THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 260590. September 28, 2022.]
RENELL MANALO y GARCIA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated September 28, 2022, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 260590 (Renell Manalo y Garcia v. People of the Philippines). — Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 dated June 24, 2022 filed by Renell Manalo y Garcia (Manalo), assailing the Decision 2 dated September 22, 2021 and the Resolution 3 dated April 27, 2022 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12974, which affirmed the Joint Decision 4 dated September 19, 2018 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Pablo City, Laguna, Branch 32, convicting Manalo for violating Sections 11 and 12, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
Factual Antecedents
Manalo was charged with violation of Sections 11 and 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 before the RTC. The accusatory portions of the Informations read as follows:
Criminal Case No. 23378-SP (16)
That on or about September 6, 2016 in Alaminos, Laguna and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously possess nineteen plastic sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride, weighing 18.4 grams, a dangerous drug without the corresponding authority of law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
Criminal Case No. 22379-SP (16)
That on or about September 6, 2016 in Alaminos, Laguna and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously possess one improvised water pipe/tooter containing shabu residue, a paraphernalia used in consuming and/or sniffing dangerous drug into the body, without the corresponding authority of law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 6
Version of the Prosecution
During trial, the prosecution presented PO1 Melvin Jon Bulao (PO1 Bulao) and PO3 Darwin Cerilla (PO3 Cerilla) as its witnesses. According to the prosecution, on September 6, 2016, members of the Alaminos Municipal Police Station proceeded to the house of Manalo to serve Search Warrant No. L757 (16). 7 The search warrant provided that there existed probable cause for violation of R.A. No. 9165 and ordered the immediate search of Manalo's house and the seizure of dangerous drugs and paraphernalia which would be found therein. 8
Upon arrival at Manalo's house, the police officers, together with a representative from the National Prosecution Service, a media representative, and the Barangay Chairman of Barangay San Roque, Alaminos, Laguna, saw Manalo with his common-law wife. The police officers then explained the contents of the search warrant and gave him a copy thereof. 9
After securing Manalo's permission, the police officers entered the house and started their search. While searching the master bedroom on the second floor, the police officers found a pink pouch containing 19 pieces of heat-sealed plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance suspected as shabu. PO1 Bulao immediately marked the items with "RGM-1" to "RGM-19" in the presence of Manalo and the mandatory witnesses. Thereafter, the police officers found a black pouch where an improvised tooter and money in different denominations, amounting to P2,870.00, were recovered. The items were then marked with "RGM-20." The police officers placed all seized items in an evidence bag, and informed Manalo of his constitutional rights. Notably, during the duration of the search and seizure, PO3 Cerilla took photographs of all the seized items. The police officers then prepared the Receipt/Inventory of Property Seized and Certificate of Good Conduct Search, which were signed by Manalo and the mandatory witnesses. Copies thereof were, likewise, given to Manalo's common-law wife and the mandatory witnesses. 10
Upon returning to the police station, the police officers recorded the implementation of the search warrant. They also brought Manalo and the seized items to the Provincial Crime Laboratory for examination. After the examination, the contents of the 19 pieces of heat-sealed plastic sachets were confirmed to be shabu, and the tooter tested positive for shabu residue. 11
Version of the Defense
The defense presented Manalo and Barangay Chairman Ricardo Dionglay, Jr. (Dionglay) as its witnesses. 12
Manalo testified that at around 4:00 a.m., he was sleeping in his house when he heard a loud banging noise on the door. Upon checking, several men who introduced themselves as police officers entered his house and proceeded directly to the master bedroom. Once they entered, Manalo was handcuffed. According to Manalo, the police officers were unable to find anything. 13
At around 8:00 a.m., Barangay Chairman Dionglay arrived. The police officers then presented the search warrant to him, and asked him to sign the same. Thereafter, the police officers again went to the master bedroom at the second floor, and there, they allegedly found 19 pieces of heat-sealed transparent sachets containing shabu. Manalo was then brought to the police station. 14
Meanwhile, Barangay Chairman Dionglay testified that when he arrived at Manalo's house, the things therein were already scattered and it appeared that the police officers already started their search. He, likewise, stated that the search warrant was not presented to him. 15
Ruling of the RTC
On September 19, 2018, the RTC rendered its Joint Decision, 16 the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds the accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 23378-SP (16) for illegal possession of illegal drugs under Republic Act 9165, and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment, and imposes upon him a fine of Four Hundred Thousand Pesos (P400,000.00).
Also, this Court finds the accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 23379-SP (16) for illegal possession of drug paraphernalia under Section 12, Article II of Republic Act 9165, and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of Six months and One day to Four years, and imposes upon him a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00).
The illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia seized from the accused shall be destroyed in accordance with the guidelines promulgated by the Dangerous Drugs Board. The recovered money in the amount of P2,870.00 shall be turned over to the National Treasury.
SO ORDERED.17 (Emphases and underscoring in the original)
In convicting Manalo, the RTC gave credence to the testimonies of the police officers. As it was able to observe the demeanor of all the witnesses, the RTC found that the witnesses of the prosecution were more credible than the witnesses of the defense. Likewise, the RTC noted that law enforcers are presumed to have regularly performed their duties, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. 18
The RTC also explained that the prosecution presented overwhelming pieces of evidence showing that the accused violated Sections 11 and 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The RTC observed that the money recovered, the improvised tooter, and the 19 pieces of heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing shabu, with a total weight of 18.4 grams, undeniably showed that Manalo was into illegal activities. 19
Moreover, the RTC found that the search and seizure conducted by the police officers were valid, especially considering the fact that the Certificate of Good Conduct Search and the Receipt/Inventory of Property Seized were all signed by Manalo and the mandatory witnesses. The photographs taken also positively show that the search was conducted legally and properly. 20
Finally, the RTC held that the prosecution was able to establish all the elements of the crimes charged. 21
Appeal before the CA
Upon the denial of Manalo's Motion for Reconsideration, 22 Manalo elevated the case before the CA. In his Appellant's Brief, 23 he raised the following issues:
A) WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT A QUO COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN HOLDING THAT THE EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION IS SUFFICIENT TO CONVICT THE APPELLANT FOR VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 11 AND 12, ARTICLE II, R.A. NO. 9165? 24
B) WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT A QUO WAS CORRECT IN UPHOLDING THE PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT OVER AND ABOVE THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE ACCORDED TO THE APPELLANT? 25
C) WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT A QUO VENTURED INTO SPECULATION THAT APPELLANT WAS INTO ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES BECAUSE OF THE ALLEGED FINDING OF THE 19 PIECES OF SACHETS OF SHABU, 1 TOOTER, AND THE AMOUNT OF P2,870.00? 26
D) WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT A QUO COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS [A] VALID AND PROPER SEARCH ON THE HOUSE OF THE APPELLANT? 27
E) WHETHER OR NOT THE ALLEGED INCONSISTENCIES IN THE TESTIMONIES OF THE DEFENSE IS MATERIAL AND SUBSTANTIAL TO WARRANT DISCREDITING THEIR TESTIMONIES? 28
On September 22, 2021, the CA rendered its Decision, 29 denying Manalo's appeal and affirming his conviction. 30
The CA found that all the elements of the crimes charged were duly proven by the prosecution. As regards the supposed inconsistencies of the testimonies of the witnesses of the prosecution, the CA held that such inconsistencies merely refer to trivial matters, which do not affect the material elements of the crimes. 31
Meanwhile, as regards Manalo's argument that the search and seizure were invalid because Barangay Chairman Dionglay was supposedly not present during the search, the CA emphasized that the documentary evidence on record belies Manalo's contention. As noted by the RTC, the Certificate of Good Conduct Search, which specifically states: "that, I was present at all times and witnessed the conduct of the search, which was done in an orderly manner, no unnecessary force was made nor employed, nobody was hurt neither anything was lost or taken without proper receipt," and "that, the search was conducted in accordance with the law x x x," were duly signed by Manalo, Barangay Chairman Dionglay, and the other mandatory witnesses. 32
Manalo moved for reconsideration, 33 but the same was denied by the CA in its Resolution 34 dated April 27, 2022.
The Instant Petition
On June 24, 2022, Manalo filed the instant petition, arguing that the CA gravely erred in not finding that the police officers violated Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution and Section 8, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court in the implementation of the search warrant, rendering the evidence inadmissible. 35
Thus, the sole issue in this case is whether the CA erred in affirming the RTC's Joint Decision, convicting Manalo of violation of Sections 11 and 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, and finding that the search and seizure conducted were valid.
The Court's Ruling
After a judicious review of the records of the case, the Court resolves to deny the petition for Manalo's failure to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error when it affirmed the RTC's Joint Decision convicting him for violation of Sections 11 and 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, and finding that the search and seizure conducted were valid.
It is well-settled that findings of fact of the RTC are entitled great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal. 36 More so, the Court will not disturb the factual findings of the RTC when the CA affirmed the same. As held in Libuit v. People: 37
Factual findings and conclusions of the trial court and the Court of Appeals are entitled to great weight and respect, and will not be disturbed on review by us, in the absence of any clear showing that the lower courts overlooked certain facts or circumstances which would substantially affect the disposition of the case. The jurisdiction of this Court over cases elevated from the Court of Appeals is limited to reviewing or revising errors of law ascribed to the Court of Appeals. The factual findings of the appellate court generally are conclusive, and carry even more weight when said court affirms the findings of the trial court, absent any showing that the findings are totally devoid of support in the record or that they are so glaringly erroneous as to constitute grave abuse of discretion. 38 (Emphases supplied, citation omitted)
Here, both the RTC and the CA judiciously ruled that the search and seizure conducted by the police officers were valid. Both the RTC and the CA, likewise, found that the prosecution was able to establish Manalo's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the Court finds no reason to depart from those findings.
In any event, a review of the records of the case leads to the same conclusions.
First, as regards the validity of the search and seizure, it is worthy to recall that during trial, the prosecution presented documentary exhibits which demonstrated that the search and seizure were conducted in accordance with the law. Particularly, the prosecution presented the Certificate of Good Conduct Search and the Receipt/Inventory of Property Seized, which were duly signed by Manalo, and the mandatory witnesses. The prosecution, likewise, presented photographs showing that Manalo and all the mandatory witnesses, including Barangay Chairman Dionglay, were present during the search and seizure. In stark contrast, the defense merely presented the testimonies of Manalo and Barangay Chairman Dionglay, without any further substantiation or proof. At best, the defense's denial that Barangay Chairman Dionglay was present during the search and seizure, thus making the same invalid, is self-serving and deserves scant consideration from the Court.
In People v. Masubay, 39 the Court explicitly stated that "denial is inherently a weak defense as it is negative and self-serving."40 Similarly, in People v. Camarino, 41 the Court held that "[t]he defense of denial is treated as a self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters." 42
In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that the CA did not commit any reversible error when it affirmed the RTC's ruling that the search and seizure conducted were valid.
Second, as regards Manalo's guilt for violation of Sections 11 and 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the Court also concurs with the findings of the RTC and the CA that Manalo's guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The elements of a violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 are: (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 said drug. 43 Meanwhile, for a violation of Section 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the following elements must be established: (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. 44
In this case, all the above-mentioned elements were proven: first, the 19 pieces of heat-sealed plastic sachets containing shabu, with a total weight of 18.4 grams, and the drug paraphernalia were found in the possession of Manalo; second, there was no showing that Manalo had legal authority to possess the shabu and the drug paraphernalia; and third, the fact that the shabu and the drug paraphernalia were found in his control and possession shows that he freely and consciously possessed the same.
Finally, as regards the penalty imposed, the Court agrees with the RTC and the CA's rulings, as the same are in accordance with law.
Sections 11 and 12, Article II of R. A. No. 9165 provide:
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
(5) 50 grams or more of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu";
xxx xxx xxx
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be graduated as follows:
(1) Life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), if the quantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu" is ten (10) grams or more but less than fifty (50) grams;
xxx xxx xxx
Section 12. Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs. — The penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and a fine ranging from Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) to Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess or have under his/her control any equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body: x x x
All things considered, the Court finds no compelling reason to reverse and set aside the dispositions of the RTC and the CA.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari dated June 24, 2022 is DENIED. The Decision dated September 22, 2021 and the Resolution dated April 27, 2022 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12974, which affirmed the Joint Decision dated September 19, 2018 of the Regional Trial Court of San Pablo City, Laguna, Branch 32, finding Renell Manalo y Garcia GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Sections 11 and 12, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002" are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 30-47.
2. Id. at 9-25. Penned by Associate Justice Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez, with Associate Justices Louis P. Acosta and Bonifacio S. Pascua, concurring.
3. Id. at 27-28.
4. Id. at 135-152.
5. Id. at 10.
6. Id.
7. Id. at 81. Issued by Executive Judge Agripino G. Morga.
8. Id.
9. Id. at 11.
10. Id.
11. Id. at 12.
12. Id.
13. Id. at 13.
14. Id.
15. Id. at 13-14.
16. Id. at 135-152.
17. Id. at 151-152.
18. Id. at 144.
19. Id. at 146.
20. Id. at 147.
21. Id. at 149-150.
22. Id. at 153-157.
23. Id. at 161-180.
24. Id. at 169-170.
25. Id. at 170.
26. Id.
27. Id.
28. Id.
29. Id. at 9-25.
30. Id. at 24.
31. Id. at 16-20.
32. Id. at 20.
33. Id. at 67-80.
34. Id. at 27-28.
35. Id. at 35.
36. People v. Lumikid, G.R. No. 242695, June 23, 2020; People v. Credo, G.R. No. 230778, July 22, 2019.
37. 506 Phil. 591 (2005).
38. Id. at 599.
39. G.R. No. 248875, September 3, 2020.
40. Id.
41. G.R. No. 222655, December 9, 2020.
42. Id.
43. People v. Dejos, G.R. No. 237423, October 12, 2020.
44. Cuico v. People, G.R. No. 232293, December 9, 2020.