SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 248034. December 1, 2021.]
WILKIN DAVES AUSTRIA y MENDOZA, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated01 December 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 248034 (Wilkin Daves Austria y Mendoza v. People of the Philippines). — This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assailing the Decision 2 dated January 25, 2019 and the Resolution 3 dated June 20, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 40881 which affirmed the Decision 4 dated October 11, 2017 of Branch 69, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Lingayen, Pangasinan. The RTC found Wilkin Daves Austria y Mendoza (petitioner) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs defined and penalized under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Antecedents
The case stemmed from an Information 5 charging petitioner with the offense of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs committed as follows:
That sometime in the morning of January 11, 2017 in Poblacion, Lingayen, Pangasinan and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, who is without authority, did, (sic) then and there, willfully and unlawfully have in his possession, control and custody two (2) sachets containing 0.03 gram and 0.02 gram respectively of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or Shabu, a dangerous drug which were seized from him during the routine body check after he was arrested for the commission of Robbery with Force upon Things in a Private Building and Attempted Robbery.
Contrary to Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165, The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. 6 SDAaTC
When arraigned, petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge. 7
Trial ensued.
Version of the Prosecution
On January 11, 2017, Police Officer II Eusebio Soriano, Jr. (PO2 Soriano), Senior Police Officer I (SPO1) Amado Nazareno III, and SPO1 Joel Gregorio responded to a call regarding a robbery at the RCBC Bank in Lingayen, Pangasinan which involved petitioner. Upon arriving at the crime scene, the police officers apprehended and arrested petitioner. During the routine body search at the crime scene, the police officers recovered from petitioner two pieces of heat-sealed plastic sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. PO2 Soriano marked each sachet with the markings "EGS1-1-11-17" and "EGS2-2-22-217" in the presence of petitioner, Barangay Captain Hiram Hidalgo (Brgy. Capt. Hidalgo), Barangay Kagawad Jemon Gonzales (Brgy. Kagawad Gonzales), and media representative Emil Toledo (Toledo). The police officers also took pictures of the seized items during the markings thereof. PO2 Soriano then took possession of the seized items until they reached the police station where he prepared the Inventory Receipt of the seized items in the presence of petitioner and the required witnesses. 8
Subsequently, PO2 Soriano brought petitioner and the seized items to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory for examination. It was Police Chief Inspector Myrna C. Malojo-Todeño (PCI Todeño) who duly received the seized items. After the laboratory examination, PCI Todeño found the contents of the seized items positive for shabu. She then marked and sealed the sachets with masking tape and placed them inside a brown envelope. Thereafter, she endorsed them to the evidence custodian, PO3 EJ Manuel, for safekeeping. 9
Version of the Defense
In his defense, petitioner testified that on January 11, 2017, he was inside St. Joseph Medical Clinic, at the second floor, of Columban Plaza in Lingayen, Pangasinan when police officers forcibly entered the clinic after he locked the doors and placed a sofa bed therein to block entry. Upon his surrender, the police officers placed a yellow plastic bag on his head and mauled him. Petitioner asserted that during the conduct of the body search, PO2 Soriano inserted one plastic sachet inside the right pocket of his pants. When PO2 Soriano continued the search, he allegedly found another plastic sachet in the same pocket. Petitioner begged PO2 Soriano not to plant the drugs in his pocket, but the latter said nothing. 10
Ruling of the RTC
In the Decision 11 dated October 11, 2017, the RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs. It held that the chain of custody over the seized plastic sachets was well preserved. It further ruled that petitioner's condition called Persistent Depressive Disorder did not exculpate him from criminal liability because the condition cannot be equated with total deprivation of the will or the power to discern. 12 It decreed as follows:
WHEREFORE, his guilt for violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 having been proved beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is sentenced to suffer, together with the accessory penalties provided for in the law, the penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P300,000.00.
The two (2) sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride subject of this case are confiscated in favor of the government for disposal in the manner set forth in the law.
SO ORDERED. 13 acEHCD
Aggrieved, petitioner appealed to the CA.
Ruling of the CA
The CA affirmed petitioner's conviction. It held that all the elements of the offense charged against petitioner were proven beyond reasonable doubt, and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. It further held that petitioner failed to discharge his burden of presenting clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that the police officers handled the seized drugs with regularity and that they properly discharged their duties. Absent any proof of mishandling, tampering, or switching of evidence committed by the arresting officers and other authorities involved in the chain of custody, the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties remains. 14 The CA ruled:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated October 11, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 69, Lingayen, Pangasinan, in Criminal Case No. L-11435 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 15
The CA denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration in the assailed Resolution 16 dated June 20, 2019. The CA explained:
From this sequence of events, the prosecution was able to show an unbroken link in the chain of custody of the subject item which is the proof of the corpus delicti. Its integrity and evidentiary value were shown not to have been compromised notwithstanding the fact that there was no DOJ representative to witness the inventory and photograph of the seized items. As repeatedly held by the Supreme Court, non-compliance with Section 21 is not fatal and will not render an accused's arrest illegal or make the items seized inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. The integrity of the evidence is presumed to have been preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered with. (Citations omitted.) 17
Hence, the instant petition.
Petitioner avers that his right against unreasonable search and seizure was violated because there was no police drug operation. The search was made as an incident of an arrest for robbery, not for sale, use, or possession of prohibited drugs. 18 In addition, there was no representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ) during the inventory of the seized items. 19
In its Comment, 20 the People, through the Office of the Solicitor General argues that: (1) there was no unreasonable search and seizure committed against petitioner; 21 (2) petitioner himself affirmed the prosecution's narrative that the search against him was made following his arrest for robbery; 22 and (3) there was no violation of Section 21 (1) of RA 9165 because the required witnesses, particularly, barangay officials and a media representative, were present during the marking of the seized items. 23
In his Reply, 24 petitioner insists that there was no reason for PO2 Soriano to place his hand inside his pocket if PO2 Soriano's intention was to frisk him for weapons that he may possess in connection with the robbery. 25
The Issue
The core issue for the Court's consideration is whether petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs.
The Court's Ruling
The petition lacks merit. SDHTEC
Primarily, it must be emphasized that the series of events in the case was triggered by a phone call from a concerned citizen about a robbery at the RCBC Bank in Lingayen, Pangasinan. In view of the urgency of the matter, the police did not have enough time to secure a warrant and immediately proceeded to the place of arrest. There, the police officers caught and arrested petitioner. As a precautionary measure, PO2 Soriano introduced himself as a police officer and conducted the routine body search wherein he recovered two pieces of heat-sealed plastic sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride from the pocket of petitioner. Considerably, when an accused is caught in flagrante delicto, the police officers are not only authorized, but are duty bound, to arrest him without a warrant. 26 It was the duty of the police officers to conduct a more thorough search of the premises following the robbery incident and seize any suspected contraband, as in this case. The search, being incidental to a lawful arrest, is valid notwithstanding the absence of a warrant. The warrantless search and seizure, as an incident to a suspect's lawful arrest, may in fact extend beyond the person of the one arrested to include the premises or surrounding within his immediate control. 27 Because petitioner's arrest was legal, the search and seizure that resulted from it were likewise lawful. 28
As a result of the lawful search on the person of petitioner, the police officers recovered from his person two pieces of heat-sealed plastic sachets containing methamphetamine hydrochloride which they later marked as "EGS1-1-11-17" and "EGS2-2-22-217." Notably, petitioner failed to present any proof or justification as to his authority to possess the drugs. Under the circumstances, the mere possession of prohibited drug constitutes as prima facie evidence of his knowledge or animus possidendi which is sufficient to convict him, in the absence of any satisfactory explanation as to his possession of the dangerous drugs. 29
For the successful prosecution of a violation of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, as amended, the following elements must concur: (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. 30
The identity of the dangerous drug must also be established with moral certainty. 31 The prosecution must account for each link of the chain of custody from the moment the illicit drugs are seized from the accused up to the time they are presented in court as evidence of the offense. 32 The law further requires that the marking, physical inventory, and photographing of the seized items be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation. 33
The inventory and photographing must be done in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as the other insulating witnesses. If the crime was committed prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, 34 the insulating witnesses shall be (a) a representative from the media, (b) a DOJ representative, and (c) any elected public official. If the crime was committed after the amendment of RA 9165, the necessary witnesses are: (a) an elected public official and (b) a representative of the National Prosecution Service (NPS) or the media. 35 In cases where there is non-compliance with the witness requirement, the prosecution must prove that the apprehending officers exerted reasonable efforts to secure the presence of the required witnesses, regardless if these witnesses testified during trial or not. 36
As a rule, strict compliance with the prescribed procedure is required because of the illegal drug's unique characteristic rendering it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and susceptible to tampering, alteration, or substitution either by accident or otherwise, 37 especially in cases involving only a miniscule quantity. Hence, the presence of the aforementioned witnesses safeguards the accused from any unlawful tampering of the evidence against him. 38
Needless to say, flaws attending the officers' compliance with the chain of custody rule will not necessarily render the seizure and custody void, provided: (a) that the prosecution offers a justifiable ground for non-compliance thereof, and (b) that the seized items' integrity and evidentiary value are properly preserved. 39 HESIcT
In the case, the arrest took place on January 11, 2017, or long after RA 10640 became effective; hence, the presence of witnesses Brgy. Capt. Hidalgo, Brgy. Kagawad Gonzales, and Toledo of the Northwest Sun Media more than satisfies the two-witness requirement. Moreover, both the RTC and the CA correctly found that the prosecution was able to establish an unbroken chain of custody beyond reasonable doubt and account for every link in the handling of the seized items from the moment of their seizure up to their presentation in court as evidence. Records show that immediately after petitioner was arrested and subsequently searched, PO2 Soriano took custody of the seized plastic sachets and conducted the marking, inventory, and photographing in the presence of petitioner himself and the required witnesses. Thereafter, PO2 Soriano secured the seized plastic sachets and delivered them to PCI Todeño, the forensic chemist of the PNP Crime Laboratory. After conducting the requisite examination, PCI Todeño found that the seized items contained methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. PCI Todeño scaled them with masking tape, marked them, and placed them in an envelope which she also sealed before she delivered the seized items to the evidence custodian for safekeeping. In view of the foregoing, the Court holds that there was compliance with the chain of custody rule; thus the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti was preserved.
Perforce, petitioner's conviction must stand.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated January 25, 2019 and the Resolution dated June 20, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 40881 are AFFIRMED. Petitioner Wilkin Daves Austria is hereby SENTENCED to serve the penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years, as maximum; and to pay a fine in the amount of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00).
SO ORDERED." (GAERLAN, J., and DIMAAMPAO, J., on official leave.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 16-35.
2.Id. at 37-47; penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando with Associate Justices Amy C. Lazaro-Javier (now a Member of the Court) and Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob, concurring.
3.Id. at 8-12; penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando with Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario (now a Member of the Court) and Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob, concurring.
4.Id. at 61-69; penned by Presiding Judge Loreto S. Alog, Jr.
5. As culled from the CA Decision, id. at 38.
6.As culled from the CA Decision, id.
7.Id.
8.Id. at 39-40.
9.Id. at 38-39.
10.Id. at 40-41.
11.Id. at 61-69.
12.Id. at 68-69.
13.Id. at 69.
14.Id. at 44-45.
15.Id. at 46.
16.Id. at 49-53.
17.Id. at 52.
18.Id. at 23.
19.Id. at 24-25.
20.Id. at 109-120.
21.Id. at 115.
22.Id. at 116.
23.Id. at 116-117.
24.Id. at 125-130.
25.Id. at 127.
26.People v. Badilla, 794 Phil. 263, 274 (2016).
27.People v. Che Chun Ting, 385 Phil. 305, 317 (2000).
28.People v. Badilla, supra note 26.
29.People v. Tamaño, 801 Phil. 981, 996 (2016).
30.Sayson v. People, G.R. No. 249289 (Resolution), September 28, 2020, citing People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 238212, January 27, 2020.
31.People v. Santos, G.R. No. 243627, November 27, 2019.
32.People v. Año, 828 Phil. 439, 448 (2018). See also People v. Viterbo, 739 Phil. 593, 601 (2014) and People v. Alagarme, 754 Phil. 449 (2015).
33. See People v. Gabunada, G.R. No. 242827, September 9, 2019.
34. 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, and became effective on August 7, 2014.
35.People v. Santos, supra note 31.
36.Id.
37.Padas v. People, G.R. No. 244327, October 14, 2019.
38.Id.
39. See People v. Almorfe, 631 Phil. 51, 60 (2010).