SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 253319. November 24, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. RYAN REMORQUE LUNA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 24 November 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 253319 (People of the Philippines v. Ryan Remorque Luna). —This is an appeal 1 assailing the Decision 2 dated June 22, 2020 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12646 which affirmed with modification the Consolidated Decision 3 dated November 29, 2018 of Branch 97, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Quezon City in Criminal Case Nos. R-QZN-16-13527-CR and R-QZN-16-13528-CR. The RTC found Ryan Remorque Luna (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 5 4 and 11, 5 Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002." 6
The Antecedents
The instant case stemmed from two separate Informations charging accused-appellant with violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165. The accusatory portions of the Informations are as follows:
CRIMINAL CASE NO. R-QZN-16-1352[7]-CR
That on or about November 14, 2016, near [M]ercury Drug Store located at Aurora Boulevard corner Romulo Avenue, Quezon City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law, did then and there, knowingly, willfully and feloniously sell and deliver [n]ine hundred ninety eight point two (998.2) grants of [m]ethantphetantine [h]ydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
CRIMINAL, CASE NO. R-QZN-16-1352[8]-CR
That on or about the [sic] November 14, 2016, near Mercury Drug Store located at Aurora Boulevard corner Romulo Avenue, Quezon City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law, did then and there, knowingly, willfully and feloniously control and possess [f]our thousand two hundred thirty-three point nine (4233.9) grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW 7
When arraigned, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges. 8
Trial ensued. 9
The prosecution established that on November 14, 2016, at 6:20 a.m., the Special Operations Unit-3 (SOU-3) of the Anti-Illegal Drugs Group of the Philippine National Police (PNP) in Camp Crame, Quezon City, successfully conducted a buy-bust operation against accused-appellant. During the operation, Senior Police Officer 1 Adrian Galang (SPO1 Galang) purchased one bag of suspected shabu, weighing 998.2 grams, from accused-appellant. After the operation, the police officers arrested accused-appellant. When the police officers frisked accused-appellant, they were able to recover from his possession another bag containing suspected shabu weighing 4,233.9 grams. 10
At the scene of arrest, unruly onlookers started to gather. 11 The police officers decided to immediately bring accused-appellant and the seized items to Camp Crame. 12 SPO1 Galang and Police Officer 2 Atanacio Ualat, Jr. (PO2 Ualat) carried with them the checkered bag and the black backpack containing 998.2 grams and 4,233.9 grams of suspected shabu, respectively. Upon arrival at Camp Crame, the police officers conducted the marking and inventory of the seized items. The inventory was witnessed by accused-appellant, Barangay Kagawad Custodio Queta, Jr. (Queta), and Ma. Leah Ylagan (Ylagan) of UNTV. Photographs of the seized items were also taken. 13
Thereafter, SPO1 Galang and PO2 Ualat transferred the custody of the seized items to Police Officer 3 Ernesto Peña, Jr. (PO3 Peña) for investigation. After investigation, SPO1 Galang, PO2 Ualat, and PO3 Peña brought the seized items, the chain of custody form, receipt/inventory of property seized, and the request for laboratory examination to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Laboratory Service. After a laboratory examination, the specimens tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. 14
In his defense, accused-appellant insisted that at around 10:00 p.m. of November 13, 2016, He was waiting for his brother at Fort Street, New Manila when two persons in civilian clothes approached him and poked a gun at him. Thereafter, accused-appellant was dragged and boarded into a car where he saw a Chinese and a Filipino national who were handcuffed. Inside the car, accused-appellant was blindfolded. When his blindfold was removed, accused-appellant noticed that he was already at Camp Crame. Accused-appellant was surprised to notice that the Chinese national who was with him in the car was no longer around. The police officers then took pictures of accused-appellant. After which, the police officers forced accused-appellant to admit the charges to protect the latter's family from being hurt. 15
The RTC Ruling
In the Consolidated Decision 16 dated November 29, 2018, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165. It sentenced accused-appellant as follows: (1) In Criminal Case No. R-QZN-16-13527-CR (Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs), to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P400,000.00; (2) In Criminal Case No. R-QZN-16-13528-CR (Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs), to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P400,000.00. 17
The RTC gave weight and credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses which established that the buy-bust team complied with the requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165, and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved. 18
Undaunted, accused-appellant filed an Appeal 19 with the CA. CAIHTE
The CA Ruling
In the assailed Decision, the CA affirmed the RTC Decision convicting accused-appellant of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs with modification in that the fine imposed in each case is P1,000,000.00. 20
Hence, the instant appeal. 21
The Issue
The issue before the Court is whether the guilt of accused-appellant for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165 has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The Courts Ruling
The appeal lacks merit.
After a judicious examination of the records of the case, the Court finds no justification to overturn the findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, which are adequately supported by the evidence on record.
For a successful prosecution of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, the following elements must be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and consideration of the sale; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. 22 The main requirement in the commission of the offense of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under RA 9165 is the consummation of the transaction, which happens the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller. 23
On the other hand, to successfully prosecute a case 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. 24
In the case, the prosecution successfully proved the existence of all the essential elements of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs.
SPO1 Galang positively identified accused-appellant as the one who sold to him 998.2 grams of shabu in exchange for the marked money. After the sale was consummated, SPO1 Galang arrested accused-appellant. 25 It is clear that the identity of accused-appellant, the significant amount of shabu that was seized and subject of the charge, and the marked money paid upon delivery of the thing sold were properly established by SPO1 Galang during trial.
Likewise, records reveal that accused-appellant was caught red-handed in possession of a significant amount of shabu weighing 4,233.9 grams without showing any proof that he was duly authorized to possess it. 26 SPO1 Galang and PO2 Ualat positively identified accused-appellant as the person who illegally possessed, without authority, the black backpack containing 4,233.9 grams of shabu. 27
Moreover, the police officers complied with the marking, inventory, and witness requirements as provided under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, as amended.
The law requires that the inventory and photography be done in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: (a) if prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, 28 a representative each from the media and the Department of Justice, 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. 29
In the instant case, the act was committed on November 14, 2016, or after the effectivity of RA 10640. Thus, the two-witness requirement under RA 9165 must be complied with during the inventory and photography of the seized items.
Records reveal that the police officers conducted the marking and inventory at Camp Crame in the presence of accused-appellant, Barangay Kagawad Queta, and Ms. Ylagan of UNTV. SPO1 Galang marked the seized items subject of the illegal sale, while PO2 Ualat marked the seized items subject of the illegal possession. They also took photographs of the seized items. 30
In cases of Illegal Sale and/or Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under RA 9165, it is essential that the identity of the dangerous drug be established with moral certainty, considering that the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus delicti of the offense. 31 Hence, it is necessary to observe the chain of custody requirement under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, and its Implementing Rules and Regulations.
In People v Arriola, 32 the Court enumerated the different links that the prosecution must prove in order to establish the chain of custody in a buy-bust operation, namely: 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 by the forensic chemist to the court. 33
In the case, all the above-mentioned links are present. Immediately after the arrest of accused-appellant and when unruly onlookers started to gather around, the police officers brought accused-appellant and the seized items to Camp Crame for marking, inventory, and investigation. SPO1 Galang brought with him the checkered bag containing 998.2 grams of suspected shabu; while PO2 Ualat brought with him the black backpack containing 4,233.9 grams of suspected shabu. Upon arrival at Camp Crame, the police officers conducted the marking, inventory, and photography of the seized items. 34
After marking and inventory, SPO1 Galang and PO2 Ualat transferred the seized items to PO3 Peña for investigation. PO3 Peña verified the receipt/inventory of the seized items and printed the photographs taken during markings and inventory. Thereafter, SPO1 Galang, PO2 Ualat, and PO3 Peña brought the seized items together with the chain of custody form, receipt/inventory of property seized and the request for laboratory examination to the PDEA Laboratory Service where the specimens tested positive for shabu. After examination, the seized items were transferred to the evidence custodian to ensure that the specimens will be preserved and separated from other evidence. 35
It is true that as part of the chain of custody procedure, the law requires, inter alia, that the marking, physical inventory, and photography of the seized items be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation. 36 Even so, in cases where strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure is not possible, the seizure and custody of the seized items will not be rendered void if the prosecution satisfactorily proves that there is a justifiable ground for the deviation, and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. 37
Here, the prosecution established that there was a justifiable ground for the police officers not to immediately conduct the marking and inventory at the place of arrest. According to SPO1 Galang, considering the significant amount of the seized drugs and that accused-appellant was a member of a syndicate, the procedures had to be done at Camp Crame for fear of a commotion and reprisal (from accused-appellant's sympathizers. 38 Furthermore, accused-appellant did not present any substantial evidence to show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the shabu presented at the trial had been compromised at some point. On the contrary, the body of evidence adduced by the prosecution shows that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized evidence were preserved and safeguarded through an unbroken chain of custody. DETACa
In fine, the police officers strictly observed the chain of custody rule. Thus, the identity and integrity of the seized items were preserved as mandated under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165.
As regards the penalty, the RTC's findings, as affirmed by the CA, are in accordance with RA 9165. In Criminal Case No. R-QZN-16-13527-CR for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, the RTC correctly imposed the penalty of life imprisonment pursuant to Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, in relation to RA 9346. 39 Meanwhile, in Criminal Case No. R-QZN-16-13528-CR for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, the RTC likewise correctly imposed the penalty of life imprisonment pursuant to Section 11, 40 Article II of RA 9165, in relation to RA 9346, considering that the amount of shabu accused-appellant illegally possessed is 4,233.9 grams.
Finally, the CA correctly increased the fine to P1,000,000.00 for each charge considering the significant amount of shabu seized from accused-appellant.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated June 22, 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CR-HC No. 12646 is AFFIRMED. Accused-appellant Ryan Remorque Luna is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. Accordingly, he is sentenced as follows: (a) In Criminal Case No. R-QZN-16-13527-CR for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P1,000,000.00; and (b) in Criminal Case No. R-QZN-16-13528-CR for violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a line of P1,000,000.00.
SO ORDERED." (HERNANDO, J., on official leave.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 20-22.
2.Id. at 3-19; penned by Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante with Associate Justices Germano Francisco D. Legaspi and Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas, concurring.
3. CA rollo pp. 57-80; penned by Acting Presiding Judge Marilou D. Runes-Tamang.
4. 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.
5. 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[.]
6. CA rollo, p. 80.
7.Id. at 57-58. The captions of the Informations were interchanged in some parts of the records. The dispositive portion of the RTC Consolidated Decision referred to Criminal Case No. R-QZN-16-13527-CR as the case for violation of Section 5. Article II of RA 9165, and Criminal Case No. R-QZN-16-13528-CR as the case for violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165.
8.Id. at 58.
9.Id. at 60.
10.Rollo, pp. 5-6.
11. CA rollo, p. 64.
12.Rollo, p. 6.
13.Id.
14.Id. at 7.
15.Id. at 8.
16. CA rollo, pp. 57-80.
17.Id. at 80.
18.Id. at 73-80.
19.Id. at 11-12.
20.Rollo, pp. 18-19.
21.Id. at 20-22.
22.People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 238339, August 7, 2019, citing People v. Unisa, 674 Phil. 89, 108 (2011).
23.People v. Unisa, 674 Phil. 89, 108 (2011).
24.People v. Punzalan, 773 Phil. 72, 90 (2015), citing People v. Lagahit, 746 Phil. 896, 907-908 (2014).
25.Rollo, pp. 10-11.
26. CA rollo, pp. 111-112.
27.Rollo, pp. 11-12.
28. Entitled "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 which took effect on August 7, 2014.
29.Sayson v. People, G.R. No. 249289, September 28, 2020. See also People vs. Alconde, G.R. No. 238117, February 4, 2019.
30.Rollo, pp. 6-7.
31.Matahilas v. People, G.R. No. 243615, November 11, 2019, citing People v. Crispo, 828 Phil. 416 (2018); People v. Magsano, 826 Phil. 947 (2018); People v. Manansala, 826 Phil. 578 (2018).
32. 681 Phil. 578 (2012). Id. at 593-594.
33.Id. at 593-594, citing People v. Kamad, 624 Phil. 289, 304 (2010).
34.Rollo, pp. 6-7.
35.Id. at 7.
36.People v. Gabunada, G.R. No. 242827, September 9, 2019.
37.People v. Almorfe, 631 Phil. 51, 60 (2010).
38.Rollo, p. 77.
39. Entitled "An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines," approved on June 24, 2006.
40. 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"[.]