SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 248605. October 13, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ARMIN CHUA y SALVADOR, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated13 October 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 248605 (People of the Philippines v. Armin Chua y Salvador). — This is an appeal 1 from the Decision 2 dated September 3, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 08928 affirming the Decision 3 dated October 4, 2016 of Branch 263, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Marikina City in Criminal Case Nos. 2015-4635-D-MK and 2015-4636-D-MK finding Armin Chua y Salvador (accused-appellant) guilty of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
The Antecedents
Two Informations were filed against accused-appellant before the RTC charging him with violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165. The Informations read:
Criminal Case No. 2015-4635-D-MK
That on or about the 12th day February 2015, in the [C]ity of Marikina, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by the law, to possess or otherwise use any dangerous drugs, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, direct custody and control six (6) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets of white crystalline substance, weighing 0.10 gram which was subsequently marked as "ASC IA 02/12/15", 0.12 gram which was marked ''ASC IB 02/12/15", 0.10 gram which was marked as "ASC ID 02/12/15", 2.8 grams which was marked as "ASC ID 02/12/15", 0.10 gram which was marked as "ASC IE 02/12/15" and 0.10 gram which was marked as "ASC IA 02/12/15", respectively, positive to the test for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law. 4 (Italics omitted.)
Criminal Case No. 2015-4636-D-MK
That on or about the 12th day of February 2015, in the City of Marikina, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, the above named accused, without being authorized by law did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell to PO1 RUBELYN D. OPELAC, a poseur-buyer, 0.05 gram of white crystalline substance, subsequently marked as "ASC-BB 02/12/15" tested positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5 CAIHTE
Upon motion of the prosecution, the RTC consolidated the two cases. 6
When arraigned, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges.
Trial ensued. 7
The prosecution established that on February 12, 2015, police operatives of the Marikina City Station, Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Group, received information from the then Vice Mayor of Marikina City, Jose Fabian Cadiz (Vice Mayor Cadiz), that accused-appellant was selling shabu at his residence located along M. Roxas Street, Brgy. Calumpang, Marikina City. After hatching a buy-bust plan and coordinating with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), the police operatives successfully conducted a buy-bust operation against accused-appellant during which six plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance were recovered from him. After accused-appellant's arrest, Police Officer I Rubelyn D. Opelac (PO1 Opelac), the designated poseur-buyer, marked the seized items at the crime scene. Thereafter, PO1 Opelac conducted an inventory of the seized items in the presence of media representative, Arlene Rivera (Rivera), and local officials of Marikina City, namely: Barangay Kagawad Valeriano Estanislao (Barangay Kagawad Estanislao), City Councilors Frankie Ayuson (Ayuson) and Ronnie Acuna (Acuna), and Vice Mayor Cadiz. Subsequently, the police officers brought the seized plastic sachets to the crime laboratory where, after examination, their contents tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu. 8
In his defense, accused-appellant denied the charges against him. He averred that while he was riding his bicycle on the way home, a vehicle approached him. The men in the vehicle instructed him to lie face down; then they handcuffed him. Thereafter, the men brought him to the gate of his house and forcibly opened it. Two of the men entered his house. Thereafter, they returned with a table that they placed outside of his house and placed a resealable plastic on top of it. One of the men took out from his pocket three pieces of P100.00 bill. Accused-appellant noticed one of the men take out small plastic sachets containing shabu from the resealable plastic bag and lined them up on the table. After a while, Vice Mayor Cadiz, Councilor Ayuson, Barangay Kagawad Estanislao, and another person arrived. 9
Ruling of the RTC
In the Decision dated October 4, 2016, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165. It disposed of the case as follows:
WHEREFORE, above premises considered, the court finds accused ARMIN CHUA, with respect to Criminal Case No. 2015-4635-D-MK, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 11[,] Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002).
He is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY to TWENTY (20) YEARS and to pay the fine of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P300,000.00)[.]
Likewise, in Criminal Case No. 2015-4636-D-MK, this court finds said accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5[,] Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
For the said offense, accused Armin Chua is sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT. For the said offense, he is hereby ordered to pay the fine of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00).
SO ORDERED. 10
Ruling of the CA
In the Decision 11 dated September 3, 2018, the CA affirmed the RTC. 12 It agreed with the RTC's findings that all the elements of the offenses charged were established and that the chain of custody of the seized items was not broken. 13
Hence, the appeal.
The Issue
The issue for the Court's resolution is whether accused-appellant's guilt for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165 was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Our Ruling
The appeal is not meritorious.
The elements of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 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. 14 Meanwhile, the elements of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 are (a) that the accused was in possession of an item or object identified as a prohibited drug; (b) that such possession was not authorized by law; and (c) that the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. 15
Here, the courts a quo correctly found that all the elements of the offenses charged were established. The police operatives of the Marikina City Police Station caught accused-appellant in flagrante delicto selling shabu to the poseur-buyer, PO1 Opelac, in a legitimate buy-bust operation. After his arrest, and during the search made incidental to his arrest, the police officers recovered six plastic sachets in his possession.
For a successful prosecution of the offenses of Illegal Sale and/or Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, not only is the prosecution bound to establish the above elements; but it is equally essential that the identity of the dangerous drug be established with moral certainty. 16 Thus, 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. 17 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. 18 DETACa
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, 19 a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, 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. 20 The purpose of the presence of these witnesses is to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence. 21
Generally, there must be strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure. 22 However, in cases where strict compliance with the procedure on the chain of custody 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 the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. 23 With respect to the witness requirement, noncompliance may be permitted if the prosecution proves that the apprehending officers exerted genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of the required witnesses, albeit the latter failed to appear. 24
The two-witness rule under RA 10640 applies because the offenses were committed after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640.
After accused-appellant was arrested, the marking and inventory of the confiscated items were conducted at the place of arrest and witnessed by media representative Rivera, Barangay Kagawad Estanislao, City Councilors Ayuson and Acuna, and Vice Mayor Cadiz. This is in conformity with the witness requirement under RA 10640.
All told, the Court finds that there is sufficient compliance with the rule on the chain of custody. Hence, the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti were preserved.
However, the Court deems it proper to modify the penalty imposed by the RTC and affirmed by the CA in Criminal Case No. 2015-4635-D-MK for violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165. The penalty to be imposed for the offense under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 is twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years. The lower courts, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, imposed a penalty whose minimum is not less than twelve (12) years and one (1) day, and whose maximum does not exceed twenty (20) years, as prescribed by Section 11, Article II of RA 9165. However, the Court holds that the indeterminate sentence should be twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, as maximum.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated September 3, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 08928 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant Armin Chua y Salvador is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. Accordingly, he is sentenced as follows: (a) in Criminal Case No. 2015-4635-D-MK for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, to suffer the indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P300,000.00; and (b) in Criminal Case No. 2015-4636-D-MK for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00.
SO ORDERED." (PERLAS-BERNABE, S.A.J., on official leave; HERNANDO, J., designated as Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2846 dated October 6, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. See Notice of Appeal with Compliance dated September 17, 2018, rollo, pp. 13-14.
2.Id. at 3-12; penned by Associate Justice Carmelita Salandanan Manahan with Associate Justices Mario V. Lopez (now a member of the Court) and Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin, concurring.
3. CA rollo, pp. 47-55; penned by Presiding Judge Armando C. Velasco.
4.Id. at 4.
5.Id.
6.Id.
7.Id.
8.Id. at 4-6.
9. CA rollo, pp. 51-52.
10.Id. at 54-55.
11.Rollo, pp. 3-12.
12.Id. at 11-12.
13.Id. at 9-11.
14.People v. Crispo, et al., 828 Phil. 416, 429 (2018), citing People v. Sumili, 753 Phil. 342, 348 (2015).
15.Id., citing People v. Bio, 753 Phil. 730, 736 (2015).
16. See People v. Santos, G.R. No. 243627, November 27, 2019.
17. See People v. Año, 828 Phil. 439, 448 (2018). See also People v. Viterbo, 739 Phil. 593, 601 (2014) and People v. Alagarme, 754 Phil. 449, 459-460 (2015).
18. See People v. Gabunada, G.R. No. 242827, September 9, 2019.
19. 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 became effective on August 7, 2014.
20.People v. Gabunada, supra note 18, citing Section 21 (1) of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 as amended by RA 10640.
21.People v. Piñero, G.R. No. 242407, April 1, 2019. See also People v. Miranda, 824 Phil. 1042, 1050 (2018) and People v. Mendoza, 736 Phil. 749, 764 (2014).
22.People v. Sendad, G.R. No. 242025, November 20, 2019.
23. See People v. Almorfe, 631 Phil. 51, 60 (2010).
24.People v. Gabunada, supra note 18.