THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 222460. April 11, 2016.]
NINIA ECHANO Y LEAÑO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated April 11, 2016, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 222460 (Ninia Echano y Leaño v. People of the Philippines) — Assailed in this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court are the Decision 1 and the Resolution 2 dated 4 September 2015 and 7 January 2016, respectively, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR. No. 36789. The Court of Appeals Decision affirmed in toto the Consolidated Judgment 3 dated 4 June 2014 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Daet, Camarines Norte, finding herein petitioner Ninia Echano y Leaño guilty beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 15459 for Violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The Court of Appeals Resolution, on the other hand, denied for lack of merit petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration.
Petitioner, together with Nolito Balmaceda y Nano (Balmaceda) and Victor Sarmiento y Kuan (Sarmiento), was charged with Violation of Sections 11 and 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, in two separate Informations, which accusatory portions respectively read:
Criminal Case No. 15459
That on or about 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon of [6 December 2012] at Purok 2, Brgy. Bagasbas, [M]unicipality of Daet, [P]rovince of Camarines Norte, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named [herein petitioner, together with Balmaceda and Sarmiento], conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in their possession, custody and control the following items, to wit: One (1) piece of big masking tape sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.01 gram of white crystalline substance with marking "OS-1" and marked as specimen A; Three (3) pieces of small heat sealed transparent plastic sachets each containing white crystalline substance with markings "OS-2," "OS-4A" and "OS-4B" and marked as specimens B, C and D[,] respectively. The net weighs are: B-0.06 gram; C-0.07 gram and D-0.06 gram; and Five (5) pieces of small masking tape sealed transparent plastic sachets each containing traces of white crystalline substance with markings "OS-3," "OS-5A", "OS-5B", "OS-5C" and "OS-5D", marked as specimens E, F, G, H and I[,] respectively; which after qualitative examination conducted on the above stated specimens gave positive result to the tests for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride[,] otherwise known asshabu, a dangerous drug, having a total weight of 0.20 gram; per Chemistry Report No. D-97-12, without authority of law.
Criminal Case No. 15460
That on or about 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon of [6 December 2012] at Purok 2, Brgy. Bagasbas, [M]unicipality of Daet, [P]rovince of Camarines Norte, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named [petitioner, together with Balmaceda and Sarmiento], conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, did, then and there, willfully and feloniously have in their possession, custody and control: one (1) piece of needle; one (1) piece of improvised tooter; one (1) piece of scissor; one (1) piece of aluminium foil; five (5) pieces of matchsticks and two (2) pieces of [lighter]; all drug paraphernalia, fit or intended for sniffing or smoking, consuming, administering or introducing dangerous drug into the body, without authority of law. 4 (Emphasis in the original.)
Upon arraignment, petitioner, Balmaceda and Sarmiento, all pleaded NOT GUILTY to the charges. Thereafter, a consolidated trial on the merits ensued.
Upon Demurrer to Evidence 5 and per Joint Order 6 dated 3 October 2013, both Balmaceda and Sarmiento were acquitted due to insufficiency of evidence against them. Thus, the proceedings were continued only against petitioner as the sole remaining accused. 7 cEaSHC
The prosecution presented the following witnesses: (1) Police Senior Inspector Grace Gorospe Tugas (PSI Tugas), Forensic Chemist of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory of Daet, Camarines Norte, who conducted the laboratory examinations on the seized drugs, which were later confirmed to be methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu per her Chemistry Report No. D-97-12; 8 (2) Police Officer 3 Alex R. Apolinario, Jr. (PO3 Apolinario, Jr.), one of the members of PNP Daet, Camarines Norte, who conducted the search at the house of petitioner by virtue of Search Warrant No. D-2012-5; 9 (3) Police Senior Inspector Alex C. Peñafiel (PSI Peñafiel), team leader and one of the participants in the implementation of the search warrant against issued petitioner; 10 and (4) Police Officer 1 Shiela Olan (PO1 Olan), also a member of the PNP Daet, Camarines Norte, who was designated as the searcher during the implementation of the search warrant issued against petitioner. 11
On the side of the defense, the petitioner and her former co-accused, Balmaceda, were presented to contradict all the allegations of the prosecution. 12
After considering the evidence of both parties, the RTC rendered its Decision dated 4 June 2014 finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 15459 for Violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, and sentenced her to an indeterminate penalty of 12 years and 1 day to 14 years of imprisonment and ordered her to pay the fine of P300,000.00. The RTC, however, acquitted petitioner in Criminal Case No. 15460 for Violation of Section 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, for prosecution's failure to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The RTC also ordered that the sachets of shabu (Exhibit C and derivatives) and the seized paraphernalia subject of these cases be confiscated in favor of the State. 13
On appeal, the Court of Appeals, in its assailed Decision dated 4 September 2015, affirmed in toto the RTC Consolidated Judgment dated 4 June 2014, and thus, denied petitioner's appeal. 14 The Court of Appeals ruled in this wise:
Although the shabu were not found by the searcher in the person of [herein petitioner], the same were found in the house of the [petitioner], particularly, inside a drawer in the living room and inside her bedroom. Thus, [petitioner] is deemed to be in possession thereof. It can also be inferred that [petitioner] was privy to the existence of the shabu. 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, with the burden of evidence shifted to [petitioner], it was her duty to explain her innocence about the regulated drug seized from her possession, a duty which [petitioner] failed to do so.
The elements of the crime having been established, the remaining issue to be resolved is whether the prosecution was able to establish a sufficiently complete chain of custody of the seized illegal drugs.
We rule in the affirmative. IAETDc
xxx xxx xxx
We examined the records of the case at bench and are convinced that the chain of custody was never broken from the time the seized items were recovered from [petitioner] and marked by the designated searcher, to the time the request to take custody of the same was applied before the Office of the Vice-Executive Judge of the RTC — Daet, Camarines Norte by PSI Dennis Balute Balla, along with the return of the Search Warrant, to the time the seized items were submitted during the inquest and later on turned over to the forensic chemist for examination and finally, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug by the forensic chemist to the court. . . .
xxx xxx xxx
Anent the claim that there was break because of the belated marking of the two plastic sachets that were found inside a plastic marked as "OS-4," the same was sufficiently explained by PO1 Shiela Olan:
xxx xxx xxx
From the foregoing, it was the Forensic Chemist herself who suggested that the two plastic sachets contained in one plastic marked as "OS-4" be separately marked as "OS-4A" and "OS-4B." To our mind, the said suggestion was intended to avoid confusion as to which sachet weighs how much. Nonetheless, as testified to by the Forensic Chemist, the items were handed to her by PO1 Shiela Olan. And nowhere was it shown in the records that the safekeeping of the seized items were entrusted to somebody else by PO1 Olan before the same were handed to the Forensic Chemist for examination. Neither was there any showing that the specimens contained in the sachets respectively marked as "OS-4A" and "OS-4B" are different from that contained in the bigger plastic marked as "OS-4." We are of the view, therefore, that the recovery and handling of the illegal drugs were more than satisfactorily established in the case at bench.
Anent the issue that it was not PO1 Shiela Olan herself, as the search officer, who made the inventory of the seized items, the same is of no moment as it was established that while she was not the one who mechanically did the recording of the seized items but a certain Police Officer (PO) Tatlonghari, she was beside him at the entire time that PO Tatlonghari was making a list or inventory of the items seized.
xxx xxx xxx
Lastly, as the RTC acquitted [petitioner] in Criminal Case No. 15460 for Violation of Section 12, Article II of R.A. 9165, the said acquittal should no longer be disturbed absent nay showing that there was a mistrial. 15 . . .
Petitioner's subsequent Motion for Reconsideration was denied for lack of merit in a Resolution dated 7 January 2016.
Hence, this Petition raising the lone issue of: whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in convicting the petitioner despite the fact that the evidence on record failed to support her conviction. 16
This Court AFFIRMS the ruling of the Court of Appeals.
The resolution of the issue presented by petitioner would require this Court to delve into the factual matters of the case. It is a hornbook doctrine, however, that the findings of fact of the trial court are entitled to great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed except for strong and valid reasons since the trial court is in a better position to examine the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying. 17 This rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals 18 as in this case. Finding no cogent reason to depart from the factual findings of the lower courts, this Court, thus, sustains the same.
This Court stressed that the prosecution satisfactorily established the following elements for the illegal possession of dangerous drugs in violation of Section 11, to wit: petitioner was shown to have been in possession of shabu with a total weight of 0.20 gram, a prohibited drug, which possession was not authorized by law, and that she freely and consciously possessed the said illegal drug. 19
As to the chain of custody of the seized drugs, this Court pronounced in People v. Lagahit: 20
The prohibited drug is an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs; proof of its identity, existence, and presentation in court is crucial. A conviction cannot be sustained if there is a persistent doubt on the identity of the drug. The identity of the prohibited drug must be established with moral certainty. Apart from showing that the elements of possession or sale are present, the fact that the substance illegally possessed and sold in the first place is the same substance offered in court as exhibit must likewise be established with the same degree of certitude as that needed to sustain a guilty verdict. The chain of custody requirement performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.
Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, that implements the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, defines "chain of custody" as follows:
"Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition. DcHSEa
In People v. Gatlabayan21 citing People v. Kamad, 22 this Court enumerated the links that the prosecution must establish in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation to be as follows: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court. (Emphasis supplied)
As aptly held by the Court of Appeals, the chain of custody in the case at bench was never broken from the time the seized items were recovered from petitioner and marked by the designated searcher, to the time the request to take custody of the same was applied before the Office of the Vice-Executive Judge of the RTC — Daet, Camarines Norte, along with the return of the Search Warrant, to the time the seized items were submitted during the inquest and later on turned over to the forensic chemist for examination and finally, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug by the forensic chemist to the court. As a consequence, there is no question that the seized prohibited drugs in the possession of the petitioner are exactly the same drugs presented before the court.
This Court also finds the penalty imposed by the lower courts, i.e., indeterminate penalty of 12 years and 1 day to 14 years of imprisonment and the fine of P300,000.00, to be in order.
WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the Decision and the Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR. No. 36789 dated 4 September 2015 and 7 January 2016, respectively, the instant Petition is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED. J. Peralta, on official leave. SaCIDT
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante with Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao and Carmelita Salandanan Manahan concurring, Rollo, pp. 39-59.
2. Id. at 61-62.
3. Penned by Presiding Judge Roberto A. Escaro, id. at 85-93.
4. Court of Appeals Decision dated 4 September 2015, id. at 40-41.
5. Id. at 147-150.
6. Id. at 153-160.
7. Id. at 41.
8. RTC Consolidated Judgment dated 4 June 2014, id. at 86-87.
9. Id. at 87.
10. Id. at 87-88.
11. Id. at 88.
12. Id. at 88-89.
13. Id. at 92-93.
14. Id. at 58.
15. Id. at 50, 52, 54, 56 and 58.
16. Petition for Review on Certiorari dated 10 March 2016, id. at 22.
17. People v. Apattad, 671 Phil. 95, 112 (2011).
18. People v. Campomanes, G.R. No. 187741, 8 August 2010, 627 SCRA 494, 504.
19. People v. Opiana, G.R. No. 200797, 12 January 2015.
20. G.R. No. 200877, 12 November 2014.
21. 669 Phil. 241, 253 (2011).
22. 624 Phil. 289, 304 (2010).