People v. Li Yu Xuan

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 251706. May 5, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.LI YU XUAN A.K.A. VIVIAN LEE, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedMay 5, 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 251706 (People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Li Yu Xuan a.k.a. Vivian Lee, Accused-Appellant.) — This appeal 1 seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision 2 dated 23 May 2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05084. The CA affirmed the Decision 3 dated 14 March 2011 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 116 of Pasay City in Crim. Case No. R-PSY-10-02507 CR, finding accused-appellant Li Yu Xuan a.k.a. Vivian Lee (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165. 4

Antecedents

Accused-appellant was charged with violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 in an Information, the accusatory portion of which reads:

That on or about the 24th of August 2010, in Pasay City, Metro Manila, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, have in their possession, custody and control 560.2984 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug.

Contrary to law. 5

Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. After termination of the pre-trial, trial on the merits ensued. 6

Version of the Prosecution

In the afternoon of 24 August 2010, Marvin Mendoza (Mendoza), Laila Abad (Laila), and Jonathan Morales (Morales), agents from the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), served a search warrant on accused-appellant at her residence at Lancaster Condominium, Pasay City. Before implementing the search warrant, the PDEA agents waited for the arrival of a prosecutor from the Department of Justice (DOJ), barangay officials, and a representative from the media. During their search, the agents found in one of the cabinets inside the master's bedroom, a luggage which contained two (2) transparent packs with white crystalline substances suspected to be shabu. Using a test kit, PDEA Forensic Chemist Shiela Esguerra (Forensic Chemist Esguerra) declared the said substances as methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. The seized items were then marked, weighed, inventoried, and photographed 7 in the presence of the three (3) mandatory witnesses. The seized items were thereafter brought to the PDEA office for a final laboratory examination. 8

Version of the Defense

Accused-appellant denied the charge against him. She claimed that the subject condominium is owned by her husband's uncle, Jacson Li, who offered for them to stay there for free. On 23 August 2010, her husband Alex's friends, Jason Chua and Hang A, spent the night in the condominium. The following day at 8:00 o'clock in the morning, the PDEA agents entered the unit and handcuffed Alex, Jason, and Hang A, then brought them to BF Homes, Las Piñas. Meanwhile, the other PDEA agents began searching the rooms and found shabu in the master's bedroom. Accused-appellant alleged that the PDEA agents who carried backpacks, brought in several boxes to their unit, insinuating the possibility that the shabu found therein could just have been planted. 9

Ruling of the RTC

On 14 March 2011, the RTC rendered its Decision, convicting accused-appellant, thus:

WHEREFORE, the prosecution having successfully established its bounden duty to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the accused LI YU XUAN aka VIVIAN LEE is hereby found GUILTY of Violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 and is hereby sentenced to suffer a penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of [Php]500,000.00.

xxx xxx xxx.

SO ORDERED. 10

The RTC held that the prosecution was able to present competent evidence to prove accused-appellant's possession of the seized illegal substance. 11 Likewise, the trial court noted that the lawful implementation of the search warrant led PDEA agents into finding illegal drugs from the luggage inside the master's bedroom of the condominium occupied by accused-appellant. 12 Such possession constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict accused-appellant in the absence of a satisfactory explanation of such possession. 13 The RTC concluded that the PDEA agents complied with the requirements of the law on the custody, handling, preservation, and disposition of the seized item, according them the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties. 14

Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed to the CA. 15

Ruling of the CA

In its Decision promulgated on 23 May 2014, the CA affirmed accused-appellant's conviction:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed decision dated March 14, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 116 is AFFIRMED. 16

The CA held that the prosecution was able to prove all the elements of the illegal possession of shabu. It gave credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses who were presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner. It also held that there was an unbroken chain of custody of the illegal drugs from the time they were seized from accused-appellant until they were presented in court. The CA also disregarded accused-appellant's denial for failing to show ill motive on the part of the PDEA agents. 17

Hence, this appeal.

Issue

The sole issue in this case is whether the CA correctly affirmed accused-appellant's conviction for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165.

Ruling of the Court

The appeal is dismissed.

For the successful prosecution of the crime of illegal possession of prohibited drugs, the following elements must be proved: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object, which is identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. 18

The prosecution was able to establish the elements of illegal possession with the testimony of Mendoza and the presentation of the corpus delicti in court. By virtue of the search warrant, the PDEA agents searched the condominium unit, including the master's bedroom occupied by accused-appellant. Morales searched the cabinets in the room and found a luggage containing two (2) plastic self-sealing packs with a total of 560.2984 grams of shabu. 19 The finding of illicit drugs and paraphernalia in a house or building owned or occupied by a particular person raises the presumption of knowledge and possession thereof which, standing alone, is sufficient to convict. 20 Accused-appellant, however, failed to rebut this presumption.

Insisting on her innocence, accused-appellant challenges the supposed irregularity in the implementation of the search warrant by the PDEA agents, which rendered the seized items inadmissible in evidence for being the fruit of the poisonous tree. 21 Accused-appellant insists that the PDEA agents implemented the warrant at 8:00 o'clock in the morning and not 12:00 o'clock in the afternoon and that the RTC and CA erred in disregarding this material fact, further insinuating that the illegal drugs were merely planted. 22

It bears stressing that objection to the admissibility of evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. At any rate, We find that the search warrant was properly implemented and accused-appellant has not shown that the PDEA agents were inspired by any improper motive or did not properly perform their duty. Further the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, accorded the PDEA agents the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties.

We likewise find that accused-appellant failed to present any solid, clear, and competent evidence to specifically dispute the prosecution witnesses' testimonies that the illegal drugs were indeed recovered from the luggage inside accused-appellant's bedroom. As found by the RTC, and affirmed by the CA, the PDEA agents testified in a direct and forthright manner that they properly and lawfully performed their duties as PDEA agents and officers commencing from the presentation of the search warrant until the discovery of the prohibited drug at the subject premises. 23

The Court finds no compelling reason to disturb their common findings. Factual findings of the appellate court, affirming those of the trial court, are binding on this Court, unless there is a clear showing that such findings are tainted with arbitrariness, capriciousness, or palpable error, which accused-appellant failed to establish in this case. 24

We also find that there was substantial compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 25 as to the preservation and disposition of the seized shabu, as well as the chain of custody requirements.

After the PDEA agents conducted the search, forensic chemist Esguerra marked and weighed the seized items found inside the bedroom, and conducted inventory in the presence of the three (3) mandatory witnesses, Prosecutor Clarence Español, Media representative Melinda Arceo, and Barangay Chairman Antonio Arguelles. Photographs of the seized items were also taken. 26 Esguerra also conducted a presumptive test on the specimens with the initiatory findings that they were positive for shabu. Thereafter, she kept and brought the seized items to the crime laboratory. After examination, the seized items were found to be positive for shabu. 27 Later, the subject shabu was presented and offered as evidence in court.

Significantly, the prosecution, through the testimonies of the PDEA agents, the forensic chemist, and the mandatory witnesses was able to prove that the subject shabu seized from accused-appellant was the same shabu presented and offered in evidence as part of the corpus delicti.

All the foregoing considered, the Court affirms the conviction of accused-appellant for the offense of illegal possession of shabu. The Court likewise affirms the penalties imposed by the CA for being in accordance with the law.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated 23 May 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05084, finding accused-appellant Li Yu Xuan, a.k.a. Vivian Lee, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, is AFFIRMED.

The accused-appellant's motion for an extension of thirty (30) days from 04 November 2020 within which to file a supplemental brief, is GRANTED; the Office of the Solicitor General's manifestation and motion, pursuant to the Resolution dated 01 July 2020, requesting that it be excused from the filing of a supplemental brief, for reasons stated therein, but reserves the right to file a supplemental brief in case the accused-appellant will raise new matters and issues in her own supplemental brief; the accused-appellant's supplemental brief, pursuant to the Resolution dated 01 July 2020, praying that a decision be rendered acquitting accused-appellant, for reasons stated therein; and the letter dated 08 September 2020 of CTSupt. Virginia S. Mangawit, RSW, Acting Superintendent, Correctional Institution for Women, Bureau of Corrections, pursuant to the Resolution dated 01 July 2020, informing the Court that the accused-appellant was transferred to their Institution on 02 May 2011 and is presently confined in the said institution are all NOTED.

SO ORDERED."Gaerlan, J., took no part; Perlas-Bernabe, J., designated additional Member per Raffle dated 12 April 2021.

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 13-15; see Notice of Appeal dated 08 May 2017.

2.Rollo, pp. 3-12; penned by Associate Justice Amelita G. Tolentino and concurred in by Associate Justices Edwin D. Sorongon and Pedro B. Corales of the Special Fourth (4th) Division of the Court of Appeals, Manila.

3. CA rollo, pp. 47-72; penned by Judge Racquelen Abary Vasquez.

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. CA rollo, p. 47.

6.Rollo, p. 4.

7.Id.

8.Id.

9.Id. at 5.

10. CA rollo, p. 72.

11.Id. at 71.

12.Id. at 63-65.

13.Id. at 71.

14.Id. at 64-65.

15.Id. at 73-74; see Notice of Appeal dated April 25, 2011.

16.Rollo, p. 11.

17.Id. at 4-6, 9.

18.See People v. Manabat, G.R. No. 242947, 17 July 2019 [Per J. Caguioa].

19. CA rollo, p. 51.

20.People v. Lagman, 593 Phil. 617, 625-626 (2008); G.R. No. 168695, 08 December 2008 [Per J. Carpio-Morales].

21.Rollo, pp. 42-43.

22.Id. at 44.

23. CA rollo, p. 63.

24.SeePeople v. Bontuyan, 742 Phil. 788, 798 (2014); G.R. No. 206912, 10 September 2014 [Per J. Perez].

25. The offense was committed on 24 August 2010, hence, RA 9165 applies.

26. CA rollo, p. 55.

27.Id. at 49-50.