FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 257713. March 2, 2022.]
NENA DELOS REYES Y BARRAMEDA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 2, 2022which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 257713 (Nena Delos Reyes y Barrameda v. People of the Philippines). — Filed before the Court is an appeal 1 by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking the reversal of the Decision 2 dated August 24, 2020 and the Resolution 3 dated July 6, 2021 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 40923. The challenged Decision affirmed the Judgment dated November 17, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 43, Virac Catanduanes, convicting Nena Delos Reyes y Barrameda (petitioner) of Violation of Sections 11 4 and 12 5 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165. 6 The assailed Resolution denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
The Facts
Through two (2) Informations, petitioner was charged with violating Sections 11 and 12 of R.A. No. 9165, allegedly committed as follows:
CRIMINAL CASE No. 5046
That on or about 6:00 in the morning of May 26, 2014 at Brgy. JMA, Municipality of Baras, Province of Catanduanes, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of the law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, have in her possession, custody and control of the following, to wit: (a.) two small heat[-]sealed transparent plastic sachet with markings 'ABC-4a' marked as D-1 containing 0.039 gram of white crystalline substance and one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with markings 'ABC-4b' marked as D-2 containing 0.036 gram of white crystalline substance with a total weight of 0.075 gram all of which yielded positive for the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, otherwise known as SHABU when subjected to laboratory examination, to the damage and prejudice of the public welfare.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 7
CRIMINAL CASE No. 5047
That on or about 6:00 in the morning of May 26, 2014 at Brgy. JMA, Municipality of Baras, Province of [Catanduanes], Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of the law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, have in her possession, custody and control the following paraphernalia fit or intended or used for smoking or consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing dangerous drugs into the body, custody and control of the following, to wit: one (1) unsealed transparent plastic sachet with markings 'ABC-1a' containing traces of white crystalline substance; three (3) crumpled aluminum foil strips with markings 'ABC-2a', 'ABC-2b', 'ABC-2c' marked as B1 through b-3; one (1) unsealed transparent plastic sachet with markings 'ABC-3a'; two (2) crumpled aluminum foil strips with markings 'ABC-3b' and 'ABC-3c' marked as C-1, C-2 and C-3 respectively; one (1) crumpled aluminum foil strip with ABC-5; two (2) unsealed transparent plastic sachets with markings ABC-5a and ABC-5b, each with traces of white crystalline substance marked respectively as E-1, E-2 and E-3, to the damage and prejudice of the public welfare. CAIHTE
CONTRARY TO LAW. 8
The aforesaid criminal cases stemmed from the implementation of Search Warrant No. 2014-06, which named petitioner, among others, as subject thereof. 9
As summed up by the CA, the parties' pieces of evidence established the following:
Version of the prosecution
x x x After a briefing at the Baras Municipal Police Station, a search team was organized consisting of P/Insp. Jhon V. Erlano [(P/Insp. Erlano)][,] as team leader, PO1 Aldrin Castuera [(PO1 Castuera)] as searcher, PO2 Roland Tejerero [(PO2 Tejerero)] as photographer, PO2 Desiree Tapia [(PO2 Tapia)] as recorder, Department of Justice (DOJ) representative Rudy Templonuevo [(Templonuevo)], media representative Donnie Vie Tabirara [(Tabirara)], and personnel from the Catanduanes Provincial Public Safety Company.
At around 5:55 a.m. of May 26, 2014, the search team proceeded to the house of [the petitioner]. Barangay Kagawad Rosario Camu [(Kag. Camu)] and Romulo Guerrero [(Kag. Guerrero)] also arrived in the area. P/Insp. Erlano informed [petitioner] that they are there to implement Search Warrant No. 2014-06. At that time, [the other subjects] were not around. Before the search of the house, body search was conducted on PO2 Tapia by media representative Tabirara, on PO1 Castuera by DOJ representative Templonuevo, and on PO2 Tejerero by Kag. Guerrero.
In the presence of PO2 Tapia and civilian witnesses, PO1 Castuera searched the sari-sari store, the bahay kubo, the adjacent alley, and the house's bathroom, kitchen, dining area, stockroom, two bedrooms, and living room. The proceeding was documented by photographs showing the areas where the contraband were found.
xxx xxx xxx
An inventory of the seized items was conducted on-site in the presence of the [petitioner], and the DOJ and media representatives. The Receipt/Inventory of Property Seized was prepared by PO1 Castuera and signed by said witnesses, and the Certification of Orderly Search was signed by the [petitioner]. Then PO2 Tapia placed [petitioner] under arrest and apprised her of her Miranda Rights. She was brought to the Bato Maternity and Children's Hospital for physical examination.
At around 12:20 a.m. of May 27, 2014, the search team, [petitioner], and witnesses Templonuevo and Tabirara proceeded to the RTC to submit the return of Search Warrant No. 2014-06 and the seized items. Upon motion of P/Insp. Emsol Icawat, the OIC Chief of Police of the Baras Municipal Police Station, the seized items were released to him.
The search team, together with the [petitioner], then proceeded to the Catanduanes Provincial Crime Laboratory Office, where the confiscated plastic sachets and their contents were submitted to PO1 Ricafort for laboratory examination. PO1 Ricafort sealed them in a mailing envelope with a masking tape, affixed his signature thereon, and turned them over to Forensic Chemist PCI Josephine Macura Clemen for qualitative examination. The latter confirmed in her Chemistry Report No. D-25-2014 that the specimens were indeed methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. 10
Version of the defense
[Petitioner] labeled the specimen as "planted." [She] accentuated that the searched [sic] of the sari-sari store yielded only an empty cellophane pack inside a Superstix contained on top of a sewing machine. Likewise, no contraband was found in the search of the nearby nipa hut. The search of the kitchen, sink, stockroom, dining table, divider and bedroom also yielded nothing incriminating, although a plastic container of Pantene shampoo was found in the bathroom. While a ladies' bag was found hanging from the wall of the house of [petitioner's] brother, inside which was a small plastic container and a piece of crumpled aluminum foil, [petitioner] denied being aware of its ownership.
It was after the operatives took a lunch break outside the search area and near the nipa hut that the same living room suspiciously yielded contraband. When PO1 Castuera lifted the Holy Family figurine near the window across the nipa hut, he, in his words found "shabu worth P300.00, third class." A crumpled aluminum foil was also found in the second bedroom. The search was concluded at that point.
Belying the police operatives' supposed eureka moment, Kag. Camu testified that there was an instance during the search when a police officer who was not priorly searched like the rest, entered the house through the kitchen door bringing bottled water with him, insinuating that the subject drug was "planted" in the search area by said police officer. DETACa
Anent the Certification of Orderly Search, [petitioner] admits having signed it but denied having understood its contents and implications. 11
The RTC Ruling
On November 17, 2017, the RTC rendered Judgment, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, having proven the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, this Court, hereby, renders judgment, as follows:
Crim. Case No. 5046 — Possession of Illegal Drugs
• For possessing 0.075 grain of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, this Court, hereby sentences NENA DELOS REYES y BARRAMEDA to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day, as maximum, and to pay a fine amounting to THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (Php300,000.00).
Crim. Case No. 5047 — Possession of Drug Paraphernalia
• For possessing a total of six (6) pieces of crumpled aluminum foil strips (improvised tooter), and four (4) pieces of transparent plastic sachets with traces of white crystalline substance, this Court, hereby sentences NENA DELOS REYES y BARRAMEDA to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from six (6) months and one (1) day, as minimum, to two (2) years and four (4) months and to pay a fine amounting to TEN THOUSAND PESOS (Php10,000.00)
SO ORDERED. 12
The trial court found that all the elements of the crimes charged were established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court rejected petitioner's defenses of "frame-up" and "planted" evidence for lack of evidentiary support. 13
The CA Decision
Petitioner appealed to the CA. On August 24, 2020, the CA rendered the challenged Decision affirming in full the RTC Decision. 14
The CA sustained petitioner's conviction and held that the identity and integrity of the seized items were established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, viz.:
x x x The evidence on record discloses that the search of [petitioner's] house was conducted in the presence of Rudy Templonuevo and Donnie Vie Tabirara, representatives of the DOJ and the media, respectively, and Barangay Kagawad Rosario Camu and Romulo Guerrero. After the search, an inventory of the confiscated items was confiscated on-site, and a Receipt/Inventory of Property Seized was forthwith prepared by PO1 Castuera which was signed by Templonuevo, Tabirara, Guerrero and Camu in compliance with the three-witness rule.
PO2 Tejerero documented through photographs the search and inventory proceedings, including the places where the corpus delicti was actually found. Additionally, a Certification of Orderly Search was prepared and signed by the [petitioner]. aDSIHc
The Chain of Custody Form traced the movement of the corpus delicti from the time the illicit items were seized until they were submitted for qualitative examination at the Crime Laboratory by PCI Macura Clemen, where they tested positive for shabu. Finally, the contraband were categorically identified during trial by witness PO1 Castuera as the very same articles that were confiscated on the occasion of the implementation of the [sic]Search Warrant No. 2014-06. 15
Petitioner moved for reconsideration, but to no avail. 16
Hence, the present recourse to the Court.
The Issue
The crux of the appeal is whether the CA erred in affirming petitioner's conviction of the offenses charged.
The Court's Ruling
The petition fails.
At the onset, the petition was filed out of time.
Petitioner had until August 10, 2021 to file her petition. In as much as the National Capital Region (NCR) was placed under enhanced community quarantine (ECQ) from August 6 to 20, 2021, the Court issued Administrative Circular No. 56-2021 dated July 30, 2021, directing the physical closure of all NCR courts and the suspension of the time for filing and service of pleadings and motions during said ECQ period. Such time for filing shall resume after seven (7) calendar days from the physical reopening of the courts.
However, on August 4, 2021, the Court subsequently issued Memorandum Circular No. 65-2021, which states, among others:
For the guidance of lawyers/parties-litigants, the following guidelines are likewise issued:
1. The personal filing/service of pleadings and other court submissions during the above period shall not be allowed but they may do so either by registered mail, or through the services of duly accredited private couriers or by transmitting them through electronic mail in accordance with the existing electronic filing guidelines.
xxx xxx xxx
All prior issuances not inconsistent herewith shall remain valid and in effect. (Emphasis supplied)
From the foregoing, petitioner was not precluded to timely file her petition through any of the other accepted means, apart from personal filing. In fact, petitioner filed her petition by registered mail but only on August 26, 2021. There was neither an allegation nor showing of any justifying circumstance that would excuse petitioner's belated filing of her petition via registered mail.
At any rate, even if the Court relaxes procedural rules in the interest of substantial justice and in view of the extraordinary circumstances this time of a pandemic, still, the denial of the petition is inevitable.
A scrutiny of the petition shows that the issues raised therein involve factual matters and a recalibration of the parties' evidence presented before the RTC and reviewed by the CA. Questions of fact, which would require a re-evaluation of the evidence, are inappropriate under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The jurisdiction of the Court under Rule 45 is limited only to errors of law as the Court is not a trier of facts. While this rule is not absolute, none of the recognized exceptions, 17 which allow the Court to review factual issues, exists in the instant case. ETHIDa
Further, both the RTC and the CA found that the identity and integrity of the seized items were established by the prosecution. There exists no cogent reason to deviate from the findings of the trial court, as affirmed by the CA. Indeed, the prosecution's evidence established that the apprehending officers complied with the procedure outlined in the original 18 provision of Section 21, 19 Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rules, specifically with respect to the presence of the three (3) insulating witnesses. The search and seizure of the subject drugs and drug paraphernalia were also substantiated by photographs and the required certification/documents. In contrast, petitioner had not adduced any clear and convincing evidence to show that the search and apprehending team committed irregularities or exceeded their authority in the implementation of the search warrant. That petitioner, in the petition before this Court, could only hint the possibility of evidence "planting" without any concrete proof to support the same only bolsters the RTC and CA's conclusion that the police officers complied with the procedure under the law and that the integrity and identity of the confiscated items were not compromised.
As aptly held by the CA:
[Petitioner's] insinuations that a police officer could have brought in the fabricated evidence, or that a member of the arresting team could have reached through the window of her house from the adjacent nipa hut and "planted" the subject drugs in the Holy Family figurine, are purelyspeculative. As she has not shown that any member of the search team may have entertained ill-will or sinister motive to falsely accuse her of serious crimes, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official law enforcement duties remain unrebutted. 20 (Emphasis supplied)
Petitioner's defense of frame-up is nothing new. It is a common and standard line of defense in most prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law. While such defense cannot and should not always be considered as contrived, nonetheless, it is generally rejected for it can easily be concocted but is difficult to prove. Police officers are, after all, presumed to have acted regularly in the performance of their official functions, in the absence of clear and convincing proof to the contrary, or that they are motivated by ill-will. 21
Even the testimonies of Brgy. Kagawad Camu and Guerrero would not help petitioner's case. There was no categorical or positive declaration from said witnesses that they saw the police officers "planting" evidence or that there were irregularities in the conduct of the search. On the contrary, said witnesses even signed the Receipt/Inventory of Property Seized 22 after the on-site inventory of the confiscated items conducted by the search team.
All told, the CA committed no reversible error that would warrant the exercise by this Court of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED. The August 24, 2020 Decision and the July 6, 2021 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 40923 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
by:
(SGD.) MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-22.
2.Id. at 23-36; penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Robeniol with Associate Justices Edwin D. Sorongon and Carlito B. Calpatura, concurring.
3.Id. at 37-38.
4. Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. — x x x
5. Section 12. Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs. — x x x
6 The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Effective June 22, 2002.
7.Rollo, pp. 23-24.
8.Id. at 24.
9.Id. at 25.
10Id. at 25-27.
11Id. at 27-28.
12.Id. at 28-29.
13.Id.
14.Id. at 35.
15.Id. at 34.
16.Id. at 38.
17. The general rule for petitions filed under Rule 45 admits exceptions, to wit: (1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) Where there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) When the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) The findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they arc based; (9) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and (10) the finding of fact of the Court of Appeals is premised on the Supposed absence of evidence and is contradicted by the evidence on record. (Gatan v. Vinarao, 820 Phil. 257, 265-266 (2017), citing Sps. Miano v. ManilaElectric Company, 800 Phil. 118, 123 (2016).
18. Prior to its amendment by R.A. No. 10640, effective July 23, 2014.
19. Section 21 (1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165:
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:
(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;
xxx xxx xxx
20.Rollo, p. 32.
21.People v. Zhen Hua, 482 Phil. 572, 605 (2004).
22.Rollo, p. 34.