THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 253186. September 21, 2022
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. WU JIAN CAI AND JIANG HUO ZAO, ACCUSED,
CHEN JUNYUE, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
INTING, J.:
Before the Court is an appeal1 from the Decision2 dated December 11, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10394 which affirmed the Joint Judgment3 dated November 17, 2017 of Branch 79, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Quezon City in Criminal Case Nos. Q-09-159311 and Q-09-159312.
In Criminal Case No. Q-09-159311, the RTC found Chen Junyue (accused-appellant), along with accused Wu Jian Cai a.k.a. Co, Jeson A. (Wu), and Jiang Huo Zao (Jiang), guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Meanwhile, in Criminal Case No. Q-09-159312, the RTC found accused-appellant and Wu guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11 of the same law.4chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Subsequently, the prosecution filed a Motion to Admit Amended Information to include Jojit Ilao y Sta. Maria (Ilao) as one of the accused in Criminal Case No. Q-09-159311. The RTC granted the motion and ordered the issuance of a warrant of arrest against Ilao. However, Ilao evaded arrest and remains at large.7chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryCRIMINAL CASE NO. Q-09-159311
That on or about the 12th day of June 2009, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating with and mutually helping one another, not being authorized by law to sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any dangerous drug, did then and there, wilfully [sic] and unlawfully sell, dispense, deliver, transport, distribute or act as broker in the said transaction, one (1) black and blue backpack bag containing one (1) vacuum sealed plastic bag containing nineteen ninety-four point ninety (1994.90) grams of white crystalline substance containing Methylamphetamine [sic] hydrochloride, a dangerous drugs [sic].
CONTRARY TO LAW.5chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryCRIMINAL CASE NO. Q-09-159312
That on or about the 12th day of June 2009, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating with and mutually helping one another, without authority of law, did then and there wilfully [sic], unlawfully and knowingly have in their possession and control one (1) brown box containing five (5) vacuum sealed plastic bag containing ninety-nine ninety-three point thirty-two (9993.32) grams and one (1) blue plastic bag containing one (1) brown box [sic] seventy-nine eighty two point ten (7982.10) grams of white crystalline substance Methylamphetamine [sic] hydrochloride, a dangerous drugs [sic].
CONTRARY TO LAW.6chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:Both accused-appellant and Jiang moved for reconsideration of the Joint Judgment, but the RTC denied their motions in an Order29 dated January 3, 2018.
1. In Criminal Case No. Q-09-159311, accused WU JIAN CAI, CHEN JUNYUE, and JIANG HUO ZAO, are found GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, and they are each sentenced to suffer life imprisonment, and to pay a fine of One million pesos (P1,000,000.00); and
2. In Criminal Case No. Q-09-159312, accused WU JIAN CAI and CHEN JUNYUE are found GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act 9165, and they are each sentenced to suffer life imprisonment, and to pay a fine of One million pesos (P1,000,000.00). Accused JIANG HUO ZAO is hereby ACQUITTED of violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act 9165.
Since accused Jojit Ilao remains at large and he has not been arraigned, the case against him is hereby archived subject to his prosecution upon his arrest.
The subject drugs covered by Chemistry Report No. D-39-09 are hereby forfeited in favor of the government. The Branch Clerk of Court is hereby directed to submit the representative samples of the subject specimens and all evidence in the custody of the Court to the Chief of the PDEA Crime Laboratory be disposed of in strict conformity with the provisions of R.A. 9165 and its implementing rules and regulations on the matter. The Evidence Custodian of the PNP Crime Laboratory is directed to immediately turnover [sic] to the Chief of PDEA Crime [L]aboratory the remaining specimens in these cases covered by Chemistry Report No. D-39-09 which are in the custody of the PNP Crime Laboratory for destruction strictly in accordance with law and to submit a report of his compliance thereof.
SO ORDERED.28chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Joint Judgment dated November 17, 2017 and Order dated January 3, 2018 rendered by the Regional Trial Court in Quezon City, Branch 79, for Criminal Case Nos. Q-09-159311 and Q-09-159312 is AFFIRMED.The CA noted that as the backpack containing about two kilograms of shabu was delivered through the concerted acts of accused-appellant, Wu, Jiang, and Ilao, to poseur-buyer SPO3 Parreño in exchange for the boodle money and the marked P500.00 bills, the buybust transaction was evidently and indubitably consummated.34 Moreover, the prosecution successfully discharged its burden of proving illegal possession of dangerous drugs on the part of accused-appellant.35 There is no showing in the records and transcripts of any apparent inconsistencies in the prosecution witnesses' account of the events which transpired and led to the arrest of accused-appellant for illegal possession of shabu.36chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
SO ORDERED.33chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Here, the prosecution evidence was able to establish the foregoing elements through the testimonies of prosecution witnesses SPO3 Parreño, SPO2 Liwanag, PO3 Caluag, PO3 Basmayor, SPO1 Pascua[l], PO3 Peña, and PO2 Perida. Recurring testimonies of the abovenamed witnesses show the following sequence of events:For the successful prosecution of the crime of Illegal Possession of prohibited drugs, on the other hand, the following elements must be proved: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object, which is identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.42 The prosecution established these elements.
1. In the morning of June 12, 2009 along Kanlaon Street, Barangay Teresita, Quezon City, Poseur-buyer SPO3 Parreño and the confidential informant, following the instructions of alias "Chong", transferred to the black Toyota Altis, where they found Ilao on the driver's seat.
2. Ilao alighted the Toyota Altis and walked towards the green Honda Civic parked in front of him. Ilao spoke to the driver Jiang and thereafter went inside the car. Subsequently, the driver of the Honda Civic, Jiang, alighted the car and boarded the silver Nissan Exalta where Chen can be found.
3. A few minutes later, Jiang alighted the Nissan Exalta Grandeur carrying a blue and black backpack with the label "Lihao Sport". Jiang then walked towards his Honda Civic and boarded the same.
4. Ilao, who had been waiting for Jiang while the latter picked up the bag from the Nissan, then came out of the Honda Civic with the same blue and black backpack with the label "Lihao Sport". He walked back towards his Toyota Altis to meet with poseur-buyer SPO3 Parreño and the confidential informant, who were still inside.
5. In the car, Ilao told SPO3 Parreño that alias "Chong" was in the other vehicle, further remarking, "Iwan nyo na lang po ang dapat na iwan dyan, eto na po ang bag". SPO3 Parreño then opened the blue and black backpack and saw it contained a plastic bag with approximately two kilograms of white crystalline substance later found to be positive for shabu.
The commission of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs merely requires the consummation of the selling transaction, which happens the moment the exchange of money and drugs between the buyer and the seller takes place. Here, as the blue and black backpack containing about two kilograms of shabu was delivered through the conce1ied acts of Wu, Chen, Jiang, and Ilao to the poseur-buyer (sic) SPO3 Parreño in exchange for the boodle money and marked PHP 500.00 bills, the buy-bust transaction was evidently and indubitably consummated.41 (Underlining supplied)
There is no evidence on record which shows that accused Wu Jian Cai and Chen Junyue had authority to possess the drugs found in their possession. Mere possession of a regulated drug per se constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused absent a satisfactory explanation of such possession; the onus probandi is shifted to the accused, to explain the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi (People of the Philippines vs. Ronnie Boy Eda, G.R. No. 220715, August 24, 2016). The accused had not presented convincing evidence to rebut their possession of the drugs.The Court sees no reason to deviate from the findings of the lower courts.
SPO2 Roderick Araneta positively identified the transparent plastic bags containing white crystalline substance (Exhibits "BBB" to "KKK") which he confiscated from the Nissan Exalta of accused Wu Jian Cai and Chen Junyue (TSN, September 5, 2016, pp. 5-11).
The contents of the plastic bags found in the possession of Wu Jian Cai and Chen Junyue after they were lawfully arrested, all tested positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug, upon the laboratory examination conducted by PCI Maridel Rodis-Martinez.43chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
x x x [T]here is nothing in Republic Act No. 9165 or in its implementing rules, which requires each and everyone who came into contact with the seized drugs to testify in court. As long as the chain of custody of the seized drug was clearly established to have not been broken and the prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drugs seized, it is not indispensable that each and every person who came into possession of the drugs should take the witness stand. This Court, in People v. Hernandez, citing People v. Zeng Hua Dian, ruled:As the Court held in Belga v. People,48 not all people who came into contact with the seized drugs are required to testify in court. As long as the chain of custody of the seized drug was clearly established not to have been broken and that the prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drugs seized, it is not indispensable that each and every person who came into possession of the drugs should take the witness stand.49chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryAfter a thorough review of the records of this case, we find that the chain of custody of the seized substance was not broken and that the prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drugs seized in this case. The non-presentation as witnesses of other persons such as SPO1 Grafia, the evidence custodian, and PO3 Alamia, the officer on duty, is not a crucial point against the prosecution. The matter of presentation of witnesses by the prosecution is not for the court to decide. The prosecution has the discretion as to how to present its case and it has the right to choose whom it wishes to present as witnesses.47 (Citations omitted)
SECTION 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:Corollary thereto, Section 3 of Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2007,50 of the Dangerous Drugs Board establishes the guidelines to govern the disposition of the confiscated, seized and/or surrendered dangerous drugs. The pertinent portions thereof read:
x x x x
(4) After the filing of the criminal case, the Court shall, within seventy-two (72) hours, conduct an ocular inspection of the confiscated, seized and/or surrendered dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals, including the instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, and through the PDEA shall within twenty-four (24) hours thereafter proceed with the destruction or burning of 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 DOJ, civil society groups and any elected public official. The Board shall draw up the guidelines on the manner of proper disposition and destruction of such item/s which shall be borne by the offender: Provided, That those item/s of lawful commerce, as determined by the Board, shall be donated, used or recycled for legitimate purposes: Provided, further, That a representative sample, duly weighed and recorded is retained;cralawlawlibrary
(5) The Board shall then issue a sworn certification as to the fact of destruction or burning of the subject item/s which, together with the representative sample/s in the custody of the PDEA, shall be submitted to the court having jurisdiction over the case. In all instances, the representative sample/s shall be kept to a minimum quantity as determined by the Board;cralawlawlibrary
(6) The alleged offender or his/her representative or counsel shall be allowed to personally observe all of the above proceedings and his/her presence shall not constitute an admission of guilt. In case the said offender or accused refuses or fails to appoint a representative after due notice in writing to the accused or his/her counsel within seventy-two (72) hours before the actual burning or destruction of the evidence in question, the Secretary of Justice shall appoint a member of the public attorney's office to represent the former;cralawlawlibrary
(7) After the promulgation and judgment in the criminal case wherein the representative sample/s was presented as evidence in court, the trial prosecutor shall inform the Board of the final termination of the case and, in turn, shall request the court for leave to turn over the said representative sample/s to the PDEA for proper disposition and destruction within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt of the same[.]
x x x x
Section 3. Disposal of Seized Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia, and/or Laboratory Equipment. Dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia, and/or laboratory equipment confiscated, seized and/or surrendered and covered by this Regulation shall be disposed of as follows:In the case, the police officers retrieved the seized drugs from the evidence custodian on September 30, 2009 for ocular inspection and taking of representative samples. The proceedings were witnessed by accused-appellant, Jiang, Wu, Atty. Millare, the members of the PNP, ACP Desembrana, and Judge Panganiban. The rescheduled ocular inspection and taking of representatives of the other bags of shabu conducted on March 5, 2010 were witnessed by accused-appellant himself, his co-accused Jiang and Wu, and other members of the PNP. Also present during the proceedings were ACP Buenaluz, Atty. Millare, Atty. Villamar and Atty. Asencio, a Chinese interpreter, and Branch Clerk of Court Atty. Gorospe. Given the rigorous process that followed, the absence of the testimony of the evidence custodian becomes excusable considering that representative samples were already in the custody of the court while the bulk of the seized drugs was disposed by the PDEA.
a. Upon the receipt of the final certification of the forensic laboratory examination results issued by the government forensic laboratory, pursuant to Section 21 of R.A. 9165 and Section 4 of Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, the PDEA may file a petition for the immediate destruction of the confiscated, seized and/or surrendered dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment with the Regional Trial Court presided by the Executive Judge of the province or city where the confiscation, seizure and/or surrender took place. If the confiscation, seizure or surrender was by virtue of a search warrant, the appropriate motion shall be filed with the Court which issued the said search warrant. In both instances, the petition or motion shall be filed with the prior written conforn1ity of the Provincial or City Prosecutor which shall be indicated in the pleading. The trial court where the criminal case is subsequently filed shall take judicial notice of the proceedings thereof.
b. After the filing of the petition or motion, as the case may be, the Court shall, within seventy-two hours, conduct an ocular inspection of the confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia, and/or laboratory equipment.
c. Within twenty-four hours after the Court inspection, the Court through the PDEA shall proceed with the destruction or burning or disposal of subject items.
d. Prior to their destruction, representative samples of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals shall be taken and duly weighed and recorded by the forensic laboratory which conducted the examination for presentation as evidence in the trial court.
x x x x
k. Destruction or disposal or burning of seized dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia, and/or laboratory equipment shall be done in public and witnessed by the following:
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary1) the respondent/accused or his/her representative or counsel or a member of the Public Attorney's Office appointed by the Secretary of Justice;l. The respondent/accused or his/her representative or counsel shall be allowed to personally observe all the above proceedings. In case he/she refuses or fails to appoint a representative after due notice in writing to him/her or his/her counsel within seventy-two (72) hours before the actual burning or destruction of the evidence in question, the Secretary of Justice shall appoint a member of the Public Attorney's Office to represent the respondent/accused.
2) a representative from the media;
3) a representative from the DOJ;
4) a representative from civil society groups; and
5) any elected public official.
m. The Board, through the Director General of the PDEA or Regional Director of the PDEA, as the case may be, shall issue a sworn certification as to the fact of destruction or burning of the subject items which shall be submitted to the Court hearing the petition or motion and a copy of which, certified to by the clerk of court, shall be submitted to the trial court where the criminal case is subsequently filed together with the representative samples in the custody of the PDEA.
n. The cost of disposition or destruction of seized dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, and/or equipment shall be borne by the respondent/accused.
o. After the promulgation of judgment in the criminal case, the trial prosecutor shall inform the Board of the final termination of the case and, in turn, shall request the trial court for leave to turn over the said representative samples, including any instrument/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, to the PDEA for proper disposition and destruction within twenty-four (24) hours after receipt of same.
Endnotes:
* Designated additional Member per Raffle dated January 31, 2022.
1 Rollo, pp. 38-39.
2 Id. at 3-37; penned by Associate Justice Ramon A. Cruz and concurred in by Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao (now a Member of the Court) and Gabriel T. Robeniol.
3 CA rollo, pp. 76-98; penned by Presiding Judge Nadine Jessica Corazon J. Fama.
4 Id. at 180-181.
5 Rollo, p. 5.
6 Id.
7 Id.
8 Id. at 6.
9 Id.
10 Id.
11 Referred to as SPO3 Ronald C. Parreno and PO3 Parreno in some parts of the rollo (see id. at 6 and 8).
12 Id. at6-7.
13 Id. at 8-9.
14 Id. at 10.
15 Referred to as Nico Baua in some parts of the rollo (see id.).
16 Id.
17 Id. at 10-11.
18 Id.
19 Referred to as PO3 Ernesto Pena in some parts of the rollo (see id. at 7, 11).
20 Id. at 11.
21 Referred to as PCI Maridel Rodis-Martinez in the RTC Decision (see CA rollo, p. 160).
22 Rollo, pp. 11-12.
23 Id. at 12-13.
24 Id. at 13.
25 Id.
26 CA rollo, pp. 76-98.
27 Id. at 178.
28 Id. at 180-181.
29 Id. at 99-104.
30 Id. at 125-157.
31 Id. at 53-75.
32 Rollo, pp. 3-37.
33 Id. at 31.
34 Id. at 20.
35 Id. at 29.
36 Id. at 31.
37 Id. at 44-45.
38 Id. at 46-48.
39 Id. at 62-65.
40 People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 238212, January 27, 2020.
41 Rollo, pp. 19-20.
42 People v. Manabat, G.R. No. 242947, July 17, 2019.
43 CA rollo, p. 179.
44 People v. Lee (Notice), G.R. No. 227856, June 22, 2020.
45 People v. Magundayao, G.R. No. 217377, February 4, 2019, citing People v. Bensig, 437 Phil. 748, 756 (2002).
46 Rollo, p. 28.
47 People v. Amansec, 678 Phil. 831, 857-858 (2011).
48 G.R. No. 241386, November 11, 2021.
49 Id.
50 Guidelines on the 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 in Connection with Cases under Investigation, Preliminary Investigation or Reinvestigation.cralawredlibrary