THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 244788. June 16, 2021.]
RODEL BALIDA y TEGALA and SALEMBAY ROBLE y TALIB, petitioners,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated June 16, 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 244788 (Rodel Balida y Tegala and Salembay Roble y Talib v. People of the Philippines). — This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari, 1 assailing the Decision 2 dated August 31, 2018 and the Resolution 3 dated February 7, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 40187. The CA affirmed with modification the Judgment 4 dated June 19, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 20, convicting petitioners Rodel Balida y Tegala (Balida) and Salembay Roble y Talib (Roble) of violation of Section 11 (3), Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 and sentenced them to each suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, as maximum, and to pay a fine in the amount of P300,000.00.
The Facts
In separate Informations, Balida and Roble were charged before the RTC of Manila, Branch 53 for violation of Section 11 (3), Article II of RA 9165, or the illegal possession of dangerous drugs. 5 Later, the case was reassigned to RTC of Manila, Branch 20. 6 The accusatory portions of the Informations state:
Criminal Case No. 16-326638
That on or about July 5, 2016, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, not having been authorized by law to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession and under his custody and control one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet marked as "RBT" containing ZERO POINT ONE EIGHT EIGHT (0.188) gram of white crystalline substance containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride commonly known as Shabu, a dangerous drug.
Contrary to Law. 7
Criminal Case No. 16-326639
That on or about July 5, 2016, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, not having been 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 one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet marked as "SRT" containing ZERO POINT ONE THREE EIGHT (0.138) gram of white crystalline substance containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride commonly known as Shabu, a dangerous drug.
Contrary to Law. 8
Upon arraignment, both entered a plea of not guilty. Trial on the merits ensued. 9
Evidence of the Prosecution
The prosecution presented the testimonies of (1) Senior Police Officer 1 Brian Bagaporo (SPO1 Bagaporo); (2) SPO1 Erwin Castro (SPO1 Castro), the arresting officers; (3) Police Officer II Christopher Razon (PO2 Razon), the investigator; and (4) Police Chief Inspector Elisa Reyes Arturo (PCI Arturo), the forensic chemist.
The prosecution stated that in the afternoon of July 4, 2016, the Ermita Police Station received an information from a regular confidential informant (CI) of a drug deal transaction he arranged with one alias "Muslim." A buy-bust team was formed by Police Inspector Dave Garcia (PI Garcia), chief of the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs. PI Garcia instructed that an Authority to Operate and Pre-Operation Report be prepared. SPO1 Bagaporo was designated as the poseur-buyer while the rest served as back-up arresting officers. SPO1 Bagaporo was given two P100.00 bills as buy-bust money, which he marked with "BB" and "BB-1" on the upper left portion of each bill. 10 cAaDHT
On July 5, 2016, at around 3 a.m., the buy-bust team, together with the CI, proceeded to the target area — Block 9, Baseco, Manila. The CI identified "Muslim" to SPO1 Bagaporo. Then SPO1 Bagaporo saw "Muslim" giving a plastic sachet of shabu each to a man and a woman, later identified as spouses Balida and Roble. As SPO1 Bagaporo and the CI approached the trio, a group of bystanders shouted, "Mga pulis yan, mga pulis parating!" This prompted "Muslim" to run and escape. However, SPO1 Bagaporo got hold of Balida and arrested him, while SPO1 Castro arrested Roble. 11
SPO1 Bagaporo recovered a transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance from Balida's right hand, and SPO1 Castro recovered another plastic sachet from Roble. 12 When they were about to mark the seized items, a crowd started converging in the area, prompting PI Garcia to decide to just bring the two accused and do the marking, inventory, and taking of photographs of the seized items at the police station, which was about three to four kilometers away. 13
In the police station, SPO1 Bagaporo and SPO1 Castro marked the seized items as "RBT'" and "SRT," respectively, with the date of seizure and their signatures, in the presence of both accused; Danny Garendula, a media representative; and Barangay Kagawad Florentine Abellanada, an elected public official. Thereafter, the seized items were turned over to PO2 Razon, who took photographs and prepared the inventory. All the witnesses observed the marking, inventory, and taking of photographs and signed the receipt/inventory of properly/seized evidence. Then PO2 Razon brought the request for laboratory examination, together with the seized items, to the Manila Police District Crime Laboratory. Forensic Chemist PCI Arturo, received the items and conducted the laboratory examination. As she indicated in Chemistry Report No. D-678-16, the specimens were found positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. 14
Evidence of the Accused
For the defense, both accused presented their testimonies and denied the charges against them. They insisted that on July 3, 2016, not July 5, 2016, at around 2:30 p.m. while they were eating lunch in their house in Block 5, Baseco, Manila, seven police officers barged inside the house, and told them to lie on the floor. The police officers searched the house but did not find anything. Afterwards, they were brought to the police station, shown two transparent plastic sachets containing powder, and forced to admit possession and ownership of the plastic sachets. They denied the same and were charged with the illegal possession of dangerous drugs. 15 They asserted that the arresting officers demanded money in exchange for their freedom. 16
The prosecution presented rebuttal evidence. SPO1 Bagaporo asserted that (1) both accused were arrested in Block 9 and not Block 5; (2) the police officers did not enter their houses; and (3) the accused were arrested on July 5, 2016, with prepared documents as proof. 17
Ruling of the RTC
In a Judgment 18 dated June 19, 2017, the RTC convicted both accused. The dispositive portion states:
PREMISES CONSIDERED, his guilt having been proven beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 11 of RA 9165 accused RODEL BALIDA y TEGALA in Criminal Case No. 16-326638 is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of TWELVE (12) years and ONE (1) day and to pay a fine of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (Php300,000).
The ZERO POINT ONE EIGHT EIGHT (0.188) gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, subject of the instant case is confiscated in favor of the Government.
In Criminal Case No. 16-326639, her guilt having been proven beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, accused SALEMBAY ROBLE y TALIB is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of TWELVE (12) years and ONE (1) DAY and to pay a fine of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (Php300,000).
The ZERO POINT ONE THREE EIGHT (0.138) gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride subject of the instant case is confiscated in favor of the Government.
SO ORDERED. 19
The RTC declared that the date of the commission of the Offense was not a material element of the offense charged as provided under Section 11, 20 Rule 110 of the Rules of Court. Also, the petitioners were not able to provide any proof that they were arrested on July 3, 2016, contrary to the documentary evidence provided by the prosecution showing that the offense occurred on July 5, 2016. 21
The RTC stated that the defense of extortion and/or frame-up would often be used to cast doubt on the credibility of the police officers. However, petitioners did not give any clear and convincing evidence to prove that the police officers (1) had any ulterior motives to falsely testify against them and (2) demanded money in exchange for their freedom. Further, the RTC added that Block 5, Baseco, Manila was adjacent to Block 9 and it was not physically impossible for them to have been at the locus criminis at the time of the commission of the crime. Thus, their alibi does not deserve any credence. 22
Petitioners filed an appeal with the CA. HCaDIS
Ruling of the CA
In a Decision 23 dated August 31, 2018, the CA affirmed with modification the judgment of the RTC. The dispositive portion states:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Appeal is hereby DENIED. Accordingly, the Judgment dated 19 June 2017 rendered by Branch 20, Regional Trial Court of Manila City is hereby AFFIRMED but MODIFIED, in that accused-appellants be sentenced each to the indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and [one] (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, as maximum.
The Decision is AFFIRMED in all other respects.
SO ORDERED. 24
The CA ruled that petitioners were caught in flagrante delicto possessing illegal drugs, making their arrest lawful under Section 5 (a), 25 Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. The CA stated that the prosecution was able to prove the existing elements of the crime charged and that mere possession of a prohibited drug constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict them, absent any proof to refute the same during the trial. 26
The CA stated that the police officers were able to duly preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items by explaining that the marking and conduct of the inventory were made in the police station due to an ongoing commotion at the place of arrest. Thus, such provided a justification for the alleged procedural lapses of the police officers and provided no confusion in the confiscation, handling, custody, and examination of the illegal drugs involved. 27
Also, the CA stated that petitioners failed to show that there was bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence had been tampered with to overcome the presumption of regularity in the discharge of the police officers' duties and handling of exhibits. 28
Further, the CA declared that the prosecution had positively ascertained he identity of both accused from whom the sachets of shabu were recovered. The CA stated that positive identification prevails over the defense of denial, which like alibi, is an inherently weak defense. Thus, positive identification, one that is categorical, consistent, and without any showing of ill motive, should be given credence as opposed to an unsubstantiated denial, which does not deserve any weight. 29
The CA affirmed the payment of fine in the amount of P300,000.00 each. However, it modified the penalty of imprisonment imposed by the RTC to conform to Section 1 30 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. 31 The CA stated that in case of a special law, the accused shall be sentenced to an "indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum prescribed by the same." Thus, the CA modified the penalty of imprisonment to an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, as maximum. 32
Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied in a Resolution 33 dated February 7, 2019.
Hence, this petition.
The Issue
Whether the CA erred in affirming petitioners' conviction for violation of Section 11 (3), Article II of RA 9165.
The Court's Ruling
The petition lacks merit.
Section 11 (3), Article II of RA 9165 states:
Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof:
xxx xxx xxx
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be graduated as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu," or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy," PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or less than three hundred (300) grams of marijuana.
For illegal possession of a dangerous drug, like shabu, the following essential elements must be established: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object that is identified to be a prohibited or dangerous drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. 34
In the present case, the elements of illegal possession of a dangerous drug were competently and convincingly established by the prosecution. First, Balida and Roble were in caught in flagrante delicto possessing, 0.188 and 0.138 grams, respectively, of shabu, which was witnessed during an illegal drug deal transaction; second, petitioners were caught in possession of the shabu without being authorized by law; and third, they consciously possessed the prohibited drugs. AHCETa
In his testimony, SPO1 Bagaporo stated that he saw "Muslim" give a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance each to Balida and Roble during an illegal drug sale. Afterwards, the team proceeded to approach them. That while "Muslim" was able to escape, SPO1 Bagaporo got hold of Balida and arrested him and SPO1 Castro arrested Roble. Afterwards, the police officers recovered the plastic sachets in the possession of both accused. Forensic Chemist PCI Arturo attested that the seized items tested positive for shabu.
Both the RTC and CA accorded credence to the eyewitness testimonies of SPO1 Bagaporo anal SPO1 Castro and that of PO2 Razon as investigator of the case. Their testimonial accounts, together with PCI Arturo's chemistry report, were consistent with the documentary and object evidence of the prosecution. Also, it was not shown that the police officers had any ill-motive to falsely testify against petitioners. Even petitioners admitted that they were not aware of any reason why they would be wrongly incriminated. Further, petitioners failed to present any evidence to back their claim that the arresting officers demanded money in exchange for their freedom.
In cases involving dangerous drugs, the State bears the burden of not only proving all the elements in the illegal sale of drugs, but also establishing the corpus delicti or the body of the crime, which, in this case, is the dangerous drug itself. To establish the identity of the dangerous drag with moral certainty, the prosecution must be able to account for each link of the chain of custody, from the moment the drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as evidence of the crime. 35
To ensure that the chain of custody is established, Section 21 (1) of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640 36 provides:
SEC. 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:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the persons from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, That the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures: Provided, finally, That noncompliance of 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 and custody over said items.
xxx xxx xxx
Section 21 of RA 9165 lays down the procedure that police operatives must follow to maintain the integrity of the confiscated drugs used as evidence. The provision requires that: (1) the seized items must be inventoried and photographed immediately after seizure or confiscation; and (2) the physical inventory and photographing must be done in the presence of (a) the accused or his/her representative or counsel, (b) an elected public official, (c) a representative from the media or the DOJ, 37 all of whom shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy.
Meanwhile, the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 supplied details as to the place where the physical inventory and photographing of the seized items should be done, i.e., at the place of seizure, at the nearest police station, or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer or team. Further, a "saving clause" was added in case of non-compliance with the requirements under justifiable grounds. Section 21 (a), Article II of the IRR states:
SECTION 21. x x x
(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: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; 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[.]
In the present case, petitioners impugn that the plastic sachets confiscated were not marked immediately after seizure but instead transported to the police station, where the said marking took place.
As provided for under the IRR of RA 9165, the physical inventory and photographing of the seized items may be done at the nearest police station, just like in this case. Here, the police officers stated that at the time they arrested both accused, the arrest caused a commotion and the crowd started to converge in the area. Thus, PI Garcia, the chief of the station Anti-Illegal Drugs, decided to do the marking, inventory, and taking of photographs at the police station in the presence of both accused and the required two witnesses — a representative from the media and an elected public official. In People v. Tumulak, 38 the Court held that "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." Thus, the prosecution had fully established that the police officers faithfully executed their duty in complying with the requirements on the seizure, initial custody, and handling of the seized items pursuant to Section 21 of RA 9165. ScHADI
With regard to the defense of denial and alibi, such cannot prevail over the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Denial, especially when not substantiated by clear and convincing defense, is a weak form of defense. In People v. Catubay, 39 the Court held that "credence should be given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses, especially when they are police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary." As correctly declared by the CA, both accused failed to demonstrate that there was ill motive on the part of the arresting officers. Such that absent any proof of ill motive. the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and the findings of the RTC with respect to the credibility of the prosecution witnesses should prevail.
In sum, the prosecution had successfully proven with moral certainty that the police officers faithfully adhered to the rules on the chain of custody. Thus, the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti had been properly preserved. Undoubtedly, the conviction of petitioners for violation of Section 11 (3), Article II, RA 9165 or the illegal possession of dangerous drugs must stand.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated August 31, 2018 and the Resolution dated February 7, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 40187 are AFFIRMED. Petitioners Rodel Balida y Tegala and Salembay Roble y Talib are found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11 (3), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and are sentenced to each suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, as maximum, and to pay a fine in the amount of P300,000.00.
SO ORDERED." (Hernando, J., on official leave.)
By authority of the Court:
MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) RUMAR D. PASIONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 11-44. Under Rule 45 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure.
2.Id. at 46-57; penned by Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda (now a Member of the Court), with Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob, concurring.
3.Id. of 59-60.
4.Id. at 92-142; penned by Presiding Judge Marivic Balisi-Umali.
5.Id. at 47.
6.Id. at 13.
7.Id. at 47-48.
8.Id. at 48.
9.Id. at 48-49.
10.Id. at 49.
11.Id.
12.Id. at 50.
13.Id. at 95.
14.Id. at 14-15
15.Id. at 15-16, 51.
16.Id. at 98.
17.Id. at 99.
18.Id. at 92-102.
19.Id. at 101-102.
20. Section 11. Date of commission of the offense. — It is not necessary to state in the complaint or information the precise date the offense was committed except when it is a material ingredient of the offense. The offense may be alleged to have been committed on a date as near as possible to the actual date of its commission.
21.Rollo, p. 100.
22.Id. at 100-101.
23.Supra note 2.
24.Rollo, p. 56.
25. 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.
26.Rollo, pp. 52-53.
27.Id. at 53-54.
28.Id. at 54.
29.Id. at 55.
30. Section 1. Hereafter, in imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by the Revised Penal Code, or its amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the said Code, and the minimum which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense; and if the offense is punished by any other law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same.
31. Act No. 4103, as amended by Act No. 4225 and Republic Act No. 4203.
32.Rollo, pp. 55-56.
33.Supra note 3.
34.Portuguez v. People, 750 Phil. 767, 776 (2015), citing Rebellion v. People, 637 Phil. 339, 348 (2010).
35.People v. Año, 828 Phil. 434, 448 (2018).
36. RA 10640, entitled "An Act to Further Strengthening the Anti-Drug Campaign of the Government, Amending for the Purpose Section 21 of RA 9165, otherwise known as "The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," was enacted on 22 July 2014, amending Section 21 of RA 9165.
37. RA 10640 provides that the physical inventory and photographing must be done in the presence of the accused or his representative or counsel; and the required witnesses: an elected public official, and a representative of the National Prosecution Service of the DOJ or the media.
38. 791 Phil. 148, 160-161 (2016).
39. G.R. No. 232083, November 27, 2019.