Anion v. People

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 240455. June 30, 2021.]

DENNIS FRIDAY ANION, plaintiff-appellee, v.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated30 June 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 240455 (Dennis Friday Anion v. People of the Philippines). — The conviction of Dennis Friday Anion (Dennis) for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs and Illegal Possession of Drug Paraphernalia is the subject of review in this appeal assailing the Court of Appeals' (CA) December 28, 2017 Decision 1 in CA-G.R. CR No. 37532, which affirmed the findings of the Regional Trial Court (RTC).

ANTECEDENTS

On February 25, 2014, Police Superintendent Joselito Eciso (P/Supt. Eciso) of the Legazpi City Police Station received information that spouses Dennis and Maritess Anion (Maritess; collectively, spouses Anion) were engaged in illegal drug activities at Barangay 24, Relocation Site, Legazpi City. To verify the report, a test buy was conducted which resulted in a successful purchase of one (1) plastic sachet of shabu. 2 The following day, Police Inspector Augusto Ocfemia (P/Insp. Ocfemia) applied for a search warrant with the Executive Judge of Legazpi City, which was granted; through issuance of Search Warrant No. PRS-14-08. In the afternoon of February 26, 2014, P/Insp. Ocfemia conducted a briefing to implement the search warrant, designating Police Officer 3 Gerard Lladones (PO3 Lladones) as the searching officer, Police Officer 2 Albert Cierva (PO2 Cierva) as a photographer, and Police Officer 1 Eugene Edward Godino (PO1 Godino) as the arresting officer. Coordination between the Legazpi City Police Station and the Albay Police Provincial Office was made, and thereafter, the search team went to the house of spouses Anion. 3

Upon arrival at the house, the team saw a man standing by the open door. P/Insp. Ocfemia asked the man if he was Dennis Friday Anion, to which Dennis nodded in acknowledgment. P/Insp. Ocfemia then stated that they have a search warrant against Dennis. Before entering the house, the search team waited for witnesses to the search. Media representative Antonio Baria (Baria), Kagawad Denny Aycardo (Aycardo), and Kagawad Rodel Daet (Daet) came. Kagawad Daet requested PO3 Lladones, the searching officer, to remove his shoes, put out his pockets, as well as frisked PO3 Lladones. About 7:00 p.m., P/Insp. Ocfemia read the contents of the search warrant to Dennis, and the team proceeded to conduct the search. PO3 Lladones found a plastic sachet and digital weighing scale on top of a blue Orocan "durabox," a plastic syringe in another gray "durabox," nine (9) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets with white crystalline substance, and two (2) open plastic sachets with traces of white crystalline substance on top of the bed, a glass tooter, lights, and empty plastic sachets. 4 Immediately after the search, PO3 Lladones placed the items on top of the bed for marking and inventory in the presence of Dennis, media representative Baria, Barangay Kagawad Aycardo, Barangay Kagawad Daet, and Department of Justice (DOJ) Representative Jesus Aragon. A Certification of Orderly Search was also signed by the witnesses, the search team, and Dennis. Meanwhile, PO1 Cierva took photographs of the search, marking, and inventory of evidence. 5 ATICcS

Thereafter, the team arrested Dennis and brought him to the police station. PO3 Lladones took custody of the seized items from the time they were discovered until the same were brought to the police station. At the police station, PO3 Lladones placed the marked seized items in his locker that only he has access. PO3 Lladones and P/Insp. Ocfemia then prepared the documents for the return of the search warrant, which they brought together with the seized items to the RTC the next day, February 27, 2014. PO3 Lladones retained custody of the seized items so that they could be turned over to the crime laboratory for examination. At 1:00 p.m. of the same day, PO3 Lladones delivered the seized items to forensic chemist PSI Wilfredo Idian Pabustan (PSI Pabustan). After conducting a qualitative examination, PSI Pabustan issued Chemistry Report No. D-40-2014, stating that all the specimens yielded positive for the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu. 6

Consequently, Dennis was charged with violation of Sections 11 and 12, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. 9165) under the following separate Informations:

Criminal Case No. 12692 (Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs):

That on or about the 26th of February, 2014, in the City of Legazpi, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, control and custody nine (9) heat-sealed small transparent plastic sachets each containing white crystalline substance, having the following, [sic] having the following markings and recorded weights, to wit:

A (GAL-01) = 1.536 grams

with a total net weight of 2.364 grams and upon forensic chemistry examination, gave positive result to the test for the presence of METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE (Shabu) a dangerous drug.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Criminal Case No. 12693 (Illegal Possession of Drug Paraphernalia):

That on or about the 26th day of February, 2014, in the City of Legazpi, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, control and custody the following drug paraphernalia, fit or intended to be used for consuming dangerous drugs as follows:

L — One (1) piece glass tooter with pink rubber with markings GAL-12 containing traces of white crystalline substance

M — One (1) plastic syringe with markings GAL-13

One (1) piece improvised lighter

One (1) piece lighter

without authority of law.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 7

Dennis denied the accusations against him and claimed that, on the evening of February 26, 2014, he was sleeping at home with his family when five (5) men and one (1) woman, who he later found out were police officers, suddenly barged into their house. One of the police officers woke him up and pointed a gun at his neck while the others ransacked his house. The police officers asked him if he was Dennis, but could not answer because of fear. While they were raiding the house, one of the police officers instructed Maritess to leave with their children. Dennis was asked where he kept the shabu, but he was not able to answer. At that point, the media representative and barangay officials arrived. 8 Meanwhile, one of the police officers brought a blue reusable bag and spread its contents on top of Dennis' bed. Dennis had never seen the bag before and had no idea where it and its contents came from. It was only at that time that the police officers introduced themselves and mentioned that they had a search warrant. 9

In a Joint Judgment dated April 6, 2015, the RTC convicted Dennis as charged, 10 and sentenced him as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Joint Judgment in the above-entitled cases is hereby rendered, as follows:

1. In Crim. Case No. 12692:

Finding him GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Illegal Possession of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or "shabu," a dangerous drug, defined and penalized under Article II, Section 11, paragraph 3 of R.A. No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court hereby sentences accused DENNIS FRIDAY ANION to suffer imprisonment of twelve ( 12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, six (6) months and one (1) day, as maximum and to pay the fine of Three Hundred Thousand (P300,000.00) Pesos.

The subject "shabu" contained in the transparent plastic sachets marked in evidence as Exh. "X" and sub-markings, are hereby confiscated in favor of the Government, subject to the destruction thereof, pursuant to Section 21, paragraph 7 of R.A. No. 9165. TIADCc

Costs against the accused.

SO ORDERED.

2. In Crim. Case No. 12693:

Finding him GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drug Paraphernalia, defined and penalized under Article II, Section 12, first paragraph of R.A. No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court hereby sentences accused DENNIS FRIDAY ANION to suffer imprisonment of six (6) months and one (1) day, as minimum, to one (1) year and eight (8) months, as maximum, and to pay the fine of Ten Thousand (P10,000.00) Pesos.

The subject dangerous drugs paraphernalia which are the glass tooter marked in evidence as Exh. "Y" and sub-markings and the plastic syringe marked in evidence as Exh. "Z" and sub-markings are hereby ordered confiscated in favor of the Government, subject to the destruction thereof, pursuant to Section 21, paragraph 7 of R.A. No. 9165. Costs against the accused.

SO ORDERED. 11

On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC's findings and held that the prosecution established all the elements of the offenses, as well as an unbroken chain of custody of dangerous drugs. 12

Hence, this appeal.

THE COURT'S RULING

The appeal is devoid of merit.

The elements of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 are the following: (1) the accused was in possession of an item or object identified as a prohibited drug; (2) such possession was not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the prohibited drug. 13 On the other hand, under Section 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, for Illegal Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, the prosecution must show: (1) possession or control by the accused of any equipment, apparatus or other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body; and (2) such possession is not authorized by law. 14 The discovery of illicit drugs and paraphernalia in a house or building owned or occupied by a particular person raises the presumption of knowledge and possession of the items, which standing alone, is sufficient to convict. 15 Here, the RTC and CA correctly found that Dennis committed the crimes of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs and Illegal Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. By virtue of a search warrant, a valid search was done by the police officers who found Dennis in possession of sachets of shabu, a glass tooter, a plastic syringe, and lighters. Dennis failed to successfully controvert the outcome of the search.

Moreover, in the prosecution of crimes involving dangerous drugs, the contraband itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction. 16 Thus, it is essential to ensure that the substance recovered from the accused is the same substance offered in court. 17 In this case, records reveal an unbroken chain of custody. Notably, the alleged crime happened on February 26, 2014, before R.A. No. 10640 18 amended R.A. No. 9165, which took effect on August 7, 2014. Thus, the original provisions of Section 21 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations shall apply, to wit:

[Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of R.A. 9165]

(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.

[Section 21(a), Article II of the IRR of R.A. 9165]

(a) The apprehending officer/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: x x x Provided, further, that non-compliance with 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 of and custody over said items; [Emphases and italics supplied.]

Jurisprudence has consistently applied Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 in the implementation of a search warrant as this provision applies whether the drugs were seized in a buy-bust operation or pursuant to a search warrant. 19 A plain reading of the law shows that it is applied as long as there has been a seizure and confiscation of drugs. There is nothing in the statutory provision which states that it is only applicable when there is a warrantless seizure in a buy-bust operation. Thus, it should be applied in every situation when an apprehending team seizes and confiscates drugs from an accused, whether through a buy-bust operation or a search warrant. 20 The only recognizable difference between seizure and confiscation of drugs pursuant to a search warrant and a buy-bust operation is the venue of the physical inventory and taking of photographs of the said drugs, thus:

When the drugs are seized pursuant to a search warrant, then the physical inventory and taking of photographs shall be conducted at the place where the said search warrant was served. In contrast, when the drugs are seized pursuant to a buy-bust operation or a warrantless seizure, then these can be conducted at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending team. Other than that, there is no other difference between seizure and confiscation of drugs with a search warrant and without it (such as a buy-bust operation). Consistent with Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165, its IRR does not suspend the application of the chain of custody rule simply because the drugs were seized pursuant to a search warrant. Thus, the witnesses under the law are required to be present. Again, the only difference is with respect to the venue of the inventory and taking of photographs. 21 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.) AIDSTE

Indeed, the prosecution must satisfactorily establish the movement and custody of the seized drug through the following links: (1) the confiscation and marking of the specimen seized from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the turnover of the seized item by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) the investigating officer's turnover of the specimen to the forensic chemist for examination; and (4) the submission of the item by the forensic chemist to the court. 22 In this case, the prosecution proved that the search team sufficiently complied with the chain of custody rule under Section 21, Article II of R.A. 9165. After finding the dangerous drugs and paraphernalia, the search team immediately took custody of the items, marked them, took photographs, and made an inventory at the place of arrest and in the presence of Dennis, media representative Baria, barangay officials Aycardo and Daet, and DOJ representative Aragon. The presence of these witnesses, including Dennis himself satisfies the requirement under Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. From the place of search and arrest, PO3 Lladones took custody of the seized items, kept it in his locker at the police station, presented them to the RTC with the return of the search warrant, and later on delivered the items to the crime laboratory for examination. At the crime laboratory, PO3 Lladones turned over the seized items to PSI Pabustan, who after qualitative examination, issued Chemistry Report No. D-40-2014 stating that all the specimens yielded positive for the presence of shabu. Later, PSI Pabustan submitted the seized items as evidence before the RTC.

Lastly, there is no merit in Dennis' contention that the search conducted was illegal. The search was witnessed by two barangay officials, a media representative, and Dennis himself. This is corroborated by a Certification of Orderly Search signed by the witnesses, the search team; and Dennis. The CA aptly held:

[Dennis] further contends that there were irregularities in the conduct of the search, namely: the date, time, and place where the pieces of evidence were found and seized were not spelled out in the marking; the cellular phone allegedly recovered from his house was not included in the inventory and was not preserved for evidentiary purposes; and accused-appellant and the witnesses to the search were not given a copy of the inventory.

We do not agree. PO3 Lladones has sufficiently marked the pieces of evidence with the letters: ''GAL" (Gerard A. Lladones). This marking was done in the presence of [Dennis] and immediately upon confiscation to ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence. Moreover, PO3 Lladones and PO2 Cierva have clarified in their testimonies that the item recovered was a digital weighing scale and not a cellular phone as [Dennis] incessantly insists. Moreover, the failure to give a copy of the inventory receipt to the witnesses to the search is not a fatal defect which would destroy the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items.

xxx xxx xxx

It is to be noted that the prosecution witnesses were unanimous in saying that the house of accused-appellant was a mere studio type room and was very small. x x x P/Insp. Ocfemia, PO3 Lladones, PO2 Cierva, Kagawad Aycardo, Kagawad Daet, media representative Baria, and accused-appellant were inside the house while the search was going on. Hence, they did witness the conduct of the search and the seizure of the seized items. In fact, Kagawad Daet, to further protect [Dennis'] rights, demanded that PO3 Lladones be frisked prior to the conduct of the search. 23

All told, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items have been properly preserved. Against the overwhelming evidence against him, Dennis interposed the defense of denial and frame-up. We have consistently ruled that the defense of denial or frame-up, like alibi, is viewed with disfavor for it can easily be concocted and is a common defense ploy in most prosecutions for violations of R.A. No. 9165. Denial is a weak form of defense, particularly when it is not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, as in this case. 24 Dennis' defense of denial and frame-up cannot overcome the positive testimony of the prosecution, which clearly established his possession of dangerous drugs and paraphernalia. Accordingly, accused-appellant Dennis Friday Anion's conviction must stand. AaCTcI

FOR THESE REASONS, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Court of Appeals' Decision dated December 28, 2017, in CA-G.R. CR No. 37532 is AFFIRMED in that accused-appellant DENNIS FRIDAY ANION is GUILTY in Criminal Case No. 12692 of violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and is sentenced to an imprisonment for indeterminate period of 12 years and one (1) day, as minimum, to 14 years, six (6) months and one (1) day, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P300,000.00; and in Criminal Case No. 12693 of violation of Section 12, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and is sentenced to an imprisonment for indeterminate period of six (6) months and one (1) day, as minimum, to one (1) year and eight (8) months, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P10,000.00.

SO ORDERED." (Lopez, J.Y., J., designated additional Member per Special Order No. 2822 dated April 7, 2021.)

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 47-80. Penned by Associate Justice Maria Elisa Sempio Diy, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Pedro B. Corales and Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla.

2.Id. at 53-54.

3.Rollo, pp. 54-55.

4.Id. at 54-55.

5.Id. at 56.

6.Id. at 56-57.

7.Id. at 49-50.

8.Rollo, pp. 57-59.

9.Id. at 59.

10.Id. at 117-142.

11.Rollo, pp. 65-76.

12.Id. at 47-80. Decision dated December 28, 2017. The dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal filed by accused-appellant Dennis Friday Anion is DENIED. The assailed Joint Judgement [sic] dated April 6, 2015, rendered by Branch 4, Regional Trial Court of Legazpi City in Criminal Case No. 12692 and Criminal Case No. 12693, is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

13. See People v. Crispo, 828 Phil. 416 (2018); People v. Sanchez, 827 Phil. 457 (2018); People v. Magsano, 826 Phil. 947 (2018); People v. Manansala, 826 Phil. 578 (2018); People v. Miranda, 824 Phil. 1042 (2018); and People v. Mamangon, 824 Phil. 728 (2018); all cases citing People v. Bio, 753 Phil. 730, 736 (2015).

14. See People v. Taboy y Aquino, G.R. No. 223515, June 25, 2018; Garcia y Manuel v. People, G.R. No. 225122 (Notice), October 14, 2020.

15.People v. Santos y Zaragoza, 823 Phil. 1162, 1176 (2018).

16. See also People v. Cariño, G.R. No. 233336, January 14, 2019; People v. Crispo, et al., 828 Phil. 416, 429 (2018); People v. Sanchez, 827 Phil. 457, 465 (2018); People v. Magsano, 826 Phil. 947, 959 (2018); People v. Manansala, 826 Phil. 578, 586 (2018); People v. Miranda, 824 Phil. 1042, 1050 (2018); People v. Mamangon, 824 Phil. 728, 736 (2018); and People v. Partoza, 605 Phil. 883, 890 (2009).

17.People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 29 (2017).

18. 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,'" approved on July 15, 2014. See Office of the Court Administrator Circular No. 77-2015 dated April 23, 2015.

19.Buasan y Bendal v. People, G.R. No. 232476 (Notice), November 9, 2020; citing Cunanan v. People, G.R. No. 237116, November 12, 2018; Dizon v. People, G.R. No. 239399, March 25, 2019; People v. Baer, G.R. No. 228958, August 14, 2019; Asis v. People, G.R. No. 241602, November 20, 2019.

20.Buasan y Bendal v. People, supra, citing Tumabini v. People, G.R. No. 224495, February 19, 2020.

21.Id.

22.People v. Bugtong, 826 Phil. 628, 638-639 (2018).

23.Rollo, pp. 72-73.

24. See People v. Siu Ming Tat, et al., G.R. No. 246577, July 13, 2020, citing People v. De Guzman, 546 Phil. 282, 293 (2007).