SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 250146. April 25, 2022.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. RONGIE PONDADOR y CALLET a.k.a. "TIKI", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 25 April 2022 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 250146 (People of the Philippines v. Rongie Pondador y Callet a.k.a. "Tiki"). — This is an appeal 1 assailing the June 27, 2019 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02767, which affirmed in toto the August 22, 2017 Joint Judgment 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dumaguete City, Branch 30, finding Rongie Pondador y Callet (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, 4 otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002." 5
Antecedents
In two amended Informations, 6 accused-appellant was charged with Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drug as follows:
Criminal Case No. 2015-23281
That on or about the 25th day of November 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 criminally sell and/or deliver to a poseur buyer one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.11 gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, commonly called "shabu," a dangerous drug.
That the accused has been found positive for Methamphetamine, a dangerous drug, as reflected in Chemistry Report No. DT-331-15.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 7
Criminal Case No. 2015-23282
That on or about the 25th day of November 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 criminally keep and possess seven (7) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing an approximate aggregate weight of 4.05 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, commonly called "shabu," a dangerous drug.
That the accused has been found positive for Methamphetamine, a dangerous drug, as reflected in Chemistry Report No. DT-331-15.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 8
Version of the Prosecution
The prosecution presented police Officer 3 Rulymar Laquinon (PO3 Laquinon), Police Officer 3 Jerry Magsayo (PO3 Magsayo), Police Officer 3 Edilmar Manahan (PO3 Manahan), Police Chief Inspector Josephine Llena (PCI Llena), and Department of Justice (DOJ) representative Anthony Chilius Benlot (DOJ representative Benlot) as witnesses. 9Barangay Chairman Manuel Sagarbarria (Barangay Chairman Sagarbarria), media practitioner Neil Rio (media practitioner Rio), and Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) agent Bob Gregorio, were also supposed to be presented as witnesses, but the parties agreed to stipulate on the facts regarding their respective testimonies. 10 The evidence for the prosecution tends to prove the following:
At around 7:00 p.m. of November 25, 2015, PO3 Laquinon received a tip from a confidential informant that a certain "Tiki" was selling shabu in Dumaguete City. 11 Accordingly, a buy-bust operation was planned, with PO3 Laquinon to serve as the poseur buyer, PO3 Magsayo as back up officer, and Senior Police Officer 4 Allen Germodo (SPO4 Germodo) as team leader. 12 Both PO3 Magsayo and SPO4 Germodo were familiar with accused-appellant as they previously arrested him for a similar drug offense. 13 SPO4 Germodo coordinated with the PDEA regarding the planned operation. 14
At around 8:40 p.m., PO3 Laquinon proceeded to Robinson's parking lot, the target area, accompanied by the informant. 15 There, they met up with accused-appellant who, in exchange for P500.00 (consisting of five P100.00 marked bills), handed PO3 Laquinon a transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. 16 Convinced that the same contained shabu, PO3 Laquinon informed accused-appellant that he is a police officer, and that the latter is under arrest. 17
After witnessing the event from a distance, PO3 Magsayo proceeded to the crime scene to help PO3 Laquinon. 18 The latter then subjected accused-appellant to a body search and recovered the five P100.00 marked bills, a cell phone, a black coin purse containing seven more transparent plastic sachets with white crystalline substance, and more money consisting of a P1,000.00 bill and five P100.00 bills. 19 PO3 Laquinon arrested accused-appellant for the second time and immediately marked the buy-bust item (the sachet sold to him by accused-appellant), and the rest of the confiscated items. 20
For security reasons and upon instruction of the team leader, the apprehending team proceeded to the satellite office for inventory. 21 Upon arrival, PO3 Laquinon conducted the inventory in the presence of accused-appellant, Barangay Chairman Sagarbarria, and media practitioner Rio. 22 DOJ representative Benlot later on arrived and compared the seized items with the Inventory/Receipt of Property. 23 All three witnesses signed the receipt and were given copies thereof. 24 The event was photographed by PO3 Magsayo. 25
After the inventory, PO3 Laquinon brought accused-appellant and the items to the PNP Crime Laboratory. 26 PO3 Manaban received the items and took a urine sample from accused-appellant. 27 He placed the items in his locker, then transmitted the same to forensic officer PCI Llena the following day. 28 The contents of the buy-bust item (weighing 0.11 grams), and the sachets found in possession of accused-appellant (aggregately weighing 4.05 grams), tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. 29 Accused-appellant's urine sample likewise tested positive for shabu. 30
PCI Llena submitted the specimens along with the chemistry report to the trial court. 31
Version of the Defense
The defense presented accused-appellant as its lone witness, who proffered the defenses of denial and frame-up. 32 According to him, on the night of the incident, he and his live-in partner were on their way home from Robinson's when he was accosted by SPO4 Germodo and PO3 Magsayo. 33 He was then brought to the police office and accused of false charges. 34 He believed that the police officers planted evidence against him because of their grudge when he was acquitted in 2013. 35
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
The trial court found accused-appellant guilty of the offenses charged, viz.:
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the Court hereby renders judgment as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. 2015-23281, the accused RONGIE PONDADOR y CALLET a.k.a. "TIKI" is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of illegal sale and delivery of 0.11 gram of shabu in violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 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).
The one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with markings "RP-BB 11/25/15" with signature containing 0.11 gram of shabu is hereby confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government and to be disposed of in accordance with law.
2. In Criminal Case No. 2015-23282, the accused RONGIE PONDADOR y CALLET a.k.a. "TIKI" is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of illegal possession of 4.05 grams of shabu in violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 and is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum term to fourteen (14) years as maximum term and to pay a fine of Four Hundred Thousand Pesos (P400,000.00).
The seven (7) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets with markings "RP-P1 11/25/15" to "RP-P7 11/25/15," respectively, containing an approximate aggregate weight of 4.05 grams of shabu are 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 RONGIE PONDADOR y CALLET a.k.a. "TIKI" 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. 36
The trial court held that all the elements of Illegal Sale and possession of Dangerous Drugs had been adequately established by the prosecution; 37 that the arrest was valid; 38 that there was compliance with the chain of custody; 39 and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the dangerous drug had not been compromised. 40 It further rejected accused-appellant's defenses of denial and frame-up, and noted that a comparison of the parties' two versions shows that the account of the prosecution was more credible. 41
Thus, accused-appellant's appeal before the appellate court arguing that (1) the validity and the existence of the alleged buy-bust operation is doubtful because of the haste in which the same was conducted, and because no casing and surveillance were conducted; 42 (2) the prosecution failed to prove all the elements of Illegal Sale of the Dangerous Drugs as the records do riot disclose that the marked money had been blottered prior to the conduct of the alleged buy-bust operation; 43 and (3) the identity of the corpus delicti had not been established beyond reasonable doubt since DOJ representative Benlot admitted that he did not witness the preparation of the inventory and the marking of the items, and that his only participation was to compare them with the list. 44
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
The appellate court affirmed accused-appellant's conviction, viz.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The assailed RTC Decision is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED. 45
The CA held that the fact that the police officers conducted the buy-bust operation in so short a time did not make the operation itself doubtful and invalid; 46 that the prosecution was able to prove the elements of both Illegal Sale and Possession of Dangerous Drugs; 47 that the non-recording of the buy-bust money in the police blotter is not essential, not being an element of Illegal Sale; 48 that the identity and integrity of the seized drug had been duly preserved through an unbroken chain of custody; 49 that while DOJ representative Benlot admitted not having seen the actual listing of the seized items, he also testified that he was able to compare the items with the list and verify the correctness and completeness thereof. 50
Thus, this appeal. 51
Both parties manifested that they are adopting the briefs they filed before the CA, and will no longer file a Supplemental Brief before this Court. 52
Issue
Did the appellate court err in sustaining the conviction of accused-appellant?
Our Ruling
The appeal lacks merit.
The prosecution was able to
To secure a conviction for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, the following elements must be proved: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller; (b) the object of the sale and the consideration; and (c) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. 53
Here, the prosecution was able to prove the identities of the buyer (PO3 Laquinon), and of the seller (accused-appellant), the object of the sale (the sachet containing white crystalline substance), and the consideration (five P100.00 marked money). PO3 Laquinon also positively testified that during the buy-bust operation, accused-appellant delivered to him the sachet containing white crystalline substance in exchange for the marked money. 54 The white crystalline substance would later test positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. 55
That there was no surveillance made does not affect the regularity of the buy-bust operations. 56 We have previously held that there is no rigid or textbook method of conducting such operation; the selection of appropriate and effective means of entrapping drug traffickers is best left to the discretion of the police. 57 Here, the failure to conduct casing and surveillance is not fatal considering that the informant agreed to arrange a meeting with accused-appellant, and to accompany the police to the crime scene, 58 and considering further that both PO3 Magsayo and SPO4 Germodo were familiar with accused-appellant having arrested him before for a similar drug offense. 59
Moreover, that the marked money was not recorded in the blotter does not invalidate the operation. As correctly held by the CA, such recording is not an element of the offense and is not required by law or jurisprudence, especially here where there are other pieces of evidence to establish the events leading to the buy-bust operation (such as the entry in the police blotter on SPO4 Germodo's request for issuance of coordination number from the PDEA and the corresponding Certificate of Coordination). 60 What is important is that the elements of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs had been duly established by the prosecution.
We also find that the prosecution was able to sufficiently establish the elements of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, which are: (a) the accused was in possession of an item or object identified as a prohibited drug; (b) such possession was not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. 61 Here, the records show that accused-appellant was caught in flagrante delicto in possession of seven transparent plastic sachets, which would also later test positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, without evidence that he was authorized to possess the same or that his possession was not conscious. 62
The prosecution was able to
In illegal drugs cases, the drug itself constitutes the corpusdelicti of the offense. The prosecution is thus tasked to establish that the Substance illegally sold or possessed by the accused is the same substance presented in court through an unbroken chain of custody. 63 To prove an unbroken chain, the prosecution must account for all of its links, which are:
[F]irst, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the dangerous drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the dangerous drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the dangerous drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked dangerous drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court. 64
Here, the evidence on record points to an unbroken chain of custody.
After receiving the buy-bust item, PO3 Laquinon arrested accused-appellant. 65 He then conducted a body search, recovered seven more transparent plastic sachets, and immediately marked the buy-bust item and the rest of the recovered objects. 66 For security reasons, he proceeded to the satellite office where accused-appellant and the confiscated items were brought. 67 PO3 Laquinon then conducted the inventory in the presence of accused-appellant himself, as well as media representative Rio and Barangay Chairman Sagarbarria. 68
While DOJ representative Benlot admitted that he did not actually witness the conduct of inventory, his absence is not fatal. It should be noted that the offense was committed in 2015 when RA 10640, 69 amending RA 9165, was already in effect. 70 Unlike the unamended provision, the new Section 21 71 requires only two insulating witnesses to be present: (1) an elected public official, and (2) a representative from the National Prosecution Service or a representative from the media. 72 These two insulating witnesses were present during the inventory and are depicted in the photographs. CAacTH
After the inventory and photographing, PO3 Laquinon brought the confiscated items to the provincial crime laboratory, where they were received by PO3 Manaban and placed in a locker. 73 The following day, PO3 Manaban transmitted the items to PCI Llena, who confirmed after her laboratory examination that the white crystalline substance inside all of the sachets were positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. 74 PCI Llena retained custody over the seized items before submitting them to the trial court. 75
The foregoing shows that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the drug had not been compromised.
Penalties
Section 5 of RA 9165 punishes the Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs with life imprisonment to death, and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00. 76 Considering that the penalty and fine imposed by the RTC as affirmed by the CA — i.e., life imprisonment and fine of P500,000.00 — are within such range, and considering further that there are no ordinary aggravating or mitigating circumstances, We affirm the appellate court.
On the other hand, Section 11 of RA 9165 punishes the possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride weighing less than five grams with imprisonment of 12 years and 1 day to 20 years, and a fine ranging from P300,000.00 to P400,000.00. 77 Considering that the penalty and fine imposed by the RTC as affirmed by the CA — i.e., imprisonment for 12 years and 1 day as minimum, to 14 years as maximum, and fine of P400,000.00 — are within such range, and considering further that there are no ordinary aggravating or mitigating circumstances, We also affirm the appellate court.
All told, the CA correctly affirmed the RTC's conviction of accused-appellant and the penalties imposed on him.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The June 27, 2019 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02767, is AFFIRMED in toto. Accused-appellant Rongie Pondador y Callet a.k.a. "Tiki" is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165. In Criminal Case No. 2015-23281, he shall suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and shall pay a fine of P500,000.00. In Criminal Case No. 2015-23282, he shall suffer an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to fourteen (14) years as maximum and shall pay a fine of P400,000.00.
SO ORDERED." (Perlas-Bernabe, S.A.J., on official leave; Hernando, J.; Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2887 dated April 8, 2022.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 15-17.
2.Id. at 5-14. Penned by Associate Justice Edward B. Contreras and concurred in by Associate Justices Gabriel T. Ingles and Dorothy P. Montejo-Gonzaga.
3. CA rollo, pp. 47-61. Penned by Judge Rafael Crescencio C. Tan, Jr.
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: June 7, 2002.
5. CA rollo, p. 61.
6. Records (Criminal Case No. 23282), pp. 110-113.
7.Id. at 110.
8.Id. at 112.
9. CA rollo, p. 48.
10.Id.
11.Id.
12.Id. at 48-49.
13.Rollo, p. 6. The facts stipulated by the parties concerning Barangay Chairman Sagarbarria's and media personality Rio's testimonies are: (1) that they were present during the conduct of the inventory, (2) that they both signed the Inventory/Receipt of Property, (3) that they appear in the photographs, and (4) that they were given copies of the inventory receipt (TSN, July 10, 2017, pp. 10-11). For PDEA agent Bob Gregorio: (1) that on the date of the incident, he was an agent of PDEA; (2) that he was the one who received the request for coordination from SPO4 Germodo; (3) that he forwarded the request to their PDEA Regional Office 7 which issued a coordination control number; (4) that he forwarded the number to SPO4 Germodo; (5) that he recorded the request in the blotter; and (5) that he issued the Certificate of Coordination (TSN, July 10, 2017, p. 12). ISHCcT
14. CA rollo, p. 49.
15.Rollo, p. 6.
16.Id.
17.Id.
18. CA rollo, p. 50.
19.Id.
20.Id.
21.Id.
22.Id. at 51.
23.Rollo, p. 7.
24. CA rollo, p. 51; see records (Criminal Case No. 2015-23281), p. 34, where it is stated that the witnesses were given copies of the inventory receipt.
25.Id.
26.Id.
27.Id.
28.Id.
29.Id. at 52.
30.Id.
31.Id.
32.Id. at 52-53.
33Id. at 53.
34.Id.
35.Id. at 52-53.
36.Id. at 60-61.
37.Id at 54, 57.
38.Id. at 57-58.
39.Id. at 58.
40.Id.
41.Id. at 59.
42.Id. at 34-37.
43.Id. at 37-38.
44.Id. at 38-43.
45.Rollo, p. 14.
46.Id. at 9-10.
47.Id. at 11-12.
48.Id. at 12.
49.Id. at 12-13.
50.Id. at 13.
51.Id. at 15-17.
52.Id. at 23-28, 29-32.
53. See People v. Soriano, G.R. No. 223552, June 17, 2020, citing People v Roales, G.R. No. 233656, October 2, 2019 and People v. Cadiente, G.R. No. 228255, June 10, 2019.
54. CA rollo, pp. 54-56.
55.Id. at 56.
56. See People v. Alunan, G.R. No. 244170, January 25, 2021, citing People v. Adrid, 705 Phil. 654, 669 (2013).
57.Id.
58.Rollo, p. 6. See id.
59.Id.
60.Id. at 10.
61. See People v. Soriano, supra note 53, citing People v. Eda, 793 Phil. 885, 898 (2016).
62. CA rollo, p. 57.
63. See Izon v. People, G.R. No. 222509, March 3, 2021, citing People v. Galisim, G.R. No. 231305, September 11, 2019.
64.Id.
65. CA rollo, pp. 49-50.
66.Id. at 50.
67.Id. at 50-51.
68.Id. at 51.
69. 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 ACT OF 2002." Approved: July 15, 2014.
70. Sec People v. Tecson, G.R. No. 243786, October 9, 2019, where the Court noted that RA 10640 took effect on August 7, 2014.
71. 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 persons front 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."
72. See People v. Tecson, supra note 70.
73. CA rollo, p. 51.
74.Id. at 51-52.
75.Id. at 52.
76. Section 5 (1) reads:
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.
77. Section 11 reads:
SECTION 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. — x x x
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be graduated as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu," or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy," PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or less than three hundred (300) grams of marijuana.