FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 247000. November 23, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. LANI ANTO y ROSAURO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated November 23, 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 247000 (People of the Philippines v. Lani Anto y Rosauro). — This is an appeal from the December 17, 2018 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01836-MIN, affirming the November 24, 2017 Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 8, of Dipolog City in Criminal Case No. 19262. The RTC convicted Lani Anto y Rosauro (Anto) of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, while in Criminal Case No. 19264, she was convicted of violation of Section 11 of the same law.
The Antecedents
On December 8, 2018, two Informations were filed charging Anto with violations of R.A. No. 9165, to wit:
Criminal Case No. 19262
That on December 5, 2014, at 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon, more or less, beside Daycare Center, Purok Mauswagon, Galas, Dipolog City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, knowing fully well that unauthorized sale and distribution of dangerous drug is punishable by law, without legal authority to sell the same did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, distribute and deliver to a poseur-buyer one (1) piece small transparent plastic sachet of Metamphetamine Hydrochloride, more popularly known as "shabu" weighing approximately 0.2059 gram, after receiving one (1) piece marked Two Hundred Peso bill bearing Serial No. PF864975 and one (1) piece Fifty Peso bill bearing Serial No. MJ604849 as payment therefore [sic], said act of the accused having been committed in violation of Section 5[,] Article II of Republic Act 9165.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 3
Criminal Case No. 19264
That on December 5, 2014 at 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon, more or less, beside Daycare Center, Purok Mauswagon, Galas, Dipolog City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, knowing fully well that unauthorized possession and control of dangerous drug is punishable by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in her possession and control two (2) big and two (2) medium size transparent plastice[sic] sachet of Metamphetamine Hydrochloride, more popularly known as "shabu," a form of dangerous drug, approximately weighing a total of 5.737 grams, without legal authority to possess the same, in gross violation of Section 11, Par. 2, Article II of R.A. 9165.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
On January 16, 2015, Anto was arraigned and pleaded not guilty to both charges. After a joint pre-trial conference, trial ensued. 5
The prosecution presented six witnesses, namely: Police Officer 1 Jacinto S. Cuizon, Jr. (PO1 Cuizon), who acted as the poseur-buyer; Police Officer 2 Lord Jericho Barral (PO2 Barral), who marked and prepared the inventory of the sachets found to contain shabu; Police Officer 2 Sampaguita Malaubang (PO2 Malaubang), the officer who frisked Anto after the buy-bust operation; Police Officer 1 Duenbar S. Donayre (PO1 Donayre), the officer who received the suspected sachets in the Zamboanga del Norte Provincial Crime Laboratory Office; Police Chief Inspector Anne Aimee T. Pilayre (PCI Pilayre), the forensic chemical officer, who examined the specimen in the suspected sachets; and Police Officer 3 Michael P. Angcon (PO3 Angcon), the evidence custodian of the said crime laboratory. 6
The prosecution alleged that in the morning of December 5, 2014, the City Anti-Illegal Drug and Special Operation Task Force of the Dipolog City Police Station received information from its confidential informant (CI) that a certain "Lani Anto" of Purok Mauswagon, Galas, Dipolog City was engaged in the illegal selling of shabu. 7 Thereafter, upon the instruction of Police Superintendent Ranie Planilla (P/Supt. Planilla), the Dipolog City Chief of Police, a briefing was conducted for a buy-bust operation to apprehend Anto. It was agreed that the CI would arrange a drug transaction with Anto and that PO1 Cuizon would act as the poseur-buyer. 8 PO1 Cuizon was then handed one P200.00 bill and one P50.00 bill to use as buy-bust money, both of which he marked. 9 CAIHTE
After the CI informed the police officers that Anto agreed to sell to him shabu at around 4 o'clock that afternoon at a location near the Day Care Center of Galas, the buy-bust team proceeded to the said area. Upon arriving at the place, the CI and PO1 Cuizon headed towards the nipa cottage, where Anto was seen playing tong-its. The rest of the buy-bust team positioned themselves strategically at a safe distance. 10
When Anto saw the CI and PO1 Cuizon approaching her, she left the cottage and met them. The CI introduced PO1 Cuizon as the buyer of shabu who immediately handed to Anto the marked money in the amount of P250.00. Anto accepted the marked money and handed to PO1 Cuizon a transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. After being convinced that the contents thereof were shabu, PO1 Cuizon then arrested Anto and introduced himself as a police officer. SPO2 Roy P. Vertudes (SPO2 Vertudes) and PO2 Barral rushed to them to help PO1 Cuizon in the arrest. Anto was also apprised of the nature and cause of her arrest, as well as her constitutional rights. 11
After the arrest, the buy-bust team requested Barangay Councilor Elmer Vallecer (Vallecer) of Barangay Galas, Merlinda Tenorio (Tenorio) from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and Joy Engoc (Engoc) from the media, to act as witnesses to the inventory. PO2 Malaubang conducted a body search on Anto and recovered, among others, four sachets containing the suspected shabu and the P250.00 marked money. Anto was once again informed of the law she violated and was apprised of her constitutional rights. 12
The seized items were then placed on a table where PO2 Barral immediately marked the same in the presence of Anto and the three invited witnesses who signed the Inventory Certificate. SPO2 Vertudes also took photographs of the proceedings. 13 The two pieces of big transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance were marked with LA-01 and LA-02, the two medium sized transparent plastic sachets were marked with LA-03 and LA-04, and the small sized transparent plastic sachet was marked with LA-BB-01 all dated 12/5/14. 14 PO2 Barral testified before the trial court that he marked the four sachets of shabu found in possession of Anto with the latter's initials "LA," the figures "01" to "04" indicating the number of sachets and the date "12/5/14" when the said sachets were taken from her. He also placed his own initials "LJB" and his signature on each of the labels of the four sachets. Moreover, PO2 Barral testified that he marked the sachet bought from Anto with "LA-BB-01-12/5/14 LJB." 15
Thereafter, the team brought Anto to a nearby hospital for physical examination and then to their station where PO2 Barral placed the items seized during the buy-bust inside his evidence locker specifically designated for items recovered from Anto. After the Request for Laboratory Examination was prepared, PO2 Barral and PO1 Cuizon brought the Request, the specimen, and Anto to the crime laboratory for examination. 16 The Request for Laboratory Examination described the gross weight of the seized items as: LA-01: 2.3595 grams, LA-02: 1.3984 grams, LA-03: 0.9001 gram, LA-04: 1.0790 grams, LA-BB-01: 0.2059 gram, described as having an overall gross weight of 5.9429 grams. 17 The Request for Examination of the five sachets was received by PO1 Donayre. Thereafter, he submitted the Request and the specimen received to the Forensic Chemist, PCI Pilayre, who examined the specimen with markings LA-01 12/5/4 LJB weighing 2.2778 g, LA-02 12/5/4 LJB weighing 0.6552 g, LA-03 12/5/4 LJB weighing 0.4618 g, LA-04 12/5/4 LJB weighing 0.6280 g, and LA-BB-01 12/5/4 LJB weighing 0.0495 g, as all positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride. 18
For her part, Anto denied the accusations against her and averred that the evidence against her were all planted. 19 She alleged that in the morning of December 5, 2014, she tended to the needs of her children and washed clothes inside the house of her live-in partner's mother. After she finished her chores at about 1:00 o'clock that afternoon, she was invited by her neighbors to play tong-its. She and her neighbors played until about 5 o'clock that afternoon when a white van and five motorcycles arrived. She was suddenly grabbed by two unidentified persons who asked her where her house was. She answered that she lived in the house of her mother-in-law and was told to bring them there. When they arrived at the house, she was asked to point to her aparador. After searching its contents, she was brought back to where she was apprehended. They eventually brought her to a hospital for check-up and, finally, to the police station. 20
On November 24, 2017, the RTC found Anto guilty of the charges lodged against her. It disposed the case as follows:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. 19262, the Court finds accused LANI ANTO y Rosauro GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the charge for violation of Sec. 5, Art. II, RA 9165, and sentences her to suffer LIFE imprisonment and to pay a fine of FIVE Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) pesos;
2. In Criminal Case No. 19264, the Court finds the same accused, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the charge for violation of Sec. 11, Art. II, RA 9165 and sentences her to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of Twelve (12) years and One (1) day[,] as minimum[,] to Twenty (20) years as[,] maximum[,] and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand (P300,000.00);
Furthermore[,] the accused is not eligible for parole pursuant to Section 2 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
Finally, all the sachets of shabu, the cash money and other paraphernalia (i.e., cellphone) used in the commission of the offense are hereby forfeited in favor of the state to be disposed in accordance with the rules.
SO ORDERED. 21
Aggrieved by the trial court's decision, Anto appealed to the CA. 22
On December 17, 2018, the CA rendered its Decision 23 affirming the judgment of the RTC. The fallo of the Decision states:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the 24 November 2017 Joint Decision of the RTC Branch 8 of Dipolog City in Criminal Case No. 19262 for violation of Section 5, R.A. 9165 and in Criminal Case No. 19264 for violation of Section 11 of the same Act are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 24
Undaunted, Anto appealed to this Court. 25
The Issues
I.
Whether accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of shabu, in violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165;
II.
Whether accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of shabu, in violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165; and DETACa
III.
Whether there was an unbroken chain of custody over the shabu specimens.
Our Ruling
The appeal has no merit.
With respect to the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 provides:
Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. — 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 sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.
xxx xxx xxx
The elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under the aforementioned provision are: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. 26
In this case, the prosecution firmly established the identity of the poseur-buyer, the identity of accused-appellant as the seller of shabu, the nature of the content of the plastic sachet as shabu, and the payment of the P250.00 marked money. Moreover, the prosecution also firmly established the consummation of the illegal sale transaction, i.e., the exchange of the marked money and the sachet of shabu.
The illegal sale took place in the context of a buy-bust operation, which has been recognized as a legitimate form of entrapment. As stated in People v. Agulay: 27
A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment which in recent years has been accepted as a valid and effective mode of apprehending drug pushers. In a buy-bust operation, the idea to commit a crime originates from the offender, without anybody inducing or prodding him to commit the offense. If carried out with due regard for constitutional and legal safeguards, a buy-bust operation deserves judicial sanction. 28
Here, the buy-bust team acted based on the information provided by the CI. Acting on this information, the buy-bust team designated PO1 Cuizon as poseur-buyer. On direct examination, PO1 Cuizon testified:
Q What happens next?
A I gave my money to her.
Q How much did you give her?
A P250.00[,] sir.
Q What was that for, why did you give her that money?
A As payment for buying shabu[.]
xxx xxx xxx
Q What did she do?
A She receives the money then she placed the money inside her wallet and she takes out a small sachet and gives it to me.
Q Can you describe to us what that sachet you mentioned was?
A White Crystalline Granules believed to be Shabu. 29
The prosecution has likewise proved the nature of the content of the small sachet as shabu, based on Chemistry Report No. D-73-2014 30 and the testimony of the Forensic Chemist, PCI Pilayre. 31
This Court finds no reversible error in the factual findings of the CA and the RTC. Hence, We are constrained to rule that Anto violated Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
With respect to the illegal possession of dangerous drugs, Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 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:
xxx xxx xxx
If the sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution or (5) 50 grams or more of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu";
xxx xxx xxx
If the sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution or 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.
The elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under the aforementioned provision are: (a) the accused was in possession of an item or object identified as a prohibited drug; (b) such possession was not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. 32 aDSIHc
The prosecution firmly established that accused-appellant was in possession of shabu when she was bodily frisked during arrest. PO2 Malaubang was the officer who frisked accused-appellant after the buy-bust operation, and she testified that she conducted the body search in the presence of representatives from the DOJ, the media, and the elected barangay official. Specifically, PO2 Malaubang testified that she found four sachets containing white crystalline granulates (later verified to be shabu) from accused-appellant, together with the marked money. PO2 Malaubang identified the sachets and marked money presented to her during her examination, as the same ones she confiscated from Anto. 33 Her testimony states:
Q With respect to the four (4) packs of white crystalline granules you said you turnover[sic] to Barral, what did he do with them?
A He marked them.
Q Can you remember what markings did he make in[sic] those four (4) packs?
A He marks[sic] LA-01; LA-02; LA-03; and LA-04.
Q You saw Barral made those markings on the four (4) packs you recovered?
A Yes, sir.
Q I have here in my possession turnover[sic] to me by the Forensic Chemist which she confirms[sic] to be all shabu the four (4) packs of shabu excluding the buy-bust evidence[.] [T]hese were marked as LA-01; LA-02; LA-03; and LA-04 in black ink. Will you examine them and tell the Court what is the relation of those items to the ones you recovered from the lady there?
(COURT INTERPRETER: Witness is examining the specimen).
A Yes, sir[.] [T]hese are the ones. 34
PO1 Cuizon, the poseur-buyer, corroborated the testimony of PO2 Malaubang. PO1 Cuizon testified that he saw two big- and two medium-sized plastic sachets containing white crystalline granules (later verified to be shabu) recovered by PO2 Malaubang from accused-appellant. PO2 Malaubang's testimony was, in turn, further collaborated by PO2 Barral, who testified that he received two pieces of big sachets and two pieces of medium sachets from PO2 Malaubang who frisked accused-appellant. 35
Further, accused-appellant did not present evidence showing that her possession of the sachets of shabu were authorized by law. 36
As to accused-appellant's free and conscious possession of the sachets of shabu, We adopt the findings of the CA, as follows:
Appellant's free and conscious possession of sachets of shabu was shown when she did not deny its[sic] ownership or possession when the said sachets were taken from her during the frisking. Neither was it shown that she asked help from the people who were present that time by informing them that the sachets were not hers and were merely planted by the police officers. We find her nonchalance when she was being arrested odd and not in accordance with natural course of things when a person is charged with something he/she did not do x x x. 37
We find no reversible errors in the factual findings of the CA and the RTC. Hence, We are constrained to rule that Anto violated Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
It is worthy to note that the buy-bust operation was conducted on December 14, 2014, or after the amendment introduced by R.A. No. 10640 took effect on August 7, 2014. 38 Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended now reads:
SEC. 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 of 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.
As such, it is now required that there be only two persons to witness the physical inventory and photographs of the seized items, which was complied with in this case. The Certificate of Inventory even shows that the same was signed by three witnesses, namely: Engoc, a media representative, Tenorio, a representative from the DOJ, and Vallecer, a barangay official. 39 Further, case law is instructive in illustrating the links in the chain that need to be established, 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. 40
With respect to the sachet of shabu subject of the illegal sale, Anto handed over the same to the poseur-buyer, PO1 Cuizon. In turn, PO1 Cuizon handed over the sachet to PO2 Barral, who conducted the inventory on the table inside an open nipa cottage where accused-appellant previously played tong-its. The testimonies of PO1 Cuizon and PO2 Barral were corroborated each other in establishing that PO1 Cuizon handed the sachet to PO2 Barral. PO2 Barral likewise testified that the sachet of shabu remained in his custody until the same was brought to their station, where it was kept safe in his locker. From the police station, PO2 Barral and PO1 Cuizon brought the said sachet to the crime laboratory, where it was received by PO1 Donayre on December 6, 2014 at 1355 hours. 41
With respect to the specimens of shabu subject of the illegal possession, PO2 Malaubang testified that after frisking accused-appellant during the arrest, she recovered four (4) sachets of shabu and the marked money from accused-appellant. PO2 Malaubang then turned over these items to PO2 Barral, who marked and inventoried the same in the presence of accused-appellant, and the three witnesses. PO1 Cuizon corroborated the testimony of PO2 Malaubang, confirming that he personally witnessed the four (4) sachets seized from Anto when the latter was being frisked by PO2 Malaubang. PO1 Cuizon also saw PO2 Barral mark the said sachets in the presence of Anto and the representatives from the DOJ, media, and the elected barangay official. PO1 Cuizon also stated that PO2 Barral took custody of the sachets until these were turned over to the crime laboratory for examination. PO2 Barral corroborated the testimonies of PO2 Malaubang and PO1 Cuizon. 42
In the crime laboratory, PO1 Donayre received a total of five sachets, subject of illegal sale and the subject of illegal possession. PO1 Donayre then checked the specimens and handed them over to the Forensic Chemist, PCI Pilayre, who examined the sachets and found them positive for shabu, as stated in the Chemistry Report No. D-73-2014. 43 The sachets were then turned-over to PO3 Angcon, the crime laboratory evidence custodian, who remained in custody of the evidence until August 9, 2015 when PCI Pilayre submitted these as evidence to the RTC. 44 ETHIDa
With respect to the weight of the shabu seized from accused-appellant, the item concerning the offense of illegal sale was found to be 0.0495 gram, while the four items for the offense of illegal possession was found to have an aggregate weight of 4.0228 grams at the laboratory. While there exists a difference in the weight of the items as indicated in the Information (0.2059 g for the crime of illegal sale and 5.737 grams in the crime of illegal possession) and the Chemistry Report, the same does not constitute as a variance that would be sufficient to acquit accused-appellant of the crimes charged. In People v. Aneslag, 45 the Court found no cause to acquit the accused by reason of the variance in the weight of the seized items as stated in the Information and as found by the forensic chemist, explaining thus:
Anent appellants' claim that the total weight of the shabu packs as alleged in the Information, i.e., 240 grams, varies substantially from the total weight as determined by the forensic chemist, i.e., 210 grams, we find the same insufficient to overcome the previous finding that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated shabu was duly preserved. As noted by the appellate court, there are a host of possible reasons for the variance such as the difference in the accuracy of the weighing scales used by the police operatives vis-à-vis the forensic chemist. We also note that: (1) as previously narrated, the subject shabu packs were twice tested by two different forensic chemists in order to expedite the proceedings as per the order of the trial court so that representative samples of the shabu were taken from the aforesaid packs by the first forensic chemist (P/Sr. Insp. Mag-abo) which could have affected the total weight as determined by the second forensic chemist (P/Sr. Insp. Bernido), and (2) P/Sr. Insp. Bernido testified that when she weighed each pack of shabu, the same was done without the packaging material thereof which could have, likewise, affected the total weight of the shabu. 46
In this case, the variance was explained by the RTC, and as affirmed by the CA, that while the Information stated the weight of the drug sold as 0.2059 gram, such is not exactly the net weight recorded in the chemistry report, which without the sachet, the weight would only be 0.0495 gram, such a difference can be explained by the difference of standard in recording the weight of the items as it was the gross weight recorded in the letter request made by the police officer concerned, and as adopted in the Information. This is the same with the four granules of shabu, which was found to be only 4.0228 grams compared to the ones stated in the Request, which showed a gross weight of 5.737 grams. The net weight refers only to the weight of the shabu excluding the weight of the sachet. 47
It must likewise be added that the markings placed by the police officers, as testified to during the trial, matched the markings of the sachets that were subjected to laboratory examination. In the absence of any circumstance that would convincingly show that switching occurred in the process, the items, as marked, which were seized from accused-appellant, and their weight as proven by the prosecution, through the result of the Chemistry Report, must serve as the basis for her conviction. She was thus properly meted the appropriate penalty for the illegal sale of 0.2059 gram of shabu and for illegal possession of 4.0228 grams of shabu.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated December 17, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01836-MIN is AFFIRMED. TIADCc
In Criminal Case No. 19262, LANI ANTO y ROSAURO is held GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of dangerous drug, in violation of Section 5, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640, and sentences her to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).
In Criminal Case No. 19264, LANI ANTO y ROSAURO is held GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, in violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, and sentences her to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to twenty (20) years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00).
All the sachets of shabu, the cash money and other paraphernalia used in the commission of the offense are hereby forfeited in favor of the State to be disposed in accordance with the relevant rules.
The letter dated August 23, 2021 of CTSSupt. Virginia S. Mangawit RSW, Superintendent, Correctional Institution for Women, Mandaluyong City, in compliance with the Resolution dated June 14, 2021, informing the Court that the accused-appellant was received in their institution on June 25, 2018, is NOTED.
SO ORDERED."Lopez, M., J., on official leave.
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Oscar V. Badelles, with Associate Justices Walter S. Ong and Evalyn M. Arellano-Morales, concurring; rollo, pp. 5-17.
2. CA rollo, pp. 46-56.
3. Records, p. 1.
4.Id. at 5.
5.Id. at 4 and 18.
6.Rollo, pp. 6-7.
7.Id. at 7.
8.Id.
9. Records, p. 73.
10.Rollo, p. 7.
11.Id.
12.Id. at 7-8.
13.Id. at 8.
14. Records, pp. 70, 74, 94.
15. TSN, September 20, 2016, pp. 7-11.
16.Id. at 26-27.
17. Records, p. 70.
18.Id. at 72.
19. TSN, June 14, 2017, pp. 10, 12, 19.
20.Id. at 4-12.
21. CA rollo, p. 56.
22.Id. at 57-59.
23.Rollo, pp. 5-17.
24.Id. at 16.
25.Id. at 18-19.
26.People v. Sumili, 753 Phil. 342, 348 (2015).
27. 588 Phil. 247 (2008).
28.Id. at 272.
29. TSN, November 18, 2015, pp. 25-26.
30. Records, pp. 72-73.
31. TSN, August 12, 2014, pp. 3-14.
32.People v. Bio, 753 Phil. 730, 736 (2015).
33. TSN, November 18, 2005, pp. 4-7.
34.Id. at 6-7.
35. TSN, November 18, 2015, pp. 5-7; 29.
36.Rollo, p. 12.
37.Id.
38.Plan v. People, G.R. No. 247589, August 24, 2020.
39. Records, p. 74.
40.People v. Remigio, 700 Phil. 452, 468 (2012).
41.Rollo, p. 12.
42.Id. at 12-13.
43.Supra note 18.
44.Rollo, pp. 13-14.
45. 699 Phil. 146 (2012).
46.Id. at 166-167.
47. Records, p. 140.