THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 220862. October 3, 2018.]
MARY GRACE MANUEL Y RAQUID, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated October 3, 2018, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 220862 — (MARY GRACE MANUEL Y RAQUID, petitionerv. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent). — In prosecutions of illegal drugs, great weight is given to the testimony of the police officer who is presumed to have done the job in a regular manner.
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 assailing the Court of Appeals June 5, 2015 Decision 2 and September 28, 2015 Resolution 3 in CA-G.R. CR No. 36528, which affirmed Mary Grace Manuel y Raquid's (Manuel) guilt for the crime of violation of Section 11 4 of Republic Act No. 9165.
An Information was filed against Manuel for violation of Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165, thus:
On the 20th day of January 2013, in the City of Makati, the Philippines, accused . . . not being lawfully authorized to possess or otherwise use any dangerous drug and without the corresponding prescription, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have in her possession, direct custody, and control zero point ninety[-]five (0.95) gram of dried marijuana leaves and fruiting tops, a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law. CAIHTE
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
On arraignment, Manuel pleaded not guilty. Pre-trial was set on April 16, 2013 and trial on the merits ensued. 6
The prosecution presented as its witness JO3 Evamarie Tenedora (JO3 Tenedora), who testified that she was in charge of conducting routine search of visitors entering Makati City Jail on January 20, 2013. At around 3:40 p.m., Manuel signed a Waiver of Right to Body Search for the routine "strip search" in order to enter. 7
During the search, JO3 Tenedora felt an object protruding from Manuel's midsection; thus, Manuel was asked to open the zipper of her denim pants, which revealed a plastic sachet containing marijuana. She was arrested immediately. 8
Manuel was apprised of her constitutional rights and the seized items were turned over to the Jail Intelligence and Investigation Unit, where they were inventoried and marked as "ECT 01/20/2013" in the presence of Manuel and Barangay Kagawad Maribel Antonio (Kagawad Antonio). 9
Manuel and the seized items were formally turned over to SPO1 Rafael Castillo (SPO1 Castillo) of the Makati Police Station for further investigation and the filing of appropriate charges. 10
On the other hand, Manuel testified for the defense. She narrated that she went to Makati City Jail to visit her husband. Before entering, she deposited her cellphone at a sari-sari store, where an old woman requested her to bring two (2) cigarette sticks inside the jail and "to put [them] among the plants below the coconut tree near the fish pond." 11
A certain "Ate Hazel," the sari-sari store owner, warned her on the illegality of the items, but mentioned that she should be fine as long as the items were hidden well. 12
Manuel hid the cigarettes and proceeded to Makati City Jail, but was surprised when JO3 Tenedora required her to undergo a body search where the cigarettes were subsequently discovered. She was shocked when JO3 Tenedora told her that the cigarettes were marijuana leaves. 13
On the same day, Manuel was brought to Ospital ng Makati for medical examination and to Scene of the Crime Operatives for drug testing. She noticed that the items seized from her were left at the Station Anti-Illegal Drug Special Operation Task Group. 14 DETACa
On March 20, 2014, the Regional Trial Court rendered a Decision 15 finding Manuel guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165. The dispositive portion read:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the court hereby finds the accused MARY GRACE MANUEL y ROQUID, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section 11, Article II, of R.A. No. 9165 and sentences her to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months as maximum as well as to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00).
The Branch Clerk of Court is directed to transmit the plastic sachets containing marijuana subject of this case to the PDEA for said agency's appropriate disposition.
SO ORDERED. 16
Manuel appealed to the Court of Appeals. She claimed that there was a break in the chain of custody rule, a non-compliance to Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. 17
The Court of Appeals found that all the elements of illegal possession of prohibited drugs were present. In fact, Manuel even admitted to bringing the prohibited items inside the jail premises. 18
However, the Court of Appeals stated that Section 21 19 of Republic Act No. 9165 was inapplicable because it "delineates the mandatory procedural safeguards that are applicable in cases of buy-bust operations which is not the case here." 20
The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals June 5, 2015 Decision read:
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED and the assailed Decision dated March 20, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 65 of Makati City in Criminal Case No. 13-146 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 21 aDSIHc
On July 13, 2015, Manuel filed a Motion for Reconsideration, 22 praying that she be acquitted of the crime charged. However, her motion was denied in the Court of Appeals September 28, 2015 Resolution. 23
On November 26, 2015, Manuel filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before this Court. 24
The issues for this Court's resolution are:
First, whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the conviction of petitioner Mary Grace Manuel y Raquid for violation of Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165; and
Second, whether or not Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 only applies to seizure of illegal drugs during buy-bust operations.
I
This Court rules in the affirmative. The Court of Appeals correctly upheld petitioner's conviction.
First, the prosecution effectively proved that all the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs were present:
(1) [T]he accused is in possession of an item or object, which is identified to be prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. 25 (Citation omitted)
Petitioner was found in possession of marijuana leaves after she voluntarily subjected herself to routine inspection before entering Makati City Jail. She had no authority and yet freely possessed the marijuana leaves. In People v. Lagman, 26 this Court explained that "illegal possession of regulated drugs is mala prohibita, and, as such, criminal intent is not an essential element." 27
Second, in the case of People v. Trinidad, 28 this Court ruled:
[M]ere possession of a prohibited drug constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of any satisfactory explanation. 29 (Citation omitted)
Petitioner was unable to provide a satisfactory explanation. Her reasoning is flawed. She narrated that a month before she was apprehended, JO3 Tenedora prohibited her from entering Makati City Jail because the former was pregnant. Due to this incident, JO3 Tenedora developed a grudge against her, a motive to frame her up. 30 ETHIDa
On the contrary, by her own admission, she testified that she knew that she was bringing prohibited items into Makati City Jail, but she persisted in the hopes of not getting caught.
Thus, this Court rules that the Court of Appeals was correct in affirming that the Regional Trial Court correctly gave credence to the testimony of JO3 Tenedora. In People v. Fernandez, 31 this Court explained:
Indeed, as intimated by the appellant, prosecutions involving illegal drugs largely depend on the credibility of police officers serving as prosecution witnesses. When a case involves violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act, "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 be evidence to the contrary." In this regard and as this Court held in People v. Dela Cruz, "the rule is that the findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings, are accorded respect, if not conclusive effect. This is more true if such findings were affirmed by the appellate court, because in such a case, said findings are generally binding upon this Court." 32 (Citations omitted)
II
With regard to the issue on chain of custody, petitioner argues that the police officers failed to comply with the mandate of Republic Act No. 9165, Section 21 since no representative from the Department of Justice or media was present during the inventory and photographing of the seized items, as admitted by JO3 Tenedora. 33
In addition, petitioner contends that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody because for seized drugs to be admissible, the prosecution must show, by records or testimony, the continuous whereabouts of the drugs, from the time they came into possession of the police officers until they were offered in court as evidence. 34
Petitioner alleges that the prosecution failed to establish the movement of the seized items from JO3 Tenedora to SPO1 Castillo and back to JO3 Tenedora. 35 It also failed to establish the manner by which the seized drugs were handled in the forensic chemist's custody. 36 cSEDTC
This Court rules in the negative. The evidence presented proved that the chain of custody was not broken. JO3 Tenedora clearly narrated that she turned over the seized drugs to SPO1 Castillo. She also testified that she was the one who personally delivered them to the forensic chemist. 37
In Sales v. People, 38 this Court ruled that the chain of custody was not broken because:
As a mode of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the presentation and admission of the seized prohibited drug as an exhibit be preceded by evidence to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. This requirement is essential to obviate the possibility of substitution as well as to ensure that doubts regarding the identity of the evidence are removed through the monitoring and tracking of the movements and custody of the seized prohibited item, from the accused, to the police, to the forensic laboratory for examination, and to its presentation in evidence in court. Ideally, the custodial chain would include testimony about every link in the chain or movements of the illegal drug, from the moment of seizure until it is finally adduced in evidence. It cannot be overemphasized, however, that atestimony about a perfect chain is almost always impossible to obtain.39 (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)
Therefore, integrity of the evidence is presumed preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that evidence was tampered with. 40 The burden of proving that the evidence was tampered with lies with petitioner. Clearly, she failed to overcome this presumption.
Not only did petitioner fail to present evidence supporting her claim of "frame-up," but there was also an immediate inventory of the evidence in her presence and in the presence of Kagawad Antonio, an independent witness, before it was turned over to SPO1 Castillo of Station Anti-Illegal Drug Special Operation Task Group of the Makati Police Station and then forwarded to the crime laboratory for testing.
Nonetheless, this Court disagrees with the Court of Appeals' pronouncement that Republic Act No. 9165, Section 21 is applicable only in buy-bust operations and not in the conduct of body searches of jail visitors.
The wording of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 is clear:
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[.] (Emphasis supplied) SDAaTC
This provision applies to all dangerous drugs confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered. Further, the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology Standard Operating Procedures No. 2010-05 dated September 16, 2010 provides for the procedure on the Conduct of Body Searches on Jail Visitors. 41 It explicitly states that Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 is applicable when dangerous drugs are found during body searches of jail visitors. This applies to the present case because the purpose of the procedure is to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.
In conclusion, petitioner has not raised any substantial ground to warrant the remedy sought. Instead, she presents a mere rehash of arguments already considered by the lower courts. Accordingly, the Petition for Review on Certiorari should be denied for no reversible error has been committed by the Court of Appeals in its assailed June 5, 2015 Decision and September 28, 2015 Resolution.
WHEREFORE, this Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The Court of Appeals June 5, 2015 Decision and September 28, 2015 Resolution in CA-G.R. CR No. 36528 are AFFIRMED. Petitioner is GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165. She is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months as maximum, and to pay a fine of P300,000.00. AaCTcI
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 11-36.
2.Id. at 38-46. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid and concurred in by Associate Justices Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla and Socorro B. Inting of the Fourth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
3.Id. at 48-49. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla and concurred in by Associate Justices Socorro B. Inting and Melchor Quirino C. Sadang of the Special Former Fourth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
4. Rep. Act No. 9165, Sec. 11 provides:
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:
(1) 10 grams or more of opium;
(2) 10 grams or more of morphine;
(3) 10 grams or more of heroin;
(4) 10 grams or more of cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride;
(5) 50 grams or more of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu";
(6) 10 grains or more of marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil;
(7) 500 grams or more of marijuana; and
(8) 10 grams or more of other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) or "ecstasy", paramethoxyamphetamine (PMA), trimethoxyamphetamine (TMA), lysergic acid diethylamine (LSD), gamma hydroxybutyrate (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, as determined and promulgated by the Board in accordance to Section 93, Article XI of this Act.
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;
(2) Imprisonment of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are five (5) grams or more but less than ten (10) 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 three hundred (300) grams or more but less than five hundred (500) grams of marijuana; and
(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.
5.Rollo, pp. 12-13.
6.Id. at 72-73.
7.Id. at 40.
8.Id.
9.Id. During pre-trial, the parties stipulated that Kagawad Maribel Antonio was an independent witness during the conduct of the inventory. Seerollo, p. 39.
10.Id.
11.Id.
12.Id. at 74.
13.Id. at 40-41.
14.Id.
15.Id. at 72-78. The Decision, docketed as Crim. Case No. 13-146, was penned by Presiding Judge Edgardo M. Caldona of Branch 65, Regional Trial Court, Makati City.
16.Id. at 78.
17.Id. at 57.
18.Id. at 42-43.
19. Rep. Act No. 9165, Sec. 21 provides:
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;
(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination;
(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done under oath by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued within twenty-four (24) hours after the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of the dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not allow the completion of testing within the time frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided, however, That a final certification shall be issued on the completed forensic laboratory examination on the same within the next twenty-four (24) hours;
(4) After the filing of the criminal case, the Court shall, within seventy-two (72) hours, conduct an ocular inspection of the confiscated, seized and/or surrendered dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals, including the instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, and through the PDEA shall within twenty-four (24) hours thereafter proceed with the destruction or burning of 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 DOJ, civil society groups and any elected public official. The Board shall draw up the guidelines on the manner of proper disposition and destruction of such item/s which shall be borne by the offender: Provided, That those item/s of lawful commerce, as determined by the Board, shall be donated, used or recycled for legitimate purposes: Provider, further, That a representative sample, duly weighed and recorded is retained;
(5) The Board shall then issue a sworn certification as to the fact of destruction or burning of the subject item/s which, together with the representative sample/s in the custody of the PDEA, shall be submitted to the court having jurisdiction over the case. In all instances, the representative sample/s shall be kept to a minimum quantity as determined by the Board;
(6) The alleged offender or his/her representative or counsel shall be allowed to personally observe all of the above proceedings and his/her presence shall not constitute an admission of guilt. In case the said offender or accused refuses or fails to appoint a representative after due notice in writing to the accused or his/her counsel within seventy-two (72) hours before the actual burning or destruction of the evidence in question, the Secretary of Justice shall appoint a member of the public attorney's office to represent the former;
(7) After the promulgation and judgment in the criminal case wherein the representative sample/s was presented as evidence in court, the trial prosecutor shall inform the Board of the final termination of the case and, in turn, shall request the court for leave to turn over the said representative sample/s to the PDEA for proper disposition and destruction within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt of the same; and
(8) Transitory Provision: a) Within twenty-four (24) hours from the effectivity of this Act, dangerous drugs defined herein which are presently in possession of law enforcement agencies shall, with leave of court, be burned or destroyed, in the presence of representatives of the Court, DOJ, Department of Health (DOH) and the accused and/or his/her counsel, and, b) Pending the organization of the PDEA, the custody, disposition, and burning or destruction of seized/surrendered dangerous drugs provided under this Section shall be implemented by the DOH.
20. Rollo, p. 45.
21. Id. at 46.
22. Id. at 96-100.
23. Id. at 48-49.
24. Id. at 11.
25. People v. Zaragoza, G.R. No. 223142, January 17, 2018 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2018/january2018/223142.pdf 16 [Per J. Martires, Third Division].
26. 593 Phil. 617 (2008) [Per J. Carpio-Morales, En Banc].
27. Id. at 625, citing People v. Tira, 474 Phil. 152, 173-174 (2004) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., En Banc].
28. 742 Phil. 347 (2014) [Per J. Perez, First Division].
29. Id. at 357.
30. Rollo, p. 15.
31. 705 Phil. 583 (2013) [Per J. Del Castillo, Second Division].
32. Id. at 591.
33. Rollo, p. 19.
34. Id. at 22.
35. Id. at 23.
36. Id. at 27.
37. Id. at 25.
38. 703 Phil. 133 (2013) [Per J. Villarama, Jr., First Division].
39. Id. at 144.
40. See People v. Trinidad, 742 Phil. 347 (2014) [Per J. Perez, First Division].
41. BJMP Standard Operating Procedures No. 2010-05 (2010): Conduct of Body Searches on Jail Visitors provides, in part:
IX. Actions to be Taken upon Discovery of Contraband During Search of Visitors
xxx xxx xxx
C. Dangerous Drugs
1. Possession of dangerous drugs shall automatically result to denial of entry and immediate arrest of the subject visitor. Applicable procedures and/or provisions of RA 9165 otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002" shall apply.
xxx xxx xxx
3. For the custody and disposition of the confiscated/seized dangerous drugs, Section 21 of RA 9165 shall apply[.] (Emphasis supplied)