested Augusto Regalado.
[PROSECUTOR]: After you retrieved the marked money and arrested Augusto Regalado, what happened next?
[PO1 PEDRIGAL]: Upon his arrest, we asked him if "meron pa itong kasamahan?" and he readily admitted and pointed to the roof of the house. So, we requested him to get the same and he readily did so.
[PROSECUTOR]: What actually was sold to you and what actually did he produce after he was arrested?
[PO1 PEDRIGAL]: What he sold to me was a plastic sachet containing marijuana and what he retrieved from the roof are two (2) plastic sachets of marijuana and four (4) sticks of marijuana.47
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:These requirements under Section 21 were summarized in Lescano v. People:50
(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. (2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination; (3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued immediately upon the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not allow the completion of testing within the time frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided, however, That a final certification shall be issued immediately upon completion of the said examination and certification[.]
As regards the items seized and subjected to marking, Section 21(1) of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended, requires the performance of two (2) actions: physical inventory and photographing. Section 21(1) is specific as to when and where these actions must be done. As to when, it must be "immediately after seizure and confiscation." As to where, it depends on whether the seizure was supported by a search warrant. If a search warrant was served, the physical inventory and photographing must be done at the exact same place that the search warrant is served. In case of warrantless seizures, these actions must be done "at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable."In People v. Que,52 this Court explained how Republic Act No. 10640 relaxed the requirements under Section 21(1):
Moreover, Section 21(1) requires at least three (3) persons to be present during the physical inventory and photographing. These persons are: first, the accused or the person/s from whom the items were seized; second, an elected public official; and third, a representative of the National Prosecution Service. There are, however, alternatives to the first and the third. As to the first (i.e., the accused or the person/s from whom items were seized), there are two (2) alternatives: first, his or her representative; and second, his or her counsel. As to the representative of the National Prosecution Service, a representative of the media may be present in his or her place.51
It was relaxed with respect to the persons required to be present during the physical inventory and photographing of the seized items. Originally under Republic Act No. 9165, the use of the conjunctive "and" indicated that Section 21 required the presence of all of the following, in addition to "the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel":Here, none of the three (3) people required by Section 21(1), as originally worded,54 was present during the physical inventory of the seized items.First, a representative from the media;As amended by Republic Act No. 10640, Section 21 (1) uses the disjunctive "or," i.e., "with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media." Thus, a representative from the media and a representative from the National Prosecution Service are now alternatives to each other.53 (Emphasis in the original, citations omitted)
Second, a representative from the Department of Justice; and
Third, any elected public official.
| Very truly yours, |
(SGD) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN | |
Division Clerk of Court |
Endnotes:
* Designated additional Member per Special Order No. 2624 dated November 28, 2018.
1Rollo, pp. 12-38. Filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
2 Id. at 40-52. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro, and concurred in by Associate Justices Samuel H. Gaerlan and Pedro B. Corales of the Sixteenth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
3 Id. at 78-89. The Decision was penned by Presiding Judge Antonina M. Calderon-Magtubo of Branch 94, Regional Trial Court, Boac, Marinduque.
4 Id. at 41.
5 Id. at 41-42.
6 Id. at 42.
7 Id. at 42-43.
8 Id. at 43.
9 Id.
10 Id. at 43.
11 Id.
12 Id. at 44.
13 Id.
14 Id.
15 Id.
16 Id. at 44-45.
17 Id. at 45.
18 Id.
19 Id.
20 Id.
21 Id. at 78-89.
22 Id. at 46.
23 Id. at 88.
24 Id. at 47.
25 Id. at 40-52.
26 Id. at 51.
27 Id. at 48.
28 Id. at 49.
29 Id. at 12-38.
30 Id. at 18.
31 Id. at 19.
32 Id. at 23.
33 Id. at 25.
34 Id. at 92-103.
35 In its July 27, 2015 Resolution (rollo, pp. 104-105), this Court required respondent to comment on the Petition for Review. Respondent filed a Manifestation (rollo, pp. 124-127) on October 15, 2015 where it prayed that it be allowed to adopt its Brief filed before the Court of Appeals. This Court noted the Manifestation in its December 2, 2015 Resolution (rollo, pp. 129-130).
36Rollo, pp. 97-98.
37 Id. at 99.
38 Id. at 100.
39 Id. at 100-101.
40People v. Feliciano, Jr., 734 Phil. 499, 521 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
41Ditche v. Court of Appeals, 384 Phil. 35, 46 (2000) [Per J. De Leon, Jr., Second Division].
42People v. Montinola, 567 Phil. 387, 404 (2008) [Per J. Carpio, Second Division] citing People v. Fernandez, 561 Phil. 287 (2007) [Per J. Carpio, Second Division]; People v. Abulon, 557 Phil. 428 (2007) [Per J. Tinga, En Banc]; and People v. Bejic, 552 Phil. 555 (2007) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, En Banc].
43People v. Baraoil, 690 Phil. 368, 377 (2012) [Per J. Reyes, Second Division].
44People v. Montinola, 567 Phil. 387, 404 (2008) [Per J. Carpio, Second Division] citing People v. Fernandez, 561 Phil. 287 (2007) [Per J. Carpio, Second Division]; People v. Abulon, 557 Phil. 428 (2007) [Per J. Tinga, En Banc]; and People v. Bejic, 552 Phil. 555 (2007) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, En Banc].
45Rollo, p. 45.
46People v. Dela Cruzy De Guzman, 744 Phil. 816, 825-826 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
47Rollo, pp. 95-97.
48 Id. at 49-50.
49 Id. at 86.
50 778 Phil. 460 (2016) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
51 Id. at 475.
52 G.R. No. 212994, January 31, 2018, [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
53 Id.
54 The buy-bust operation was conducted in 2002.
55People v. Umipang, 686 Phil. 1024, 1053 (2012) [Per J. Sereno, Second Division].