THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 252162. September 15, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. ANDRES MACIAS KATADA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 15, 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 252162 (People of the Philippines,Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andres Macias Katada,Accused-Appellant). — The Court resolves to NOTE:
(1) the Letter dated November 6, 2020 of CInsp. Rushty M. Maming, Superintendent of the New Bilibid Prison-West, Muntinlupa City, confirming the confinement therein of accused-appellant since January 25, 2019;
(2) the Office of the Solicitor General's Manifestation and Motion stating that all the matters and issues raised in the appellant's brief had already been extensively discussed in the appellee's brief, and had been judiciously considered and passed upon by the Court of Appeals (CA) in its Decision dated November 22, 2019, however, it reserves the right to file a supplemental brief in case appellant will raise new matters and issues in his own supplemental brief; and
(3) accused-appellant's Manifestation in Lieu of Supplemental Brief pursuant to the Resolution dated September 2, 2020, stating that he would no longer file a supplemental brief to expedite proceedings and to avoid repetitious arguments, since the appellant's brief filed before the CA had adequately presented and exhaustively discussed all issues inclined to his innocence.
This is an appeal 1 from the Decision 2 dated 22 November 2019 issued by the Court of Appeals (CA) Cebu City in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02810. The CA affirmed the Judgment 3 dated 25 May 2017 of Branch 36, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dumaguete City in Criminal Case Nos. 2012-21374 and 2012-21375, finding accused-appellant Andres Macias Katada (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, 4 otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
Antecedents
Accused-appellant was indicted for illegal selling and illegal possession of dangerous drugs in two (2) separate Informations, the accusatory portions of which read:
Criminal Case No. 2012-21374
That on or about the 11th day of September 2012 in the City of Dumaguete, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, ANDRES MACIAS KATADA, without authority of law and legal justification, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and give to a poseur-buyer one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance weighing 0.05 gram which substance after examination conducted on specimen was found positive to the test of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, also known as shabu, a dangerous drug, in violation of Republic Act No. 9165. CAIHTE
That the accused was found positive for Methamphetamine, a dangerous drug, as reflected in Chemistry Report No. DT-185-12.
Contrary to Sec. 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. 5
Crim. Case No. 2012-21375
That on or about the 11th day of September 2012 in the City of Dumaguete, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, ANDRES MACIAS KATADA, without authority of law and legal justification, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously possess or have under his custody and control two (2) piece transparent plastic sachet[s] containing white crystalline substance weighing 0.04 gram and 0.03 gram, respectively, with an aggregate total of 0.07 gram which substances after examination conducted on specimen were found positive to the test of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, also known as shabu, a dangerous drug, in violation of Republic Act No. 9165.
That the accused was found positive for Methamphetamine, a dangerous drug, as reflected in Chemistry Report No. DT-185-12.
Contrary to Sec. 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. 6
On his arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges against him. 7 Hence, pre-trial and trial on the merits ensued. 8
Version of the Prosecution
At 5:00 P.M. on 11 September 2012, a buy-bust team, led by PO2 Placido Xandro Paclauna (PO2 Paclauna), acting as the poseur-buyer, went to Barangay Looc to conduct an entrapment operation against accused-appellant. 9
Once at Barangay Looc, the confidential informant (CI) and PO2 Paclauna proceeded on foot toward an alley where accused-appellant was standing. After an exchange of pleasantries, PO2 Paclauna asked accused-appellant if he could buy Php500.00 worth, without specifying what he wanted. Accused-appellant, who readily understood PO2 Paclauna, answered in the affirmative, and then handed to the latter a heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet in exchange for Php500.00. Upon receipt of the packet, PO2 Paclauna examined the same. Once he was convinced that it contained shabu, he arrested accused-appellant, and read him his constitutional rights in the Visayan language. 10
Thereafter, PO2 Paclauna conducted a body search of accused-appellant and found in the latter's right front pocket two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets of suspected shabu, one (1) empty transparent plastic sachet, a pair of scissors, a lighter, and the marked money. 11
PO2 Paclauna conducted the marking and inventory of the seized items in the presence of accused-appellant, DOJ representative Chilius Benlot, media representative Steve Gabriel, and Barangay Chairperson Angelita Ragay. He marked the item, subject of the sale, with "AMK-BB-9/11-12" while the two sachets recovered during the search with AMK-P1-9/11/12 and AMK-P2-9/11/12. He also prepared the Receipt Inventory of Property Seized and had the same signed by the three (3) required witnesses. 12 PO2 Jaime Culi (PO2 Culi) photographed the conduct of the inventory. 13
Subsequently, the police officers brought the items and accused-appellant to the police station where they prepared the request for laboratory examination. In the evening, they proceeded to the Philippine National Police (PNP) crime laboratory. PO2 Edelmar Manaban (PO2 Manaban) received the seized items and placed them inside the locker where he was the only one who had access. 14
The following morning, PO2 Manaban delivered the items to PCI Josephine S. Llena (PCI Llena) who conducted the laboratory examination. 15 Her Chemistry Report No. D-144-12 showed that the items were positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride. 16 During the trial, the parties stipulated that PCI Llena placed her markings and initials on the specimen, placed them inside a brown envelope, which she sealed and marked. 17 She hid the brown envelope inside a vault to which she had sole access. She retrieved the items later for submission in court. 18
Version of Accused-Appellant
Accused-appellant denied the charges against him. He claimed that on the afternoon of 11 September 2012, he was playing cara y cruz with several individuals when someone warned them about the presence of the police officers in their area. The players scampered away, and he was the only one caught. The police officers searched his body but found nothing in his possession. They then searched the area and allegedly found a sachet of shabu on the ground. They insisted that the item was his and brought him to the police station. 19
Ruling of the RTC
The RTC convicted accused-appellant for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs punished under Sections 5 and 11 of RA 9165, respectively. 20 The dispositive portion of the RTC's Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the elements for each case having been substantially proved, the charge of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs have been duly established and the criminal liability of the accused proved, this court finds the accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act 9165 the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Accordingly, he is imposed the penalty of life imprisonment for having violated Section 5 and a penalty ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fifteen (15) years as maximum, for the crime of violation of Section 11 of the mentioned Republic Act 9165. He is further meted the penalty of fine of five hundred thousand pesos (Php500,000.00) and three hundred thousand pesos (Php300,000.00) respectively.
The dangerous drugs contained in the three plastic sachets, the pair of scissors, and lighter which are considered effects of the crime are hereby ordered forfeited in favor of the government to be turned over to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) to be disposed of in accordance with law. 21
The RTC held that that there was a legitimate warrantless arrest as the police officers caught accused-appellant in flagrante delicto selling drugs. Furthermore, despite deviation from the requirement of Section 21 of RA 9165, the prosecution nevertheless sufficiently established an unbroken chain of custody over the subject drugs from PO2 Paclauna's purchase until PCI Llena submitted the same in court as evidence. 22 It likewise found accused-appellant's bare denial and claim of frame-up flimsy. 23
Ruling of the CA
On appeal, the CA affirmed the findings of the RTC: DETACa
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The 25 May 2017 Judgment of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 36, Dumaguete City in the jointly tried Criminal Case Nos. 2012-21374 and 2012-21375 is AFFIRMEDin toto.
SO ORDERED.24
The CA agreed with the RTC that the prosecution sufficiently established all the elements of the offenses of illegal possession and illegal sale in this case. 25 Furthermore, the CA concurred with the RTC that the prosecution's evidence showed all the links in the chain of custody of the seized items, and the steps undertaken by the police officers to preserve the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti. 26 It also doubted the credibility of accused-appellant as the latter still vehemently denied having seen shabu even if his urine sample already tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. 27
Issue
The sole issue for consideration of the Court is whether or not the CA correctly affirmed the conviction of accused-appellant for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165.
Ruling of the Court
The appeal is DENIED.
As correctly ruled by the CA, the prosecution proved accused-appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for both offenses.
For Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, the prosecution was able to show that a legitimate warrantless arrest took place when accused-appellant was arrested in flagrante selling illegal drugs to the poseur-buyer during the buy-bust operation conducted against him. The prosecution proved the corpus delicti with the presentation of the shabu subject of the transaction. Through the prosecution witness, the identity of accused-appellant as the seller of said illegal drug was duly established as well. With respect to the case of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, the prosecution duly proved that after accused-appellant's lawful warrantless arrest, PO2 Paclauna undertook an incidental search of accused-appellant's body. Found in accused-appellant's possession were two (2) pieces of heat-sealed sachet containing shabu, which he possessed without authority.
Accused-appellant's argument that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody lacks merit.
Each link in the chain, from the time the items were seized from accused-appellant, to their turnover to the crime laboratory, and up to their presentation before the trial court, had been sufficiently proven. The seized contraband was immediately marked, inventoried, and photographed at the place of arrest.
Section 21 (1), Article II of RA 9165, in force at the time of the commission of the offenses, 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 drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof; x x x (Emphasis supplied)
Section 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 likewise provides:
SECTION 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. — x x x
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: x x x (Emphasis supplied)
From the foregoing, the apprehending officer/team is required to immediately conduct a physical inventory and photograph the confiscated drugs in the presence of: (1) accused or his/her counsel or representative; (2) a representative from the media; (3) a representative from the DOJ; and (4) any elected public official, who shall all be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. And as stated by the CA, the photograph taken by PO2 Culi shows that accused-appellant and the three (3) required witnesses — 28 representatives from both the DOJ and the media and a Barangay Chairperson — were present during the inventory. ETHIDa
PO2 Paclauna retained custody of the seized items from the time he confiscated the same from accused-appellant until he turned them over to PO2 Manaban at the PNP crime laboratory. 29 As it was already late in the evening, PO2 Manaban kept the seized items inside a locker. The following morning, PO2 Manaban gave the confiscated items to PCI Llena, the forensic chemist. PCI Llena later submitted the confiscated items in court. The respective stipulated testimonies of PO2 Manaban and PCI Llena covered the safeguards they undertook to preserve the integrity of the seized items. All these steps duly proved that the substance recovered from accused-appellant was the same substance offered in court.
All the foregoing considered, accused-appellant's conviction for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165 must be upheld. Corollarily, the Court sustains the penalties imposed by the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, the same being in order.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated 22 November 2019 issued by the Court of Appeals, Cebu City in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02810 is AFFIRMEDin toto. Accused-appellant Andres Macias Katada is hereby imposed the penalty of life imprisonment for having violated Section 5 and a penalty ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fifteen (15) years as maximum, for the crime of violation of Section 11 of Republic Act 9165. Accused-appellant Andres Macias Katada is further meted the penalty of fine of five hundred thousand pesos (Php500,000.00) and three hundred thousand pesos (Php300,000.00) respectively.
SO ORDERED." (Lopez, J., J., designated additional Member per Special Order No. 2834.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 26-28; See Notice of Appeal dated 18 December 2019.
2. Id. at 5-25; Penned by Associate Justice Dorothy P. Montejo-Gonzaga and concurred in by Associate Justices Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and Carlito B. Calpatura of the Twentieth (20th) Division, Court of Appeals, Cebu City.
3. CA rollo, pp. 10-23; Penned by Presiding Judge Joseph A. Elmaco.
4. Entitled "AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on 23 January 2002.
5. Rollo, pp. 6-7.
6. Id. at 7.
7. Id. at 47; See Order dated 27 September 2010.
8. Id. at 7.
9. Id. at 8.
10. Id. at 8-9.
11. Id. at 9.
12. Id.
13. Id. at 10.
14. Id. at 12.
15. Id. at 12-13.
16. Id. at 13.
17. Id.
18. Id.
19. Id. at 14.
20. Id.
21. CA rollo, pp. 22-23.
22. Rollo, p. 15.
23. Id.
24. Id. at 24.
25. Id. at 24.
26. Id. at 17.
27. Id. at 24.
28. CA rollo, p. 20.
29. Id.