THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 248055. November 10, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EDWIN GARCIA y DELA CRUZ, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated November 10, 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 248055 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee v. EDWIN GARCIA y DELA CRUZ, accused-appellant). — Noncompliance with the requirements under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 without justifiable grounds results in the accused's acquittal.
This Court resolves the Appeal 1 filed by Edwin Garcia y Dela Cruz (Garcia) challenging the Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals, which, in turn, affirmed the Judgment 3 of the Regional Trial Court convicting Garcia for illegal sale 4 and illegal possession 5 of dangerous drugs, in violation of Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
In two separate Informations, Garcia was charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, both punished respectively under Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165. The accusatory portion of the Informations read:
Criminal Case No. 26475-2016-C
That on or about 12:00 a.m. of April 14, 2016 at Brgy. Sucol, Calamba City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without any authority of the law, did then and there willfiully, unlawfully and feloniously sell to a poseur-buyer a quantity of [methamphetamine] hydrochloride otherwise known as shabu, a dangerous drug, weighing 0.01 gram, in violation of the aforementioned law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 6
Criminal Case No. 26476-2016-C
That on or about 12:00 a.m. of April 14, 2016 at Brgy. Sucol, Calamba City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without any authority in law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control six (6) small heat-sealed plastic sachet containing [methamphetamine] hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, having a total weight of 0.10 grams (sic), iii violation of the aforementioned law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 7
Upon arraignment, Garcia pleaded not guilty to the charges. 8 Pre-trial thereafter followed, and upon its termination, trial on the merits then ensued. 9
The prosecution presented the testimony of Police Officer I Ray Dean Aguilba (PO1 Aguilba). 10 After the presentation of PO1 Aguilba, the prosecution intended to present Police Officer I Jomer Cadiao (PO1 Cadiao), but the parties stipulated that, PO1 Cadiao would just corroborate PO1 Aguilba's testimony. 11
They testified that at about 8:00 a.m. on April 14, 2016, they received information from a confidential informant that a certain "Edwin Garcia" was engaged in the selling of illegal drugs in Barangay Sucol, Calamba City. Following this information, the Chief of Police, Police Superintendent Fernando Reyes Ortega formed a buy-bust team composed of Intelligence Officer Police Superintendent Marlon M. Calonge as team leader, PO1 Aguilba as the poseur-buyer, PO1 Cadiao as back-up, and three other personnel. 12
During the briefing, the buy-bust money was marked with an "x" at the center of the serial numbers and subsequently entered into the Official Blotter Book. It was agreed that PO1 Aguilba's act of lighting a cigarette is the pre-arranged signal that the sale had been consummated. They coordinated the operation with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency. 13 CAIHTE
The team proceeded to Barangay Sucol to meet up with the confidential informant so that the latter could point to the house of Garcia. Thereafter, the confidential informant was left for security purposes. PO1 Aguilba and PO1 Cadiao went to Garcia's house while the rest of the team positioned themselves strategically. 14
PO1 Aguilba knocked on the door, to which a person answered. PO1 Aguilba then said, "Kuya, kuha po kami ng tatlong piso lang." Thereafter, Garcia opened the door and asked PO1 Aguilba how much shabu they were going to buy. When PO1 Aguilba said "tatlong daan lang," Garcia took the buy-bust money from PO1 Aguilba, in exchange, he handed one piece of a small plastic sachet suspected to contain shabu. 15
PO1 Aguilba placed the small plastic sachet in his pocket and lit a cigarette to signal the consummation of the sale. Before Garcia could close the door, PO1 Aguilba introduced himself as a police officer. PO1 Aguilba arrested Garcia and conducted a search on his body. Garcia emptied his pockets following PO1 Aguilba's order, and six other pieces of small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets, a bundle of unused plastic, and the buy-bust money surfaced. 16
PO1 Aguilba marked the plastic sachet from the sale at the place of arrest but marked the six other sachets at the Barangay Hall of Barangay Sucol because it was already dark in the area. 17 They took the photographs of the items in the Barangay Hall but inventoried them at the police station in the presence of Barangay Kagawad Dionicio Vivas (Vivas) and media representative Ronald de Leon (de Leon). 18
PO1 Aguilba brought the seven pieces of small heat-sealed plastic sachets to the Regional Crime Laboratory for examination. Police Officer II Edwin Estoperes (PO2 Estoperes) received the items. Thereafter, Forensic Chemist Maricel Soriano-Alibadbad examined the items, which yielded a positive result for shabu, a dangerous drug. 19
Garcia was the sole witness for the defense. He denied the material allegations against him, saying he was framed up. Garcia recounted that while he was on his way home, a man asked him about a private pool for rent. Thereafter, the man grabbed him and instructed him to lie face down on the ground. It was at this point that the man's companions suddenly appeared. The man held him at gunpoint and asked where his house was. Garcia led the men to his house, which was later on searched. The search turned out to be futile because the men were not able to find anything. Still, Garcia was brought to the barangay hall. It was there that Garcia saw the pieces of evidence for the first time. 20
In its August 25, 2017 Judgment, 21 the Regional Trial Court found Garcia guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charges against him. It ruled that the prosecution successfully discharged its burden of establishing the elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu. It relied on the prosecution's version of events and set aside Garcia's defenses of denial and frame-up, noting that the police officers are presumed to have regularly performed their official duties. It gave full faith to the testimony offered by the prosecution and found that no ill motive on the part of the police was imputed. It also ruled that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved, and the failure to strictly comply with the requirements under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 was not fatal to the prosecution's case. 22 The dispositive portion of the Judgment reads:
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, in Criminal Case No. 26475-16-C, the [C]ourt finds the accused EDWIN GARCIA [y] DELA CRUZ, GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act [No.] 9165. The accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and TO PAY A FINE OF FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND (PHP500,000.00) PESOS.
In Criminal Case No. 26476-1[6]-C, the Court likewise finds accused EDWIN GARCIA y DELA CRUZ, GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act [No.] 9165. He is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY, as minimum, to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS, as maximum, and to PAY A FINE OF THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND (Php300,000.00) PESOS.
xxx xxx xxx
SO ORDERED. 23
Aggrieved, Garcia appealed to the Court of Appeals. 24
Mainly, Garcia asserted that the Regional Trial Court erred in convicting him despite the failure of the prosecution to establish the chain of custody and the integrity of the drugs allegedly seized from him. He emphasized that PO1 Aguilba admitted that the latter only knew of the former's complete name at the police station. Because of this, Garcia alleged that the markings were not made at the place of arrest because the markings included Garcia's initials ("EGD") which was not yet known to PO1 Aguilba during the time of the arrest. 25 He contended that the accuracy of the markings is put into serious question when PO1 Aguilba failed to segregate the item Garcia allegedly sold and the items allegedly seized from him. 26
He also raised that from the time PO2 Estoperes received the items from PO1 Aguilba, the subsequent transfer to the forensic chemist remained unaccounted for. He also questioned the belated taking of the photograph, which falls short of the outlined procedure in Section 21. 27 DETACa
Finally, he argued that the prosecution failed to justify their noncompliance with the chain of custody rule, thus entitling him to an acquittal. 28
On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General, on behalf of the People of the Philippines, countered that the police officers substantially complied with the requirements of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. It maintained that PO1 Aguilba was able to mark the seized items properly and that the inventory was done at the police station in the presence of the required third-party witnesses. They questioned Garcia's failure to formally charge the police officers for planting of evidence under Section 29 of Republic Act No. 9165 if indeed he was framed up. 29
In its assailed November 22, 2018 Decision, 30 the Court of Appeals affirmed the Regional Trial Court's Judgment in toto.
The Court of Appeals rejected Garcia's claim that there was a probability of substitution with the six sachets allegedly seized from him after the arrest and the one sachet he allegedly sold because PO1 Aguilba's testimony was clear that he marked the drugs he bought from Garcia at the crime scene. 31 Ultimately, it held that noncompliance with the requirements of Section 21 will not automatically render the seized items inadmissible as evidence against the accused "as what is important is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items." 32
Dissatisfied with the decision, accused-appellant Garcia filed his Notice of Appeal. 33
In a Resolution, 34 this Court noted the records elevated by the Court of Appeals, directed the parties to submit supplemental briefs, and required the Superintendent of the New Bilibid Prison, Bureau of Corrections to confirm to the Court the confinement therein of accused-appellant.
The Office of the Solicitor General, on behalf of the People of the Philippines, manifested that it would no longer file a supplemental brief. 35 Accused-appellant made a similar manifestation through his counsel. 36
In its March 11, 2020 Resolution, this Court noted the separate manifestations of the parties and the letter of the Bureau of Corrections confirming accused-appellant's confinement. 37
For this Court's resolution is the issue of whether or not accused-appellant Edwin Garcia y Dela Cruz is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. Central to this issue is whether or not the prosecution established the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti by demonstrating strict compliance with the chain of custody of the seized drugs.
This Court acquits accused-appellant.
The conduct of the buy-bust operation is tainted with violations of the mandatory chain of custody requirement under Section 21 (1) of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. The arresting officers' failure to comply with the mandatory chain of custody requirements casts reasonable doubt on an essential element, the corpus delicti of the offense.
The elements to sustain a conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs are: "(1) proof that the transaction or sale took place and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence." 38
Meanwhile, for a successful prosecution of the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be established: "(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." 39
In both crimes, it is important to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti. The prosecution must demonstrate that the items presented in court are the same items recovered from accused-appellants. 40 In this regard, Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended, provides for the procedural safeguards that must be observed in the handling and disposition of seized drugs. It states:
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. Holgado, 41 this Court ruled that dangerous drugs in minuscule quantities demand a more exacting compliance with the rule on chain of custody because of the increased likelihood of planting and tampering. In Holgado, the drugs in question weighed 0.05 gram. The drugs subject of this case is similarly minuscule — 0.01 gram for the illegal sale case and 0.10 gram for the illegal possession case. 42 Thus, strict compliance with the chain of custody is warranted. aDSIHc
This Court has explained that Section 21's chain of custody requirements are strict and painstaking in order to foreclose tampering with items which are "fungible in nature and similar in form to substances familiar to people in their daily lives." 43Holgado emphasized that Section 21 aims to prevent "planting, contaminating, or tampering of evidence":
In [Mallillin] v. People, this [C]ourt explained that the exactitude required by Section 21 goes into the very nature of narcotics as the subject of prosecutions under Republic Act No. 9165:
Indeed, the likelihood of tampering, loss or mistake with respect to an exhibit is greatest when the exhibit is small and is one that has physical characteristics fungible in nature and similar in form to substances familiar to people in their daily lives. Graham vs. State positively acknowledged this danger. In that case where a substance later analyzed as heroin — was handled by two police officers prior to examination who however did not testify in court on the condition and whereabouts of the exhibit at the time it was in their possession — was excluded from the prosecution evidence, the court pointing out that the white powder seized could have been indeed heroin or it could have been sugar or baking powder. It ruled that unless the state can show by records or testimony, the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit at least between the time it came into the possession of police officers until it was tested in the laboratory to determine its composition, testimony of the state as to the laboratory's findings is inadmissible.
A unique characteristic of narcotic substances is that they are not readily identifiable as in fact they are subject to scientific analysis to determine their composition and nature. The Court cannot reluctantly close its eyes to the likelihood, or at least the possibility, that at any of the links in the chain of custody over the same there could have been tampering, alteration or substitution of substances from other cases — by accident or otherwise — in which similar evidence was seized or in which similar evidence was submitted for laboratory testing. Hence, in authenticating the same, a standard more stringent than that applied to cases involving objects which are readily identifiable must be applied, a more exacting standard that entails a chain of custody of the item with sufficient completeness if only to render it improbable that the original item has either been exchanged with another or been contaminated or tampered with. (Emphasis supplied)
Compliance with the chain of custody requirement provided by Section 21, therefore, ensures the integrity of confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered drugs and/or drug paraphernalia in four (4) respects: first, the nature of the substances or items seized; second, the quantity (e.g., weight) of the substances or items seized; third, the relation of the substances or items seized to the incident allegedly causing their seizure; and fourth, the relation of the substances or items seized to the person/s alleged to have been in possession of or peddling them. Compliance with this requirement forecloses opportunities for planting. 44
Among the requirements under Section 21 is the presence of two third-party witnesses during the marking, conduct of the inventory, and taking of photographs. 45
In People v. Tomawis, 46 this Court emphasized the importance of the third-party witnesses and further clarified that their presence should be secured as early as the actual arrest and operation:
The presence of the witnesses from the DOJ, media, and from public elective office is necessary to protect against the possibility of planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drug. Using the language of the Court in People v. Mendoza, without the insulating presence of the representative from the media or the DOJ and any elected public official during the seizure and marking of the drugs, the evils of switching, planting or contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-busts conducted under the regime of [Republic Act No.] 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) again reared their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the subject sachet that was evidence of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused.
The presence of the three witnesses must be secured not only during the inventory but more importantly at the time of the warrantless arrest. It is at this point in which the presence of the three witnesses is most needed, as it is their presence at the time of seizure and confiscation that would belie any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drug. If the buy-bust operation is legitimately conducted, the presence of the insulating witnesses would also controvert the usual defense of frame-up as the witnesses would be able to testify that the buy-bust operation and inventory of the seized drugs were done in their presence in accordance with Section 21 of [Republic Act No.] 9165.
The practice of police operatives of not bringing to the intended place of arrest the three witnesses, when they could easily do so — and "calling them in" to the place of inventory to witness the inventory and photographing of the drugs only after the buy-bust operation has already been finished — does not achieve the purpose of the law in having these witnesses prevent or insulate against the planting of drugs.
To restate, the presence of the three witnesses at the time of seizure and confiscation of the drugs must be secured and complied with at the time of the warrantless arrest; such that they are required to be at or near the intended place of the arrest so that they can be ready to witness the inventory and photographing of the seized and confiscated drugs "immediately after seizure and confiscation." 47 (Citations omitted)
As culled from the records and highlighted by PO1 Aguilba's testimony, it was only at the police station where the inventory was taken that the elected official, Kagawad Vivas, and the media representative, de Leon, were present. 48 ETHIDa
Nonetheless, the prosecution argues that the arresting officers substantially complied with Section 21 and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs have not been compromised at any stage. 49 This view was erroneously echoed by the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals in convicting accused-appellant. 50
In Tolentino v. People, 51 it was stressed that the prosecution cannot simply invoke the saving clause found in Section 21 — that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items have been preserved — without justifying their failure to comply with the requirements stated therein: 52
The Court is well aware that a perfect chain of custody is almost always impossible to achieve and so it has previously ruled that minor lapses or deviations from the prescribed procedure are excused so long as it can be shown by the prosecution that the arresting officers put in their best effort to comply with the same and the justifiable ground for non-compliance is proven as a fact. 53
While deviations from Section 21's chain of custody requirements may be allowed, the prosecution must however acknowledge their procedural lapses and plead a justifiable reason for these lapses. It must also recount the measures taken to safeguard the seized items' identity and integrity. 54
When the mandatory witnesses are absent or were belatedly secured, the prosecution must allege and prove that earnest efforts were undertaken to secure their attendance, and justifications will not be countenanced when there is no genuine and sufficient attempt to comply with the law, as in this case. 55 Here, the records are bereft of any proof that the arresting officers attempted to secure the presence of both Vivas and de Leon during the actual operation. In any case, accused-appellant would still be entitled to an acquittal for the lapses in the marking, inventory, and taking of photographs.
Time and again, it has been held that in addition to the presence of third-party witnesses, the marking, inventory, and taking of photographs of the seized items must be conducted at the place of arrest.
However, there exists another glaring error in this case with the apparent delayed marking, inventory, and taking of photographs of the seized items which both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals erroneously overlooked. Records show that despite the marking of the plastic sachets in the place of arrest, the six sachets seized from accused-appellant after the arrest was marked in the barangay hall. 56 Worse, the police officers transported the seized items to the police station where they inventoried and took pictures of the seized items. 57 Further, all markings were done without the presence of the mandatory witnesses. 58
In People v. Nandi, 59 this Court ruled that four links must be established to prove an unbroken chain of custody:
The following links should be established in the chain of custody of the confiscated item: 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 from the forensic chemist to the court. 60
"Marking after seizure is the starting point in this custodial link." 61 Thus, when PO1 Aguilba marked the items in a place other than the place of arrest and without the presence of an elected official and a media representative, the first link had been incipiently broken.
In this regard, the only reason submitted by the arresting officers for noncompliance was that "it was already dark in the area." 62
This does not amount to a justifiable ground allowed by law and jurisprudence. cSEDTC
Ultimately, the Court of Appeals cited the presumption of regularity enjoyed by police officers in lending credence to their version of events. It found that the defense failed to show that the prosecution witnesses were motivated by ill will in testifying against accused-appellants. 63 However, in People v. Andaya: 64
In affirming the RTC's conviction of the accused, the CA observed that the defense of frame-up put up by the accused was discredited by the absence of proof of "any intent on the part of the police authorities to falsely impute such crime against the accused, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty stands." Such outright rejection by the lower courts of Andaya's defense of frame-up is not outrightly binding. For sure, the frame-up defense has been commonly used in prosecutions based on buy-bust operations that have led to the arrest of the suspects. Its use might be seen as excessive, but the failure of the accused to impute any ill motives to falsely incriminate them should not deter us from scrutinizing the circumstances of the cases brought to us for review. We should remind ourselves that we cannot presume that the accused committed the crimes they have been charged with. The State must fully establish that for us. If the imputation of ill motive to the lawmen is the only means of impeaching them, then that would be the end of our dutiful vigilance to protect our citizenry from false arrests and wrongful incriminations. We are aware that there have been in the past many cases of false arrests and wrongful incriminations, and that should heighten our resolve to strengthen the ramparts of judicial scrutiny.
Nor should we shirk from our responsibility of protecting the liberties of our citizenry just because the lawmen are shielded by the presumption of the regularity of their performance of duty. The presumed regularity is nothing but a purely evidentiary tool intended to avoid the impossible and time-consuming task of establishing every detail of the performance by officials and functionaries of the Government. Conversion by no means defeat the much stronger and much firmer presumption of innocence in favor of every person whose life, property and liberty comes under the risk of forfeiture on the strength of a false accusation of commuting some crime. 65 (Citations omitted)
Accordingly, the presumption of regularity in the performance of their official duties cannot apply when proof of clear and deliberate disregard of procedural safeguards has been adduced. 66
The significant lapses in the handling of the dangerous drugs cast serious doubt on the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti. When there is doubt on the identity and integrity, the corpus delicti, accused-appellant's acquittal must necessarily follow. 67
Given the minuscule amount involved in this case, we reiterate what this Court has said in Holgado: 68
It is lamentable that while our dockets are clogged with prosecutions under Republic Act No. 9165 involving small-time drug users and retailers, we are seriously short of prosecutions involving the proverbial "big fish." We are swamped with cases involving small fry who have been arrested for [minuscule] amounts. While they are certainly a bane to our society, small retailers are but low-lying fruits in an exceedingly vast network of drug cartels. Both law enforcers and prosecutors should realize that the more effective and efficient strategy is to focus resources more on the source and true leadership of these nefarious organizations. Otherwise, all these executive and judicial resources expended to attempt to convict an accused for 0.05 gram of shabu under doubtful custodial arrangements will hardly make a dent in the overall picture. It might in fact be distracting our law enforcers from their more challenging task: to uproot the causes of this drug menace. We stand ready to assess cases involving greater amounts of drugs and the leadership of these cartels. 69
WHEREFORE, the Court of Appeals' Decision in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10036 and the Regional Trial Court of Calamba City, Branch 37's Judgment in Criminal Case Nos. 26475-2016-C and 26476-2016-C are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Edwin Garcia y Dela Cruz is ACQUITTED of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs and is ordered RELEASED from confinement unless he is being held for some other legal grounds.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections for immediate implementation. The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to report the action they have taken to this Court within five days from receipt of this Resolution. For their information, copies shall also be furnished to the Police General of the Philippine National Police and the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency.
The Regional Trial Court, Branch 37, Calamba City is directed to turn over the seized sachet of shabu to the Dangerous Drugs Board for destruction in accordance with law.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
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. 19-20.
2. Id. at 3-18. The November 22, 2018 Decision in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10036 was penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan-Castillo, and concurred in by Associate Justices Danton Q. Bueser and Pablito A. Perez of the Seventh Division of the Court of Appeals, Manila.
3. CA rollo, pp. 39-54. The August 25, 2017 Judgment in Criminal Case Nos. 26475-2016-C and 26476-2016-C was penned by Presiding Judge Caesar C. Buenagua of the Regional Trial Court, Calamba City, Branch 37.
4. Republic Act No. 9165 (2002), Sec. 5 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.
The penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) 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 controlled precursor and essential chemical, or shall act as a broker in such transactions.
5. Republic Act No. 9165 (2002), Sec. 11 provides:
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";
xxx xxx xxx
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be graduated as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu," or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy," PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or less than three hundred (300) grams of marijuana.
6. Rollo, p. 3.
7. Id. at 4.
8. Id.
9. CA rollo, p. 40.
10. Id. at 41.
11. Id.
12. Rollo, p. 5.
13. Id.
14. Id.
15. Id. at 5-6.
16. Id. at 6.
17. CA rollo, p. 42.
18. Rollo, p. 6.
19. Id.
20. Id. at 6-7.
21. CA rollo, pp. 39-54.
22. Id. at 43-53.
23. Id. at 54.
24. Id. at 11.
25. Id. at 26-28.
26. Id. at 24-35.
27. Id.
28. Id.
29. Id. at 68-79.
30. Rollo, pp. 3-16.
31. Id. at 14.
32. Id. at 16.
33. Id. at 19-20.
34. Id. at 24.
35. Id. at 40-41.
36. Id. at 35.
37. Id. at 44.
38. Lescano v. People, 778 Phil. 460, 468 (2016) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division] citing People v. Morales, 630 Phil. 215 (2010) [Per J. Del Castillo, Second Division].
39. People v. Bio, 753 Phil. 730, 737 (2015) [Per J. Del Castillo, Second Division].
40. People v. Denoman, 612 Phil. 1165, 1175 (2009) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
41. 741 Phil. 78 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
42. Rollo, p. 5.
43. Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 588 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
44. 741 Phil. 78, 92-93 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
45. The alleged incident occurred on April 16, 2016. The amendments to Section 21 introduced by Republic Act No. 10640 in 2014 therefore apply. See People v. Lim, G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018 <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64400> [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].
46. People v. Tomawis, 830 Phil. 385 [Per J. Caguioa, Second Division].
47. Id. at 408-409.
48. Rollo, p. 17.
49. Id. at 71-76.
50. Id. at 16.
51. G.R. No. 227217, February 12, 2020 <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/66108> [Per J. A.B. Reyes, Jr., Second Division].
52. Id.
53. Id.
54. People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 238339, August 7, 2019 <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65610> [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
55. People v. Lim, G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018 <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64400> [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].
56. Rollo, p. 17.
57. Id.
58. Id.
59. 639 Phil. 134 (2010) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].
60. Id. at 144-145.
61. People v. Omamos, G.R. No. 223036, July 10, 2019 <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65476> [Per J. Lazaro-Javier, Second Division].
62. CA rollo, p. 26.
63. Rollo, p. 18.
64. 745 Phil. 237 (2014) [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].
65. Id. at 250-251.
66. Tolentino y Samia v. People, G.R. No. 227217, February 12, 2020 [Per J. A.B. Reyes, Jr., Second Division].
67. People v. Coreche, 612 Phil. 1238, 1245-1246 (2009) [Per J. Carpio, First Division].
68. 741 Phil. 78 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
69. Id. at 100.