SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 242946. June 14, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. RICHARD B. BERNAL, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 14 June 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 242946 (People of the Philippines v. Richard B. Bernal). — Before this Court is an appeal 1 of the Decision 2 dated August 10, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA)-Cagayan de Oro City in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01706-MIN which affirmed the Decision, 3 dated May 29, 2017 of Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Panabo City, Branch 34, in Criminal Case Nos. CrC 641-2014, CrC 642-2014, and CrC 643-2014, convicting Richard B. Bernal (Bernal) of violation of Sections 5, 11, and 12, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165, 4 respectively.
ANTECEDENTS
Three separate Informations for illegal sale of shabu, illegal possession of shabu, and illegal possession of drug paraphernalia dated November 18, 2014, were simultaneously filed against Bernal, committed in the following manner:
[Criminal Case No. CrC 641-2014
That on or about November 17, 2014, in the City of Panabo, Davao del Norte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law, willfully, unlawfully and knowingly traded, sold and delivered one (1) small [sachet] of methamphetamine hydrochloride otherwise known as "shabu" weighing 0.0597 grams [sic], a dangerous drug, to PO1 Jovelyn U. Loyloy, who acted as a poseur-buyer in a legitimate buy-bust operation, taking and receiving the marked money of Five Hundred Peso (Php500.00) bill with serial number KT914652 with her at the upper right hand portion of the bill.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
[Criminal Case No. CrC 642-2014
That on or about November 17, 2014, in Panabo City, Davao, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law, willfully, unlawfully and knowingly had in his possession, control and custody three (3) small sachet[s] of transparent cellophane containing methamphetamine hydrochloride also known as "shabu," weighing 0.0582 grams [sic] marked as JL2 "P", 0.0562 grams [sic] marked as JL3 "P", 0.0451 grams [sic] marked as JL4 "P["], which is a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 6
[Criminal Case No. CrC 643-2014
That on or about November 17, 2014, in Panabo City, Davao, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law, willfully, unlawfully and knowingly had in his possession, control and custody one (1) improvised inhaler (tooter), aluminum foil and two (2) lighters color light blue and violet, drug paraphernalia used for consuming, ingesting, introducing and administering methamphetamine hydrochloride also known as "shabu," a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 7
Bernal pleaded not guilty to all the charges. 8 On November 10, 2015, the RTC issued a Pre-trial Order 9 where the parties identified their respective sets of evidence and entered into stipulations. Trial then ensued.
Version of the Prosecution
The prosecution presented Police Officer 2 10 Jovelyn U. Loyloy 11 (PO2 Loyloy) as its witness and dispensed with the testimony of investigator PO3 Rodney Villacencio (PO3 Villacencio) after the parties agreed that the police recovered a Nokia 2730-C-1 cellular phone during the buy-bust operation. 12
The version of the prosecution is that on November 17, 2014, at about 2:00 p.m., a confidential informant arrived at Panabo City Police Station and reported to Police Inspector Maricar Bornea (Inspector Bornea) that alias "Bantao'' was engaged in illegal drugs activity. 13 Acting on the tip, Inspector Bornea instructed the informant to arrange a purchase transaction with "Bantao." The informant later confirmed that "Bantao" agreed to meet at Purok Mangga, Brgy. Cagangohan, Panabo City, for the drug deal. 14 Inspector Bornea formed a team composed of PO2 Loyloy as poseur-buyer, and three intelligence operatives as back-up and conducted a briefing for a buy-bust operation against "Bantao." PO2 Loyloy was provided with the buy-bust money, a 500-peso 15 bill that she marked with her signature on the upper right-hand portion of the bill. After the briefing and coordination with the PDEA, the buy-bust team proceeded to the agreed place. PO2 Loyloy rode on the informant's motorcycle while the back-up team followed them on board a four-wheel vehicle. 16
About 3:15 p.m., PO2 Loyloy and the informant arrived at Purok Mangga where they spotted "Bantao" in a small alley. 17 The informant introduced PO2 Loyloy as the prospective buyer. 18 The informant inquired if he brought the item with him. 19 "Bantao" replied in the affirmative, took out one sachet of suspected shabu from his left pocket, and gave it to PO2 Loyloy. 20 PO2 Loyloy examined the sachet and asked how much. "Bantao'' replied that it was worth P500.00, and then PO2 Loyloy handed him the buy-bust money. 21 When the informant turned his back to walk away from the place, PO2 Loyloy introduced herself as a police officer and arrested "Bantao." 22 Back-up officers Sayre and Malinao rushed to the area and assisted PO2 Loyloy in the arrest. PO2 Loyloy frisked "Bantao" and recovered from him a black pouch containing three sachets of suspected shabu, one improvised inhaler tooter, five pieces of empty small transparent cellophane, aluminum foil, two lighters colored light blue and violet, 12 pieces of live ammunition for a .22 caliber, and the marked money. 23 Thereat and in the presence of Bantao, PO2 Loyloy marked the sachet subject of the sale with "JL1 BB" 24 and the three sachets found inside the black pouch with "JL2 P," "JL3 P," and "JL4 P." 25 She marked the improvised tooter with "JL5," the two lighters with "JL6," the marked money with "JL7," the five pieces of empty plastic sachets with "JL8," the aluminum foil with "JL9," and all .22 caliber ammunition with "JL10." Photographs were taken. 26 After, PO2 Loyloy placed the marked sachets of shabu in a sealed transparent plastic cellophane and brought them to the police station. 27
At the police station, alias "Bantao" was identified as accused-appellant Richard B. Bernal. In the presence of Bernal, a Department of Justice (DOJ) representative, and an elected barangay official, inventory was conducted, 28 and the Requests for Laboratory Examination 29 and Drug Test, 30 and the Chain of Custody Form 31 were prepared. Thereafter, PO2 Loyloy brought the specimens to the crime laboratory for examination and were received and weighed by PO2 Ricky L. Ocampo. 32 Police Superintendent Virginia Sison Gucor (PS Gucor) conducted a qualitative examination on the specimens and issued Chemistry Report No. D-260-2014 33 finding the contents of the four plastic sachets positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, also known as shabu. Using Bernal's urine as sample, PS Gucor found methamphetamine hydrochloride in Bernal's system. She reduced her finding in Chemistry Report Nos. DT-202-2014-A 34 and DT-202-2014. 35 After, PS Gucor gave the specimens to PO1 Rhuffy Federe for safekeeping, 36 who later turned them over to the RTC on February 5, 2015. 37
Version of the Defense
The defense presented Bernal himself and June Ardi Lopez. 38 Their version is that on November 17, 2014, at about 1:00 P.M., Bernal went to Immaculada Concepcion, Brgy. Cagangohan using his motorcycle to ferry one Gang-gang Mangco. After fetching Gang-gang, Bernal drove towards the cemented road of IC Cagangohan. When they reached the corner of Purok Mangga, Police Officers (POs) Malinao and Sayre waylaid them, with Sayre pointing a gun at Bernal. Bernal stopped his motorcycle. He was handcuffed and was shown a black pouch containing several sachets of shabu. Following this, the police officers frisked Bernal. They recovered from him 12 pieces of ammunitions for a .22 caliber revolver, P1,200.00 cash, one lighter, Marlboro Red 10s cigarettes, Rayban sunglasses, Seiko 5 Diver's watch, silver necklace, and a touch screen Samsung Galaxy 21 mobile phone. Bernal claimed that POs Sayre and Malinao arrested him and that PO2 Loyloy belatedly arrived and was present only during photographs.
The Ruling of the RTC and the CA
On May 29, 2017, the RTC convicted Bernal of the charges. The RTC found that the prosecution duly established all the elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu, and illegal possession of drug paraphernalia. It gave credence to PO2 Loyloy's testimony that a sale transpired between him and Bernal that led to the recovery of three pieces of plastic sachets containing shabu and improvised tooter, aluminum foil, and two lighters, which are fit or intended to be used for smoking, consuming, or administering drugs into the body. PO2 Loyloy's testimony was reinforced by the fact that all four sachets of shabu and the drug paraphernalia, including the markings thereon, were all stipulated upon by the parties. The RTC found Bernal's version unbelievable and uncorroborated. It ruled that the defense of denial and frame-up cannot prevail over the clear and positive buy-bust account of the prosecution. The fallo of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Richard B. Bernal guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the herein charges leveled against him of selling, possession of shabu, and possession of drug paraphernalia defined and penalized under Section[s] 5, 11, and 12 of Republic Act No. 9165, respectively.
Accordingly, he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of (a) life imprisonment and fine in the amount of Php500,000.00 in Criminal Case No. CrC 641-2014; (b) imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum period to thirteen (13) years as maximum period and fine in the amount of Php300,000.00 in Criminal Case No. CrC 642-2014; and (c) imprisonment of six (6) months and one (1) day as minimum period to two (2) years as maximum period and fine in the amount of Php10,000.00 in Criminal Case No. CrC 643-2014.
In the successive service of his sentences, accused is entitled to the full time he has undergone preventive imprisonment, if any, pursuant to Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code.
The subject four sachets of shabu with a total weight of 0.2192 grams [sic] and drug paraphernalia mentioned in the indictments are hereby confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government to be disposed of by the latter in accordance with the existing laws and regulations. In connection thereto, PDEA Regional Office XI, Davao City is directed to assume custody of the subject drugs and paraphernalia for its proper disposition within ten (10) days from notice.
SO ORDERED. 39
On appeal to the CA, Bernal insisted that he should be acquitted of all the charges for the prosecution's failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He claimed that there was no buy-bust operation, and that the POs did not comply with the chain-of-custody rule under Section 21 as well as the procedures laid down by the Revised PNP Manual on Anti-Illegal Drugs Operations and Investigation in the handling and marking of non-drug evidence. Bernal averred that the prosecution failed to prove the corpus delicti as the sachets of shabu and drug paraphernalia were never offered in evidence. 40
The CA affirmed Bernal's conviction on August 10, 2018. 41 The CA held that Section 21, and the implementing rules do not require the inventory of non-drug evidence, and the recording of the seized drugs' weight, in the inventory. The rules even sanction substantial compliance with Section 21 if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved by the apprehending officers, as in this case.
Now before us, Bernal and the People manifested that they will no longer file their respective Supplemental Briefs, considering the thorough discussions of the issues in their respective appeal briefs before the CA. 42
RULING
There is no merit in the petition. We affirm Bernals' conviction for illegal sale of shabu, illegal possession of shabu, and illegal possession of drug paraphernalia.
To secure a conviction for illegal sale of illicit drugs under Section 5, 43 Article II of RA No. 9165, the prosecution must establish the following: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and its consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. 44 What is material is the proof that the transaction took place. Here, all the elements of the crime were sufficiently established by the prosecution. The CA and the RTC aptly held that the poseur-buyer, PO2 Loyloy, positively identified Bernal alias "Bantao" as the seller, who was previously contacted by the informant for the drug deal. PO2 Loyloy narrated in detail how the transaction transpired from the time (1) the informant arrived at Panabo City Police Station, and reported to Inspector Bornea about Bernal's illegal drug activity; (2) the conduct of a briefing and coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA); (3) when she and the informant met with Bernal at Purok Mangga; and (4) until the time she handed the 500-peso bill buy-bust money to Bernal in exchange for one sachet of shabu. 45
Likewise, all the elements for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11 46 were met, namely: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or an object that is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possesses the drug. 47 The prosecution also established that Bernal was in possession of drug paraphernalia without authority or license. For a conviction for illegal possession of drug paraphernalia under Section 12 48 to prosper, it is primordial to show that (1) the accused was in possession or control of any equipment, apparatus, or other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body; and (2) such possession was not authorized by law. 49 After the lawful arrest because of the buy-bust operation, PO2 Loyloy frisked Bernal's body, and she recovered from him a black pouch containing three sachets of suspected shabu, one improvised tooter, aluminum foil, and two lighters colored light blue and violet, among other things. 50
Bernal merely denied possession of the drugs and drug paraphernalia, and claimed that these were not included in the items seized from him. We observe that Bernal admitted that he bought and used illicit drugs on that day but invoked that he already consumed them before the arrest:
[Pros. Cezar: (cross-examination)]
xxx xxx xxx
Q: And you were accused of having sold shabu. Have you seen shabu in your lifetime?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: And have you used shabu in your lifetime?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: At the time when you were arrested, were you able to ingest shabu?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: Where did you buy it?
A: We just chip in with my friends to buy shabu from another friend, ma'am.
Q: When you buy it, you just keep it with you until you decide when to use it?
A: No, ma'am.
Q: You would just chip in with your friends to buy shabu?
A: Yes, my friends and I would chip in to buy shabu and we will immediately use it.
Q: When?
A: It depends, ma'am.
Q: That day?
A: At the house of my friend Maligaya, ma'am.
Q: And you would use lighter, correct?
A: There are lighters, ma'am.
Q: Exactly, you will use lighter?
A: Yes ma'am.
Q: And you will use tooter?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: So, you know what tooter looks like?
A: Yes, ma'am. 51 (Emphases supplied.)
We find Bernal's statement that he already ingested the shabu he and his friends bought, was merely conjured as a convenient excuse to disclaim ownership of the three sachets of shabu and drug paraphernalia, as well as to belie PO2 Loyloy's testimony that these items were recovered from his body. We stress that mere 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, 52 and that a violation of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia is deemed consummated the moment the accused is found in possession of the prohibited articles without the necessary authority or license. 53
At this point, we emphasize that in all drug cases, the identity of the corpus delicti must be established beyond reasonable doubt. Such proof requires an unwavering exactitude that the dangerous drug presented in court as evidence against the accused is the same as that seized from him in the first place. 54 It is crucial for the prosecution to establish the following links in the chain of custody of the confiscated item: first, the seizure and marking 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. 55
As part of the chain-of-custody procedure, Section 21 56 of RA No. 10640, 57 the law applicable at the time of the commission of the crimes, requires that the marking, physical inventory, and photography of the seized items be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation. Marking "immediately" contemplates, ideally, marking at the place of seizure and apprehension. 58 Further, in warrantless seizures, the law and the rules allow the police officers to conduct the physical inventory and photography either at the place where the items were seized as it is more in keeping with the law's intent of preserving their integrity and evidentiary value 59 or at the nearest police station or the nearest office of the apprehending team, whichever is practicable. 60 The physical inventory and photography must be done in the presence of the accused or his representative or counsel, and the insulating witnesses, namely: (1) an elected public official, and (2) a representative of the DOJ or the media.
We find that the prosecution was able to establish with moral certainty and prove beyond reasonable doubt that there is an unbroken chain of custody over the confiscated drugs and drug paraphernalia, from the time they were lawfully seized, and came into possession of the apprehending officers up to the time they were presented and offered in evidence before the RTC.
At the place of arrest, and in the presence of Bernal, PO2 Loyloy immediately marked the sachet subject of the sale with "JL1 BB" and the three sachets found inside the black pouch seized from Bernal with "JL2 P," "JL3 P," and "JL4 P." She marked the improvised tooter with "JL5," the two lighters with "JL6," and the aluminum foil with "JL9." After marking the confiscated items, PO2 Loyloy placed the sachets of shabu in sealed transparent plastic cellophane and brought them to the police station. PO1 Malinao took photographs of PO2 Loyloy marking the items in the presence of the accused. Notably, the parties stipulated on the existence of the pictures depicting the marking at the place of arrest and in the presence of the accused, and the four sachets subject of the sale and possession, and the markings thereon. At the police station, and in the presence of Bernal, a DOJ representative, and the media, PO3 Villacencio inventoried the confiscated items. After, PO2 Loyloy personally brought the specimens to the crime laboratory and received by PO2 Ocampo as evidenced by the Chain of Custody Form and Davao Del Norte Provincial Lab Office Receipt for Property, both documents having been stipulated by the parties as to their due execution and existence. At the crime laboratory, PO2 Ocampo turned over the received specimens to PS Gucor. After conducting a qualitative examination, PS Gucor gave them to PO1 Federe for safekeeping. On February 5, 2015, the specimens were submitted to the trial court.
The absence of the insulating witnesses during the seizure and marking is not a serious lapse that compromised the identity and evidentiary value of the illicit drugs and drug paraphernalia. In various cases, 61 the Court affirmed the conviction of the accused notwithstanding the absence of insulating witnesses at the time of and at or near the place of seizure and apprehension because the confiscated items were immediately marked after seizure and confiscation and in the presence of the apprehended violator. We declared that the immediate marking of confiscated items in the presence of the apprehended violator discounted, if not completely eliminated, the possibility of planting, switching, or adulteration of evidence, and ensured that the items seized from the accused during the lawful arrest are the same items brought to, and inventoried at the police station, submitted to the crime laboratory for examination, and presented in court. In the present case, PO2 Loyloy immediately marked the confiscated items at the place of arrest and in the presence of accused Bernal, thereby preventing switching, planting or contamination of evidence.
Anent the alleged irregularity in the handling and the marking of non-drug evidence, particularly the non-recording of the weight of the sachets of shabu in the Inventory under the Revised [Philippine National Police] PNP Manual on Anti-Illegal Drugs Operations and Investigation, it must be emphasized that the Manual is a mere guideline directed to the members of the PNP in the conduct of their operations. Any deviations therefrom, or violations thereof may expose the offending party to administrative liability but should not be interpreted as indispensable requirements for the conviction of the accused. At most, non-compliance affects the presumption of regularity in the performance of duties of the apprehending officers and the credibility of the evidence adduced. 62 At any rate, the totality of circumstances should be taken into account in determining the credibility and weight of a piece of evidence that is solely within the jurisdiction of the court. 63
Here, the overwhelming evidence for the prosecution prevails against Bernal's sheer denial of the accusations against him. We have invariably viewed with disfavor the defense of denial and frame-up because it can easily be concocted. It is a common and standard defense ploy in prosecutions for violation of drug law. To prosper, the defense of denial and frame-up must be proved with strong and convincing evidence. 64 Bernal miserably failed to discharge this burden.
Finally, as regards the penalty, we sustain the ruling of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA. Section 5, Article II of RA No. 9165 penalizes the illegal sale of shabu with the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00. On the other hand, Section 11 penalizes illegal possession of less than five grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu with imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years, and a fine ranging from P300,000.00 to P400,000.00. The prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that Bernal possessed a total of 0.1595 gram of shabu without legal authority. Lastly, Section 12 penalizes illegal possession of drug paraphernalia with imprisonment ranging from six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and a fine ranging from P10,000.00 to P50,000.00. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum period of the imposable penalty shall not fall below the minimum set by the law, and the maximum period shall not exceed the maximum period allowed under the law. Thus, the penalty imposed by the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, was well within the range.
FOR THESE REASONS, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated August 10, 2018 of the Court of Appeals-Cagayan de Oro City in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01706-MIN convicting accused-appellant Richard B. Bernal of violation of Sections 5, 11, and 12, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 is AFFIRMED. Richard B. Bernal is sentenced to serve the penalty of life imprisonment and pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) for violation of Section 5 in Criminal Case No. CrC 641-2014; imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to thirteen (13) years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) for violation of Section 11 in Criminal Case No. CrC 642-2014; and imprisonment of six (6) months and one (1) day, as minimum, to two (2) years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) for violation of Section 12 in Criminal Case No. CrC 643-2014.
SO ORDERED." (Lopez, J. Y., J., designated additional member per Special Order No. 2822 dated April 7, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MA. CONSOLACION GAMINDE-CRUZADADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 27-29. See also CA rollo, pp. 143-145.
2.Rollo, pp. 3-26. Penned by Associate Justice Perpetua T. Atal-Paño, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Edgardo A. Camello and Walter S. Ong. See also CA rollo, pp. 115-139.
3.CA rollo, pp. 40-55. Penned by Presiding Judge Dax Gonzaga Xenos. See also records, pp. 132-148.
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 June 7, 2002.
5. Records, p. 1.
6.Id. at 16.
7.Id. at 32.
8.Id. at 66-67, Minutes of the Session dated March 4, 2015, and Certificate of Arraignment, respectively; and id. at 70-71. Order dated March 4, 2015.
9.Id. at 86-92.
10. Then Police Officer 1, id. at 2; TSN, August 17, 2016, p. 2.
11. Also PO1 Evelyn U. Loyoy, records, p. 2; PO2 Jovelyn V. Loyloy, TSN, August 17, 2016, p. 2.
12. Records, p. 119.
13. TSN, August 17, 2016, pp. 4-6.
14. TSN, August 17, 2016, pp. 7-8, 28-29.
15. Records, p. 8, Serial Number KT914652.
16. TSN, August 17, 2016, p. 10.
17. TSN, August 17, 2016, pp. 10-11.
18. TSN, August 17, 2016, p. 13.
19. TSN, August 17, 2016, p. 39.
20. TSN, August 17, 2016, pp. 13-14, 39.
21. TSN, August 17, 2016, pp. 14, 40.
22. TSN, August 17, 2016, pp. 15-16, 40.
23. TSN, August 17, 2016, pp. 16-17.
24. TSN, August 17, 2016, p. 17.
25. Records, pp. 6, 9-10, 80; TSN, August 17, 2016, p. 18.
26.Id. at 9-10.
27. TSN, August 17, 2016, p. 21.
28. Records, p. 23, Inventory of Property Seized.
29.Id. at 12-13, Request for Laboratory Examination.
30.Id. at 14, Request for Drug Test.
31.Id. at 15, Chain of Custody.
32. TSN, August 17, 2016, pp. 22-23. See also records, p. 15, Chain of Custody; and p. 65, Davao Del Norte Provincial Crime Lab Office Receipt for Property.
33. Records, p. 62, Chemistry Report No. D-260-2014.
34.Id. at 63, Chemistry Report No. DT-202-2014-A (Confirmatory Examination).
35.Id. at 64, Chemistry Report No. DT-202-2014 (Drug Screening).
36.Id. at 65, Davao Del Norte Provincial Crime Lab Office Receipt for Property.
37.Id. at 61.
38. TSN, January 12, 2017; January 31, 2017. See also records, pp. 112-116.
39. CA rollo, pp. 53-54.
40.Id. at 13-28.
41.Rollo, pp. 3-26; and CA rollo, pp. 115-139. The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated May 29, 2017 rendered by the Regional Trial Court, 11th Judicial Region, Branch 34, Panabo City, finding the accused-appellant Richard B. Bernal guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Sections 5, 11, and 12, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, in Criminal Case Nos. CrC 641-2014, CrC 642-2014, and CrC 643-2014, is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. (CA rollo, p. 138)
42.Rollo, pp. 35-37; and 39-42. People's Manifestation and Motion; and Accused-appellant's Manifestation in Lieu of Supplemental Brief, respectively.
43. SEC. 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
44.People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 29 (2017).
45. TSN, August 17, 2016, pp. 11-14.
46. SEC. 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. — The penalty x x x shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug x x x:
xxx xxx xxx
47.People v. Pis-an, G.R. No. 242692, July 13, 2020.
48. SEC. 12. Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs. — The penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and a fine ranging from Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) to Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess or have under his/her control any equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body: Provided, That in the case of medical practitioners and various professionals who are required to carry such equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia in the practice of their profession, the Board shall prescribe the necessary implementing guidelines thereof.
xxx xxx xxx.
49.People v. Arposeple, 821 Phil. 340, 361 (2017).
50. TSN, August 17, 2016, p. 16.
51. TSN, January 12, 2017, pp. 10-11.
52.People v. Badilla, 794 Phil. 263, 282 (2016).
53.People v. Ching, 819 Phil. 565, 576 (2017).
54.People v. Suarez, 832 Phil. 779, 787 (2018).
55.People v. Nandi, 639 Phil. 134, 144-145 (2010).
56. SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, x x x, Instruments/Paraphernalia x x x. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, x x x as well as instruments/paraphernalia 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, 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 person/s 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. (Emphases supplied.)
xxx xxx xxx
57. 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 July 15, 2014, RA No. 10640 took effect on August 7, 2014.
58. See People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214, 241 (2008). See also People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 34-35 (2017); People v. Gonzales, 708 Phil. 121, 130-131 (2013); People v. Alejandro, 671 Phil. 33, 46-47 (2011).
59. See People v. Sanchez, supra note 57, at 240-241 (2008); See also People v. Meneses, G.R. No. 233533, June 30, 2020; People v. De Dios, G.R. No. 243664, January 22, 2020; People v. Esguerra, G.R. No. 243986, January 22, 2020.
60. See People v. Neil Dejos, G.R. No. 237423 (Resolution), October 12, 2020; People v. Buesa, G.R. No. 237850, September 16, 2020; People v. Piagola, G.R. No. 237694 (Notice), January 22, 2020; People v. Goyena, G.R. No. 229680, June 6, 2019; People v. Maylon, G.R. No. 240664, March 11, 2019; People v. Magalong, G.R. No. 231838, March 4, 2019, [Peralta, Third Division]; People v. Pundugar, 825 Phil. 707, 720 (2018).
61. See People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 238212, January 27, 2020; People v. Goyena, supra note 29; People v. Breis, 766 Phil. 785, 801-802 (2015).
62. See People v. Sipin, G.R. No. 224290, June 11, 2018; People v. Supat, G.R. No. 217027, June 6, 2018; People v. Andaya, 745 Phil. 237, 250-251 (2014).
63. See People v. Sipin, 833 Phil. 67 (2018). People v. Moner, 827 Phil. 42, 54 (2018).
64.People v. Magalong, G.R. No. 231838, March 4, 2019.