SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 248846. January 5, 2022.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.CHARLES ALLEN LEGADA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated05 January 2022which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 248846 (People of the Philippines v. Charles Allen Legada). — On appeal 1 is the Decision 2 dated June 26, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02765 which affirmed the Judgment 3 dated September 5, 2017 of Branch 30, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Negros Oriental, Dumaguete City in Criminal Case No. 2015-23280 that found Charles Allen Legada (accused-appellant) guilty of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Antecedents
In an Amended Information 4 dated December 5, 2015, accused-appellant was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 or Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs. The accusatory portion of the Information reads:
That on or about the 4th day of December 2015, in the City of Dumaguete, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused not being then authorized by law, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously sell to a poseur buyer one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing a net weight of 0.99 gram[s] of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, otherwise known as "SHABU," a dangerous drug.
That the urine sample taken from the above-named accused contains Methamphetamine, a dangerous drug, per Chemistry Report No. DT-337-15, dated December 7, 2015.
Contrary to Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. 9165. 5 TAIaHE
When arraigned, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. Trial ensued. 6
Version of the Prosecution
The prosecution established that on December 1, 2015, police operatives of the Provincial Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Group, Negros Oriental Provincial Police Office received a report from a confidential informant that a certain "Bungot," later identified as herein accused-appellant, was selling shabu in Brgy. Looc, Dumaguete City. 7
On December 3, 2015, Police Officer I Brexon Rod Malahay (PO1 Malahay), the designated poseur-buyer, met with accused-appellant near the exit gate of Dumaguete City Port. Thereafter, accused-appellant agreed to sell P9,000.00 worth of shabu to PO1 Malahay; both scheduled the sale the following day at the same place. 8
On December 4, 2015, 9 after hatching a buy-bust plan and coordinating with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), the police operatives successfully conducted a buy-bust operation against accused-appellant. The police operatives recovered from accused-appellant one plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. After the arrest of accused-appellant, PO1 Malahay marked the seized item right at the crime scene. Thereafter, the police operatives brought accused-appellant and the seized item to Dumaguete City Police Station. 10
The police operatives marked, photographed, and inventoried the seized item in the presence of accused-appellant, Department of Justice (DOJ) representative Chilius Benlot (Benlot), media representative Brandon Teves (Teves), and Looc Barangay Captain Angelita Ragay (Brgy. Capt. Ragay). Subsequently, the police operatives brought the seized plastic sachet containing suspected shabu to the crime laboratory for examination. The forensic chemist, Police Chief Inspector Josephine Llena, found the contents of the seized plastic sachet positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. 11
Version of the Defense
In his defense, accused-appellant denied the charge against him. He asserted that on December 4, 2015, at around 7:00 a.m., he was in Magsu-ot, Bacong waiting for a habal-habal (passenger motorcycle) bound for Dumaguete City when Joshua Solamillo (Solamillo), a police officer and accused-appellant's childhood friend, passed by on board a motorcycle. Because there was no habal-habal available in the area, accused-appellant asked Solamillo if he could hitch a ride with him to Dumaguete City. Solamillo agreed on the condition that he would accompany him to Looc for a short while. Subsequently, they proceeded to the Dumaguete City Police Station. Solamillo went inside to get something while accused-appellant waited outside in the motorcycle. After 30 minutes, two men approached and asked accused-appellant to go inside the police station with them. Accused-appellant asked them of the whereabouts of Solamillo, but they just told him to wait. At around 1:00 p.m., the police officers arrested him. He no longer saw Solamillo. He did not know also why the police officers arrested him. 12
Ruling of the RTC
In the Judgment 13 dated September 5, 2017, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. 14 It disposed as follows:
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the Court hereby finds accused Charles Allen Legada GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of illegal sale of 0.99 gram[s] of shabu in violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and is hereby sentenced to suffer a penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00). TCAScE
The one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with markings "CAL-BB-12-04-15" with signature containing a net weight of 0.99 gram[s] of shabu is hereby confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government and to be disposed of in accordance with law.
In the service of sentence, the accused Charles Allen Legada shall be credited with the full time during which he has undergone preventive imprisonment, provided he agrees voluntarily in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners.
SO ORDERED. 15
Accused-appellant appealed to the CA.
Ruling of the CA
In the assailed Decision, 16 the CA affirmed accused-appellant's conviction for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. It agreed with the RTC's findings that all the elements of the offense charged were established and that the chain of custody of the seized item had not been broken.
Hence, the appeal before the Court. 17
The Issue
The issue for the Court's resolution is whether accused-appellant's guilt for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Our Ruling
The appeal lacks merit.
In order to secure a conviction for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 or for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, the prosecution must establish the following elements: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. 18
Here, the lower courts correctly found that the prosecution was able to establish all the elements of the offense charged. Accused-appellant was caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu to the poseur-buyer, PO1 Malahay, during a legitimate buy-bust operation; and one plastic sachet containing a net weight of 0.99 gram of shabu was recovered from him.
For a successful prosecution of the offense of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, not only is the prosecution bound to establish the above elements, but it is equally essential that the identity of the dangerous drug be established with moral certainty. 19 Hence, the prosecution must be able to account for each link of the chain of custody from the moment the drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as evidence of the crime. 20 As part of the chain of custody procedure, the law requires, inter alia, that the marking, physical inventory, and photographing of the seized items be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation. 21
The law further requires that the inventory and photographing be done in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his/her representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: (a) if prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, 22 a representative from the media, the DOJ, and any elected public official; or (b) if after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media. 23 The purpose of the presence of these witnesses is to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence. 24 cTDaEH
Generally, there must be strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure. 25 However, in cases where strict compliance with the procedure on the chain of custody is not possible, the seizure and custody of the seized items will not be rendered void if the prosecution satisfactorily proves that there is justifiable ground for the deviation, and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. 26 With respect to the witness requirement, non-compliance thereto will not be fatal to the case if the prosecution proves that the apprehending officers actually exerted genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of the required witnesses, albeit the latter failed to appear. 27
Here the two-witness rule under RA 10640 applies because the offense was committed in 2015 which was after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640.
In the case, while the taking of the inventory was not immediately conducted at the place of the arrest, it is undisputed that PO1 Malahay was in possession of the seized item the whole time — from the initial marking at the place of the arrest up to the time of the inventory which was conducted at the Dumaguete City Police Station in the presence of accused-appellant, DOJ representative Benlot, media representative Teves, and Looc Brgy. Capt. Ragay, 28 well more than the required number of witnesses in conformity with the witness requirement under RA 10640. Moreover, the prosecution reasonably explained that the buy-bust team was ordered by their superior to head back to the police station for their safety.
The Court, in People v. Beran, 29 dictates that in warrantless seizures, such as a buy-bust operation, the physical inventory shall be conducted at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team, viz.:
In seizures covered by search warrants, the physical inventory and photograph must be conducted in the place where the search warrant was served. On the other hand, in case of warrantless seizures such as a buy-bust operation, the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable: however, nothing prevents the apprehending officer/team from immediately conducting the physical inventory and photography of the items at the place where they were seized, as it is more in keeping with the law's intent of preserving their integrity and evidentiary value. (emphasis supplied)
In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that there was sufficient compliance with the rule on the chain of custody. Hence, the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti were preserved.
Thus, the Court upholds the conviction of accused-appellant for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, as amended, considering that the prosecution proved his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated June 26, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02765 is AFFIRMED. Accused-appellant Charles Allen Legada is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. Accordingly, he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 16-18.
2.Id. at 5-15; penned by Associate Justice Edward B. Contreras, with Associate Justices Gabriel T. Ingles and Dorothy P. Montejo-Gonzaga concurring.
3. CA rollo, pp. 24-35; penned by Judge Rafael Crescencio C. Tan, Jr.
4. As culled from the CA Decision, rollo, pp. 5-6.
5. As culled from the CA Decision, id.
6.Id.
7.Id. at 6.
8.Id. at 6-7.
9. Erroneously dated December 14, 2018 in the CA Decision.
10.Rollo, p. 7.
11.Id. at 7-8.
12.Id. at 9.
13. CA rollo, pp. 24-35.
14.Id. at 34.
15.Id.
16.Rollo, pp. 5-15.
17.Id. at 16-18.
18.People v. Luminda y Edto, G.R. No. 229661, November 20, 2019, citing People v. Dela Torre, G.R. No. 238519, June 26, 2019.
19.See People v. Santos y Littaua, G.R. No. 243627, November 27, 2019.
20. See People v. Año, 828 Phil. 439, 448 (2018). See also People v. Viterbo, 739 Phil. 593, 601 (2014) and People v. Alagarme, 754 Phil. 449, 459-460 (2015).
21. See People v. Gabunada, G.R. No. 242827, September 9, 2019.
22. 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.
23.People v. Gabunada, supra.
24.People v. Piñero, G.R. No. 242407, April 1, 2019.
25.People v. Sendad, G.R. No. 242025, November 20, 2019.
26. See People v. Almorfe, 631 Phil. 51, 60 (2010).
27.People v. Gabunada, supra.
28.Rollo, p. 12.
29. 724 Phil. 788-824 (2014) citing People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214-245 (2008).