People v. Drillon y Quimo

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 198013. October 9, 2013.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.EDGARDO DRILLON Y QUIMNO @KADOT, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated October 9, 2013,which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 198013 (People of the Philippines v. Edgardo Drillon y Quimno @Kadot).— The public prosecutor charged the accused Edgardo Drillon y Quimno a.k.a. "Kadot" with violations of Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act 9165 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City in Criminal Cases 07-2959 and 07-2960, respectively.

Michael Anthony Villanueva (Villanueva),a Makati Anti-Drug Abuse Council (MADAC) operative testified that on November 12, 2007 his office received information that a certain alias "Kadot" was selling illegal drugs on Infanta Street.,Barangay Olympia, Makati City. 1 Thus, Villanueva, as poseur-buyer, together with PO2 Julius Lique (PO2 Lique),as his back-up, went to the suspected area at about 9:00 p.m.

Villanueva and the informant approached accused Drillon who was standing at a street corner. The informant introduced Villanueva to him as a "scorer" who wanted to buy P300.00 worth of shabu. After receiving the money, Drillon took out one plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance from his pocket and handed it over to Villanueva 2 who gave the pre-arranged signal to his back-up, identified himself to Drillon as a MADAC operative, and ordered him to empty his pocket. After initial resistance, Drillon complied and yielded another sachet as well as the money paid him earlier. Villanueva marked them all. cIADaC

After the arrest, the law enforcers took Drillon to the barangay hall of Barangay Sta. Cruz, where the confiscated items were inventoried in the presence of Barangay Captain Victor del Prado (del Prado) and PO2 Lique. 3 Villanueva identified a photocopy of a photograph of two plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance with marking "KADOT" and "KADOT-1" as the sachets that he recovered from Drillon. 4

Barangay Captain del Prado, on the other hand, confirmed the inventory made of the confiscated items done in his presence and that of accused Drillon. He also confirmed that he signed the inventory receipt. 5

Drillon, on the other hand, denied selling shabu. He testified that he was at his live-in partner's house in the evening of November 12, 2007 when two men entered, looking for "Kabog." When Drillon replied that he knew no one by that name, they asked for his alias. He replied that he was known as "Kadot." On hearing this, they took him into custody. 6

After trial, the RTC found Drillon guilty on both counts and imposed on him the penalties of a) life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 for violation of Section 5; and b) imprisonment of 12 years and 1 day as minimum to 20 years as maximum and a fine of P300,000.00 for violation of Section 11. 7 The RTC held that the prosecution amply established the elements of the two crimes as well as their corpus delicti.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed 8 the RTC decision. The CA ruled that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated drugs were preserved despite the lack of photographs taken during the inventory. Drillon now seeks his acquittal from this Court.

The Court finds that the prosecution amply proved that Drillon sold one sachet of shabu to the poseur buyer and, upon being frisked, yielded another sachet of the same substance in his pocket. The more serious challenge that the accused poses before the Court concerns the need for the prosecution to prove the corpus delicti, 9 meaning that the seized sachets of drugs were appropriately marked and passed without tampering from the apprehending officer, to the investigating officer, to the forensic chemist, and to the court. 10

As the CA found, the prosecution evidence has established the chain of evidence from the seizure of the illegal substance to its presentation in court. Indeed, the arresting officers, with the accused in tow, immediately proceeded to the nearby barangay hall after the arrest, presented the accused before the Barangay Captain, and inventoried the seized substances in the latter's presence and in the presence of the accused. Although it is not clear when the officer actually marked the sachets of shabu, this obviously was done shortly before or during their inventory before the Barangay Captain when not much time had elapsed from the moment Drillon was arrested. The Court finds no error in the CA's findings.

WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMSin toto the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC 03757 dated September 24, 2010.

SO ORDERED." ASTcaE

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANODivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. TSN, July 14, 2008, p. 5.

2. Id. at 10.

3. Id. at 13.

4. Id. at 16.

5. TSN, November 10, 2008, p. 4.

6. TSN, January 19, 2009, p. 5.

7. Decision dated January 26, 2009, records, p. 111.

8. Decision dated September 24, 2010, rollo, pp. 2-15.

9. People v. Ditona, G.R. No. 189841, December 15, 2010, 638 SCRA 835, 839.

10. Ampatuan v. People, G.R. No. 183676, June 22, 2011, 652 SCRA 615, 629-630.