FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 254842. June 23, 2021.]
RIZALI AYAPANA MONDRAGON A.K.A. "TAGODONG/DOGONG", petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 23, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 254842 (Rizali Ayapana Mondragon a.k.a. "Tagodong/Dogong,"Petitioner, v. People of the Philippines, Respondent.) — After a review of the records and the issues submitted by the parties, the Court resolves to partly grant the petition 1 and affirm with modifications the Decision 2 dated 21 November 2019 and Resolution 3 dated 26 October 2020 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB CR No. 03161.
Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, 4 as amended by RA 10640, 5 the applicable law at the time of the commission of the offenses, 6 requires, among others, that: the marking, physical inventory, and photograph-taking of the seized items be conducted immediately after the seizure and confiscation of the same. RA 10640 now demands the presence of just two (2) of the required insulating witnesses: an elected public official, and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media. The accused or his/her counsel is likewise required to be present during the conduct of the physical inventory and taking of photographs of the seized items. 7
We find that the prosecution was able to prove compliance with the foregoing requirements: (1) the seized items were immediately marked by Alexander Arias (PO3 Arias) while PO3 Mark Pateno (PO3 Pateno) conducted inventory and took photographs of the same, in the presence of Barangay Captain Yvonne Feliciano Feliciano, two (2) Barangay tanods, media representative Arnold Bustamante, and Rizali Mondragon (petitioner). 8
Moreover, the Court finds the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved with the police officers' compliance with the chain of custody requirements, from its seizure up to its presentation in court.
However, while the prosecution was able to establish petitioner's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Art. II of RA 9165, mere possession of drug paraphernalia is not enough to convict petitioner under Section 12, Art. II of the same law. In Cuico v. People, 9 it was held that while it is true that Section 12, Art. II of RA 9165 punishes the possession of drug paraphernalia, it does not mean that forensic testing may completely be dispensed with.
In this case, there was no laboratory conducted, confirming traces of illegal drugs, on the following drug paraphernalias seized during the implementation of the search warrant, to wit: two (2) pcs. white plastic container; two (2) packs of 2x3 plastic pack; two (2) pcs. aluminum striped thin foil; five (5) pcs. of striped tissue paper; one (1) pack of small transparent plastic sachet; two (2) pcs. of improvised plastic scoop; one (1) pc. improvised shabu breaker; four (4) pcs. disposable lighter; and one (1) pair of scissors. Thus, as held in the recent case of Cuico v. People, there exists a reasonable ground to believe that said items were possessed for lawful purposes. 10
WHEREFORE, the Petition is PARTLY GRANTED. Accordingly, the Decision dated 21 November 2019 and Resolution dated 26 October 2020 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB CR No. 03161, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS.
In Criminal Case No. CBU-106334, the conviction of petitioner Rizali Ayapana Mondragon a.k.a. "Tagodong/Dogong" for violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 is AFFIRMED. However, the prosecution failed to establish petitioner's guilt for violation of Section 12, Article II of RA 9165 in Criminal Case No. CBU-106335. Thus, petitioner is hereby ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 10-33.
2.Id. at 91-104; penned by Associate Justice Carlito B. Calpatura and concurred in by Associate Justices Gabriel T. Ingles and Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap of the Special Nineteenth (19th) Division, Court of Appeals, Cebu.
3.Id. at 122-123.
4. Entitled "An Act Instituting the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, Repealing Republic Act No. 6425, Otherwise Known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as Amended, Providing Funds Therefor, and for Other Purposes," approved on 23 January 2002.
5. Entitled "An Act to Further Strengthen the Anti-Drug Campaign of the Government, Amending for the Purpose Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, Otherwise Known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,"" approved on 15 July 2014.
6. The Information alleged that the offenses were committed on 20 October 2014.
7.SeePeople v. Mamuyac, Jr., G.R. No. 234035, 19 August 2019 [Per J. Carpio]; The amended Section 21 now states:
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 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 [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 and custody over said items.
xxx xxx xxx (Emphasis supplied)
8.Rollo, p. 44.
9. G.R. No. 232293, 09 December 2020 [Per J. Caguioa].
10.Id.