FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 225496. July 11, 2018.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RODEL BARON y LIM, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 11, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 225496 — People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, v. Rodel Baron y Lim, accused-appellant.
After a thorough review of the records, the Court finds that the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 06466 properly affirmed the October 21, 2013 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Batangas City, Branch 2, finding accused-appellant Rodel Baron y Lim (appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 1 (RA 9165) in Criminal Case Nos. 16978 and 16979.
At the outset, we stress that the Court adopts the factual findings of the CA, which affirmed those of the RTC, there being no showing here that they overlooked or misappreciated material or relevant facts that would substantially change the outcome of the case. The Court also upholds the positive identification of the prosecution witnesses for being straightforward, credible, and convincing as against the self-serving and unsubstantiated assertions made by appellant himself. 2
Moreover, we note that the Information in Criminal Case No. 16978 charged appellant with "knowingly, willfully and criminally sell, dispense, transfer, or deliver" dangerous drugs, which act was within the purview of Section 5, Article II, RA 9165. Particularly, the elements of illegal delivery of dangerous drug are: (a) the accused passed on, personally or otherwise, and by any means, dangerous drug to another person; (b) such delivery was not allowed by law; and, (c) the accused knowingly made such delivery. 3
All these elements are present in this case.
Records reveal that appellant knowingly delivered to the police asset one white plastic bag which contained marijuana, on the agreement that payment would be made after the latter had sold the items. There being no showing that appellant was authorized to pass on such illegal drug, then his act amounted to illegal delivery of marijuana in violation of Section 5, Article II, RA 9165.
Furthermore, incidental to his lawful arrest, the police operatives found appellant to knowingly and freely possess 161 sachets of marijuana with a total weight of 2,894.89 grams, without any authority to possess the same, in clear violation of Section 11, Article II, RA 9165.
Case law provides that for a drug-related case to prosper, it is primordial to prove not only the fact that the transaction transpired, but that the corpus delicti or the subject drug is identified, preserved, and presented in court. 4 To comply with this requirement, Section 21, Article II, RA 9165, as amended, outlines the chain of custody of the seized illegal drug, to wit:
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs x x x. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs x x x 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 x x x 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.
(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs x x x 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 by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued immediately upon the receipt of the subject items[.] x x x
Essentially, there are "four (4) links that should be established in the chain of custody of the confiscated item: 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 from the forensic chemist to the court." 5
All these links were established here.
To note, after appellant delivered the item believed to be marijuana to the asset, the latter turned over the same to PO2 Pancho Aguilar (PO2 Aguilar). In turn, PO2 Aguilar marked it at the crime scene with his initials and the date, and PO2 Alexander Olea (PO2 Olea) took pictures of it. Immediately thereafter, PO2 Aguilar marked the rest of the seized items at the Cuta Barangay Hall. He explained that he did not mark them at the crime scene to avoid the possibility that they would scatter. To our mind, such justification is plausible considering the numerous items that were found in appellant's bag (161 sachets), which may be mishandled if marked at the crime scene.
At the Barangay Hall, PO2 Aguilar conducted the physical inventory of all the items confiscated from appellant. The inventory was made in the presence of appellant himself, including his relatives, an elected official (Barangay Kagawad), as well as the representative of the National Prosecution Service and of the media. Added to this, PO2 Olea took photographs of the marking and the physical inventory made at the Barangay Hall.
Thereafter, at the Batangas City Police Station, PO2 Aguilar turned over the seized items to the investigating officer, SPO1 Pepito Reyes Adelantar (SPO1 Adelantar). After preparing the necessary requests, SPO1 Adelantar brought appellant and the subject items to the Crime Laboratory. There, P/Insp. Herminia Carandang Llacuna (P/Insp. Llacuna) personally received them. Upon her examination, the specimens tested positive for marijuana.
During the trial, PO2 Aguilar testified that those items seized from appellant were the same ones presented in court. At the same time, the parties stipulated that P/Insp. Llacuna would be able to identify the same items that she examined to be the ones offered at the trial.
Based on the foregoing, there was no question that the chain of custody of the seized illegal drugs was complied with in this case. As such, the integrity and evidentiary value of these items were duly preserved from the time of their seizure until their presentation in court. 6
Hence, for having been found guilty of illegal delivery of dangerous drugs, appellant must be meted out the penalty of life imprisonment and a P500,000.00 fine. 7 As regards the illegal possession of dangerous drugs, since appellant was found to be in possession of marijuana with a total weight of 2,894.89 grams, his act is punishable by life imprisonment and a fine in the amount of P500,000.00. 8
WHEREFORE, the Court ADOPTS the factual findings of the trial court as affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed January 27, 2015 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 06466 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED." Leonardo-De Castro, J., designated as Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2559 dated May 11, 2018;Caguioa, J., designated as Acting Member per Special Order No. 2560-C dated July 6, 2018;Gesmundo, J., designated as Additional Member per November 29, 2017 raffle vice Jardeleza, J., who recused due to prior action as Solicitor General.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENAActing Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
2.People v. Santos, G.R. No. 223142, January 17, 2018.
3.People v. Maongco, 720 Phil. 488, 502 (2013); underlining supplied.
4.People v. Flor, G.R. No. 216017, January 19, 2018.
5.People v. Santos, supra note 2.
6.People v. Ejan, G.R. No. 212169, December 13, 2017.
7.People v. Maongco, supra note 3 at 510.
8. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, Article II, Section 11.