SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 253812, June 28, 2021
NOILA SABAN Y BANSIL @ "NAWILA" A.K.A. "NAWILA SABAN Y CARABAO," Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1 are the Decision2 dated February 18, 2020 and the Resolution3 dated September 18, 2020 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 41310, which affirmed the Decision4 dated January 26, 2018 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 2 (RTC) in Crim. Case No. 15-311868 finding petitioner Noila Saban y Bansil @ "Nawila" a.k.a. Nawila Saban y Carabao (Saban) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, defined and penalized under Section 11 (3), Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165,5 otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
That on or about December 17, 2014, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, not being authorized by law to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and knowingly have in her possession and under her custody and control two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets with markings and recorded net weights, as follows:The prosecution alleged that, at around 11:15 in the morning of December 17, 2014, Jail Officer 1 Linda C. Lominio (JO1 Lominio) was on duty as a female searcher in the Manila City Jail when Saban arrived to visit her husband who was incarcerated in said jail. That in the course of searching Saban, JO1 Lominio noticed that she appeared to be chewing something unusually as there was a slight bulge in her cheeks which roused her suspicion. JO1 Lominio asked Saban to spit out what it was in her mouth, but the latter refused. JO1 Lominio's co-searchers then advised Saban to comply and spit out what she was chewing. Eventually, Saban complied and spat out a folded brown packaging tape. Upon opening the same, JO1 Lominio was able to recover two plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance. The searchers then called Senior Jail Officer 2 Dominic M. Selibio (SJO2 Selibio), the investigator on-duty. They tried to call for a barangay official but no one came. They then proceeded to mark the seized sachets with "N.B.S. 1 12/17/14" and "N.B.S. 2 12/17/14," prepare an inventory, and photograph the same. JO1 Lominio turned over the seized items to SJO2 Selibio who prepared the necessary reportorial documents, including the Request for Laboratory Examination. SJO2 Selibio and JO1 Lominio then brought the seized items and the Request for Laboratory Examination to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), National Headquarters for testing, and were received by Police Chief Inspector Dana Recah Feliz P. Yee (PCI Yee), the forensic chemist. After qualitative examination, the contents tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. PCI Yee then prepared and signed Chemistry Report No. PDEA-DDO 14-252. The specimens remained in her custody until she brought the same to court for presentation.7
"N.B.S. 1 12/17/14" containing ZERO POINT ONE THREE TWO ZERO (0.1320) gram
"N.B.S. 2 12/17/14" containing ZERO POINT ZERO FIVE FIVE SEVEN (0.0557) gram
or with a total net weight of ZERO POINT ONE EIGHT SEVEN SEVEN (0.1877) gram of white crystalline substance containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, commonly known as ''shabu," a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law.6chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Endnotes:
* Designated Additional Member per Special Order No. 2823 dated April 7, 2021.
1Rollo, pp. 12-29.
2 Id. at 37-49. Penned by Associate Justice Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez with Associate Justices Pedro B. Corales and Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas, concurring.
3 Id. at 35.
4 Id. at 71-78. Penned by Presiding Judge Sarah Alma M. Lim.
5 Entitled "AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT No. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN IS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on June 7, 2002.
6 See rollo, pp. 37-38 and 71.
7 See id. at 38-40 and 71-76.
8 See id. at 40 and 76.
9 Id. at 71-78.
10 Id. at 78.
11 See id. at 76-78.
12 See Brief for the Accused-Appellant dated November 9, 2018; id. at 50-70.
13 Id. at 37-49.
14 Id. at 49.
15 See id. at 43-49.
16 Dated March 18, 2020. Id. at 103-112.
17 Id. at 35.
18 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].)
19 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).
20 See People v. Gamboa, 867 Phil. 548. 570 (2018), citing People v. Umipang, 686 Phil. 1024, 1039-1040 (2012).
21 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.
22 Case law recognizes that "[m]arking 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].)
23 Entitled "AN ACT TO FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE ANTI-DRUG CAMPAIGN OF TH E 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.
24 Section 21 (l). Article II of RA 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations.
25 Which falls under the DOJ, (See Section I 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 Sect ion 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].)
26 Section 21 (l), Article II of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640.
27People v. Miranda, supra at 1054-1055. See also People v. Mendoza, 736 Phil. 749, 764 (2014).
28 See People v. Miranda, id. at 1059. See also People v. Macapundag, 807 Phil. 234, 244 (2017), citing People v. Umipang, supra at 1038.
29 See People v. Manansala, supra at 591.
30 See People v. Gamboa, supra at 569, citing People v. Umipang, supra at 1053.
31 See rollo, pp. 40 and 74.
32 See id.cralawredlibrary