SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 252283. September 27, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.DICKSON RAFAEL y SIMON, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated27 September 2021which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 252283 (People of the Philippines v. Dickson Rafael y Simon). — This is an Appeal 1 from the Decision 2 dated September 27, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 10395 which affirmed the Decision 3 dated September 8, 2017 of Branch 02, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Tuguegarao City in Criminal Case Nos. 14833 and 14834 finding Dickson Rafael y Simon (accused-appellant) guilty of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165, or the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002." 4
The Facts
In two Informations, accused-appellant was charged with violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165, viz.:
Criminal Case No. 14833[for violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165]
That in the morning of June 25, 2012, in the City of Tuguegarao, Province of Cagayan, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused DICKSON RAFAEL y SIMON, without any authority of law and without the necessary documents or permit from lawful authorities, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession one (1) piece heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.14 gram of METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE, commonly known as "[s]habu," a dangerous drug; that the said drug was seized and confiscated from the possession, control and custody of the accused inside Room 2 of the Casa Ludivina located at Barangay Leonarda, this city, and this led to his immediate apprehension and arrest by members of the PNP, assigned at the Provincial Intelligence Section, Cagayan Police Provincial Office (CPPO), Tuguegarao City, who acted in coordination with the members of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), Regional Office No. 02, Camp Marcelo Adduru, Tuguegarao City.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
Criminal Case No. 14834[for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165]
That in the morning of June 25, 2012, in the City of Tuguegarao, Province of Cagayan, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused DICKSON RAFAEL y SIMON, 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 one (1) piece heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.07 gram of METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE, commonly known as "shabu," a dangerous drug, to PO1 GADOR P. FERNANDEZ, who acted as [poseur-buyer], that when the accused handed to the said [poseur-buyer] the plastic sachet containing the dangerous drug, the [poseur-buyer] in turn handed to the accused the agreed purchase price of the dangerous drug in the amount of P1,000.00 which was previously marked and used as buy-bust money, consisting of two (2) pcs. genuine P500.00 peso-bills bearing Serial Nos. YP685793 and ZZ910068, and this led to his immediate apprehension and arrest of the accused and the recovery of the buy-bust money from his possession, control, and custody inside Room 2 of the Casa Ludivina located at Barangay Leonarda, this City, by members of the PNP assigned at the Provincial Intelligence Section, Cagayan Police Provincial Office (CPPO), Camp Tirso H. Gador, Tuguegarao City, who formed the buy-bust team, and who acted in coordination with the members of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), Regional Office No. 2, Camp Marcelo Adduru, Tuguegarao City; that the buy-bust operation led to the confiscation of the dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 6
The prosecution established that on June 25, 2012, a confidential informant tipped off Deputy Chief Police Senior Inspector Harvey Pajarillo of the Cagayan Police Provincial Office (CPPO) that accused-appellant was engaged in selling shabu. After hatching a buy-bust plan and coordinating with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), the police officers from the CPPO successfully conducted a buy-bust operation against accused-appellant at Casa Ludivina, Brgy. Leonarda, Tuguegarao City, where one transparent plastic sachet was recovered from him. When the police officers searched accused-appellant after his arrest, they found in his possession one more transparent plastic sachet. 7
The police officers then brought accused-appellant to the CPPO. Thereat, the police officers conducted the marking, inventory, and photography of the seized sachets in the presence of Barangay Chairman Rizalino Luyun, Kagawad Renato G. Juan, media representative Augie Garma, and Department of Justice (DOJ) representative, Ferdinand Gangan. Senior Police Officer 2 Valerton Solito (SPO2 Solito) received the two seized sachets from Police Officer 2 Aldwin Jay de Guzman (PO2 de Guzman) who was one of the arresting officers, and Police Officer 1 Gador Fernandez (PO1 Fernandez) who acted as the poseur-buyer. Subsequently, SPO2 Solito brought the seized items to the crime laboratory. After examination, the contents of the seized sachets tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. 8
In defense, accused-appellant denied the charges against him. He argued that at around 11:00 p.m. on June 24, 2012, he was at Casa Ludivina because one alias "Sol," a sex worker, texted him and suggested that they meet there. Accused-appellant admitted that he is Sol's client. They checked in at Room No. 2 at Casa Ludivina Hotel. Ten minutes after checking in, men in civilian clothes entered the hotel room and introduced themselves as police officers. The police officers told him to lie face down. Without saying a word, they covered his head with his jacket and brought him to a vehicle. Accused-appellant was taken to some place and his head was covered all night. It was only the following morning of June 25, 2012 that accused-appellant learned he was brought to CPPO. Thereafter, the police officers removed the jacket covering accused-appellant's head, showed him drugs on a table, and asked him to sign a document. 9
Ruling of the RTC
On September 8, 2017, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165. 10 The RTC held that the offenses of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs were established by the prosecution witnesses. Moreover, there was compliance with the requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165. 11
The RTC disposed thusly:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. 14833, the Court finds accused DICKSON RAFAEL y SIMON, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the charge for violation of Sec. 11, Art. II, RA 9165 and sentences him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of [t]welve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to [t]wenty (20) years as maximum and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand (P300,000.00) [pesos]; and
2. In Criminal Case No. 14834, the Court finds accused DICKSON RAFAEL y SIMON, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the charge for violation of Sec. 5, Art. II, RA 9165, and sentences him to suffer LIFE imprisonment and to pay a fine of F[ive] Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) pesos.
xxx xxx xxx. 12
Ruling of the CA
In the assailed Decision 13 dated September 27, 2019, the CA affirmed the RTC Decision. The CA held that there were no lapses in the handling of the evidence; the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses coupled with the documentary exhibits leave no doubt as to accused-appellant's culpability; and accused-appellant's defense of denial is unsubstantiated. 14
Hence, the instant Appeal. 15
Issue
The issue for the Court's resolution is whether accused-appellant's guilt of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165 was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Our Ruling
The Appeal lacks merit.
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; 16 whereas, the elements of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 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. 17
Here, the courts a quo correctly found that all the elements of the offenses charged were present. The records show that accused-appellant was caught inflagrante delicto selling shabu to the poseur-buyer, PO1 Fernandez, during a legitimate buy-bust operation by the CPPO; and one more plastic sachet was recovered from accused-appellant during the search made incidental to his arrest.
For a successful prosecution of the offenses of Illegal Sale and/or Illegal Possession 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. 18 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 offense. 19 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. 20
The law further 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, 21 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. 22 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. 23
Generally, there must be strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure. 24 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. 25 With respect to the witness requirement, non-compliance 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. 26
In the case, the three-witness rule under RA 9165 applies as the crimes were committed before the law's amendment.
The Court finds that there was compliance with the rule on chain of custody under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165.
In the case, after accused-appellant was arrested during the buy-bust operation and was subsequently searched, the marking, inventory and photography were done at the CPPO because according to PO1 Fernandez, the manager of Casa Ludivina did not allow the police officers to conduct the inventory at the place. 27 At the CPPO, the marking, inventory, and photography were conducted in the presence of two elected public officials, a media representative, and a DOJ representative. 28 Thereafter, the seized sachets were turned over to SPO2 Solito, who then delivered them to Police Senior Inspector Glenn Ly Tuason (PSI Tuason) for the laboratory examination. It was PSI Tuason who brought the items as evidence to the RTC. 29
By reason of the foregoing, the Court rules that there is sufficient compliance with the chain of custody rule. Hence, the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti were preserved and were not compromised.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated September 27, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 10395 is AFFIRMED. Accused-appellant Dickson Rafael y Simon 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. 14833 for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to twenty (20) years as maximum and to pay a fine of P300,000.00; and (b) in Criminal Case No. 14834 for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00.
SO ORDERED." (LAZARO-JAVIER, J., designated as Additional Member vice GAERLAN, J., per Raffle dated September 22, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 19.
2.Id. at 3-18; penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando (now Presiding Justice) with Associate Justices Samuel H. Gaerlan (now a member of the Court) and Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig, concurring.
3. CA rollo, pp. 38-48; penned by Presiding Judge Vilma T. Pauig.
4.Id. at 48.
5.Rollo, p. 4.
6.Rollo, pp. 4-5.
7. CA rollo, pp. 60-61, 85.
8.Id. at 61-62.
9.Id. at 43-44.
10.Id. at 48.
11.Id. at 46.
12.Id. at 48.
13.Rollo, pp. 3-18.
14.Id. at 15-18.
15.Id. at 19.
16.People v. Crispo, 828 Phil. 416, 429 (2018), citing People v. Sumili, 753 Phil. 342, 348 (2015).
17.Id., citing People v. Bio, 753 Phil. 730, 736 (2015).
18.People v. Santos, G.R. No. 243627, November 27, 2019.
19.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).
20.People v. Gabunada, G.R. No. 242827, September 9, 2019.
21. 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.
22.People v. Gabunada, supra note 20.
23.People v. Piñero, G.R. No. 242407, April 1, 2019.
24.People v. Sendad, G.R. No. 242025, November 20, 2019.
25.People v. Almorfe, 631 Phil. 51, 60 (2010).
26.People v. Gabunada, supra note 20.
27.Rollo, p. 9.
28.Id. at 9-10.
29.Id. at 11.