SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 245368, June 21, 2021
DARREL JOHN PINGA Y TOLENTINO ALIAS "DJ," Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
ssailed in this petition for review on certiorari1 are the Decision2 dated August 28, 2018 and the Resolution3 dated February 12, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 40318, which affirmed the Judgment4 dated February 28, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 164 (RTC) in Crim. Case No. 20223-D-PSG finding petitioner Darrel John Pinga y Tolentino alias "DJ" (Pinga) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, as defined and penalized under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165,5 otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
On or about May 1, 2015, in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and under his custody and control ten (10) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing the following, to wit:chanroblesvirtualawlibraryThe prosecution alleged that at around 9:30 p.m. of April 30, 2015, the members of the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Group (SAID-SOTG) of the Pasig City Police Station were instructed to conduct surveillance in Barangay Maybunga, Pasig City where the selling of illegal drugs was rampant. Police Officer (PO)1 Rodrigo Jose Nidoy, Jr. (PO1 Nidoy) and PO2 Marvin Santos (PO2 Santos) were assigned to monitor the area of Estella Maris and San Antonio Subdivision, Barangay Maybunga, Pasig City. On May 1, 2015, at around 12:30 a.m., PO1 Nidoy and PO2 Santos proceeded to conduct surveillance on board a motorcycle. While cruising along Yakal Street, they noticed a man, later on identified as petitioner Pinga, around four to five meters away, who was playing with a balisong8 or fan knife. The officers approached Pinga who immediately hid the knife behind his back. PO1 Nidoy introduced himself as a police officer and questioned Pinga regarding his possession of the knife. Pinga responded that it was for self-defense. PO1 Nidoy asked Pinga to raise his hand, confiscated the knife, informed him that his act constituted the crime of illegal possession of a deadly weapon, and then informed him of his constitutional rights. PO1 Nidoy then frisked Pinga and felt a bulge in his right front pocket. PO1 Nidoy ordered Pinga to empty his pockets, thus, revealing ten (10) plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance. Upon seeing the sachets, PO1 Nidoy informed Pinga that he was committing the crime of illegal possession of drugs and again informed him of his constitutional rights. Immediately after this arrest, and in the presence of petitioner, PO1 Nidoy marked the knife; he also marked the ten (10) plastic sachets with "1RJN/DJ 05/01/2015" to "10RJN/DJ 05/01/2015" and his signature. PO2 Santos called over Barangay Captain Mario Concepcion (Brgy. Capt. Concepcion) ofMaybunga to witness the inventory of the seized evidence at the place of the arrest. Both Brgy. Capt. Concepcion and Pinga signed the inventory. Pinga was then brought to the police station. Thereat, PO1 Nidoy showed the marked plastic sachets to the investigator, PO3 Nelson Cruz. The latter then prepared the request for drug test of petitioner, request for laboratory examination of the plastic sachets, and the chain of custody form. Subsequently, the police officers brought Pinga to Rizal Medical Center for his physical examination. Later, they proceeded to the Eastern Police District Crime Laboratory in Mandaluyong City where PO1 Nidoy turned over the plastic sachets to Police Chief Inspector Rhea Fe DC Alviar (PCI Alviar), the forensic chemist. After qualitative examination, the contents tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. PCI Alviar then prepared and signed Physical Sciences Report No. D-247-15E,9 and resealed the specimen samples with masking tape and affixed her markings and signature thereon. The specimen remained in her custody until she brought the same to court for presentation.10or with a total weight of 6.53 gram[s] of white crystalline substance, which were found positive to the test for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of the said law.
a) 0.30 gram; f) 0.28 gram; b) 0.30 gram; g) 0.30 gram; c) 0.29 gram; h) 0.30 gram; d) 0.30 gram; i) 0.29 gram; and e) 0.30 gram; j) 3.87 gram[s].
Contrary to law.7
Endnotes:
* Designated additional member per Raffle dated May 26, 2021 in lieu of Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier who recused from the case due to prior action in the Court of Appeals.
** Designated additional member per Special Order No. 2823-R dated May 25, 2021 in lieu of Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez who recused from the case due to prior action in the Court of Appeals.
1Rollo, pp. 11-34.
2 Id. at 39-54. Penned by Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang (now member of the Court) with Associate Justices Amy C. Lazaro-Javier and Jhosep Y. Lopez (now members of the Court), concurring.
3 Id. at 56. Penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier with Associate Justices Jhosep Y. Lopez and Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig, concurring.
4 Id. at 94-100. Penned by Presiding Judge Jennifer Albano Pilar.
5 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.
6 Records, pp. 1-2.
7 Id.
8Rollo, p. 14.
9 Records, p. 14.
10 See rollo, pp. 40-42 and 94-96.
11 See id. at 42 and 96-97.
12 Id. at 94-100.
13 Id. at 100.
14 See id. at 97-100.
15 See Notice of Appeal dated March 1, 2017; CA rollo, pp. 11-12.
16Rollo, pp. 39-54.
17 Id. at 53.
18 See id. at 44-53.
19 See Motion for Reconsideration dated September 21, 2018; CA rollo, pp. 109-117.
20 Id. at 56.
21 Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
22 See Trinidad v. People, G.R. No. 239957, February 18, 2019, citing Sindac v. People, 794 Phil. 421, 428 (2016).
23 Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. - A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
x x x
24 See Cruz v. People, G.R. No. 238141, July 1, 2019.
25 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, 828 Phil. 416, 429 [2018]; People v. Sanchez, 827 Phil. 457, 465 [2018]; People v. Magsano, 826 Phil. 947, 958 [2018]; People v. Manansala, 826 Phil. 578, 586 [2018]; People v. Miranda, 824 Phil. 1042, 1050 [2018]; and People v. Mamangon, 824 Phil. 728, 735-736 [2018]; all cases citing People v. Sumili, 753 Phil. 342, 348 [2015] and People v. Bio, 753 Phil. 730, 736 [2015].
26 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. at 736. See also People v. Viterbo, 739 Phil. 593, 601 (2014).
27 See People v. Gamboa, 867 Phil. 548, 570 (2018), citing People v. Umipang, 686 Phil. 1024, 1039-1040 (2012).
28 See People v. Año, 828 Phil. 439, 448 (2018); People v. Crispo, supra; People v. Sanchez, supra; People v. Magsano, supra at 959; People v. Manansala, supra; People v. Miranda, supra at 1051; and People v. Mamangon, supra at 736. See also People v. Viterbo, supra.
29 Case law recognizes that "marking upon immediate confiscation contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team." (People v. Mamalumpon, 767 Phil. 845, 855 [2015], citing Imson 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).) Hence, the failure to immediately mark the confiscated items at the place of arrest neither renders them inadmissible in evidence nor impairs the integrity of the seized drugs, as the conduct of marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team is sufficient compliance with the rules on chain of custody. (See People v. Tumulak, 791 Phil. 148, 160-161 (2016]; and People v. Rollo, 757 Phil. 346, 357 [2015].)
30 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.'" As the Court noted in People v. Gutierrez (see G.R. No. 236304, November 5, 2018), RA 10640 was approved on July 15, 2014. Under Section 5 thereof, it shall "take effect fifteen (15) days after its complete publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation." RA 10640 was published on July 23, 2014 in The Philippine Star (Vol. XXVIII, No. 359, Philippine Star Metro section, p. 21) and Manila Bulletin (Vol. 499, No. 23; World News section, p. 6). Thus, RA 10640 appears to have become effective on August 7, 2014.
31 Section 21 (l), Article II of RA 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations.
32 Which falls under the DOJ. (See Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1275, entitled "REORGANIZING THE PROSECUTION STAFF OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND THE OFFICES OF THE PROVINCIAL AND CITY FISCALS, REGIONALIZING THE PROSECUTION SERVICE, AND CREATING THE NATIONAL PROSECUTION SERVICE" [April 11, 1978) and Section 3 of RA 10071, entitled "AN ACT STRENGTHENING AND RATIONALIZING THE NATIONAL PROSECUTION SERVICE," otherwise known as the "Prosecution Service Act of 2010" [lapsed into law on April 8, 2010].
33 Section 21 (l), Article II of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640.
34People v. Miranda, supra at 1054-1055. See also People v. Mendoza, 736 Phil. 749, 764 (2014).
35 See People v. Miranda, id. at 1059. See also People v. Macapundag, 807 Phil. 234, 244 (2017), citing People v. Umipang, supra at 1038.
36 See People v. Manansala, supra at 591.
37 See People v. Gamboa, supra at 569, citing People v. Umipang, supra at 1053.
38 See People v. Crispo, supra at 436.
39 TSN, June 28, 2016, pp. 6 and 21. See also rollo, p. 47.
40 See id.
41 See G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018.
42 See id.cralawredlibrary