SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 216754, July 17, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. HAVIB GALUKEN Y SAAVEDRA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
CAGUIOA, J.:
This is an Appeal1 under Section 13(c), Rule 124 of the Rules of Court from the Decision2 dated November 5, 2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 00972-MIN, which affirmed the Judgment3 dated June 22, 2010 rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Tacurong City in Criminal Case No. 3144, finding accused-appellant Havib Galuken y Saavedra (Havib) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165,4 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, as amended.
That on or about 5:35 o'clock in the afternoon of May 26, 2009 beside MCI Commercial Building, Purok 9, Barangay Poblacion, Tacurong City, Province of Sultan Kudarat, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, not being authorized by law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and found to have sold to 101 Roderick P. Falle two (2) sachets weighing zero point one two four two (0.1242) gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride commonly known as Shabu, a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.6
At about 3:00 [o]'clock in the afternoon of 26 May 2009, I03 Adrian Alvariño (I03 Alvariño), Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Provincial Director for South Cotabato and Sultan Kudarat, briefed I01 Llano, I01 Falle, a monitoring officer and the confidential informant on the narcotics operation to be conducted against appellant in Tacurong City.
During the briefing, I01 Falle was designated as the poseur buyer. He was given one (1) five hundred peso bill to be used in the operation, which he marked with his initials "RPF".
After the briefing, I01 Falle and the confidential informant proceeded to Caltex Station fronting Tacurong City Fit Mart, where the appellant was waiting. On the other hand, I01 Llano, who was designated as the arresting officer, and his two (2) companions followed I01 Falle and the confidential informant using a separate motorcycle.
When they reached the gasoline station, the confidential informant and I01 Falle approached the appellant. The confidential informant introduced I01 Falle as his cousin who wanted to buy shabu. The confidential informant negotiated with the appellant. After, I01 Falle told appellant to move faster because there might be PDEA agents on the lookout. Immediately, appellant pulled from his pocket two (2) transparent plastic bags containing shabu and after examining and confirming that the contents of the bags were actually shabu, I01 Falle handed to said person the buy-bust money.
I01 Falle lighted a cigarette, as a pre-arranged signal to alert his other companions who were, at that time, strategically positioned in the area.
Appellant ran toward the round ball but I01 Llano was able to apprehend him near MCI Commercial.
The team bought the appellant and the confiscated items at the Tacurong City Police Station. I01 Falle marked the two (2) sachets with "RPF" and "RPF-1". The police officers likewise prepared an inventory receipt signed by Barangay Poblacion Kagawad Pamplona and took photographs of the seized items.
At 9:00 o'clock in the evening of the same day, I01 Falle, I01 Llano and I03 Alvariño brought appellant to PDEA Regional Office in General Santos City. The two (2) sachets remained in the custody of I01 Falle.
At the PDEA Regional Office, I01 Falle prepared his affidavit and endorsed the sachets of shabu to I01 Llano.
The following day, I01 Falle and I01 Llano delivered the sachets to the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory Office 12 in General Santos City for examination. PO2 Edmund Delos Reyes received the sachets from them.
On the same day, PO2 Delos Reyes endorsed the sachets with a letter request for laboratory examination to Police Inspector Lily Grace Mapa, a Forensic Chemist.
Police Inspector Mapa personally examined the items, which yielded positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, as reflected in her report. After the examination, she turned over the sachets to the evidence custodian of the Laboratory Office, PO2 Sotero Tauro, Jr.8
On May 26, 2012, [a]ppellant went to Tacurong Fit Mart located at Tacurong City in order to buy [a] T- Shirt. After buying one, he went to the Tacurong City Public Market to take his lunch. After eating, he walked his way to the terminal for passenger vehicles located near the round ball and was arrested by unknown persons.9
Wherefore, upon all the foregoing considerations, the Court finds the guilt of accused HAVIB GALUKEN Y SAAVEDRA to the crime of Illegal Possession of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, otherwise known as shabu[,] beyond reasonable doubt and hereby sentences him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from TEN (10) YEARS of prision mayor, as minimum, to SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS and FOUR (4) MONTHS of reclusion temporal, as maximum and to pay the fine of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P300,000.00).
x x x x
IT IS SO ORDERED.10
ACCORDINGLY, the Judgment dated 22 June 2010 finding accused appellant guilty is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The accused-appellant Havib Galuken y Saavedra is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of dangerous drugs and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00, without eligibility for parole.
SO ORDERED.17
Q - How about this person wearing short pants and ball cap? A - That is Honorable Dante Pamplona, Barangay Kagawad of Poblacion, Tacurong, sir. Q - How come that Barangay Kagawad Dante Pamplona was there during the taking of the photographs? A - Maybe our team leader called for him, sir. Q - So you are not sure who called for that Barangay [K]agawad? A - Yes, sir. x x x x Q - Again there are two pictures here. Please look at these and examine these pictures and tell us who are depicted in these pictures? A - This person who pointed the 500-peso bill is the arrested suspect. (Witness pointed to Havib Galuken) Q - How about the other person? A - A media representative, Anter Alcos of Brigada, sir. Q - How come that this Anter Alcos was there? A - I believe [that] he was called by the team leader to sign the inventory of [the] seized evidence, sir. x x x x Q - Why you have to execute your affidavit of justification? What is this all about? (sic) A - Because there was no representative from the DOJ to sign the inventory of seized evidence, sir. Q - No representative from the DOJ during the operation? A - Yes, sir.35
[IO1 Falle:] Q Aside from preparing the inventory of evidence/property at Tacurong City Police Station, what else did your group do in the police station? A I myself marked the confiscated evidence, sir. Q How about picture taking? A Yes we do the picture taking also at Tacurong City Police station, sir. (sic)37
[IO1 Llano:] Q - Why at the Tacurong City Police Station that you conducted an inventory when Section 21 of RA 9165 required that the inventory be conducted at the place where those items were seized? (sic) A - At that time the crowd is uncontrollable considering the security of the group, our team leader decided to bring the suspect to the Tacurong City Police Station, your Honor. x x x x Q - Who prepared the inventory of the property seized? A - It was me, sir.38
It must be alleged and proved that the presence of the three witnesses to the physical inventory and photograph of the illegal drug seized was not obtained due to reason/s such as:(1) their attendance was impossible because the place of arrest was a remote area; (2) their safety during the inventory and photograph of the seized drugs was threatened by an immediate retaliatory action of the accused or any person/s acting for and in his/her behalf; (3) the elected official themselves were involved in the punishable acts sought to be apprehended; (4) earnest efforts to secure the presence of a DOJ or media representative and an elected public official within the period required under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code prove futile through no fault of the arresting officers, who face the threat of being charged with arbitrary detention; or (5) time constraints and urgency of the anti-drug operations, which often rely on tips of confidential assets, prevented the law enforcers from obtaining the presence of the required witnesses even before the offenders could escape.40 (Emphasis in the original and underscoring supplied)
Q- What again did you recover from the accused? A- P500 with marking RTF, sir. Q- What else if any did you recover? A- Nothing more, sir. Q- Yesterday when you testified you mentioned that you also recovered one(l) sachet from the said suspect aside from the buy bust money? A- I changed it because I did not recover any sachet, sir. Q- And why did you say earlier that you were able to recover one(1) sachet? A- I was not able to glance or read my case folder because I came from Cotabato City and we came to the court late, sir.43
Endnotes:
1 See Notice of Appeal dated November 19, 2014, rollo, pp. 17-18.
2Rollo, pp. 3-16. Penned by Associate Justice Pablito A. Perez with Associate Justices Edgardo A. Camello and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (now a member of this Court), concurring.
3 CA rollo, pp. 48-67. Penned by Judge Milanio M. Guerrero.
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" (2002).
5 Records, p. 1.
6 Id.
7Rollo, p. 4.
8 Id. at 4-6.
9 Id. at 6.
10 CA rollo, pp. 65-66.
11 Id at 61.
12 Id.
13 Id at 62.
14 Id.
15 Id.
16 Id. at 63.
17 Rollo, p. 16.
18 See id. at 8.
19 Id. at 9.
20 Id. at 9-10.
21 Id. at 11.
22 Id.
23 Id.
24 Id. at 12.
25 Id. at 14.
26People v. Sagana, G.R. No. 208471, August 2, 2017, 834 SCRA 225, 240.
27Derilo v. People, 784 Phil. 679, 686 (2016).
28People v. Alvaro, G.R. No. 225596, January 10, 2018, accessed at .
29People v. Manansala, G.R. No. 229092, February 21, 2018, accessed at .
30 The said section reads as follows: 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 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[.]
31 See RA 9165, Art. II, Sec. 21 (1) and (2); Ramos v. People, G.R. No. 233572, July 30, 2018, accessed at ; People v. Ilagan, G.R. No. 227021, December 5, 2018, accessed at ; People v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 225061, October 10, 2018, accessed at .
32People v. Angeles, G.R. No. 237355, November 21, 2018, accessed at .
33People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214, 234 (2008)
34People v. Ceralde, G.R. No. 228894, August 7, 2017, 834 SCRA 613, 625.
35 TSN, February 9, 2010, pp. 10-15.
36Rollo,p.5.
37 TSN, November 10, 2009 (afternoon), p. 8.
38 TSN, Februarys 2010, pp. 6-7.
39 G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018, accessed at .
40 Id., citing People v. Sipin, G.R. No. 224290, June 11, 2018, accessed at .
41 TSN, November 10, 2009 (morning), p. 5.
42People v. Tomawis, G.R. No. 228890, April 18, 2018, accessed at .
43 TSN, February 9, 2010, pp. 4-5.
44Rollo, p. 12.
45People v. Zheng Bai Hui, 393 Phil. 68, 133 (2000).
46People v. Mendoza, 736 Phil. 749, 769-770 (2014).
47 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 14, par. (2): "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved x x x."
48 See People v. Jugo, G.R. No. 231792, January 29, 2018, accessed at .