SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 236456. November 24, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.ROBERTO CABILING y PASILONG @ "ROBERT" AND RICKY SANSON y MOHAMMAD*@ "RICKY", accused,
ROBERTO CABILING y PASILONG @ "ROBERT", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated24 November 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 236456 (People of the Philippines v. Roberto Cabiling y Pasilong @ "Robert" and Ricky Sanson y Mohammad @ "Ricky," accused; Roberto Cabiling y Pasilong @ "Robert," accused-appellant). — This is an appeal 1 assailing the Decision 2 dated October 6, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01503-MIN which affirmed in toto the Omnibus Decision 3 dated November 9, 2015 of Branch 4, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Butuan City in Criminal Case Nos. 13853, 13854, and 13855 finding accused-appellant Roberto Cabiling y Pasilong (accused-appellant) and his co-accused Ricky Sanson y Mohammad (Ricky) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 5 4 and 15, 5 Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, as amended. 6
The Antecedents
The instant case stemmed from three separate Informations charging accused-appellant and Ricky with Illegal Sale and Use of Dangerous Drugs. The accusatory portions of the Informations are as follows: aScITE
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 138537
That on or about 2:35 o'clock [sic] in the afternoon of November 24, 2009 at Butuan City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring together and mutually helping one another, without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, sell and deliver to a poseur-buyer for a consideration of ONE THOUSAND (P1,000) PESOS, Philippine Currency, one (1) sachet of methamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as shabu, weighing point zero five three four (0.0534) gram, which is a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW[.]
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 138548
That on or about 2:35 o'clock [sic] in the afternoon of November 24, 2009 at Butuan City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, use methamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as shabu, which is a dangerous drug and found positive for use, after a confirmatory test.
CONTRARY TO LAW[.]
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 138559
That on or about 2:35 o'clock [sic] in the afternoon of November 24, 2009 at Butuan City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, use methamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as shabu, which is a dangerous drug and found positive for use, after a confirmatory test.
CONTRARY TO LAW[.]
When arraigned, accused-appellant and Ricky pleaded not guilty to all of the charges. 10
Trial ensued.
Version of the Prosecution
The prosecution established that on November 24, 2009, members of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) of Butuan City, together with a confidential informant, successfully implemented a buy-bust operation against accused-appellant and Ricky. During the operation, they were able to recover from accused-appellant and Ricky one small plastic sachet containing 0.0534 gram of suspected shabu. Immediately thereafter, PDEA Agent Rommel S. Ramos (Agent Ramos) marked the sachet subject of the sale with "RSR-1." 11 After the arrest of accused-appellant and Ricky, several onlookers gathered around the crime scene and caused a commotion. Thus, the buy-bust team proceeded to the PDEA office. Thereat, the team conducted the inventory and photography of the seized item in the presence of accused-appellant, Ricky, Barangay Kagawad Carmelita Mangasep, media representative Edwin N. Bayer of Bombo Radyo, and representative Ronaldo T. Bedrijo of the City Prosecutor's Office. 12 Later on, Agent Ramos brought the sachet of suspected shabu, which was kept inside a sealed cellophane, together with the request for laboratory examination and drug test to the Regional Crime Laboratory Office. After the laboratory examination, the sachet of suspected shabu tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. Likewise, the urine samples taken from accused-appellant and Ricky tested positive for shabu. 13
Version of the Defense
The defense presented accused-appellant and Ricky as witnesses. While both accused-appellant and Ricky denied selling shabu, they did not refute the results of the drug test on their urine samples. 14 HEITAD
According to Ricky, on November 24, 2009, he received a text message from an unknown source that some guests of Maxcer's Lodge, including a person named Jun Escobido (Escobido), were in need of a female escort and a masseur. Consequently, Ricky communicated with accused-appellant. Thereafter, he, accused-appellant, and a certain Paulin Marie went to Maxcer's Lodge in Guingona Subdivision, Butuan City and proceeded to Room 13. Upon arrival at Room 13, Ricky saw three persons: one woman and two men. Escobido asked Ricky about the item he ordered from accused-appellant. In no time, accused-appellant handed a folded piece of white paper to him. After receiving it, he handed it to Escobido. Thereafter, Escobido immediately identified himself as Agent Ramos of PDEA, pointed a gun at them, and announced an arrest. He attempted to escape, but the PDEA agents eventually arrested him. 15
For his part, accused-appellant alleged that on November 24, 2009, he received a text message that his services as a masseur was needed by a guest in Maxcer's Lodge. Thus, he, Ricky, and a lady companion went to Maxcer's Lodge. Upon their arrival at Room 13 of Maxcer's Lodge, a man asked Ricky of the items that he ordered. Ricky then took out a folded piece of white paper from his pocket and handed it to the man. Upon receiving the white folded paper, the man introduced himself as a PDEA agent and arrested them. Accused-appellant denied his involvement in selling of illegal drugs. 16
The RTC Ruling
In the Omnibus Decision 17 dated November 9, 2015, the RTC found accused-appellant and Ricky guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 5 and 15, Article II of RA 9165. In Criminal Case No. 13853 for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, the RTC sentenced both accused-appellant and Ricky to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. In Criminal Case Nos. 13854 and 13855 for Illegal Use of Dangerous Drugs, the RTC sentenced accused-appellant and Ricky to undergo rehabilitation in a government-accredited rehabilitation center at the Department of Health Treatment and Rehabilitation Center in Surigao City for a period of six months. 18
The RTC gave credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. It ruled that all elements of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs were proven beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. 19
Only accused-appellant appealed 20 to the CA.
The CA Ruling
In the assailed Decision, 21 the CA affirmed in toto the RTC Omnibus Decision. It sustained the RTC's findings that the law enforcers complied with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 and that there was no break in the chain of custody of the seized items. Moreover, the CA ruled that the defense of denial offered by accused-appellant and Ricky has no leg to stand on. 22
Hence, the instant appeal. 23
Accused-appellant and plaintiff-appellee manifested 24 that they are adopting their respective briefs filed before the CA as their Supplemental Briefs before the Court.
The Issue
Whether the CA erred in affirming accused-appellant's conviction.
The Court's Ruling
The appeal lacks merit.
At the outset, it must be emphasized that the RTC Omnibus Decision became final and executory as far as Ricky is concerned considering that only accused-appellant appealed to the CA.
For a successful prosecution of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, the following elements must be established: (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. 25 What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti. The main requirement in the commission of the offense of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under RA 9165 is the consummation of the transaction which happens the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller. 26
In the case, the prosecution successfully proved the existence of all the essential elements of the illegal sale of shabu.
Agent Ramos positively identified accused-appellant and Ricky as the persons who sold to him one sachet of shabu during a legitimate buy-bust operation in exchange for the marked P1,000.00 bill. The delivery of the illicit drug to Agent Ramos and the receipt by accused-appellant and Ricky of the marked money successfully consummated the buy-bust transaction. 27
Moreover, the buy-bust team complied with the marking, inventory, and required witnesses provided in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, as amended.
As part of the chain of custody procedure, the law requires, inter alia, that the marking, physical inventory, and photography of the seized items be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation thereof. 28 The law further requires that the inventory and photography be done in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: (a) if prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, 29 a representative each from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official; or (b) if after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media. 30
In the instant case, the act was committed on November 24, 2009 or before the effectivity of RA 10640, thus the buy-bust operation is covered by the three-witness rule. ETHIDa
In cases where strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure is not possible, the seizure and custody of the seized items will not be rendered void if the prosecution satisfactorily proves that there is justifiable ground for the deviation; and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. 31
In the case, records reveal that Agent Ramos marked the seized item at the place of arrest. However, because of a commotion caused by several onlookers, the buy-bust team decided to bring accused-appellant, Ricky, and the seized item to the PDEA office. 32
At the PDEA office, the buy-bust team conducted the inventory and photography of the seized item in the presence of accused-appellant, Ricky, Barangay Kagawad Carmelita Mangasep, a media representative, and a DOJ personnel. 33 During the investigation, the PDEA agents prepared the necessary documents: Certificate of Inventory, Chain of Custody Form, Request for Laboratory Examination and Request for Drug Test. 34 In sum, the PDEA agents complied with the marking, inventory, and witness requirements mandated in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. It is beyond doubt that the buy-bust team strictly observed the chain of custody rule, and thus, preserved the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item.
To establish the identity of the dangerous drugs with moral certainty, the prosecution must be able to account for each link of the chain of custody from the moment the drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as evidence of the crime. 35
Factual evidence shows that immediately after the marking, inventory, and investigation, Agent Ramos personally brought the sachet of shabu contained in a sealed cellophane (evidence bag) together with the request for laboratory examination and drug test to Police Chief Inspector Cramwell Banogon, the Forensic Chemist who performed the necessary test thereon. From there, the specimen was delivered to Police Officer 1 Jonathan Migullas, the evidence custodian, for safekeeping and preservation of the evidence prior to its presentation in court. 36
Also, accused-appellant and Ricky did not present any substantial evidence to show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the shabu presented at the trial had been compromised at some point. The prosecution clearly established the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized evidence which were preserved and safeguarded through an unbroken chain of custody.
Meanwhile, as to the charge of Illegal Use of Dangerous Drugs, the Court likewise sustains the findings of the courts a quo. The urine samples which were voluntarily submitted by accused-appellant and Ricky tested positive for shabu after a laboratory examination. 37 Accused-appellant and Ricky failed to refute the positive result of the urine samples. Evidently, both are guilty of illegal use of shabu.
As regards the penalty, the RTC's findings, as affirmed by the CA, are in accordance with RA 9165. In Criminal Case No. 13853, the RTC correctly sentenced accused-appellant to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. Also, in Criminal Case No. 13855, the RTC correctly sentenced accused-appellant to undergo rehabilitation in a government accredited rehabilitation center for a period of six (6) months in accordance with Section 15, Article II of RA 9165.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated October 6, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01503-MIN is AFFIRMEDin toto.
In Criminal Case No. 13853 for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, accused-appellant Roberto Cabiling y Pasilong is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
In Criminal Case No. 13855 for Illegal Use of Dangerous Drugs, accused-appellant Roberto Cabiling y Pasilong is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 15, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and is sentenced to undergo rehabilitation in a government accredited rehabilitation center for a period of six (6) months after the service of his sentence in Criminal Case No. 13853. cSEDTC
SO ORDERED." (HERNANDO, J., on official leave.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
* Ricky y Mohammad in some parts of the rollo.
1.Rollo, pp. 22-23.
2.Id. at 3-21; penned by Associate Justice Perpetua T. Atal-Paño with Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Edgardo T. Lloren, concurring.
3. CA rollo, pp. 31-48; penned by Judge Godofredo B. Abul, Jr.
4. 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.
5. Section 15. Use of Dangerous Drugs. — A person apprehended or arrested, who is found to be positive for use of any dangerous drug, after a confirmatory test, shall be imposed a penalty of a minimum of six (6) months rehabilitation in a government center for the first offense, subject to the provisions of Article VIII of this Act. If apprehended using any dangerous drug for the second time, he/she shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years and a fine ranging from Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) to Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00): Provided, That this Section shall not be applicable where the person tested is also found to have in his/her possession such quantity of any dangerous drug provided for under Section 11 of this Act, in which case the provisions stated therein shall apply.
6. CA rollo, p. 47.
7. Filed against accused-appellant Roberto Cabiling y Pasilong and accused Ricky Sanson y Mohammad. As culled from the RTC Omnibus Decision, CA rollo, pp. 31-32.
8. Filed against accused Ricky Sanson y Mohammad. As culled from the RTC Omnibus Decision, id. at 32.
9. Filed against accused-appellant Roberto Cabiling y Pasilong. As culled from the RTC Omnibus Decision, id. at 32-33.
10.Rollo, p. 5.
11.Id. at 6-7.
12. Records, p. 11.
13.Rollo, pp. 9-10. See also CA rollo, pp. 73-74.
14.Id. at 11-13.
15.Id.
16.Id. at 12-13.
17. CA rollo, pp. 31-48.
18.Id. at 47.
19.Id. at 39-47.
20.Id. at 13-14.
21.Rollo, pp. 3-21.
22.Id. at 15-20.
23.Id. at 22-23.
24.Id. at 29-30; 36-37.
25.People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 238339, August 7, 2019, citing People v. Unisa, 674 Phil. 89, 108 (2011).
26.People v. Unisa, supra.
27.Rollo, p. 7.
28.People v. De Dios, G.R. No. 243664, January 22, 2020.
29. 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, and which took effect on August 7, 2014.
30.Sayson v. People, G.R. No. 249289, September 28, 2020. See also People v. Alconde, G.R. No. 238117, February 4, 2019.
31.People v. Almorfe, 631 Phil. 51, 60 (2010).
32. Records, p. 11.
33.Id.
34.Rollo, p. 10.
35.People v. De Dios, supra.
36.Rollo, p. 18.
37.Id. at 9-10.