People v. Ramos y Enriquez

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 254261. October 13, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.JOVEN RAMOS y ENRIQUEZ, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 13, 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 254261 — People of the Philippines v. Joven Ramos y Enriquez

Search Warrant No. 15-36 was

Appellant Joven Ramos y Enriquez (appellant) contends that there were irregularities in the implementation of Search Warrant No. 15-36, viz.: (1) he was not shown a copy of the search warrant prior to the conduct of the search; (2) he was not allowed to witness the search of his room as he was instructed to remain downstairs during the conduct of the search; and (3) since Police Officer 1 Norwin Anyayahan Ilustre (PO1 Ilustre) was not frisked prior to the conduct of the search, the possibility of planting of evidence is not remote. 1

We cannot agree.

Section 8, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court states:

Section 8. Search of House, Room, or Premises to be Made in Presence of Two Witnesses. — No search of a house, room, or any other premises shall be made except in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family or in the absence of the latter, two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality.

More, in the 2014 Philippine National Police Drug Enforcement Manual (PNPDEM), the operating manual in the place at the time of this case, the police officers serving a search warrant are also directed to perform the following: CAIHTE

xxx xxx xxx

6. The following procedures shall be observed during entry stage:

(a) The Entry Team shall occupy the area, takes (sic) control and secure it. The Search Team enters and assesses the situation. The Perimeter/Security Team then establishes a police line.

 (b) The Team Leader shall read, explain and furnish a copy of the Search Warrant to the suspect/s or occupant/s in the presence of at least two (2) witnesses preferably elected Officials or responsible persons in the area.

xxx xxx xxx

7. After clearing and securing the area, the following search procedures shall be observed:

(a) The Search Team and the required witnesses shall enter the premises and perform the following:

(1) Each subject of the SW/Occupant should be properly identified and frisked for weapons. They shall at all times be present during the conduct of the search. Thereafter, they shall be put under guard.

(2) In all cases, the search must be witnessed by at least two (2) responsible persons in the vicinity, preferably elected Officials.

Here, the prosecution was able to establish that Search Warrant 15-36 was implemented in accordance with the law. PO1 Ilustre testified:

Q46: Who were with you when you saw Joven Ramos when you saw him at the door area of his house, Mr. Witness?

A46: The team, Barangay Councilor Jay-R Fabrero, DOJ and Media representatives, Ma'am.

Q47: After seeing Joven Ramos, what did you do next, if any, Mr. Witness?

A47: We went straight to him and PO1 Mandocdoc presented to him the search warrant, Ma'am.

Q48: Which search warrant was presented by PO1 Mandocdoc, Mr. Witness?

A48: Search Warrant No. 15-36 issued by Judge Galvez, Ma'am.

Q49: To whom was said search warrant specifically shown by PO1 Mandocdoc, Mr. Witness?

A49: To Joven Ramos, Ma'am.

Q50: Where were you when PO1 Mandocdoc showed Search Warrant No. 15-36 to Joven Ramos, Mr. Witness?

A50: I was present, Ma'am.

Q51: Do you have any proof of PO1 Mandocdoc presenting the search warrant to Joven Ramos, Mr. Witness?

A51: Yes, Ma'am. Joven Ramos signed the search warrant and pictures were taken by PO1 John Kenneth Bay, the assigned photographer during the search.2 DETACa

xxx xxx xxx

Q55: After PO1 Mandocdoc had shown or presented the search warrant to Joven Ramos, what transpired next, if any, Mr. Witness?

A55: He was given a copy of the search warrant, Ma'am. And the search of the house of Joven was started.

Q56: What was the time when the search at the house of Joven Ramos was started (sic), Mr. Witness?

A56: More or less 6:20 AM, Ma'am.

Q57: What was your specific participation in the conduct of the search at the house of Joven Ramos, Mr. Witness?

A57: I was the searcher, Ma'am.

Q58: At that time who was/were with Joven Ramos at his house, if any, Mr. Witness?

A58: His father, wife, siblings and nephews and nieces, Ma'am.

Q59: Who were with you when you searched the house of Joven Ramos, Mr. Witness?

A59: Joven Ramos, Barangay Kagawad Fabrero, Boy Griño and I, Ma'am. 3 (Emphases supplied)

Evidently, Search Warrant No. 15-36 was presented to appellant prior to the conduct of the search, as evidenced by appellant's signature appearing on the said search warrant and by a photograph which captured appellant's image signing the search warrant by the doorway of his house. Indeed, appellant even signed the Certification of Orderly Search, 4 in which he acknowledged that he was present at all times during the conduct of the search and that the same was conducted in accordance with law.

At any rate, appellant never assailed the search warrant before the trial court. People v. Magayon5 ordained that any objection to the legality of the search warrant and the admissibility of the evidence obtained thereby is deemed waived when no objection was raised by appellant during trial. To be sure, the right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures, like any other right, can be waived and the waiver may be made expressly or impliedly. Thus, appellant's failure to object to the search warrant precludes him from belatedly interposing his objections in the present proceedings.

Appellant is guilty of illegal possession of

For a successful prosecution of an offense for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must establish the following elements: (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. 6

Here, the prosecution successfully established all these elements.

Thus, PO1 Ilustre testified:

Q73: After you have seen the water pipe, what did you do next, if any, Mr. Witness?

A73: I continued the search, Ma'am. On top of the window frame inside the room[,] I saw one brown coin purse and when I opened it[,] I saw inside eleven plastic sachets of shabu, Ma'am. Picture was also taken by PO1 Bay on said coin purse containing sachets of shabu.

Q74: I am showing you again Exhibits "H[,]" "H-1" to "H-11[,]" will you please identify which pictures were taken on the coin purse containing eleven sachets of shabu, Mr. Witness.

A74: This Exhibit "H-4[,]" Ma'am. This is the coin purse and the window frame where I found it. 7

xxx xxx xxx

Notably, nothing in the record showed that appellant had the authority to possess or control the dangerous drugs and the drug paraphernalia. It is settled that mere possession of prohibited drugs constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of satisfactory explanation. Consequently, the burden of evidence was shifted to the accused to negate the presumption of knowledge or animus possidendi. 8 This appellant failed to do. aDSIHc

In People v. Pambid, 9 the Court upheld the conviction of appellant Jacquiline Pambid for the failure of the defense to rebut the prima facie evidence that she had animus possidendi. Pambid was caught in actual possession of the prohibited drug without her showing any proof that she was duly authorized by law to possess it. Having been caught inflagrante delicto, there was prima facie evidence she had animus possidendi.

Evidently, appellant here was positively identified as the possessor of illegal drugs which he was not authorized to possess and which he freely and consciously held.

Appellant is guilty of illegal possession of

In a prosecution for illegal possession of drug paraphernalia, the elements are: (1) the possession or control by the accused of any equipment, apparatus or other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body; and (2) such possession is not authorized by law. 10

These elements are all present. Thus, PO1 Ilustre testified:

Q65: What did you do next, Mr. Witness?

A65: I proceeded to the second floor and went inside the room of Joven Ramos, Ma'am.

Q66: How were you able to know that said room which you first entered is the room of Joven Ramos, Mr. Witness?

A66: I asked Joven Ramos and he told me that it is his room, Ma'am.

Q67: After you have entered the room of Joven Ramos, what did you do next, if any, Mr. Witness?

A67: That room is too dark and hot inside and there is no light, Ma'am. So I opened its window.

Q68: After you have opened the window at the room of Joven Ramos, what did you do next, if any, Mr. Witness?

A68: I saw a water pipe on top of a table-like furniture inside the room, Ma'am.

Q69: While you were inside the room of Joven Ramos, who were with you, Mr. Witness?

A69: Joven Ramos, Boy Griño and Barangay Kagawad Jay-R Fabrero, Ma'am. I called PO1 Bay to take [a] picture of the water pipe which I saw.

Q70: After you have seen said water pipe, what did you do with said item. Mr. Witness?

A70: I asked PO1 Bay to take [a] picture of it, then I got and took custody of the item and I arrested Joven Ramos and appraised him of his rights, Ma'am. 11

xxx xxx xxx

Q72: I am showing you again said Exhibits "H[,]" "H-1" to "H-11[,]" will you please identify which pictures were taken on the water pipe, Mr. Witness?

A72: This Exhibit "H-5[,]" Ma'am. This is the water pipe and this with pink design is the table-like furniture I am mentioning (sic). 12

xxx xxx xxx

As it was, a water pipe (improvised tooter) was also recovered in appellant's possession during the search. People v. Villahermosa13 ruled that violation of Section 12, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165) was already deemed consummated the moment appellant was found in possession of the said articles without the necessary license or prescription. What is primordial is the proof of the illegal paraphernalia recovered from appellant.

Against the compelling evidence against him, all appellant could offer was the defense of bare denial. Time and again, this Court held that the defense of denial, like alibi, has been invariably viewed by the courts with disfavor for it can just as easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in most cases involving violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. To merit consideration, it has to be substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, which appellant failed to do. 14

The chain of custody was preserved

Here, appellant was charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs on September 28, 2015. 15 The governing law, therefore, is RA 9165 as amended by Republic Act No. 10640 (RA 10640), which took effect on August 7, 2014.

In Tumabini v. People, 16 the Court clarified that Section 21 of RA 9165 applies whether the drugs were seized either in a buy-bust operation or pursuant to a search warrant. A plain reading of the law shows that it applies as long as there has been a seizure and confiscation of drugs. There is nothing in the statutory provision which states that it is only applicable when there is a warrantless seizure in a buy-bust operation. Thus, it should be applied in every situation when an apprehending team seizes and confiscates drugs from an accused, whether through a buy-bust operation or through a search warrant. The only recognizable difference between seizure and confiscation of drugs pursuant to a search warrant and a buy-bust operation is the venue of the physical inventory and taking of photographs of the said drugs, 17 thus:

When the drugs are seized pursuant to a search warrant, then the physical inventory and taking of photographs shall be conducted at the place where the said search warrant was served. In contrast, when the drugs are seized pursuant to a buy-bust operation or a warrantless seizure, then these can be conducted at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending team. Other than that, there is no other difference between seizure and confiscation of drugs with a search warrant and without it (such as a buy-bust operation). Consistent with Sec. 21 of [RA 9165], its IRR does not suspend the application of the chain of custody rule simply because the drugs were seized pursuant to a search warrant. Thus, the witnesses under the law are required to be present. Again, the only difference is with respect to the venue of the inventory and taking of photographs. 18 (Emphasis in the original) TIADCc

In drug related cases, the State bears the burden not only of proving the elements of the offense, but also the corpus delicti itself. The dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia seized from appellant constitutes such corpus delicti. The prosecution is, therefore, tasked to establish that the substance illegally sold or possessed by the accused is the same substance presented in court. 19 This is the chain of custody rule. The rule came to fore due to the unique characteristics of illegal drugs which render them indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration, or substitution either by accident or otherwise. 20

To ensure the integrity of the seized drug, the prosecution must account for each link in its chain of custody: 21 (1) the seizure and marking of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and (4) the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court. 22

Here, there was compliance with the chain of custody rule.

The first link refers to the seizure and marking which must be done immediately at the place of the arrest. Too, it includes the physical inventory and taking of photograph of the seized drug which should be done in the presence of the accused or his/her representative or counsel, together with an elected public official and a representative of the Department of Justice (DOJ) or the media.

Right after seizure of the eleven (11) plastic sachets and right at the place of seizure (appellant's bedroom), PO1 Ilustre marked the brown coin purse with "JR," the eleven (11) plastic sachets with "JR1" to "JR11," respectively, and the water pipe with "JR12." The marking was also done in the presence of appellant, media representative Boy Griño, and Barangay Councilor Jay-R Fabrero. Police Officer 1 Paul Admyr Mandocdoc (PO1 Mandocdoc) then conducted the physical inventory in the living room area of appellant's house, in the presence of appellant, media representative Boy Griño, DOJ representative Rodel Espina, and Barangay Councilor Jay-R Fabrero. Police Officer 1 John Kenneth Bay took photographs of the marking and the inventory. 23

The second link is the transfer of the seized drug by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer. The investigating officer shall conduct the proper investigation and prepare the necessary documents for the proper transfer of the evidence to the police crime laboratory for testing. Thus, the investigating officer's possession of the seized drug must be documented and established. 24

Here, PO1 Ilustre turned over the seized items to PO1 Mandocdoc after the marking and physical inventory of the same. PO1 Mandocdoc then prepared the necessary documents and presented the seized drugs and drug paraphernalia to the court which issued Search Warrant No. 15-36. 25

The third link is the delivery by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist. Once the seized drug arrives at the forensic laboratory, it will be the laboratory technician who will test and verify the nature of the substance. Additionally, the fourth link involves the submission of the seized drugs by the forensic chemist to the court when presented as evidence in the criminal case. 26

Both links were duly established in this case. PO1 Mandocdoc personally brought the seized items to the crime laboratory. The items were then duly received by Police Officer 3 Randy Legaspi (PO3 Legaspi), the receiving officer of the Regional Crime Laboratory Office, who, in turn, delivered them to Forensic Chemist Donna Villa P. Huelgas (Forensic Chemist Huelgas) for examination.

In People v. Pajarin, 27 the Court clarified that, as a rule, the police chemist who examines a seized substance should ordinarily testify that he or she received the seized article as marked, properly sealed, and intact; that he or she resealed it after examination of the content; and that he or she placed his or her own marking on the same to ensure that it could not be tampered pending trial. In case the parties stipulate to dispense with the attendance of the police chemist, they should stipulate that the latter would have testified that he or she took the precautionary steps mentioned. AIDSTE

Here, the testimony of Forensic Chemist Huelgas was dispensed with since both the prosecution and the defense stipulated on her proposed testimony. Both the defense and the prosecution stipulated on the qualifications of Forensic Chemist Huelgas and the fact that she received the subject specimens from PO3 Legaspi. She then tested the specimens and found them positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. She made her own markings on the specimens after receipt and prior to conduct of qualitative examination, and there was no sign or indication that the specimens were altered or substituted. They also stipulated that she reduced her findings in Chemistry Report No. D-2009-15. 28

In People v. Dela Trinidad29 the Court held that the integrity of the evidence is presumed to have been preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered with. Appellant bears the burden of showing that the evidence was tampered or meddled with in order to overcome the presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers and the presumption that public officers properly discharged their duties.

Here, appellant miserably failed to present any evidence that would justify a finding that the apprehending team had ill motive in tampering with the evidence in order to hold him liable for these grave offenses.

In sum, the prosecution was able to establish all the links in the chain of custody and accounted for the specimens' proper handling and preservation at every stage. All told, the Court of Appeals did not commit reversible error when it affirmed the verdict of conviction for violations of Sections 11 and 12, Article II of RA 9165.

Penalty

Pursuant to Section 11, Article II of RA 9165, the penalty for illegal possession of shabu weighing more than five (5) grams but less than ten (10) grams is imprisonment of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to life imprisonment and a fine ranging from P400,000.00 to P500,000.00. 30

In People v. Obias, Jr., 31 since appellant therein was found to have been in illegal possession of 5.921 grams of shabu, the Court affirmed the penalty of imprisonment of twenty (20) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to thirty (30) years, as maximum, and a fine of P400,000.00.

Here, appellant had in his possession eleven (11) plastic sachets containing a total of 6.42 grams of shabu. Hence, for Criminal Case No. 20298, we sustain the imposed penalty of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to twenty-one (21) years imprisonment and a fine of P400,000.00.

On the other hand, under Section 12, Article II of RA 9165, the penalty for illegal possession of drug paraphernalia ranges from six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years imprisonment and a fine ranging from P10,000.00 to P50,000.00. 32 Thus, for Criminal Case No. 20299, we also sustain the penalty of imprisonment of two (2) years as minimum to four (4) years as maximum and a fine of P20,000.00.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated January 28, 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12654 is AFFIRMED.

1. In Criminal Case No. 20298, appellant Joven Ramos y Enriquez is found GUILTY of violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. He is sentenced to twenty (20) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to twenty-one (21) years, as maximum, and a fine of P400,000.00; and

2. In Criminal Case No. 20299, appellant Joven Ramos y Enriquez is found GUILTY of violation of Section 12, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. He is sentenced to two (2) years, as minimum, to four (4) years, as maximum, and a fine of P20,000.00. AaCTcI

SO ORDERED." Lopez, M., J., on official leave.

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. CA rollo, p. 33.

2.Rollo, pp. 12-13.

3.Id. at 14.

4.Id. at 15.

5.People v. Magayon, G.R. No. 238873, September 16, 2020.

6.People v. Manansala, 826 Phil. 578, 586 (2018).

7.Rollo, pp. 18-19.

8.People v. Quijano, G.R. No. 247558, February 19, 2020.

9. See 655 Phil. 719, 735 (2011).

10.People v. Santos, 823 Phil. 1162, 1186 (2018).

11.Rollo, pp. 17-18.

12.Id. at 18.

13. 665 Phil. 399, 418 (2011).

14.Id.

15. CA rollo, pp. 2-3.

16. G.R. No. 224495, February 19, 2020.

17.Buasan v. People, G.R. No. 232476 (Notice), November 9, 2020.

18.Id.

19.People v. Galisim, G.R. No. 231305, September 11, 2019.

20.Jocson v. People, G.R. No. 199644, June 19, 2019.

21. As defined in Section 1 (b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002: x x x

b. "Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition[.] x x x

22.Jocson v. People, supra.

23.Rollo, pp. 24-27.

24.People v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 235658, June 22, 2020.

25.Rollo, pp. 27-30.

26.People v. Bangcola, G.R. No. 237802, March 18, 2019.

27. 654 Phil. 461, 466 (2011).

28.Rollo, pp. 31-33.

29. 742 Phil. 347, 360 (2014).

30. 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: x x x

(2) Imprisonment of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are five (5) grams or more but less than ten (10) 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 three hundred (300) grams or more but less than five hundred (500) grams of marijuana; and

31. G.R. No. 222187, March 25, 2019.

32. SECTION 12. Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs. — The penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and a fine ranging from Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess or have under his/her control any equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body: Provided, That in the case of medical practitioners and various professionals who are required to carry such equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia in the practice of their profession, the Board shall prescribe the necessary implementing guidelines thereof.