THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 252149. May 5, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.RAZZEL DE GUZMAN y ANDRADE, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMay 5, 2021, which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 252149 (People of the Philippines v. Razzel De Guzman y Andrade). — This is an Appeal 1 from the Decision 2 dated October 31, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12087 which affirmed the Judgment 3 dated October 22, 2018 of Branch 68, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Pasig City in Criminal Case Nos. 21350-D-SJ and 21351-D-SJ finding Razzel De Guzman y Andrade (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Antecedents
In two separate Informations, 4 accused-appellant was charged with violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165. The accusatory portions of the Informations read:
Crim. Case No. 21350-D-SJ
That, on or about the 6th day of October 2016, in the City of San Juan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being lawfully authorized to sell any dangerous drug, did, then and there knowingly, unlawfully and criminally sell, deliver and give away to poseur buyer PO3 Jonald Tungcul y Alonzo, one (1) heat sealed transparent plastic sachet (later marked as ["JAT Buy Bust"] with signature) containing zero point two three (0.23) gram of white crystalline substance, in consideration of three (3) pieces of Php100.00 peso bills or a total of "Three Hundred Pesos (Php300.00), which substance was found positive to the test for "Methamphetamine Hydrochloride," commonly known as "shabu," which is a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
Crim. Case No. 21351-D-SJ
That, on or about the 6th day of October 2016, in the City of San Juan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess any dangerous drug, did, then and there knowingly, unlawfully and criminally possess and have in her custody and control two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic [sachets] (marked as ["JAT-1"] and ["JAT-2"] with signature) containing zero point two zero [(0.20)] gram and zero point two six [(0.26)] gram, respectively, of white crystalline substance, with a total weight of zero point four six [(0.46)] gram and which substances were found positive to the test for "Methamphetamine Hydrochloride," also known as "shabu," which is a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 6
When arraigned, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges. Trial on the merits then ensued. 7
The facts as summarized by the CA are as follows:
Version of the Prosecution
On October 6, 2016, a confidential informant reported to the San Juan Police Station the illegal drug trade activities of a certain alias "Gingging" in Brgy. Progreso, San Juan City. In a briefing, Police Chief Inspector Hoover Pascual, the Chief of the Special Anti-Illegal Drugs, Special Operation Task Group (SAID-SOTG) designated Police Officer 3 Jonald Tungcul (PO3 Tungcul) as poseur-buyer and five police officers as back-up. 8
Upon arrival at the target area, the confidential informant called out accused-appellant and introduced PO3 Tungcul as his friend who wanted to buy shabu. PO3 Tungcul then gave three P100 bills (buy-bust money) to accused-appellant, who, in turn, handed to PO3 Tungcul one plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance of suspected shabu. Subsequently, PO3 Tungcul took off his cap to signal the team that the transaction was consummated. 9
Immediately thereafter, PO3 Tungcul arrested accused-appellant and instructed her to empty her pockets. He recovered two more plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance of suspected shabu, and the buy-bust money. PO3 Tungcul marked the item subject of the sale "JAT BUY BUST" and the other two recovered plastic sachets in the possession of accused-appellant with "JAT-1" and "JAT-2". 10
At the police station, the police officers made the inventory of the seized items in the presence of Barangay Kagawad Jervey Luna (Barangay Kagawad Luna) and Department of Justice (DOJ) representative Ronalyn Jane Plamio (Plamio), who both signed the Evidence Inventory Receipt. The police officers also photographed the conduct of the inventory. The police officers turned over the seized items to Police Senior Inspector Anghelisa Vicente (PSI Vicente), who later on conducted a qualitative examination on them. The contents of sachet subject of the sale weighing 0.23 gram and the two plastic sachets with an aggregate weight of 0.46 gram tested positive for shabu. 11
Version of the Defense
On the other hand, accused-appellant denied the charges against her. Instead, she narrated that on October 6, 2016, at around 11:00 p.m., she heard someone call out her name such that she peeped through the window of her room. She then saw PO3 Tungcul and four other police operatives outside. When she opened the door of the house, two police officers searched the house premises without presenting any search warrant. 12
After more than an hour, the police officers came out of the house empty-handed. They, however, brought accused-appellant to the police station. There, the latter saw the police officers lay down plastic sachets or shabu with markings and P100 bills and took photographs of them. She insisted to the trial court that it was her first time to see those items and denied having any involvement in the sale of illegal drugs. 13
The Ruling of the RTC
In the Judgment 14 dated October 22, 2018, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty as charged. It gave credence to the narration of the poseur-buyer, PO3 Tungcul that: accused-appellant sold one plastic sachet of shabu in exchange for P300.00; accused-appellant, after the arrest, was also found in possession of two additional plastic sachets of shabu; the seized plastic sachets tested positive for shabu; and they were properly identified in court as the subject of the offenses charged.
Moreover, the RTC found that the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti were preserved. 15 Thus, it decreed as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the court hereby renders judgment as follows:
In Crim. Case No. 21350-D-SJ for violation of Section 5, Art. II, RA 9165 for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, accused RAZZEL DE GUZMAN y ANDRADE is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php500,000.00).
In Crim. Case No. 21351-D-SJ for violation of Section 11, Art. II, RA 9165 for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, accused RAZZEL DE GUZMAN y ANDRADE is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of Twelve (12) Years and One (1) Day, as minimum to Thirteen (13) Years, as maximum, and pay the fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php300,000.00).
Accordingly, let Commitment Order (Mittimus) issue for the transfer of accused Razzel De Guzman y Andrade to the Correctional Institution for Women, Mandaluyong City for her to serve her sentence.
Pursuant to Section 21 of Republic Act 9165, let the dangerous drugs subject matter of this case be turned over to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for immediate destruction. The PDEA is hereby directed to retrieve the said dangerous drug from the evidence custodian of this court within reasonable hours of the day for destruction within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt thereof.
SO ORDERED. 16
Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed to the CA.
The Ruling of the CA
On October 31, 2019, the CA affirmed the RTC Decision. 17 It similarly found that an unbroken chain of custody over the seized evidence was established and ruled that the integrity and the evidentiary value thereof had been preserved. 18 Moreover, the CA gave no weight on accused-appellant's defense of denial which is inherently weak, self-serving and easy to fabricate. 19
Hence, this appeal before the Court.
The Issue
Whether the CA properly affirmed the ruling of the RTC which found accused-appellant guilty as charged.
The Ruling of the Court
The appeal has no merit.
For the successful prosecution of a violation of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165, "the following elements must concur: (a) the accused was in possession of an item or object identified as a prohibited drug; (b) such possession was not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug." 20
Meanwhile, to secure a conviction for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under the same law, "the prosecution must establish the following elements: (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. What is important is that the sale transaction of drugs actually took place and that the object of the transaction is properly presented as evidence in court and is shown to be the same drugs seized from the accused." 21
"[T]he identity of the dangerous drug must [likewise] be established with moral certainty." 22 The prosecution must account for each link of the chain of custody from the moment the illicit drugs are seized from the accused up to the time they are presented in court as evidence of the crime. 23 The law further requires that the marking, physical inventory, and photographing of the seized items be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation. 24
Likewise, the inventory and photographing must 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 the other insulating witnesses. If the crime was committed prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, 25 the insulating witnesses shall be (a) a representative from the media, (b) a DOJ representative and, (c) an elected public official. If the crime was committed after the amendment of RA 9165, the necessary witnesses are: (a) an elected public official and (b) a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media. 26 In cases where there is failure to comply with the witness requirement, the prosecution must prove that the apprehending officers exerted reasonable efforts to secure the presence of the required witnesses, regardless if these witnesses appeared or not. 27
Here, the offenses were committed on October 6, 2016, or after the amendment of RA 9165. Hence, the police officers who arrested and inventoried the seized items must conform with the witness requirement under RA 10640.
"As a rule, strict compliance with the prescribed procedure is required because of the illegal drug's unique characteristic rendering it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and susceptible to tampering, alteration, or substitution either by accident or otherwise." 28 Hence, the presence of the aforementioned witnesses safeguards the accused from any unlawful tampering of the evidence against him. 29
The failure to observe strict compliance with the chain of custody rule will not render the seizure and custody of the seized items void as long as the prosecution offers a justifiable ground for non-compliance thereof; and provided further, that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. 30
As found by the CA, accused-appellant was caught in flagrante delicto of selling shabu in a buy-bust operation. After the consummation of the sale, two other plastic sachets of shabu were recovered from her possession. 31 PO3 Tungcul immediately took custody of the evidence and conducted the marking, inventory, and photographing of the seized items in the presence of Barangay Kagawad Luna and DOJ representative Plamio, who both signed the inventory receipt. Thereafter, the police officers turned over the seized items to PCI Vicente, a Forensic Chemist of the Eastern Police District Crime Laboratory Office in Mandaluyong City; and, subsequently, the seized items were found positive of shabu, an illegal drug. Thus, the CA, in sustaining the RTC decision highlighted on the following matters:
The court a quo correctly gave full credence to the testimonies of PO3 Tungcul after finding his answers to the questions both on direct and cross-examination to be intelligible, candid and unwavering. His testimony was likewise without any material inconsistencies, contradictions or fabrications. The age-old rule is that the task of assigning values to the testimonies of witnesses and weighing their credibility is best left to the trial court which forms first-hand impressions as witnesses testify before it. It is thus no surprise that findings and conclusions of trial courts on the credibility of witnesses enjoy a badge of respect, for the trial courts have the advantage of observing the demeanor of witnesses as they testify.
The prosecution's evidence was further supported by the physical evidence on record, which is Physical Sciences Report No. D-595-16E dated October 7, 2016, showing that the white crystalline substance inside the plastic sachet sold PO3 Tungcul marked as "JAT BUY BUST" was positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. The other two (2) plastic sachets recovered from the possession of appellant marked as "JAT-1" and "JAT-2" with a total weight of zero point [forty] six (0.46) gram, were also confirmed to be shabu.
Moreover, there was no break in the chain of custody over the seized illegal drugs and the integrity and the evidentiary value thereof had been properly preserved. The records of the case show that at the place of the arrest. PO3 Tungcul wrote distinct markings on the seized plastic sachets of shabu. In the presence of appellant, the inventory of the seized items was witnessed by Brgy. Kagawad Jervey Luna of San Perfecto, San Juan City and DOJ representative Ronalyn Jane Plamio who both signed the Evidence Inventory Receipt. Photographs were also taken during the said inventory.
At the police station, the seized items were turned over to SPO1 Gener Adrian Antazo for investigation. A letter-request for laboratory examination was prepared to determine the presence of any form of dangerous drugs in the seized items. SPO1 Antazo personally delivered the letter-request, along with the seized items, to the crime laboratory where the same were received and recorded by PO2 Rabago at 1:10 a.m. of October 7, 2016 as shown by the rubber stamped delivery receipt thereof. Thereafter, PO2 Rabago turned over the seized items to PCI Anghelisa Vicente, a Forensic Chemist assigned at the Eastern Police District Crime Laboratory Office in Mandaluyong, who conducted a qualitative examination thereon. Moreover, PO3 Tungcul positively identified the corpus delicti or the subject illegal drugs as the same items presented in open court.
Anent appellant's contention that the elected barangay official and the DOJ representative were not present during the actual buy-bust operation, suffice it to state that Section 21, Article II of RA No. 9165 merely requires the presence of the said witnesses during the inventory and taking of photographs of the seized items.
xxx xxx xxx. 32
In view of the foregoing, the Court holds that there is sufficient compliance with the chain of custody rule. Thus, the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti have been properly preserved. Perforce, accused-appellant's conviction must stand.
As to the penalty imposed, Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 provides that the penalty for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, like shabu, regardless of its quantity and purity, is life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00. With the enhancement of RA 9346, 33 proscribed; hence, only life imprisonment and a fine shall be imposed. Thus, the penalty imposed by the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, for the offense of illegal sale of shabu is proper. 34
With regard to the penalty for violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165, the offense of illegal possession of less than five grams of shabu is penalized 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. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law in imposing a prison sentence for an offense punishable by a law other than the Revised Penal Code, the Court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the minimum term of which shall not be less than the minimum fixed by law and the maximum of which shall not exceed the maximum term prescribed by the same. In this case, accused-appellant was found in illegal possession of 0.46 gram of shabu. Consequently, the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, properly imposed the penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to thirteen (13) years, as maximum, and the fine of P300,000.00 against accused-appellant. 35
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated October 31, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12087 is hereby AFFIRMED. Accused-appellant Razzel De Guzman is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of Illegal Sale and Possession of Dangerous Drugs, defined and penalized under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs of 2002." She is sentenced to suffer the following penalties: (a) for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00; and (b) for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to thirteen (13) years, as maximum, and a fine of P300,000.00. aScITE
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) RUMAR D. PASIONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 22-24.
2.Id. at 3-21; penned by Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia, with Associate Justices Victoria Isabel A. Paredes and Tita Marilyn B. Payoyo-Villordon, concurring.
3. CA rollo, pp. 52-62; penned by Presiding Judge Juvencio S. Gascon.
4.Rollo, p. 5.
5. As culled from CA Decision, id.
6. As culled from CA Decision, id.
7.Id.
8.Id. at 7.
9.Id. at 8.
10.Id.
11.Id. at 9.
12.Id. at 9-10.
13.Id.
14. CA rollo, 52-62.
15.Id. at 59-60.
16.Id. at 61.
17. CA rollo, pp. 52-62.
18.Rollo, p. 17.
19.Id. at 19.
20.Sayson v. People, G.R. No. 249289 (Resolution), September 28, 2020.
21.People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 29 (2017).
22.People v. Santos, G.R. No. 243627, November 27, 2019.
23.People v. Año, 828 Phil. 439 (2018). See also People v. Viterbo, 739 Phil. 593 (2014) and People v. Alagarme, 754 Phil. 449 (2015).
24. See People v. Gabunada, G.R. No. 242827, September 9, 2019.
25. 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.
26.People v. Santos, supra note 22.
27.Id.
28.Padas v. People, G.R. No. 244327, October 14, 2019.
29.Id.
30. See People v. Almorfe, 631 Phil. 51, 60 (2010).
31.Rollo, pp. 14-15.
32.Id. at 17-18.
33. An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty, June 24, 2006.
34.People v. Dadang, G.R. No. 242880, January 22, 2020.
35.Id.