SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 251021. October 13, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.KEIJI MONTIALBUCIO y EDANG A.K.A. "KIM", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated13 October 2021which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 251021 (People of the Philippines v. Keiji Montialbucio y Edang a.k.a. "Kim"). — This is an appeal 1 from the Decision 2 dated February 18, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09890 which affirmed the Judgment 3 dated June 21, 2017 of Branch 3, Tuguegarao City in Criminal Case No. 16696 finding Keiji Montialbucio y Edang alias "Kim" (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
Accused-appellant was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 in an Information that reads:
"That in the morning of October 22, 2014, in the City of Tuguegarao, Province of Cagayan, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused KEIJI MONTIALBUCIO y EDANG alias 'KIM,' without authority of law and without any permit to sell, transport, deliver, and distribute dangerous drugs, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, sell and distribute thirty (30) pieces heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE, commonly known as 'shabu,' a dangerous drug with a total weight of 24.1482 grams, to IO1 MARY JANE R. GAAYON, who is a member of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), Regional Office No. 02, Camp Marcelo Adduru, this city, and who acted as a poseur-buyer; that when the poseur buyer handed to the accused the agreed purchase price of the dangerous drug in the amount of P100,000.00, consisting of one (1) piece genuine P1,000.00 peso-bill bearing Serial No. SL457027 and ninety-nine (99) pieces P1,000.00 peso-bill boodle money which were previously marked and used as buy-bust money, the accused in turn gave to the poseur-buyer the thirty (30) pieces heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing the dangerous drug, and this led to the immediate arrest of the accused and the recovery of the buy-bust money from his possession, control, and custody along Pattaui Street, Pallua Sur, this city, by members of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), Regional Office No. 02, Camp Marcelo Adduru, Tuguegarao City, who formed the buy-bust team, that the buy-bust operation led to the confiscation of the dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW." 4
Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. 5
Trial ensued. 6
The prosecution established that in the morning of October 22, 2014, a confidential informant tipped off Intelligence Officer II Darryl Damaso (IO2 Damaso) of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Region 2 that a certain "Kim," later identified as accused-appellant, was peddling illegal drugs in Tuguegarao City. Acting on the tip, the PDEA agents conducted a buy-bust operation against accused-appellant along Pattaui Street, Tuguegarao City. The PDEA agents then recovered, during the operation, 30 plastic sachets of suspected shabu. After the arrest of accused-appellant, IO1 Mary Jane Gaayon (IO1 Gaayon), the poseur-buyer, immediately marked the seized 30 plastic sachets at the place of arrest. Thereafter, the PDEA agents together with accused-appellant proceeded to the PDEA office in Tuguegarao City. Thereat, the PDEA agents conducted the inventory of the seized items and took photographs in the presence of the following: BarangayKagawad Rolando Taguinod; Ferdinand Gangan of the Department of Justice (DOJ); and April Salucon, a media representative. Thereafter, the PDEA agents brought the seized items to the crime laboratory where, after a laboratory examination, they tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu. 7
In defense, accused-appellant denied the accusation against him. He averred that at around 9:00 a.m. of October 22, 2014, he arrived in Tuguegarao City by bus from Makati City, where he lives, to attend the baptism of a child of his friend, Edward Baligod (Baligod). At the same time, he wanted to talk to him about a small business venture. Baligod's friends, "Mabs" and "Epon," who accused-appellant did not personally know, picked him up at the Victory Liner bus terminal in Tuguegarao City and brought him to Meynard's Resort. While they were eating, somebody knocked on the door. Upon opening the door, five persons showed up and pointed guns at them. The armed persons boarded him in a van and took him to a waiting shed. There, the armed persons searched his backpack but did not find anything. They later brought him to the PDEA office. 8
Ruling of the RTC
In the Judgment 9 dated June 21, 2017, the RTC convicted accused-appellant of violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. The fallo of the Judgment reads:
WHEREFORE, the court finds accused KEIJI MONTIALBUCIO y Edang guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime in violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and sentences him to a penalty of Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of THREE MILLION (P3,000,000.00) PESOS, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
The court orders the forfeiture of the subject Methamphetamine Hydrochloride weighing 24.1482 in favor of the government and turn-over thereof to the PDEA for proper disposition.
SO ORDERED. 10
Ruling of the CA
In the Decision 11 dated February 18, 2019, the CA affirmed the RTC. It found that the prosecution proved all the elements of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs and that the apprehending officers observed the rule on the chain of custody.
Hence, the appeal.
Issue
The issue for the Court's resolution is whether accused-appellant's guilt for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Our Ruling
The appeal is unmeritorious.
The elements of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 are: (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. 12
Here, the courts a quo correctly found that all the elements of violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 are present. Records show that accused-appellant was caught inflagrante delicto selling shabu to the poseur-buyer, IO1 Gaayon, during a legitimate buy-bust operation conducted by the PDEA agents.
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. 13 Thus, 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. 14 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. 15
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 representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: (a) if prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, 16 a representative from the media and 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. 17 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. 18
Generally, there must be strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure. 19 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. 20 With respect to the witness requirement, noncompliance may be permitted if the prosecution proves that the apprehending officers exerted genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of the required witnesses, albeit the latter failed to appear. 21
The two-witness rule under RA 10640 applies in the case.
Records show that after accused-appellant was arrested, the seized items were immediately marked at the place of arrest. Thereafter, the conduct of inventory and photographing was made in the presence of an elected public official, a representative from the media, and a representative from the DOJ; well in conformity with the witness requirement under Section 21 (1), Article II of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640. Subsequently, IO1 Gaayon brought the seized items to PDEA Chemist Jomar Concepcion for laboratory examination. After the laboratory examination, PDEA Chemist Jomar Concepcion turned them over to evidence custodian Joseph Paredes.
In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that there is sufficient compliance with the chain of custody rule. Hence, the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti were preserved.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated February 18, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09890 is AFFIRMED. Accused-appellant Keiji Montialbucio y Edang alias "Kim" 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 P3,000,000.00.
SO ORDERED." (PERLAS-BERNABE, S.A.J., on official leave; HERNANDO, J., Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2846 dated October 6, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. See Notice of Appeal dated July 11, 2019, rollo, pp. 12-13.
2.Id. at 3-11; penned by Associate Justice Germano Francisco D. Legaspi with Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Edwin D. Sorongon, concurring.
3. CA rollo, pp. 31-45; penned by Judge Marivic A. Cacatian-Beltran.
4.Rollo, p. 4.
5.Id.
6.Id.
7.Id. at 4-6.
8.Id. at 6-7.
9. CA rollo, pp. 31-45.
10.Id. at 45.
11.Rollo, pp. 3-11.
12.People v. Crispo, et al., 828 Phil. 416, 429 (2018), citing People v. Sumili, 753 Phil. 342, 348 (2015).
13. See People v. Santos, G.R. No. 243627, November 27, 2019.
14. 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).
15. See People v. Gabunada, G.R. No. 242827, September 9, 2019.
16. 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 became effective on August 7, 2014.
17.People v. Gabunada, supra note 15, citing Section 21 (1) of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 as amended by RA 10640.
18.People v. Piñero, G.R. No. 242407, April 1, 2019. See also People v. Miranda, 824 Phil. 1042, 1050 (2018) and People v. Mendoza, 736 Phil. 749, 764 (2014).
19.People v. Sendad, G.R. No. 242025, November 20, 2019.
20. See People v. Almorfe, 631 Phil. 51, 60 (2010).
21.People v. Gabunada, supra note 15.