People v. Rapsing y Alba

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 252381. June 30, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. CLEMENTE RAPSING y ALBA, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated June 30, 2021, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 252381 (People of the Philippines v. Clemente Rapsing y Alba). — This is an Appeal 1 from the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision 2 dated August 28, 2019 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10517 affirming the Decision dated September 27, 2017 of Branch 44, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Masbate City in Crim. Case No. 15140. The RTC found Clemente Rapsing y Alba (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 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 on or about the 31st day of December, 2012, 3 in the afternoon thereof, at Brgy. Pating, Masbate City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell to a government asset two (2) pieces heat sealed plastic sachet containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a prohibited and dangerous drug, weighing approximately 0.043 grams without the corresponding license or authority to do so.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 4

The prosecution alleged that in the afternoon of December 31, 2011, police officers assigned at the Masbate Police Station successfully conducted a buy-bust operation against accused-appellant at the public market during which two plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance were recovered from the latter's possession. Accused-appellant was thereafter arrested and brought to the nearby police outpost which was right outside the public market. Thereat, the seized items were marked, inventoried, and photographed in the presence of Brgy. Captain Edison Quintal (Brgy. Captain Quintal), Brgy. Kagawad Judy Alcala (Brgy. Kagawad Alcala), media representative Romulo Natural III (Natural III), and Department of Justice (DOJ) representative Danny V. Liao (Liao). Subsequently, the seized items were brought to the crime laboratory where, after examination, their contents tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. 5

In defense, accused-appellant denied the charges against him. He asserted that while he was at the public market, two persons approached him. When he confronted the two persons, they suddenly handcuffed and brought him to the police station. 6

Ruling of the RTC

On September 27, 2017, the RTC rendered its Decision 7 finding accused-appellant guilty of violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00. 8

The RTC ruled that the prosecution established the elements of illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs; and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs have been preserved. 9

Ruling of the CA

In the assailed Decision 10 dated August 28, 2019, the CA denied accused-appellant's appeal and affirmed the RTC Decision 11in toto. The CA held that the prosecution established all the links in the chain of custody of the drugs in question. Thus, it found that the integrity of the seized items was preserved. 12

Hence, this appeal.

Issue

The issue for the Court's resolution is whether the CA erred in affirming accused-appellant's conviction for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165.

Our Ruling

The appeal is without merit.

To successfully prosecute the offense of illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the following elements must be proven: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery or the thing sold and the payment. 13

In cases of illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, not only must the prosecution establish the above elements, but it is equally essential that the identity of the dangerous drug be established with moral certainty. 14 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. 15 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. 16

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, 17 a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (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. 18

The three-witness rule under RA 9165 applies in the case at bench considering that the offense was committed before its amendment.

In the case, records show that after accused-appellant was arrested, PO1 Richard Natural (PO1 Natural), the poseur-buyer in the buy-bust operation, took custody of the seized drugs and marked them in the presence of Brgy. Captain Quintal, Brgy. Kagawad Alcala, media representative Natural III, and DOJ representative Liao. 19 The inventory and photographing of the seized items were likewise conducted in the presence of the required witnesses. Notably, the marking, inventory, and photographing were conducted at the police outpost, which was right outside the place of apprehension. While the law requires that the marking, physical inventory, and photographing of the confiscated drugs must be conducted immediately after seizure, the Court has held that marking upon immediate confiscation contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team. 20

Subsequently, the seized drugs were delivered by PO1 Natural to the crime laboratory for examination and later brought to the court. 21

Thus, the Court finds that there was no gap in the chain of custody over the seized illegal drugs; and the integrity and evidentiary value thereof had been preserved. Accordingly, accused-appellant's conviction must stand.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated August 28, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10517 is AFFIRMED. Clemente Rapsing y Alba is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 and, accordingly, he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00.

SO ORDERED." (ROSARIO, J., designated as Additional Member per Special Order No. 2833, effective June 30, 2021.)

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 15-17.

2.Id. at 3-14; penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo, with Associate Justices Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez and Perpetua Susana T. Atal-Paño, concurring.

3. Erroneously written as "2012" in the CA decision. It should be "2011" based on the facts of the case.

4. As culled from the CA Decision, rollo, p. 4.

5.Id. at 4-5.

6.Id. at 6.

7. CA rollo, p. 56; penned by Acting Presiding Judge Arturo Clemente B. Revil.

8.Id.

9.Id. at 56.

10.Rollo, pp. 3-14.

11.Id. at 52-56.

12.Id. at 10-13.

13.People v. Crispo, 828 Phil. 416, 429 (2018), citing People v. Sumili, 753 Phil. 342, 348 (2015); Fariñas v. People, G.R. No. 228129 (Notice), February 17, 2020.

14.People v. Santos, G.R. No. 243627, November 27, 2019.

15.People v. Año, 828 Phil. 439, 448 (2018), citing People v. Viterbo, 739 Phil. 593, 601 (2014) and People v. Alagarme, 754 Phil. 449, 460 (2015).

16.People v. Gabunada, G.R. No. 242827, September 9, 2019.

17. 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.

18.People v. Gabunada, supra note 16.

19.Rollo, p. 11.

20.People v. Sabobo, G.R. No. 241084 (Notice), October 12, 2020.

21.Id.