FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 251438. December 7, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. ANGELO JIMENEZ y LUNA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedDecember 7, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 251438 — People of the Philippines v. Angelo Jimenez y Luna
Appellant Angelo Jimenez is
In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, such as shabu, the following elements must be duly established: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. Simply stated, the prosecution must prove that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation of the seized dangerous drugs as evidence in court. 1
These elements are all present here. PO1 Arnel Medalla (PO1 Medalla), through his Sinumpaang Salaysay, testified that on August 15, 2015, he and the confidential informant proceeded to appellant Angelo Jimenez's house. There, appellant asked him "pare, bibili ka?" to which he replied "oo, Php500 pare." He then handed the buy-bust money to appellant who took it. Appellant went inside his house, took a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance from a drawer, and handed it to PO1 Medalla.
On cross, PO1 Medalla added:
Q: During the conduct of the buy-bust operation, what[,] if any, did you recover from accused Angelo Jimenez?
A: One (1) plastic sachet of shabu that I bought from him with markings "ALJ-BBB[,]" [M]a'am.
Q: Aside from the one-piece that you bought from the accused, what else did you recover, if any?
A: I also recovered the 500-peso bill, ten (10) pieces of plastic sachets which I recovered from the drawer, [M]a'am.
Q: What markings did you place on these 10 pieces of plastic sachets?
A: "ALJ-1" to "ALJ-10[,]" [M]a'am.
xxx xxx xxx 2
PO1 Medalla gave a detailed narration of the transaction and positively identified appellant as the person who sold him the seized drug. Verily, the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drug was consummated when appellant delivered the corpus delicti to PO1 Medalla in consideration of P500.00 which the former received from the latter.
Appellant is guilty of illegal
For a successful prosecution of an offense for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, on the other hand, the prosecution must establish the following elements: (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. 3
Here, the prosecution successfully established the foregoing elements. PO1 Medalla narrated that once the rest of the buy-bust team had closed in and arrested appellant, Search Warrant No. 15-1344 was served against appellant. During the search inside appellant's house, PO1 Medalla recovered the buy-bust money and ten (10) other pieces of plastic sachet which later tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
It is settled that mere possession of prohibited drugs constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of satisfactory explanation. Consequently, the burden of evidence is shifted to the accused to explain the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi. 4 This appellant failed to do.
In People v. Pambid, 5 the Court upheld the conviction of appellant Jacquiline Pambid for the defense's failure to rebut the prima facie evidence that she had animus possidendi. Pambid was caught in actual possession of the prohibited drug without her showing any proof that she was duly authorized by law to possess it. Having been caught in flagrante delicto, there is prima facie evidence she had animus possidendi.
Here, appellant was positively identified as the possessor of illegal drugs which he was not authorized to possess and which he freely and consciously held.
The chain of custody was preserved
In illegal drugs cases, the drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense. The prosecution is, therefore, tasked to establish that the substance illegally possessed by the accused is the same substance presented in court. 6 The chain of evidence is constructed by proper exhibit handling, storage, labelling, and recording, and must exist from the time the evidence is found until the time it is offered in evidence. 7
Appellant was charged with violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165) on August 15, 2015. The applicable law is RA 9165, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640 (RA 10640), which took effect on August 7, 2014. Section 21 thereof reads:
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. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied).
In Tumabini v. People, 8 the Court clarified that Section 21 of RA 9165 applies whether the drugs were seized either in a buy-bust operation or pursuant to a search warrant. A plain reading of the law shows that it applies as long as there has been a seizure and confiscation of drugs. There is nothing in the statutory provision which states that it is only applicable when there is a warrantless seizure in a buy-bust operation. Thus, it should be applied in every situation when an apprehending team seizes and confiscates drugs from an accused, whether through a buy-bust operation or through a search warrant. The only recognizable difference between seizure and confiscation of drugs pursuant to a search warrant and a buy-bust operation is the venue of the physical inventory and taking of photographs of the said drugs, 9 thus:
When the drugs are seized pursuant to a search warrant, then the physical inventory and taking of photographs shall be conducted at the place where the said search warrant was served. In contrast, when the drugs are seized pursuant to a buy-bust operation or a warrantless seizure, then these can be conducted at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending team. Other than that, there is no other difference between seizure and confiscation of drugs with a search warrant and without it (such as a buy-bust operation). Consistent with Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165, its IRR does not suspend the application of the chain of custody rule simply because the drugs were seized pursuant to a search warrant. Thus, the witnesses under the law are required to be present. Again, the only difference is with respect to the venue of the inventory and taking of photographs. 10 (Emphasis in the original. Underscoring ours)
Thus, to ensure the integrity of the seized drug item, the prosecution must account for each link in its chain of custody: first, the seizure and marking 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. 11
The first link refers to the seizure and marking which must be done immediately at the place of the arrest. Too, it includes the physical inventory and taking of photograph of the seized items which should be done in the presence of the accused or his/her representative or counsel, together with an elected public official and a representative of the DOJ or the media.
Here, while still at the place of arrest, poseur-buyer PO1 Medalla immediately marked the plastic sachet subject of the sale with "ALJ-BB," while the ten (10) other plastic sachets found inside appellant's house with "ALJ-1" to "ALJ-10." He likewise conducted the inventory of the seized items in the presence of appellant, Barangay Kagawad Cornelio Masarap and media representative Dan Bicomong. Pictures were taken during the inventory. Clearly, the first link was duly complied with.
The second link is the transfer of the seized drugs by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer. The investigating officer shall conduct the proper investigation and prepare the necessary documents for the proper transfer of the evidence to the police crime laboratory for testing. Thus, the investigating officer's possession of the seized drugs must be documented and established. 12
The rule on chain of custody includes testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered in evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. It is from the testimony of every witness, who handled the evidence from which a reliable assurance can be derived, that the evidence presented in court is one and the same as that seized from the accused. 13
Here, though the corpus delicti was not turned over to an investigating officer, PO1 Medalla was able to account for the condition of the specimens since he held on to them from the time he recovered them from appellant on August 15, 2015 until the buy-bust team returned to their office where the request for examination was prepared, and thereafter, turned over to the crime laboratory. Indeed, the absence of the investigating officer, per se, does not affect the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti so long as the transfer of custody is accounted for.
In People v. Buenaventura, poseur-buyer Agent Gobris likewise held on to the confiscated drug from the time it was seized from the accused, up until marking, inventory, and finally, was turned over to the forensic laboratory for examination. The Court, thus, found that the chain of custody rule was complied with despite the absence of a case investigator. 14
The third link is the delivery by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist. Once the seized drugs arrive at the forensic laboratory, the laboratory technician will test and verify the nature of the substance. Additionally, the fourth link involves the submission of the seized drugs by the forensic chemist to the court when presented as evidence in the criminal case. 15
Both links were duly established in this case. PO1 Medalla personally brought the specimens to the crime laboratory and the same were received by PO2 Bucog. 16 The latter, in turn, turned them over to Police Chief Inspector Grace Plantilla Bombasi (PCI Bombasi) for examination.
In People v. Pajarin, 17 the Court clarified that, as a rule, the police chemist who examines a seized substance should ordinarily testify that he or she received the seized article as marked, properly sealed, and intact; that he or she resealed it after examination of the content; and that he or she placed his or her own marking on the same to ensure that it could not be tampered pending trial. In case the parties stipulate to dispense with the attendance of the police chemist, they should stipulate that the latter would have testified that he or she took the precautionary steps mentioned.
Here, the testimony of PCI Bombasi was dispensed with since both the prosecution and the defense stipulated on her proposed testimony. They stipulated on the qualifications of PCI Bombasi and the fact that PO2 Bucog, receiving officer of the crime laboratory office received the subject specimens and request for examination from PO1 Medalla, which were later turned over to her. She then tested the specimens and found them positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. She made her own markings on the specimens after receipt and prior to conduct of qualitative examination, and that there was no sign or indication that the specimens were altered or substituted. They also stipulated that she reduced her findings in Chemistry Report No. LD-415-15. 18
In People v. Dela Trinidad19 the Court held that the integrity of the evidence is presumed to have been preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered with. Appellant bears the burden of showing that the evidence was tampered or meddled with in order to overcome the presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers and the presumption that public officers properly discharged their duties.
Here, appellant miserably failed to present any evidence to justify a finding that the apprehending team had ill motive in tampering with the evidence in order to hold him liable for these grave offenses. In sum, the prosecution was able to establish all the links in the chain of custody and accounted for the proper handling and preservation of the specimens at every stage.
As for the alleged inconsistencies on who between PO1 Medalla and PO3 Jerome Garcia accompanied the confidential informant during the test-buy operation, People v. Fabian20 reiterated that these do not impair the integrity of the prosecution's evidence as a whole or reflect on the witnesses' credibility. The alleged inconsistencies on minor details pertain to peripheral matters which do not detract from the fact that the accused violated RA 9165. So must it be.
Next, appellant claims that it was improbable that he would immediately sell drugs to PO1 Medalla when he just met him. On this score, it is settled that drug dealers are known to sell their goods even to strangers. Some of them ply their wares wherever prospective customers may be found. Drug pushers have, thus, become increasingly daring, dangerous, and openly defiant of the law. 21
Finally, the presentation of a confidential informant as witness is not regarded as indispensable to the success of a prosecution of a drug-dealing accused. People v. Rapanan22 held that as a rule, the informant is not presented in court for security reasons, in view of the need to protect the informant from the retaliation of the culprit arrested through his efforts. The confidentiality of the informant's identity ought to be protected in deference to his invaluable services to law enforcement. Only when the testimony of the informant is considered absolutely essential in obtaining the conviction of the culprit should the need to protect his security be disregarded.
Here, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, the trial court found the direct testimonies of PO1 Medalla and the other law enforcement officers to be straightforward, convincing, and deserving of more weight in law. Thus, the presentation of the confidential informant may be dispensed with. 23
All told, the Court of Appeals did not commit reversible error when it affirmed the verdict of conviction for violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165.
Penalty
Pursuant to Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, 24 appellant was correctly sentenced to life imprisonment and fine in the amount of P500,000.00. 25
On the other hand, under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165, illegal possession of less than five (5) grams of shabu, is penalized with imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and fine ranging from P300,000.00 to P400,000.00. 26People v. Dadang ordained that applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, 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. 27
Here, appellant was found to have been in illegal possession of 0.46 gram of shabu. Thus, we sustain the imposition of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fifteen (15) years imprisonment and fine of P300,000.00.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED, and the Decision dated May 24, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10578, AFFIRMED.
1. In Criminal Case No. 25250-2015-C, appellant Angelo Jimenez y Luna is found GUILTY of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. He is sentenced to life imprisonment and fine in the amount of P500,000.00; and
2. In Criminal Case No. 25251-2015-C, appellant Angelo Jimenez y Luna is found GUILTY of violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. He is sentenced to imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fifteen (15) years, as maximum, and fine of P300,000.00.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.People v. Goyena, G.R. No. 229680, June 06, 2019.
2. TSN dated December 6, 2016, p. 8.
3.People v. Manansala, 826 Phil. 578, 586 (2018).
4. See People v. Quijano, G.R. No. 247558, February 19, 2020.
5. See 655 Phil. 719, 735 (2011).
6. See People v. Barte, 806 Phil. 533, 542 (2017).
7.People v. Balibay, 742 Phil. 746, 756 (2014).
8. G.R. No. 224495, February 19, 2020.
9.Buasan v. People, G.R. No. 232476 (Notice), November 9, 2020.
10.Id.
11.People v. Tolentino, G.R. No. 251020 (Notice), February 3, 2021.
12.People v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 235658, June 22, 2020.
13.People v. Martin, G.R. No. 233750, June 10, 2019.
14.People v. Buenaventura, G.R. No. 252210 (Notice), June 16, 2021.
15.People v. Bangcola, G.R. No. 237802, March 18, 2019.
16. His full name does not appear in the records.
17. See 654 Phil. 461, 466 (2011).
18. CA rollo, p. 56.
19. See 742 Phil. 347, 360 (2014).
20. See 629 Phil. 419, 430 (2010).
21.People v. Rodriguez, 429 Phil. 359, 375 (2002).
22. G.R. No. 252020 (Notice), May 5, 2021.
23.People v. Rapanan, G.R. No. 252020 (Notice), May 5, 2021.
24.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.
25.People v. Sahibil, G.R. No. 228953, January 28, 2019.
26.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.
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.
27. G.R. No. 242880 (Resolution), January 22, 2020.