FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 202185. November 22, 2017.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. MARIAM CONGCO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 22, 2017, which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 202185 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARIAM CONGCO, Accused-Appellant.
In this appeal, accused-appellant Mariam Congco (accused-appellant Congco) seeks this Court's review of the Decision dated August 17, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB-CR-H.C. No. 01078, which affirmed the Joint Judgment dated May 5, 2009 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 28 of Mandaue City in Criminal Case Nos. DU-12340 and ICU-12880, finding accused-appellant Congco guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Facts of the Case
Two separate Informations were filed against accused-appellant Congco charging her of illegally selling and possessing methamphetamine hydrochloride, respectively defined and punished under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, committed as follows:
Crim. Case No. DU-12340
That on or about the 24th day of July, 2004 in the City of Mandaue, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with deliberate intent and without being authorized by law, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and give away to another "shabu" or methamphetamine hydrochloride weighing [99.54] 1 grams, a dangerous drug. 2
Crim. Case No. DU-12880
That on or about the 24th day of July 2004, in the City of Mandaue, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the [above-named] accused, without authority of law, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in her possession, custody and control one transparent plastic pack of white crystalline substance weighing 98.48 gm. which when subjected to laboratory examination gave positive results for the presence of methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. 3
Upon her arraignment, accused-appellant Congco pleaded not guilty to both charges.
As shown in the Pre-Trial Order dated November 4, 2004, accused-appellant Congco admitted the following matters: (1) the existence of Chemistry Report No. D-1309-2004 and the expertise of David Alexander Patriana who prepared the report; (2) the existence of the specimens subject matter of the chemistry report as well as the accuracy of the said report; (3) the existence of a receipt of confiscated articles consisting of two big plastic packs containing white substance, boodle money with two pieces of P500.00 bills, and a Nokia cellphone; (4) that accused-appellant Congco was arrested on July 24, 2004 at about 5:00 in the afternoon in Pagsabungan, Mandaue City; and (5) that the arresting officers are all assigned at the 7th Regional Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG7), Camp Sotero Cabahug, Cebu City.
On the other hand, the prosecution admitted the following stipulations: (1) that there was no pre-operation report submitted to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Manila; (2) that the inventory of the items recovered from accused-appellant Congco was not signed by her nor witnessed by the persons specifically required by law; (3) that there was no photograph taken of the alleged items that were recovered; and (4) that the arresting officers were not conducting a checkpoint at the time of accused-appellant Congco's arrest. The prosecution, however, alleged that a buy-bust operation was conducted.
The prosecution established the facts from the testimonies of its witnesses: (1) P/Chief Inspector Rex Derilo (PCI Derilo), and (2) Senior Police Officer (SPO) 1 Delfin Bontuyan (SPO1 Bontuyan) — to prove that they received information from their confidential agent that accused-appellant Congco conducted her business of repacking and distribution of shabu at the Traveler's Lodge located in Carbon Area, Cebu City.
Acting on the tip, joint elements of CIDG7 of the Philippine National Police (PNP) and the Regional 7 PDEA (PDEA-7) planned a buy-bust operation on July 24, 2004, with the confidential agent placing an order with accused-appellant Congco for 100 grains of shabu worth P120,000.00. A team was formed with PCI Derilo as leader of the buy-bust team, SPO1 Bontuyan as poseur-buyer, SPO1 Edmund Jungco (SPO1 Jungco), Police Officer (PO) 2 Roel Leyson (PO2 Leyson), and PO1 Edilberto Dacalos (PO1 Dacalos), as members. aScITE
According to PCI Derilo, his team conducted monitoring operations and confirmed that accused-appellant Congco was repacking shabu at the Traveler's Lodge near San Jose in Carbon Area, Cebu City. On July 21, 2004, in a rented room with stalls selling DVDs and VCDs in the lodge, PCI Derilo observed accused-appellant Congco repacking shabu from big plastic packs into smaller sachets, and handing one small plastic sachet with white crystalline substance to a person who in turn, handed her some money. On July 24, 2004, at 3:00 in the afternoon, he and his team went to Pagsabungan, Mandaue City to conduct the buy-bust operation. The team stayed inside a tinted vehicle parked at some distance from the agreed meeting place on San Roque Street, Pagsabungan, Mandaue City, while SPO1 Bontuyan was outside the vehicle waiting for accused-appellant Congco. At around 5:00 in the afternoon within the same day, accused-appellant Congco arrived on board a taxicab with a female companion. SPO1 Bontuyan approached the taxicab and had a short discussion with accused-appellant Congco who gave him one pack of shabu in exchange for the boodle money placed inside an envelope. SPO1 Bontuyan then gave the pre-arranged signal that the transaction was done. PCI Derilo and the rest of the team rushed to SPO1 Bontuyan and accused-appellant Congco, and identified themselves as police officers. They arrested accused-appellant Congco and informed her of her constitutional rights. A search of her bag yielded another pack of shabu. Thereafter, the two packs — one received by the poseur-buyer and the second one retrieved from accused-appellant Congco's bag — were sent to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. Both packs were found positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, as per Chemistry Report No. D-1309-2004. The existence and the accuracy of said report were admitted by accused-appellant Congco in the Pre-Trial Order dated November 4, 2004.
SPO1 Bontuyan corroborated the testimony of PCI Derilo. He added that they used two P500.00 bills with serial numbers KS651046 and JU118111 on top of cut-out newspapers as boodle money for the buy-bust operation. According to SPO1 Bontuyan, he placed the marking "ML-1" on the pack that he received from accused-appellant Congco from the buy-bust operation, and "ML-2" on the pack that was recovered inside her shoulder bag. Thereafter, he prepared the request for laboratory examination and brought the specimens to the PNP Crime Laboratory.
SPO1 Bontuyan prepared a Receipt dated July 24, 2004 enumerating all the items confiscated from accused-appellant Congco and her female companion during the buy-bust operation, which both refused to sign. The existence of this receipt was admitted by accused-appellant Congco in the Pre-Trial Order dated November 4, 2004, was offered in evidence, and was admitted by the RTC.
On the other hand, accused-appellant Congco maintained her innocence and stated that she was originally from a rich family in Marawi City, and that she came to Cebu to set up a lending business in the Carbon Area, at the prodding of a Muslim friend who resided beside the market in the area. She contended that on July 24, 2004, the police officers stopped the taxicab she and a female companion were in, entered the vehicle, and poked a gun at her. She claimed that they took the money she had in her bag amounting to P500,000.00, which was her collection from her lending business. According to accused-appellant Congco, she and her companion were brought to the police station where they were immediately placed in a cell. She further narrated that PCI Derilo asked for P500,000.00 in exchange for their release. She was then allowed to use a cellphone to get in touch with her relatives who came up with the money after three days. Only her female companion, who was her cousin, was released because PCI Derilo demanded more money from them. Unfortunately, they could not produce another P500,000.00 so she remained in detention.
Other witnesses presented by accused-appellant Congco were SPO1 Jungco, PO2 Dindo Tuliao (PO2 Tuliao), and SPO2 Gerry Galon (SPO2 Galon). SPO1 Jungco narrated the same incidents during the buy-bust operation. PO2 Tuliao presented the logbook of PDEA-7, but testified that he was not the duty officer on the day of the buy-bust operation. SPO2 Galon then testified that he was the duty officer on July 24, 2004, but could not recall if their office received any pre-operation report submitted by the CIDG as no entry was made in their logbook of said document.
The Ruling of the RTC
In a Joint Judgment dated May 5, 2009, the RTC found accused-appellant Congco guilty beyond reasonable doubt of both offenses charged. The dispositive portion of which reads: HEITAD
WHEREFORE, this Joint Judgment is rendered finding the accused MARIAM CONGCO guilty beyond reasonable doubt in DU-12340 for sale and delivery of shabu, a dangerous drug. Pursuant to Section 5, Article II, R.A. [No.] 9165, this Court hereby imposes upon MARIAM CONGCO, the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) together with accessory penalties under Section 35, Article II thereof and costs.
In DU-12880, the accused MARIAM CONGCO is also found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for possession of shabu. Since the pack of shabu recovered from her possession had a weight of 98.48 grams, the Court, pursuant to Section 11 specifically under paragraph 5 thereof, Article II of R.A. [No.] 9165, hereby sentences MARIAM CONGCO with the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) together with accessory penalties under Section 35, Article II thereof and costs.
MARIAM CONGCO shall be given full credit of the period of her preventive detention.
The Court directs the destruction of the 2 packs of shabu marked as Exhibit "B" and Exhibit "B-1." 4
The RTC held that the prosecution was able to establish the chain of custody and preserve the integrity and identity of the dangerous drugs seized from accused-appellant Congco. It found the testimony of accused-appellant Congco not credible since no evidence was presented to substantiate her claims. Moreover, the RTC noted that accused-appellant's claim that she was a victim of robbery and extortion was self-serving and had no evidentiary value at all.
The Ruling of the Court of Appeals
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's judgment convicting accused-appellant Congco in its Decision dated August 17, 2011, to wit:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the Joint Judgment dated May 5, 2009 of the RTC, Branch 28, Mandaue City in Criminal Case Nos. DU-12340 and DU-12880 is hereby AFFIRMED. 5
Hence, this final appeal.
Issues
In her Appellant's Brief, accused-appellant Congco presents the following issues for this Court's resolution, to wit:
1. The Honorable Regional Trial Court, Branch 28, Mandaue City (court a quo for brevity) erred in convicting the accused (now accused-appellant) notwithstanding the fact that the identity of the corpus delicti of the crime as well as the chain of custody thereof have not been sufficiently proven and established with certainty;
2. The Court a quo erred in holding the accused-appellant guilty despite the fact that neither inventory of the seized items allegedly recovered from [her] was taken nor its detailed copy was given to the latter at the scene of the crime;
3. The Court a quo erred in appreciating the evidence of the prosecution despite the contradictory statements in material points of its respective witnesses;
4. The Court a quo erred in convicting the accused-appellant in spite of the failure of the witnesses for the prosecution to comply with the requirements provided for in Section 21 of R.A. [No.] 9165; [and]
5. The Court a quo erred in rendering its Joint Judgment against the accused-appellant in spite of the failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 6
Accused-appellant Congco reiterates her innocence and maintains that the prosecution failed to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. She asserts that the identity of the corpus delicti of the crime and the chain of custody thereof have not been sufficiently proven and established with certainty, and that there was no inventory of the seized items allegedly recovered from her. Further, she claims that the prosecution presented contradictory statements from its witnesses and failed to comply with the requirements provided in Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165.
On the other hand, appellee People of the Philippines contends that the issues raised by accused-appellant Congco all referred to the prosecution's noncompliance with Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, which is actually not fatal to its case. The prosecution asserts that all the elements of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 which were committed by accused-appellant Congco were proven beyond reasonable doubt. Likewise, the prosecution claims that the chain of custody of the evidence was never broken such that its integrity and evidentiary value were adequately preserved. ATICcS
The Ruling of the Court
This Court has reviewed the records of this case and has found no reason to overturn the decision convicting accused-appellant Congco of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.
Accused-appellant Congco was charged and convicted for the sale and possession of dangerous drugs in violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, which 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
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
(5) 50 grams or more of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu[.]"
Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs
A conviction for the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs requires the concurrence of the following elements: (1) the identities of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. 7 Simply put, the prosecution must prove that the transaction or sale of dangerous drugs actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the dangerous drugs seized as evidence.
In this case, all the elements of the crime have been sufficiently established by the prosecution. Through the testimonies of PCI Derilo and SPO1 Bontuyan, the prosecution narrated a detailed account of the buy-bust operation which they conducted on July 24, 2004 at around 5:00 in the afternoon in Pagsabungan, Mandaue City. As the poseur-buyer, SPO1 Bontuyan identified accused-appellant Congco as the seller who handed him a plastic pack containing white crystalline substance, which later on tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. In exchange, SPO1 Bontuyan gave her the boodle money with two genuine P500.00 bills. Thereafter, he gave the hand signal to inform the rest of the buy-bust team that the transaction was consummated.
Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs
On the charge of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must establish the following elements: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. 8
Here, the prosecution was likewise able to establish that after accused-appellant Congco was validly arrested for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, she was searched and frisked, pursuant to Section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, 9 and was found to be in possession of another plastic pack containing white crystalline substance which later on tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. Accused-appellant Congco failed to present any evidence showing that she had legal authority to possess the seized dangerous drugs. Moreover, mere possession of a prohibited drug constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of satisfactory explanation. 10 Clearly, all the elements of the offense of illegal possession of dangerous drugs are present in the instant case.
Chain of Custody of Evidence
For the prosecution of both illegal sale and illegal possession of a dangerous drug, the corpus delicti of the offenses is the dangerous drug itself, 11 in this case, shabu. The prosecution must show that the dangerous drug sold by or in the possession of the accused is the same dangerous drug seized from the said accused and taken into custody by the apprehending officer. The existence of the corpus delicti heavily relies on whether the chain of custody over the seized items has been preserved. TIADCc
Paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 outlines the procedure on the chain of custody of confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered dangerous drugs, to wit:
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.
In People v. Llanita, 12 quoting People v. Kamad, 13 this Court enumerated the different links that must be proven to establish the concept of chain of custody, thus:
"Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody was made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition.
In the case of People v. Kamad, the Court had the opportunity to enumerate the different links that the prosecution must prove in order to establish the chain of custody in a buy-bust operation, namely:
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.
In this case, accused-appellant alleges that the identity of the corpus delicti of the crime and the chain of custody thereof have not been sufficiently proven and established with certainty; and that there was no inventory of the seized items allegedly recovered from her. She asserts that noncompliance of the arresting officers with the requirements in Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 is fatal to the prosecution's case.
This Court, however, finds that the arresting officers had substantially complied with the rule on the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs as provided under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. The prosecution was able to present sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved and safeguarded through an unbroken chain of custody:
(a) The subject dangerous drugs were recovered from accused-appellant Congco after she was apprehended by the arresting officers of the buy-bust team;
(b) Upon the seizure of the subject dangerous drugs from accused-appellant Congco, the same remained in the possession of SPO1 Bontuyan;
(c) SPO1 Bontuyan also had in his possession the boodle money which had two genuine P500.00 bills bearing the serial numbers KS651046 and JU118111 respectively; AIDSTE
(d) After the arrest, SPO1 Bontuyan and the rest of the buy-bust team recovered another plastic pack with white crystalline substance from the bag of accused-appellant Congco;
(e) SPO1 Bontuyan, PCI Derilo, and the rest of the buy-bust team with accused-appellant Congco and her female companion then proceeded to the police station for documentation;
(f) At the police station, SPO1 Bontuyan placed the mark "ML-1" on the pack that he received from the buy-bust operation, and "ML-2" on the other pack that was recovered from the bag of accused-appellant Congco;
(g) SPO1 Bontuyan prepared a Receipt dated July 24, 2004 enumerating all the items confiscated from accused-appellant Congco and her female companion during the buy-bust operation, which both refused to sign but was admitted by accused-appellant Congco in the Pre-Trial Order dated November 4, 2004;
(h) A request for laboratory examination of the two packs was also prepared by SPO1 Bontuyan, and signed by Police Superintendent Salvador Quimson Manga;
(i) SPO1 Bontuyan identified the letter request dated July 24, 2004 and testified that he delivered the same together with the seized dangerous drugs to the PNP Crime Laboratory; and
(j) Upon receipt of the subject letter request and the seized items with markings, Police Senior Inspector (PSI) Forensic Chemical Officer David Alexander Tan Patriana examined the subject specimens which tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride, as per Chemistry Report No. D-1309-2004, which was also admitted by accused-appellant Congco in the Pre-Trial Order dated November 4, 2004.
From the foregoing enumeration, it is clear that the failure of the prosecution to present photographs of the inventory of the seized items is not fatal and did not render the seized drugs inadmissible in evidence given that the prosecution was able to trace and establish each and every link in the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs. Hence, the identity and integrity of the said drugs had been preserved.
As correctly held by the Court of Appeals:
Therefore, the trial court correctly observed that, while no physical inventory and photograph were taken of the items recovered from accused-appellant [Congco], the integrity of the seized items had been properly preserved. Although the arresting officers failed to strictly comply with Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165 by failing to photograph the seized items at the scene of the crime, the evidentiary value of the items was adequately preserved. Findings of facts made by the trial court is entitled to great weight due to its best position to recognize and distinguish spontaneous declaration from rehearsed spiel, straightforward assertion from a stuttering claim, definite statement from tentative disclosure, and, to a certain degree, truth from untruth. 14
It must be remembered that unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered or meddled with, the presumptions that the integrity of such evidence had been preserved, and that the arresting officers who handled the seized dangerous drugs had discharged their duties properly and with regularity, will remain. 15 Here, accused-appellant Congco failed to substantiate her accusations of extortion against the arresting officers and the members of the buy-bust team. She did not bother to file any case against the arresting officers, or at the very least, present the female companion who was arrested with her, and/or any of her relatives whom she earlier narrated had come up with the P500,000.00 that PCI Derilo asked for in exchange for her freedom. Instead, she merely harped on the alleged noncompliance with the chain of custody rule as required in Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, to evade liability for her actions.
In sum, this Court affirms accused-appellant Congco's conviction for the offenses charged. Accused-appellant Congco has been correctly found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of 99.54 grains of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu in Criminal Case No. DU-12340, and of illegal possession of 98.48 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu in Criminal Case No. DU-12880.
As to the penalties imposed, this Court finds them proper and likewise affirms the same. For the illegal sale of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, regardless of the quantity and purity involved, the penalty under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 shall be life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00). In this case, the RTC, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, properly imposed upon accused-appellant Congco the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00), together with the accessory penalties under Section 35, 16 Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. AaCTcI
With regard to the illegal possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu under Section 11, Paragraph 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the penalty shall be life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00). Here, the RTC, as upheld by the Court of Appeals, correctly sentenced accused-appellant Congco to life imprisonment and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00), together with the accessory penalties under Section 35, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated August 17, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB-CR-H.C. No. 01078 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Originally indicated as 198.02 grams which is actually the total amount of shabu seized from accused-appellant Congco in the buy-bust operation.
2. CA rollo, p. 8.
3.Id. at 10.
4.Id. at 27.
5.Rollo, p. 13.
6. CA rollo, p. 44.
7.People v. Somoza, 714 Phil. 368, 381 (2013).
8.Id. at 381-382.
9. SEC. 13. Search incident to lawful arrest. — A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant.
10.Asiatico v. People, 673 Phil. 74, 81 (2011).
11.People v. Lapasaran, 700 Phil. 770, 777-778 (2012).
12. 696 Phil. 167, 181-182 (2012).
13. 624 Phil. 289, 304 (2010).
14.Rollo, p. 13.
15.People v. Manalao, 703 Phil. 101, 114 (2013).
16. SECTION 35. Accessory Penalties. — A person convicted under this Act [Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, Republic Act No. 9165, June 7, 2002] shall be disqualified to exercise his/her civil rights such as but not limited to, the rights of parental authority or guardianship, either as to the person or property of any ward, the rights to dispose of such property by any act or any conveyance inter vivos, and political rights such as but not limited to, the right to vote and be voted for. Such rights shall also be suspended during the pendency of an appeal from such conviction.