SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 207534. June 27, 2016.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ARNULFO ABAGAT y SACAYAN, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 27 June 2016 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 207534 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, v. ARNULFO ABAGAT y SACAYAN, accused-appellant. — We resolve the appeal of accused-appellant Arnulfo Abagat y Sacayan (Abagat) assailing the September 28, 2012 decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04467.
The Case
In two separate informations, Abagat was charged for illegal possession of shabu and of drug paraphernalia. He pleaded not guilty to both charges.
The evidence for the prosecution reveals that on March 6, 2008, at around 6:30 P.M., police operatives, armed with Search Warrant Nos. 2008-009 & 2008-010, raided Abagat's house located at Dimasalang St., Sta. Cruz, Naga City. SPO1 Feliciano Aguilar (SPO1 Aguilar) narrated that Abagat and another man tried to flee through the back door of the house upon seeing that SPO1 Aguilar had already entered the house. Shortly after, SPO1 Aguilar apprehended Abagat and ordered the latter to stay in the kitchen while he waited for the other members of the raiding team to come in. In the presence of barangay authorities, media personnel, and the other members of the raiding team, the search warrants were read and explained to Abagat.
Thereafter, SPO1 Aguilar asked Abagat to bring out all the illegal items stated in the search warrant warning him that they would eventually find them. Abagat, in turn, pointed to a drawer at a nearby table where the police officers discovered the following items: [1] a red box containing two (2) plastic sachets containing a white crystalline substance; [2] eleven (11) small plastic sachets also containing a white crystalline substance; [3] bundles of peso bills amounting to Php83,700.00 inside a plastic container, [4] two (2) digital weighing scales; [5] sixty (60) pieces of empty sachets believed to contain shabu residue; [6] four (4) disposable lighters; [7] one (1) used candle; and [8] one (1) pair of scissors. When asked if he had other illegal items in his possession, Abagat brought out of the refrigerator a rolled aluminum foil and an improvised tooter.
After the inventory and photograph of the confiscated items at the crime scene, Abagat and his companion were brought to the police station. His companion, however, was later released. The incident was recorded in the police blotter and the appropriate charges were prepared against Abagat.
When the seized drugs were eventually examined in the crime laboratory, it was discovered that the plastic sachets contained a total of 11.2159 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu.
Abagat, on the other hand, gave a different version of what happened. He said that the other man arrested with him had come to pay the money he owed Abagat. At that point, they both heard somebody trying to open the door. Abagat's visitor instinctively ran towards the kitchen bringing with him a big plastic bag he was already carrying. When Abagat followed to help open the kitchen door, the police officers, were already inside, poked their guns at them and ordered them not to move.
Abagat alleged that his visitor was allowed to leave the house and that he did not anymore notice what happened to the plastic bag the latter was carrying at that time. He further claimed that he did not see what the policemen were doing inside his house because he was instructed to remain in the kitchen.
At the police station, Abagat denied that he voluntarily surrendered money, drugs and the other items allegedly found inside his house and added that he did not know where those items came from. DACcIH
On March 4, 2010, the RTC rendered judgment convicting Abagat for illegal possession of dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia, defined and punished under Sections 11 & 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. 2 Accordingly, the trial court sentenced Abagat to life imprisonment for possessing 11.2159 grams of shabu, and six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years for illegal possession of drug paraphernalia. He was also ordered to pay a fine of P400,000.00 and P10,000.00 for the respective crimes.
The CA affirmed Abagat's conviction for illegal possession of shabu but acquitted him for possessing drug paraphernalia. The appellate court found that the integrity and evidentiary value of the drug paraphernalia were not preserved as there were gaps in the chain of custody. While there was enough evidence on record showing how the subject drugs were handled, no similar evidence was presented for the possession of drug paraphernalia. Hence, Abagat filed the present appeal questioning only his conviction for illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
In his present appeal, Abagat mainly argues that the prosecution failed to prove the integrity and identity of the alleged confiscated shabu and, consequently, his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Our Ruling
We see no merit in Abagat's appeal.
For the successful prosecution of illegal possession of dangerous drugs the following essential elements must be established: (a) the accused is in possession of an item or object that is identified to be a prohibited or dangerous drug; (b) such possession is not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously possesses the said drug. 3
Possession, under our jurisdiction, includes not only actual possession, but also constructive possession. Actual possession exists when the drug is in the immediate physical possession or control of the accused. On the other hand, constructive possession exists when the drug is under the dominion and control of the accused or when he has the right to exercise dominion and control over the place where it is found. 4 The finding of a dangerous drug in the house or within the premises of the house of the accused is prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi and is enough to convict in the absence of a satisfactory explanation. 5
In the present case, the shabu seized were found inside the house of Abagat, specifically inside the drawer he pointed to when SPO1 Aguilar initially asked him where the drugs were located. The fact that Abagat had dominion over the place and knew exactly where the drugs were to be found gives rise to the presumption that he had dominion over the drug itself. Thus, we affirm the findings of the lower courts that the prosecution, based on the evidence on record, was able to prove that Abagat knowingly possessed illegal drugs in his house.
Moreover, the existence of the corpus delicti or the dangerous drug itself must likewise be established to prove that an accused possessed a dangerous drug. Here, what was discovered inside the drawer was a total of thirteen (13) plastic sachets suspected to contain shabu. We find that the existence of these drugs was proven with reasonable certainty as the police officers substantially complied with Section 21, Article 11 of R.A. No. 9165 and the chain of custody rule.
Section 21 (1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 6 is implemented by the following provision in the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165:
(a) The apprehending officer/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: 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, further, 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 of and custody over said items; [emphasis ours] HSCATc
There is a proviso in the implementing rules stating that when it is shown that there exist justifiable grounds and proof that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence have been preserved, the seized items can still be used in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused. 7 Noncompliance with the directive of Section 21, Article 11 of R.A. No. 9165 is not necessarily fatal to a prosecution's case, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. 8 What assumes primary importance in drug cases is the prosecution's proof, to the point of moral certainty, that the prohibited drug presented in court as evidence against the accused is the same item recovered from him when he was arrested. 9
Based on the testimonies of the police officers, the thirteen (13) plastic sachets of shabu were laid on the table for marking and inventory right after SPO1 Aguilar found them inside the drawer. In the presence of Abagat and other witnesses, the seized drugs were marked with "LCO-A 6:30 PM 3-6-08" to "LCO-M 6:30 PM 3-6-08." Photographs were likewise taken of all the confiscated items. An inventory was prepared which was signed by the police officers, barangay authorities, and media personnel. Abagat also affixed his thumbmark to this document.
After the marking and physical inventory of the seized drugs, the police officers brought them to the clerk of court of the trial court that issued the search warrants.
After the thirteen (13) plastic sachets of shabu were withdrawn from the custody of the trial court, they were brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory in Legazpi City. The police officer who had custody over the drugs testified that he personally handed them over to the forensic chemist at the crime laboratory. The letter-request for examination and the chemistry report shows that those specimens examined by the forensic chemist in this case had the same markings placed at the scene of the crime. EHaASD
Lastly, the police officers who handled the seized drugs were presented in court and were able to positively identify them because of the markings made at the crime scene.
Based on the foregoing, we agree with the lower courts that the integrity and evidentiary value of the thirteen (13) plastic sachets of shabu were preserved. We, therefore rule that the corpus delicti of illegal possession has been sufficiently proven in this case.
Finally, Abagat's defense of denial and frame-up is unmeritorious being inherently weak. Denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is negative and self-serving which deserves no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value over the testimonies of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. 10 As for the frame-up defense, which is likewise viewed with disfavor, Abagat failed to show any evidence of ill motive on the part of the police officers who searched his house. Abagat himself declared that he did not know the policemen who executed the search warrants.
All told, the conviction of Abagat for illegal possession of dangerous drugs stands.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we DENY the appeal and AFFIRM the September 28, 2012 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04467 in toto.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
*Del Castillo, J., on leave.
1. Rollo, pp. 2-15; penned by Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorsogon, and concurred in by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison and Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid.
2. CA rollo, pp. 59-76.
3. People v. Posada, G.R. No. 196052, September 2, 2015, citing People v. Tuan, G.R. No. 176066, August 11, 2010, 628 SCRA 226, 241. See also People v. Montevirgen, G.R. No. 189840, December 11, 2013, 712 SCRA 459, 467-468; People v. Bernardino, 617 Phil. 475, 499 (2009).
4. See People v. Tira, G.R. No. 139615, May 28, 2004, 430 SCRA 134.
5. See People v. Torre, G.R. No. 170837, September 12, 2006, 501 SCRA 591.
6. (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.
7. People v. Montevirgen, supra note 13 at 470, citing People v. Manalao, G.R. No. 187496, February 6, 2013, 690 SCRA 106, 119.
8. People v. Bara, G.R. No. 184808, November 14, 2011.
9. People v. De Jesus, G.R. No. 191753, September 17, 2012, 680 SCRA 680, 691, citing People v. Bautista, G.R. No. 191266, June 6, 2011, 650 SCRA 689, 708.
10. People v. Salvador, G.R. No. 190621, February 10, 2014, sc.judiciary.gov.ph.