THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 241256. August 28, 2019.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. ALEX PANNER y OLYOG, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 28, 2019, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 241256 (People of the Philippines vs. Alex Panner y Olyog). — Before the Court is an Appeal 1 from the Decision 2 dated December 22, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08667, which affirmed the Decision 3 dated June 29, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bulanao, Tabuk City, Kalinga, Branch 25, in Criminal Case No. 4-2012, finding Alex Panner y Olyog (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Delivery and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs, penalized under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Facts
The accused-appellant was charged with violation of Section 5, 4 Article II of R.A. No. 9165, in the Information 5 which reads as follows:
Criminal Case No. 4-2012
That at around 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon of January 9, 2012, at Lacnog, Tabuk City, Kalinga, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and knowingly deliver, dispatch in transit or transport a dangerous drug, consisting of ONE HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE (125) bricks of dried marijuana leaves and fruiting tops and weighing more or less ONE HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE (125) Kilograms with the use of a Gray Daewoo sedan with Plate no. TLM 760 without license, permit or authority from any appropriate government entity or agency.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 6
Version of the Prosecution
The prosecution presented six witnesses: Julius M. Paderes (Paderes), Police Chief Inspector Jomarick Beleno Felina (PCI Felina), PCI Jethro Moog, Police Officer 3 Frederick Ugaban (PO3 Ugaban), PO1 Abraham Barasi (PO1 Barasi), and Police Senior Inspector Gina Claire-Bentican (PSI Bentican).
That on or about 5:00 p.m. of January 9, 2012, Paderes of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), Camp Juan Duyan, Bulanao, Tabuk City, Kalinga obtained information from an asset that the accused-appellant and two other companions were engaged in the transportation of marijuana from Tabuk City, Kalinga en route to Manila. They were on board a vehicle via the National Lacnog Road bound for Agbannawag via Isabela. 7
As part of the Standard Operating Procedure, Paderes immediately prepared the Pre-Operation Report and Authority Coordination to Operate dated January 9, 2012. 8
Paderes thereafter communicated with PCI Felina of the Philippine National Police, 3rd Maneuver Company, Regional Public Safety Battalion who was stationed in Talaca, Agbannawag, Tabuk City. After providing the details of the operation, a checkpoint was requested in order to intercept the accused-appellant and his companions. The checkpoint was set up in Luyucan, Lacnog, Tabuk City. 9
The entrapment team flagged down for inspection a gray Daewoo Sedan with plate number TLM 760. Instead of stepping on the brakes, the driver of the vehicle sped up. The police officers pursued the speeding vehicle and eventually caught up to it along the highway of Lacnog, Tabuk City. The accused-appellant, who was seated behind the passenger's seat, was arrested, while his two companions fled from the scene. 10
The arresting officers discovered five (5) boxes inside the vehicle beside the accused-appellant. Residue was also found on the floor. When the boxes were opened, the PDEA agents found marijuana bricks. 11
The accused-appellant was, thereafter, brought to the Talaca Police Station. The five boxes containing marijuana bricks and the vehicle used were also brought for booking and documentation. The inventory was conducted in the presence of media representative Magdalena G. Calilung and barangay officials of Agbannawag, Tabuk City, Kalinga, Kagawad Jimmy Gomgom-o and Kagawad Maximo Rey Gumdang. 12
PO3 Ugaban marked the boxes with "Box No. 1 AOP 01/09/12 to Box No. 5 AOP 01/09/12," as photographs were taken of the seized items. The marking "AOP" as initials of the accused-appellant was likewise written, along with the date of the arrest. A total of 125 marijuana bricks were seized. 13
Thereafter, PO2 Ugaban and PCI Felina brought the seized boxes of marijuana bricks to the Kalinga Provincial Crime Laboratory for examination. PO1 Barasi received the items. After the recording thereof, PO1 Barasi turned over the confiscated and marked items to the Crime Laboratory Custodian, PO2 Benjamin Balawas (PO2 Balawas), who transmitted the same to PSI Bentican for examination. The Chemistry Report No. D-01-2012 contained the results of the quantitative and qualitative examination which yielded positive for marijuana. 14
Version of the Defense
The accused-appellant vehemently denied the accusations hurled against him and provided an entirely different version of the story.
According to him, in the afternoon of January 9, 2012, while waiting for his ride in Lacnog to visit a cousin situated in Ileb, he chanced upon a certain Jacklinon Agpad (Agpad) driving a sedan car. The accused-appellant flagged him down and asked Agpad if he could hitch a ride to which the latter agreed to. As soon as the accused-appellant entered the vehicle, he saw Arthur Abuli (Abuli) seated at the back. 15
When they reached Luyucan, Agpad stopped the vehicle and signaled a Florida liner bus to halt. Agpad sought the assistance of the accused-appellant and Abuli in unloading a cargo from the bus and placed it at the back of his vehicle. After placing the said boxes inside the vehicle, the two went back to their seats. All of a sudden, police officers appeared from nowhere and the accused-appellant's companions scampered away leaving the accused-appellant inside the car. The police officers then proceeded to inspect the contents of the vehicle and, thereafter, discovered the marijuana bricks. This resulted to the arrest of the accused-appellant. 16
The accused-appellant insisted that he was not involved in the transportation of the boxes that contained marijuana bricks and that he was clueless as to its contents. He claimed that he merely wanted a free ride. 17
Joseph Balagso (Balagso), who knew the accused-appellant, corroborated his testimony and claimed that he saw the accused-appellant ride the vehicle driven by Agpad. 18
On June 29, 2016, the RTC of Bulanao, Tabuk City, Kalinga rendered a Decision 19 finding the accused-appellant guilty of the crime charged, the dispositive portion of which reads:
ACCORDINGLY, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Alex Panner y Olyog guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense for violation of Article II, [S]ection 5 of RA 9165 and hereby sentence him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and payment of fine of Five Million pesos (P5,000,000.00).
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED. 20
On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC albeit with modifications on the penalty. The dispositive portion of the CA Decision 21 dated December 22, 2017 reads:
ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated June 29, 2016 of the Regional Trial (RTC), Branch 25 of Bulanao, Tabuk City, Kalinga Province in Criminal Case No. 4-2012 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. The accused-appellant Alex Panner y Olyog is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of illegal delivery and transportation of 110 kilograms of marijuana penalized under Article II, Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165, and is sentenced to LIFE IMPRISONMENT and ORDERED to PAY a FINE of Php5,000,000.00 with an interest of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until they are fully paid.
SO ORDERED.22
Ruling of the Court
The Court finds no reversible error in the findings of the appellate court in upholding the conviction of the accused-appellant for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, and its imposition of the corresponding penalty.
Section 5, Article II, R.A. No. 9165
Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 clearly provides:
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.
To be held criminally liable for illegal transportation of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must prove the corpus delicti which is the dangerous drug itself and that at the time of apprehension or arrest, the dangerous drug was being transported by the accused from one place to another — the essential element of the crime being its movement or transport from one place to another. In its assailed decision, the CA held that the commission of the crime charged was sufficiently proven by the prosecution in all aspects, viz.:
Here, accused-appellant's criminal accountability as to the commission of the crime charged was sufficiently proven by the prosecution on all aspects. To reiterate, the prosecution witness positively identified accused-appellant as the person who was left inside the car at the time of the warrantless arrest. He was found in possession of five (5) boxes which was later on discovered to contain dried marijuana bricks. Indeed, accused appellant, through his direct participation, committed the crime of illegal transportation of illicit drugs. 23
In earlier decisions with similar facts, credence was properly accorded by the Court to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, who are law enforcers, absent evidence which otherwise suggested improper motive on their part. In People v. Maspil, Jr and Bagking, 24 where the accused who were riding a jeepney were stopped and searched by police officers who had earlier received confidential reports that said accused would transport a quantity of marijuana, and People v. Libnao, 25 where the accused whose tricycle was flagged down at a checkpoint and caught with a bag full of marijuana leaves were found guilty of illegal transportation of dangerous drugs.
Although the accused-appellant maintains that he had no knowledge of the content of the boxes being transported, the Court finds it unbelievable given the circumstances surrounding his arrest. On the basis of the evidence presented by the parties and the testimony of the accused-appellant himself, the Court finds nothing unusual or improper insofar as the conduct of the police officers are concerned. Clearly, they were motivated by nothing other than their desire to act on the tip they received from the informant and prevent the same. The search was justified and the subsequent arrest conducted within reasonable limits.
The integrity and evidentiary value of
In People v. Rosialda, 26 the Court explained the chain of custody requirement, to wit:
The chain of custody requirement performs the function of ensuring that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved, so much so that unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the evidence are removed. To be admissible, the prosecution must show by records or testimony, the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit at least between the time it came into possession of the police officers and until it was tested in the laboratory to determine its composition up to the time it was offered in evidence. 27
Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 laid down the procedure that must be observed and followed by police officers in the seizure and custody of dangerous drugs. Paragraph 1 not only provides the manner by which the seized drugs must be handled, but likewise enumerates the persons required to be present during the inventory and taking of photographs, viz.:
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. (Emphasis and underscoring Ours)
In 2014, R.A. No. 10640 28 amended R.A. No. 9165, specifically Section 21 thereof, to further strengthen the anti-drug campaign of the government. Paragraph 1 of Section 21 was amended, in that the number of witnesses required during the inventory stage was reduced from three to only two, to wit:
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 dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s for whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected public official AND a representative of the National Prosecution Service OR the media who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, That the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures: Provided, finally, That noncompliance of these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items. (Emphasis and Underscoring Supplied)
The amendments introduced by R.A. No. 10640 reduced the number of witnesses required to be present during the inventory and taking of photographs from three to two — an elected public official AND a representative of the National Prosecution Service (DOJ) OR the media. These witnesses must be present during the inventory stage and are likewise required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy of the same, to ensure that the identity and integrity of the seized items are preserved and that the police officers complied with the required procedure. Failure of the arresting officers to justify the absence of any of the required witnesses, i.e., the representative from the media or the DOJ and any elected official shall constitute as a substantial gap in the chain of custody.
Since the offenses subject of this appeal were committed before the amendment introduced by R.A. No. 10640, the old provisions of Section 21 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations should apply, viz.:
(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. Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.
The Court, in People v. Mendoza, 29 explained that the presence of these witnesses would preserve an unbroken chain of custody and prevent the possibility of tampering with or "planting" of evidence, viz.:
[W]ithout the insulating presence of the representative from the media or the [DOJ], or any elected public official during the seizure and marking of the [seized drugs], the evils of switching, 'planting' or contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-busts conducted under the regime of [RA] 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) again reared their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the [said drugs] that were evidence herein of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused. 30
Here, although there was no DOJ representative present during the inventory, his absence does not automatically render void and invalid the seizure of the dangerous drugs. Moreover, this non-compliance was justified by the police officers in the affidavits they submitted. According to them, they exerted their best effort to contact a representative from the DOJ but since it was already nighttime and the office already closed, they were not able to reach anyone.
Further, a perusal of the records would reveal that from the time of arrest up until the time the seized items were brought to the crime laboratory for proper testing and documentation, there was no discernible break in the chain of custody. The CA ruled:
In the case at bench, the police officers and the PDEA agents immediately brought accused-appellant to Talaca Police Station for documentation after his arrest and the seizure of the marijuana bricks in his possession. PO2 Frederick Ugaban, who was with PCI Moog and the rest of the apprehending team, conducted the physical inventory and marked the boxes "Box No. 1 AOP 01/09/12" to Box No. 5 AOP 01/09/12. He later on accounted for the five (5) boxes contained a total of 125 marijuana bricks.
There was the presence of barangay officials, members of the media and a member of the Department of Justice (DOJ) during the documentation and inventory. Photographs of the procedure and the actual marking were also made by the apprehending officers.
PO2 Ugaban then turned over the confiscated items to PO1 Abraham Barasi of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Kalinga Provincial Crime Laboratory Office for examination. PO1 Barasi then submitted the same to PO2 Benjamin Balawas, their evidence custodian, for custody.
Afterwards, PO2 Balawas submitted the confiscated items to PSI Gina Claire Bentican for examination. PSI Bentican initially conducted physical examination affirming that there were indeed 125 marijuana bricks surrendered. She then performed a chemical examination on each of the marijuana bricks. The tests yielded positive results for marijuana as evidenced by the Chemistry Report No. D-01-2012 which was prepared by PSI Bentican.
The confiscated items were positively identified by PO2 Ugaban during the trial to be the very same items that were in the possession of accused-appellant. These were also the items which he later on surrendered to the crime laboratory for examination. PSI Bentacan likewise identified the same to be the same items she personally examined and tested positive for marijuana. 31
Presumption of regularity in the
Well settled is the rule that in cases involving violations of R.A. No. 9165, "credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary." 32
In sustaining the accused-appellant's conviction, the CA relied on the evidentiary presumption that official duties have been regularly performed. Other than the accused-appellant's self-serving assertions, there was no other evidence to support his claim that the police officers deviated from the standard conduct of official duty provided for in the law. Evidence, to be believed, must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but it must be credible itself as to hurdle the test of conformity with the knowledge and common experience of mankind. 33
Here, mere denial by the appellant failed to overcome the persuasiveness and credibility of the prosecutions' narrative that indeed, he was involved in the drug trade and should be meted out the corresponding sanction imposed by law.
The Court is well aware that a perfect chain of custody is almost always impossible to achieve and so it has consistently ruled that "minor procedural lapses or deviations from the prescribed chain of custody are excused so long as it can be shown by the prosecution that the arresting officers put in their best effort to comply with the same, and the justifiable ground for non-compliance is proven as a fact." 34
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated December 22, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08667, finding accused-appellant Alex Panner y Olyog GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Delivery and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs, penalized under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, is hereby AFFIRMED.
With costs against the accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED." (Hernando and Inting, JJ., no part, as they penned and concurred in, respectively, the assailed Court of Appeals decision; Gesmundo and Reyes, J., Jr., JJ., designated additional Members per Raffle dated August 22, 2019.)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 29-30.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando (now a Member of this Court), with Associate Justices Marlene B. Gonzales-Sison and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (now a Member of this Court) concurring; CA rollo, pp. 102-121.
3. Rendered by Judge Marcelino K. Wacas; id. at 45-64.
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.
The penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) 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 controlled precursor and essential chemical, or shall act as a broker in such transactions.
If the sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution or transportation of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical transpires within one hundred (100) meters from the school, the maximum penalty shall be imposed in every case.
For drug pushers who use minors or mentally incapacitated individuals as runners, couriers and messengers, or in any other capacity directly connected to the dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemical trade, the maximum penalty shall be imposed in every case.
If the victim of the offense is a minor or a mentally incapacitated individual, or should a dangerous drug and/or a controlled precursor and essential chemical involved in any offense herein provided be the proximate cause of death of a victim thereof, the maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed.
The maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed upon any person who organizes, manages or acts as a "financier" of any of the illegal activities prescribed in this Section,
The penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years of imprisonment and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who acts as a "protector/coddler" of any violator of the provisions under this Section.
5. CA rollo, p. 45.
6.Id.
7.Id. at 103.
8.Id.
9.Id. at 103-104.
10.Id.
11.Id.
12.Id. at 61.
13.Id. at 104.
14.Id.
15.Id. at 105.
16.Id.
17.Id.
18.Id. at 105.
19. CA rollo, pp. 45-64.
20Id. at 64.
21.Id. at 102-120.
22.Id. at 120.
23.Id. at 115-116.
24. 266 Phil. 815 (1990).
25. 443 Phil. 507 (2003).
26. 643 Phil. 712 (2010).
27.Id. at 727.
28. 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 June 9, 2014.
29. 736 Phil. 749 (2014).
30.Id.
31.Rollo, pp. 18-19.
32.People v. Navarro, 561 Phil. 752, 759 (2007).
33.Zapatos v. People, 457 Phil. 969, 985 (2003).
34.People of the Philippines v. Minda Pantallano, G.R. No. 233800, March 6, 2019.