THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 247254. September 15, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.JEREMY KENT RODRIGUEZ y ROA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 15, 2021, which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 247254 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JEREMY KENT RODRIGUEZ y ROA). — This Court resolves the appeal 1 filed by Jeremy Kent Rodriguez y Roa (Rodriguez), challenging the Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals which, in turn, affirmed the Consolidated Judgment 3 of the Regional Trial Court convicting Rodriguez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of delivering dangerous drugs, in violation of Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. 4
In two separate Informations, Rodriguez was charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, both punished respectively under Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165. The accusatory portion of the Informations reads:
1. Criminal Case No. 2013-860
That on or about June 16, 2013, at more or less 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon at Mortola Street, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law to sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drugs, did then and there [willfully], unlawfully, criminally, and knowingly deliver and give away to IO1 Joerick S. Tacal, a PDEA Agent, One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride locally known as Shabu, a dangerous drug, weighing 0.07 gram, accused knowing the same to be a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law.
2. Criminal Case No. 2013-861
That on or about June 16, 2013, at more or less 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon at Mortola Street, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law to possess or use any dangerous drugs, did then and there [willfully], unlawfully, criminally and knowingly have in his possession, custody, and control Four (4) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, locally known as Shabu, a dangerous drug, with a total weight of 0.32 gram, accused well-knowing that the substance recovered from his possession is a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law. 5
Upon arraignment, Rodriguez pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged. 6 During the joint Pre-Trial Conference, the parties acknowledged the fact of warrantless arrest of the accused. 7 The parties likewise entered into a stipulation of fact with respect to the examination by Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Chemist III Dina Mae S. Unito (Chemist III Unito) of the specimens received from PDEA Intelligence Officer 2 John Romy B. Echeveria (IO2 Echeveria). 8
The prosecution then presented the testimonies of Intelligence Officer 1 Joerick S. Tacal (IO1 Tacal) and IO2 Echeveria, with their testimonies and the stipulations tending to prove the following version of the facts: 9
At about 2:00 p.m. on June 16, 2013, a confidential informant went to the PDEA office and informed IO1 Tacal and Investigation Agent 3 Vincent Cecil M. Orcales (IA3 Orcales) that a certain "Kim" was engaged in the illegal sale of drugs. 10 According to the confidential informant, he and Kim already agreed to Kim's delivery of shabu worth P1,000.00 along Mortola Street near Ororama, Cogon, Cagayan de Oro City. 11 IA3 Orcales then called the PDEA Regional Director, who then instructed IA3 Orcales to form a team to entrap "Kim." 12
The buy-bust team formed was composed of IA3 Orcales, IO1 Tacal, IO2 Echeveria, and Agent Cardona. 13 During the briefing, IO1 Tacal was designated as poseur-buyer, while IO2 Echeveria was designated as IO1 Tacal's immediate back-up and arresting officer. 14
After the conduct of the briefing, the PDEA agents went to the target area. IO1 Tacal, IO2 Echeveria, and the confidential informant alighted at JR Borja Street, Cagayan de Oro City. IO1 Tacal and the confidential informant walked to Mortola Street near Ororama, Cogon, 15 as IO2 Echeveria followed discreetly. 16 As for IA3 Orcales and Agent Cardona, they parked at the parking area in Ororama 17 then acted as bystanders. 18
About 15 minutes later, IO1 Tacal noticed a yellow multi-cab driven by a man identified by the confidential informant as Kim. 19 Kim parked the multi-cab in front of the former After Six Tailoring establishment, after which, he alighted. 20
The confidential informant approached Kim and introduced IO1 Tacal as the buyer of shabu. Kim asked for the money, but IO1 Tacal asked that he first be shown the shabu before paying. Kim took out a transparent sachet from his right pocket, with the sachet containing a white crystalline substance. Kim then handed the sachet to IO1 Tacal. 21
IO1 Tacal, still acting as the poseur-buyer, inspected the sachet. When he determined that the sachet indeed contained shabu. IO1 Tacal executed the pre-arranged signal of removing his cap. IO2 Echeveria then announced that they were PDEA agents and arrested Kim. After informing Kim of his constitutional rights, IO2 Echeveria handcuffed him and searched his person for any deadly weapon. The search revealed that Kim had four more sachets containing a white crystalline substance on him, which IO2 Echeveria seized. 22
As for the sachet with IO1 Tacal, the latter turned it over to IO2 Echeveria. The agents then decided to make the inventory at the office, considering that people were already converging at the crime scene. At the office, IO2 Echeveria prepared the inventory and marked all the evidence. 23 Kim was later on identified as Rodriguez.
IO2 Echeveria then prepared a June 16, 2013 letter request for the examination of the contents of the sachets seized from Rodriguez. 24 The five sachets, respectively marked with "JST, D-1, 06/16/13," "JRBE-1-6-16-13," "JRBE-2-6-16-13," "JRBE-3-6-16-13," and "JRBE-4-6-16-13" and placed in a big plastic container, were turned over by IO2 Echeveria to Chemist III Unito at the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory. 25
Chemist III Unito determined that the sachets indeed contained shabu, with the sachet marked "JST, D-1, 06/16/13" containing 0.07 gram, 26 and the rest of the sachets containing a total of 0.32 gram. 27 These findings were reduced in Chemistry Report No. PDEA DD-2013-028, and the specimens were placed inside the steel cabinet at the PDEA office. 28
Arguing that he was framed up and illegally arrested, Rodriguez solely testified to the following version of the facts: 29
At about 5:00 p.m. on June 16, 2013, Rodriguez drove to Ororama, Cogon, Cagayan de Oro City and waited for a customer, a certain Boy Nagac, who would buy water from him. Rodriguez parked his multi-cab at the supermarket's parking area. 30
Rodriguez was waiting inside the multi-cab when a van suddenly arrived and blocked the multi-cab's rear side. Several persons who had alighted from the van then opened the door of his multi-cab and ordered Rodriguez to get out. The persons introduced themselves as PDEA agents. 31
As Rodriguez was getting out of the multi-cab, the PDEA agents put their arms around him, with one of them handcuffing him and the rest escorting him to the van. He clearly remembered IO1 Tacal and IO2 Echeveria as the agents who approached him. 32
Rodriguez asked the agents why he was being apprehended. Ignoring his question, the agents instead told Rodriguez not to resist and that he was being brought in to answer some questions. 33
Inside the van, the agents searched his pocket and seized his cellphone and wallet. Unable to do anything, Rodriguez let the agents take his belongings. He was then brought to the PDEA Office at Pelaez Sports Complex. 34
At the PDEA Office, he was asked some questions. He was also told that cases for violation of Sections 5 and 11 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act would be filed against him. Rodriguez asked if he could contact his lawyer or relatives, but the agents denied his requests. He was not allowed to use his cellphone or call anyone. 35
Rodriguez was then detained at the mini detention cell at the office. After about 10 minutes, he was brought to the third floor and showed to a small room where a table had five transparent plastic sachets of shabu on top of it. He knew that the sachets contained shabu because of the TV shows and news he has been watching. A PDEA agent then asked him to point at the sachets for the photo, but he refused because the items were not his. The agents got angry and coerced Rodriguez to pose as directed. 36
A media representative from Magnum Radio then arrived, and pictures were taken. The media representative asked Rodriguez some questions, but Rodriguez refused to comment. While being brought downstairs, a PDEA agent asked Rodriguez to produce P300,000.00 in exchange for his freedom. Rodriguez replied that he did not have that amount of money, but he was told to think about it. 37
The following day, he was brought to Camp Evangelista in Cagayan de Oro City for drug testing. After about two weeks in the PDEA Office, Rodriguez was finally brought to Lumbia City Jail. 38
In its November 22, 2016 Consolidated Judgment, 39 the Regional Trial Court convicted Rodriguez of violating Section 5, Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Act for delivering dangerous drugs. The trial court gave credence to the testimony of IO1 Tacal, who clearly described how Rodriguez handed over one sachet of shabu to the PDEA agent. IO2 Echeveria, in turn, corroborated IO1 Tacal's testimony.
However, as to the charge of possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, the trial court acquitted Rodriguez for the prosecution's failure to "establish the identity of the dangerous drugs allegedly seized from him." 40 Specifically, IO2 Echeveria, who allegedly recovered four sachets of shabu from Rodriguez, failed to identify the sachets in court.
The dispositive portion of the November 22, 2016 Consolidated Judgment reads:
WHEREFORE, all the foregoing premises considered, the court hereby rules as follows:
1. In Crim. Case No. 2013-860, accused Jeremy Kent R. Rodriguez is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of having committed the offense charged in the information (violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165). He is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine in the amount of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00) each, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. The period of his preventive detention shall be credited in his favour; and
2. In Crim. Case No. 2013-861, the court rules to ACQUIT accused Jeremy Kent R. Rodriguez of the crime of Violation of Section 11, Par. 2(3). Article II of R.A. No. 9165, for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
SO ORDERED.41
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the trial court's Decision. It held that the chain of custody was satisfactorily shown to have remained unbroken. 42 The Court of Appeals likewise held that deviations from the chain of custody rule under Article II, Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act were justified. It believed that it was indeed more prudent for the PDEA to conduct the inventory and marking of evidence at the PDEA office, considering that the area in which the buy-bust operation was conducted was populated. 43
The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals January 14, 2019 Decision 44 reads:
FOR THE REASONS STATED, the assailed Judgment is AFFIRMEDin toto.
SO ORDERED.45
Rodriguez filed a Notice of Appeal, 46 to which the Court of Appeals gave due course in the Resolution 47 dated March 7, 2019. The case records were thus elevated to this Court. 48
In its June 26, 2019 Resolution, 49 this Court noted the case records and directed the parties to file their respective supplemental briefs.
The Office of the Solicitor General, on behalf of the People of the Philippines, manifested that it would no longer file a supplemental brief. 50 Rodriguez made a similar manifestation through his counsel.
The sole issue for this Court's resolution is whether or not the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of accused-appellant Jeremy Kent Rodriguez y Roa of delivering dangerous drugs defined and punished under Section 5, Article II of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. Subsumed in this issue is whether or not the prosecution proved that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved despite noncompliance with the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640.
Accused-appellant maintains that the prosecution failed to establish the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items because: (1) no markings were made on the alleged specimens allegedly recovered from the accused-appellant at the place of confiscation, but only at the office; (2) no photographs were taken and the inventory was done at the office; and (3) there was also no representative from the Department of Justice or elected public official when the delivery took place, despite the police officers having plenty of time to surveil subject. 51
The People of the Philippines counters that the PDEA agents' noncompliance with the chain of custody rule was not fatal to the prosecution's case. 52
This Court grants the appeal.
I
Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, which defines the crime of illegal sale and delivery of dangerous drugs, punishes the offender with life imprisonment and payment of a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00, regardless of the kind of dangerous drug sold or delivered:
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.
xxx xxx xxx (Underscoring provided)
Securing a conviction for the crime of sale and delivery of dangerous drugs requires proof that the transaction or sale took place as well as the presentation of the corpus delicti in court. 53 In the case of drug related offenses, the corpus delicti is the very drugs confiscated from the accused. 54 Given the fungible nature of drugs, especially in minuscule amounts, the likelihood of tampering, loss, mistake, or even evidence planting, is high. 55 Therefore, it is essential that the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti be preserved.
The identity and integrity of the corpus delicti are established by showing an unbroken chain of custody over the drugs seized, beginning with the seizure and marking of the illegal drugs recovered by the apprehending officer, to the turnover of the illegal drugs seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer, to the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination, and, finally, to the turnover and submission of the illegal drugs by the forensic chemist to the court. 56 These legal requirements are outlined in Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640. 57 The relevant portions of the provision states:
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 from 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.
(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination;
(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued immediately upon the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not allow the completion of testing within the time frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided, however, That a final certification shall be issued immediately upon completion of the said examination and certification[.]
Compliance with Section 21 is mandatory, given the use of the word "shall" in the provision. Criminal cases are dismissed and the accused acquitted when it is sufficiently demonstrated that no genuine compliance with Section 21 was done. 58
Nevertheless, the last proviso of Section 21, paragraph 1 states 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." Originally provided in the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165, 59 this "saving mechanism" 60 became part of statute through Republic Act No. 10640.
This Court in People v. Reyes61 clarified that the proviso is not a panacea to cure any and all deviations from Section 21. The deviations must first be acknowledged and recognized by the prosecution, after which, satisfactory justifications for noncompliance must be given. More important, the prosecution must show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs allegedly seized from the accused were preserved and unaffected; otherwise, there would be no object evidence to link the accused to the crime and the prosecution's case is essentially demolished. In Reyes:
Under the [last proviso of Section 21 (1) of Republic Act No. 9165], a saving mechanism has been provided to ensure that not every case of non-compliance with the procedures for the preservation of the chain of custody will irretrievably prejudice the Prosecution's case against the accused. To warrant the application of this saving mechanism, however, the Prosecution must recognize the lapse or lapses, and justify or explain them. Such justification or explanation would be the basis for applying the saving mechanism. . . . The failure to justify or explain [underscore] the doubt and suspicion about the integrity of the evidence of the corpus delicti. With the chain of custody having been compromise, the accused deserves acquittal. 62 (Citations omitted)
Here, notwithstanding the mandatory directives of the law, the PDEA agents miserably failed to comply with the specific procedures in handling the seized sachets of shabu allegedly recovered from accused-appellant.
With respect to the marking of the seized item, it must be done in the presence of the accused and immediately upon seizure. 63 This is to effectively guarantee that the articles seized "are the same items that entered the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence." 64 Here, no markings on the alleged specimens were made at the place of confiscation. The marking and inventory were done at the PDEA office. 65 Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals gravely erred when they accepted the enforcement officers' claims of substantial compliance simply because "the area was so populated that it was no longer safe." 66
This casts doubt on the integrity and evidentiary value of the sachets because of the belated marking and co-mingling. Both IO1 Tacal and IO2 Echeveria had conflicting versions as to who marked the sachets and how they were handled. The arresting officer, IO1 Tacal, unequivocally stated that it was IO2 Echeveria who marked the items at their office.
Q: What about the sachet of shat (sic) which you received from the accused, what did you do with that?
A: I was in custody of that.
Q: After the recovery of the four sachets what happened next?
A: I turn over the sachet of shabu which the suspect deliver to me at the area to Agent Echeveria.
Q: What else happened?
A: We proceed to our office for the Inventory and marking of evidence.
Q: You did not mark the items at the crime scene?
A: No sir.
Q: You return to your office?
A: Yes sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: By the way, who mark the evidence?
A: Agent Echeveria.
Q: The entire 5 sachets?
A: Yes sir. 67 (Underscoring provided)
On the other hand, a reading of the testimony of IO2 Echeveria states that it was IO1 Tacal who marked the items at the area before it was delivered to him.
Q: Was there a sachet recovered from Agent Tacal?
A: The sachet that was recovered by Agent Tacal was already turnover to me at the crime scene.
Q: And you also mark the same?
A: No sir, it was Agent Tacal who marked the sachet delivered to him.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: The 1 sachet allegedly delivered by the suspect to officer Tacal was in your possession when you went back to your office?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Together with the 4 sachets allegedly recovered from the possession of the accused?
A: Yes sir.68 (Underscoring provided)
Furthermore, while photographs of the seized items were taken together with the accused and media representative from Magnum Radio during the inventory stage, there was no representative from the Department of Justice or any elected barangay official during the arrest, marking, and inventory of the seized items. These absences do not per se make the seized articles inadmissible in evidence. However, absent a "genuine and sufficient effort to secure their presence," 69 the integrity of the seized items becomes doubtful.
With the glaring lapses committed by police officers, which inevitably tainted the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized illicit drugs, noncompliance with Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act was unjustified.
II
Contrary to the rulings of both the Regional Trial Court 70 and Court of Appeals, 71 the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties cannot stand in favor of the police officers on account of the glaring lapses committed in handling the seized illicit drugs. Merely invoking the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty, or that no ill motive can be attributed to the police officers for apprehending the accused, cannot suffice. Being a mere rule of evidence, 72 the presumption of regularity cannot, and should not, trump the presumption of innocence 73 afforded no less by the Constitution.
We remind the lower courts that the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty could not prevail over the stronger presumption of innocence favoring the accused. Otherwise, the constitutional guarantee of the accused being presumed innocent would be held subordinate to a mere rule of evidence allocating the burden of evidence. Where, like here, the proof adduced against the accused has not even overcome the presumption of innocence, the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty could not be a factor to adjudge the accused guilty of the crime charged.
Moreover, the regularity of the performance of their duty could not be properly presumed in favor of the policemen because the records were replete with indicia of their serious lapses. As a rule, a presumed fact like the regularity of performance by a police officer must be inferred only from an established basic fact, not plucked out from thin air. To say it differently, it is the established basic fact that triggers the presumed fact of regular performance. Where there is any hint of irregularity committed by the police officers in arresting the accused and thereafter; . . . there can be no presumption of regularity of performance in their favor. 74 (Italics in the original)
In sum, when the identity of corpus delicti is jeopardized by noncompliance with Section 21, the second element of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs remains wanting. It follows then that this noncompliance justifies an accused's acquittal. 75
Again, we remind our trial courts to be circumspect in deciding cases involving violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. As we have consistently observed, most drug-related cases that reach this Court involve minuscule amount of drugs. This case, in particular, involves 0.07 gram of shabu. Evidence weighing this small can be easily planted and tampered with, and therefore, "all details that factor into an ostensibly uncomplicated and barefaced narrative must be scrupulously considered." 76
WHEREFORE, the Appeal is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals' Decision in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01607-MIN is REVERSED and SET ASIDE due to reasonable doubt. Accused-appellant Jeremy Kent Rodriguez y Roa is ACQUITTED and is ordered RELEASED from confinement unless he is being held for some other legal grounds.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections for immediate implementation. The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to report to this Court within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution, the action he has taken. Copies shall also be furnished to the Police General of the Philippine National Police and the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for their information.
The Regional Trial Court, Branch 40, Misamis Oriental, is directed to turn over the seized sachets of shabu to the Dangerous Drugs Board for destruction in accordance with law. aScITE
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. CA Rollo, pp. 90-92.
2. Rollo, pp. 4-15. The Decision dated January 14, 2019 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01607-MIN was penned by Associate Justice Edgardo A. Camello, and was concurred in by Associate Justices Tita Marilyn Payoyo-Villordon and Loida S. Posadas-Kahulugan of the Twenty-First Division of the Court of Appeals, Cagayan de Oro City.
3. CA Rollo, pp. 40-50. The Consolidated Judgment dated November 22, 2016 in Criminal Case Nos. 2013-860 and 2013-861 was penned by Presiding Judge Ma. Corazon R. Gaite-Llanderal of the Regional Trial Court of Misamis Oriental, Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 40.
4. Republic Act No. 9165 (2002), Sec. 5 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.
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. Rollo, p. 5.
6. CA rollo, p. 41.
7. Id.
8. Id. at 41-42.
9. Rollo, p. 5.
10. CA rollo, p. 42.
11. Id.
12. Id. at 42-43.
13. Id. at 43 and 44.
14. Id. at 43.
15. Id.
16. Id. at 43 and 44.
17. Id. at 43.
18. Id.
19. Id.
20. Id.
21. Id.
22. Id. at 43-44.
23. Id. at 44.
24. Id.
25. Id. at 42 and 44.
26. Id. at 40.
27. Id.
28. Id. at 42.
29. Id. at 45.
30. Id.
31. Id.
32. Id.
33. Id.
34. Id.
35. Id.
36. Id. at 45-46.
37. Id. at. 46.
38. Id.
39. Id. at 40-50.
40. Id. at 48.
41. Id. at 49.
42. Rollo, p. 12.
43. Id. at 13.
44. Id. at 4-15.
45. Id. at 15.
46. Id. at 16-17.
47. CA rollo, p. 99.
48. Rollo, p. 26.
49. Id. at 22.
50. Id. at 24.
51. CA rollo, pp. 29-36.
52. Id. at 64-70.
53. SeePeople v. Cabezudo, G.R. No. 232357, November 28, 2018, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64767> [Per J. Caguioa, Second Division]; People v. Sorin, 757 Phil. 360, 368 (2015) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, First Division].
54. People v. Sorin, 757 Phil. 360, 368 (2015) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, First Division]; Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 586 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
55. Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 588 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division], citingGraham v. State, 255 N.E.2d 652, 655 [Supreme Court of Indiana].
56. People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78, 94-95 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division], citing People v. Nandi, 639 Phil. 134, 144-145 (2010) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].
57. Republic Act No. 10640 took effect on July 23, 2014. See OCA Circular No. 77-2015.
58. SeePeople v. Cabezudo, G.R. No. 232357, November 28, 2018, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64767> [Per J. Caguioa, Second Division]; People v. Hilario, 823 Phil. 580 (2018) [Per J. Leonardo-de Castro, First Division]; People v. Sorin, 757 Phil. 360 (2015) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, First Division]; People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division]; Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 588 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
59. Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 (2002), Sec. 21 (a).
60. People v. Reyes, 797 Phil. 671, 690 (2016) [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].
61. 797 Phil. 671 (2016) [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].
62. Id. at 690.
63. People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214 (2008). [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
64. People v. Suating, G.R. No. 220142, January 29, 2020, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/66140> [Per J. Leonen, Third Division]; citing People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214, 541 (2008). [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
65. Rollo, p. 13.
66. Id.
67. CA rollo, p. 31.
68. Id. at 32.
69. People v. Suating, G.R. No. 220142, January 29, 2020, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/66140> [Per J. Leonen, Third Division]; citing People v. Crispo, 828 Phil. 416 (2018) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division].
70. CA rollo, pp. 40-50.
71. Rollo, pp. 4-15.
72. RULES OF COURT, rule 131, Sec. 3 (m).
73. CONST., art. III, Sec. 14 (2).
74. People v. Catalan, 699 Phil. 603, 621 (2012) [Per J. Bersamin, First Division]; See alsoPeople v. Cabezudo, G.R. No. 232357, November 28, 2018, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64767> [Per J. Caguioa, Second Division].
75. People v. Comoso, G.R. No. 227497, April 10, 2019, 901 SCRA 387, 407 <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65237> [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
76. People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78, 100 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].