THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 248956. October 6, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.RAFAEL ROQUE y DAYO @ "PAENG,"accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 6, 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 248956 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee v. RAFAEL ROQUE Y DAYO @ "PAENG," accused-appellant). — The prosecution needs to prove strict compliance with the chain of custody requirements. Failure to do so casts doubt on the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti. The importance of strict compliance with the rule is heightened when the amount of illegal drugs seized is minuscule given the likelihood of tampering, loss, or mistake.
This resolves the Appeal filed by Rafael Roque, questioning the Court of Appeals Decision 1 that affirmed the Joint Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court. The Regional Trial Court convicted Roque of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The accusatory portions of the two separate Informations against Roque read:
Crim. Case No. 21465
That on or about July 22, 2016 at around 3:00 in the afternoon [in] Sitio Ibaba, Brgy. Sta. Clara, Batangas City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by laws, did then and there knowingly, willfully, and criminally sell or dispense one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, more commonly known as shabu, weighing 0.18 gram, a dangerous drug, which is a clear violation of the above-cited law.
xxx xxx xxx
CONTRARY TO LAW. 3
Crim. Case No. 21466
That on or about July 22, 2016 at around 3:00 in the afternoon [in] Sitio Ibaba, Brgy. Sta. Clara, Batangas City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law, did then and there knowingly, willfully, and criminally possess or have under his custody and control one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, more commonly known as shabu, weighing 0.20 gram, a dangerous drug, which is a clear violation of the above-cited law.
xxx xxx xxx
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
On arraignment, Roque pleaded not guilty. After pre-trial, the two cases were consolidated and tried jointly. 5
The prosecution presented Police Officer 2 Carlos V. Eje as its witness. Meanwhile, the parties dispensed with the testimonies of Police Officer 2 Joel Barcelona, Forensic Chemist Police Senior Inspector Herminia Llacuna, Senior Police Officer 2 Raul Triviñio, 6 Police Officer 2 Marco C. Eje, Department of Justice Representative Rodel Espina, and Barangay Kagawad Virgilio Cunag. Instead, they stipulated on matters they would testify on. 7
Police Officer 2 Carlos Eje testified that at around 1:30 p.m. on July 22, 2016, a trusted asset informed him that Roque was selling shabu. Acting on this information, Police Officer 2 Carlos Eje and Police Officer 2 Ponciano Asilo decided to conduct a buy-bust operation. They prepared a P500.00 bill marked with "CVE," the initials of Police Officer 2 Carlos Eje, to serve as the buy-bust money. After coordinating with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, the officers proceeded to Barangay Sta. Clara, Batangas City to conduct the buy-bust operation. 8
At the designated area, Police Officer 2 Asilo said that he would stay behind the corner of the alley where Roque's house was located. Meanwhile, Police Officer 2 Carlos Eje and the informant proceeded to Roque's house. The informant introduced Police Officer 2 Carlos Eje as a buyer to Roque, who agreed to sell to him. The officer then handed the buy-bust money to Roque, who pulled out a plastic sachet from his pocket and handed it to the former. Upon checking its contents, Police Officer 2 Carlos Eje concluded that the sachet contained shabu. He then introduced himself as a police officer and informed Roque of his constitutional rights. 9
Police Officer 2 Carlos Eje conducted a body search on Roque and found one plastic sachet of suspected shabu inside his pocket. He marked the sachet sold to him with "CVE" and the sachet found during the frisking with "CVE1". Meanwhile, Police Officer 2 Asilo took pictures of the marking. 10 After the marking and the taking of photographs of the items, Police Officer 2 Carlos Eje placed them inside his bag. 11
The buy-bust team brought Roque to the Batangas City Police Station, where Senior Police Officer 2 Triviñio prepared the police blotter. It was then that Senior Police Officer 2 Triviñio called the witnesses, Espina and Cunag. After preparing the inventory and taking the photographs of the confiscated items, the police officer had Espina and Cunag sign the certificate of inventory. 12
The parties stipulated that Police Officer 2 Marco Eje prepared the necessary documents, while Police Officer 2 Carlos Eje brought Roque to the Batangas Provincial Crime Laboratory Office for examination. The parties likewise stipulated that Police Officer 2 Barcelona received the documents and seized sachets at 5:45 p.m. that same day. Together with the request for laboratory examination, the sachets were turned over to Police Senior Inspector Llacuna. 13
Police Senior Inspector Llacuna examined the confiscated items and found them positive for shabu. 14 The shabu sold to Police Officer 2 Carlos Eje weighed 0.18 gram, while the shabu seized from Roque's pocket weighed 0.20 gram. 15 After the examination, Police Senior Inspector Llacuna placed the items inside a big transparent plastic sachet and marked it with "BD-1394-2016" and her initials, "HCL." She deposited the specimen with Police Officer 2 Barcelona, who kept it until it was delivered to the court. 16
The defense presented Roque as its sole witness. He testified that at 1:30 p.m. on July 22, 2016, he was sleeping in his house when Police Officers 2 Asilo, Carlos Eje, Marco Eje, and three others arrived and arrested him. He said the officers boarded him on a tricycle and drove for around nearly three hours before bringing him to the police station. It was at the police station that Roque learned that he was arrested for selling shabu. 17
While in the station, the police officers brought out two plastic sachets and took pictures of him with the items. Roque said a barangay official was present during the picture taking. Afterwards, the officers brought him back to his house and took his pictures again. They then went to a camp, where they subjected him to a drug test. 18 He claimed that the police officers repeatedly beat him before detaining him. 19
The Regional Trial Court found Roque guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. 20 It ruled that the prosecution established all the essential elements required in the prosecution of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. It also found that Roque's defense of denial failed to overcome the presumption of regularity in the performance of duties of the police officers. Finally, the trial court found that the prosecution sufficiently established the chain of custody, thereby preserving the identity and integrity of the seized items. 21
The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Rafael Roque y Dayo @ Paeng GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 (sale and possession of dangerous drugs) and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (Php500,000.00) in Criminal Case No. 21465; and TWELVE (12) YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY, as minimum, to THIRTEEN (13) YEARS, as maximum, and to pay a FINE of THREEHUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (Php300,000.00) in Criminal Case No. 21466.
Accordingly, the big transparent plastic sachet with markings "BD-1394-2016 HCL (Exhibit "G") and two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with markings "CVE" and "CVE1" (Exhibits "S" and "T") shall be immediately transmitted to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for its proper disposal in accordance with law and pertinent regulations.
As to the monies subject of the sale, particularly the Five Hundred Peso Bill (500.00) with serial number " RF 117037" marked Exhibit "O" with markings "CVE," the same is forfeited and confiscated in favour (sic) of the Government. Consequently, the Branch Clerk of Court is ORDERED to turn over to the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court, upon receipt, the monies confiscated for proper deposit to the General Fund/Bureau of Treasury, in accordance with Section 20 of Republic Act No. 9165 and in compliance with OCA Circular No. 71-2017.
SO ORDERED. 22
Aggrieved, Roque filed his Notice of Appeal. 23
The Court of Appeals affirmed the Regional Trial Court Decision. 24 It echoed the findings of the Regional Trial Court that the prosecution sufficiently established all the elements for illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. 25 It also found that the prosecution complied with the chain of custody requirements under the law. 26
The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the Joint Decision dated November 17, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court of Batangas City, Branch 84, in Criminal Case Nos. 21465 and 21466 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 27
On April 10, 2019, Roque filed his Notice of Appeal. 28
We noted the records forwarded by the Court of Appeals and notified the parties that they may file their supplemental briefs. 29
On two separate dates, both accused-appellant 30 and plaintiff-appellee People of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, 31 manifested that they would be adopting their Appellant's Brief and Appellee's Brief, respectively, before the Court of Appeals.
Despite his earlier manifestation, accused-appellant still filed a Supplemental Brief on February 14, 2020. 32
In his Appellant's Brief, 33 accused-appellant argues that Police Officer 2 Carlos Eje did not have personal knowledge of the alleged sale between him and the informant. Accordingly, his lone testimony establishing the elements of the sale of the prohibited drug must be deemed hearsay. He also maintains that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, entitling him to an acquittal. He notes that Police Officer 2 Carlos Eje failed to place the confiscated items in an evidence bag to ensure their integrity. He alleges that the police officer also failed to turn over the items to an investigating officer as required under the law. He emphasizes the minuscule amount of confiscated drugs involved, making them more susceptible to contamination. 34
Meanwhile, plaintiff-appellee argues in its Appellee's Brief 35 that the trial court correctly convicted accused-appellant. It claims it has sufficiently established beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the offense charged. It also posits that the trial court correctly relied on the testimony of Police Officer 2 Carlos Eje, countering the hearsay argument of accused-appellant. It notes that the police officer "was physically present at the scene of the crime, and he personally and directly saw, witnessed[,] and heard both [accused-appellant] and the confidential informant during the negotiation and consummation of the illegal sale." 36 It also argues that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved given the prosecution's substantial compliance with the chain of custody requirements. 37
For this Court's resolution is whether or not the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt accused-appellant Rafael Roque y Dayo's guilt for the crime of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs.
The appeal is meritorious.
The records show that the police officers failed to comply with the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. This has compromised the integrity of the corpus delicti, casting reasonable doubt on the guilt of accused-appellant.
In cases involving illegal sale of dangerous drugs, 38 the prosecution must establish the existence of the following elements, namely, "(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object[,] and consideration of the sale; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor." 39
Meanwhile, in cases of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, 40 the prosecution must prove the following elements, namely, "(1) the accused is in possession of an item or object, which is identified to be prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug." 41
In addition to establishing the elements of the crimes, the prosecution must also establish that the identity and integrity of the illegal drugs have been preserved. 42 In People v. Castillo, 43 we have explained:
In both illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, "the illicit drugs confiscated from the accused comprise the corpus delicti of the charges." Thus, their identity and integrity must be established beyond reasonable doubt. It is the prosecution's duty "to ensure that the illegal drugs offered in court are the very same items seized from the accused." 44
Therefore, the duty of the prosecution is to prove beyond reasonable doubt "that the illegal drugs offered in court are the very same items seized from the accused." 45
To prove the identity of the corpus delicti, Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended, 46 provides for the chain of custody rule. The amended section provides:
Section 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 person/s 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 [Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency] 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 [.]
People v. Nandi47 clarified that there are four links in the chain of custody that must be established, namely:
first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court. 48 (Citation omitted.)
Section 21 provides that the first link, i.e., the marking, physical inventory, and taking of photograph of the illegal drugs, must be done immediately after their seizure and confiscation. 49 We have clarified that "immediately after" means that the procedure must be conducted, if practicable, at the place of the accused's arrest. 50 In Que:
What is critical in drug cases is not the bare conduct of inventory, marking, and photographing. Instead, it is the certainty that the items allegedly taken from the accused retain their integrity, even as they make their way from the accused to an officer effecting the seizure, to an investigating officer, to a forensic chemist, and ultimately, to courts where they are introduced as evidence . . .
Section 21(J)'s requirements are designed to make the first and second links foolproof. Conducting the inventory and photographing immediately after seizure, exactly where the seizure was done, or at a location as practicably close to it, minimizes, if not eliminates, room for adulteration or the planting of evidence. The presence of the accused, or a representative, and of third-party witnesses, coupled with their attestations on the written inventory, ensures that the items delivered to the investigating officer are the items which have actually been inventoried. 51 (Emphasis supplied)
The provision also requires the presence of two third-party witnesses, namely, (1) an elected public official and (2) a representative from either the National Prosecution Service or the media, as early as the arrest and seizure. 52People v. Tomawis53 explained that the presence of the mandatory witnesses is an insulating guarantee that the seized items are protected from the evils of planting and contamination:
The phrase "immediately after seizure and confiscation" means that the physical inventory and photographing of the drugs were intended by the law to be made immediately after, or at the place of apprehension. And only if this is not practicable, the [Implementing Rules and Regulations] allows that the inventory and photographing could be done as soon as the buy-bust team reaches the nearest police station or the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team. By the same token, however, this also means that the three required witnesses should already be physically present at the time of apprehension — a requirement that can easily be complied with by the buy-bust team considering that the buy-bust operation is, by its nature, a planned activity. Simply put, the buy-bust team has enough time and opportunity to bring with them said witnesses.
xxx xxx xxx
The presence of the witnesses from the [Department of Justice], media, and from public elective office is necessary to protect against the possibility of planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drug. Using the language of the Court in People v. Mendoza, without the insulating presence of the representative from the media or the [Department of Justice] and any elected public official during the seizure and marking of the drugs, the evils of switching, "planting[,]" or contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-busts conducted under the regime of [Republic Act No.] 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) again reared their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the subject sachet that was evidence of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused.
The presence of the three witnesses must be secured not only during the inventory but more importantly at the time of the warrantless arrest. It is at this point in which the presence of the three witnesses is most needed, as it is their presence at the time of seizure and confiscation that would belie any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drug. If the buy-bust operation is legitimately conducted, the presence of the insulating witnesses would also controvert the usual defense of frame-up as the witnesses would be able to testify that the buy-bust operation and inventory of the seized drugs were done in their presence in accordance with Section 21 of [Republic Act No.] 9165.
The practice of police operatives of not bringing to the intended place of arrest the three witnesses, when they could easily do so — and "calling them in" to the place of inventory to witness the inventory and photographing of the drugs only after the buy-bust operation has already been finished — does not achieve the purpose of the law in having these witnesses prevent or insulate against the planting of drugs.
To restate, the presence of the three witnesses at the time of seizure and confiscation of the drugs must be secured and complied with at the time of the warrantless arrest; such that they are required to be at or near the intended place of the arrest so that they can be ready to witness the inventory and photographing of the seized and confiscated drugs "immediately after seizure and confiscation." 54 (Emphases supplied, citations omitted)
Here, the prosecution miserably failed to comply with the foregoing requirements, raising doubts on the integrity of corpus delicti.
First, there were no witnesses at the time of the arrest. The police officers only summoned them during the inventory of the confiscated items in the police station. 55 The parties even stipulated this during the pre-trial conference, thus:
Thereafter, the prosecution dispensed with the presentation of its remaining witnesses in court. Instead, by agreement with, and upon consent by the defense, it entered into a stipulation of facts as to what the witnesses would [proffer] in court, and the documentary exhibits which they would, respectively, affirm, confirm and/or identify, in the course of the trial as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
41. The witness Rodel A. Espina is an employee of the Department of Justice in the City Prosecutor's Office of Batangas City;
42. That part of his duty is to be a representative of the Department of Justice in the conduct of the inventory in drug cases;
43. That on July 22, 2016, [he] witnessed the inventory conducted in connection with these cases at the Batangas City Police Station;
44. That if the witness is asked, he would be able to identify the Certificate of Inventory dated July 22, 2016 marked as Prosecution Exhibit "J" as well as his signature appearing thereon marked as Prosecution Exhibits "J-3" and "J-5";
45. That witness would be able to identify the items which were the subject of the inventory particularly Prosecution Exhibits "S" and "T";
46. That he only arrived after the arrest of the accused;
47. That he has no personal knowledge as to the identity of the accused, who made the markings on the specimens, and who made the arrest of the accused;
48. That he has no personal knowledge as to the circumstances which led to the arrest of the accused;
49. That witness Virgilio Cunag is a duly elected barangay kagawad of Barangay Sta. Clara, Batangas City who was on duty at said barangay hall on July 22, 20106; *
* Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document.
50. That he witnessed the inventory conducted in connection with these cases at the Batangas City Police Station, Batangas City;
51. That if the witness is asked, he would be able to identify the Certificate of Inventory dated July 22, 2015 marked as Prosecution Exhibit "K" as well as his signature appearing thereon marked as Prosecution Exhibits "J-4'' and "J-5";
52. That witness would be able to identify the items which were the subject of the inventory particularly Prosecution Exhibits "S" and "T";
53. That he has no personal knowledge as to the circumstance which led to the arrest;
54. That it was only upon his arrival that the pieces of evidence were marked;
55. That he only arrived after the arrest of the accused. 56 (Emphases supplied)
The prosecution did not offer any explanation as to the efforts they exerted to ensure the attendance of the required witnesses. It also admitted that the witnesses were not present during the arrest and had no personal knowledge as to the circumstances that led to the arrest. 57
The absence of the witnesses during the arrest and seizure puts the integrity of the evidence in question. Without the impartial testimony of the insulating witnesses, the testimony of Police Officer 2 Carlos Eje becomes self-serving at worst and doubtful at best. Therefore, there is doubt that the illegal drugs presented in court were same ones actually seized and confiscated from accused-appellant.
Second, the officers conducted the physical inventory in the police station instead of immediately after apprehension. They also failed to give a satisfactory explanation why they deviated from the strict requirement of Section 21 that the inventory of the seized items be done at the place of arrest. 58
It is true that Section 21 contains a saving clause, which permits noncompliance with the procedural requirements under justifiable grounds. 59 However, these grounds must be established as a fact. 60
In People v. Castillo: 61
Prior to the amendments introduced by Republic Act No. 10640, the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 provided some flexibility during the initial custody of the substance seized. It included the proviso that reads: "[noncompliance] with 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 of and custody over said items[.]"
However, to successfully invoke this saving clause, the prosecution bears the burden of first acknowledging procedural lapses and specifically plead justifiable grounds for these lapses. It must also plead specific safety measures taken in view of the deviations made from the chain of custody requirements. Specifically on the absence of the required witnesses, it must be alleged and demonstrated that earnest efforts were undertaken to secure their attendance. (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
Here, the prosecution offered no justifiable reason for the procedural lapses committed by the police officers. It cannot be emphasized enough that these lapses cast doubt on the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti.
The need to preserve the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti is further reinforced by the amount of illegal drugs involved in this case. A minuscule weight of 0.20 and 0.18 gram of confiscated drugs demands a "more exacting compliance with Section 21." 62
This Court has already explained that "the likelihood of tampering, loss[,] or mistake with respect to an exhibit is greatest when the exhibit is small and is one that has physical characteristics fungible in nature and similar in form to substances familiar to people in their daily lives." 63 Hence, strict compliance with the procedural requirements should have been observed by the police officers.
WHEREFORE, the March 26, 2019 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10427 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Rafael Roque y Dayo @ Paeng is ACQUITTED of the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs 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 is directed to report the action taken by the Bureau to this Court within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution. For their information, copies shall also be furnished to the Police General of the Philippine National Police and the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency.
The Regional Trial Court is directed to turn over the sachets of shabu subject of this case to the Dangerous Drugs Board for destruction in accordance with law.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 3-15. The March 26, 2019 Decision docketed as CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 10427 was penned by Associate Justice Stephen C. Cruz and concurred in by Associate Justices Pedro B. Corales and Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas of the Special Fifteenth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
2. CA rollo, pp. 66-71. The November 17, 2017 Joint Decision docketed as Crim. Case Nos. 21465 and 21466 was penned by Presiding Judge Dorcas P. Ferriols-Perez of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 84, Batangas City.
3. Rollo, p. 4.
4. Id.
5. Id.
6. Also spelled as Trivinio in other parts of the rollo.
7. CA rollo, pp. 66-67.
8. Rollo, p. 5.
9. Id. at 5-6.
10. Id. at 6.
11. CA rollo, p. 67.
12. Rollo, p. 6.
13. Id.
14. Id. at 7.
15. Id. at 4. The findings were recorded in Chemistry Report No. BD-1394-2016.
16. Id. at 17.
17. Id.
18. Id. at 67a-68.
19. Rollo, p. 7.
20. CA rollo, pp. 66-75.
21. Id. at 68-70.
22. Id. at 70-71.
23. Id. at 12-13.
24. Rollo, pp. 3-15.
25. Id. at 9-11.
26. Id. at 13-14.
27. Id. at 14.
28. Id. at 16-17.
29. Id. at 21.
30. Id. at 25.
31. Id. at 30.
32. Id. at 35.
33. CA rollo, pp. 49-64.
34. Id. at 59-62.
35. Id. at 76-111.
36. Id. at 100.
37. Id. at 106.
38. 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 m 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. 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.
39. People v. Unisa, 674 Phil. 89, 108 (2011) [Per J. Perez, Second Division], citing People v. Manlangit, 654 Phil. 427, 436 (2011) [Per J. Velasco, First Division].
40. Republic Act No. 9165 (2002), Sec. 11 provides:
SECTION 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. — 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 possess any dangerous drug in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof:
(1) 10 grams or more of opium;
(2) 10 grams or more of morphine;
(3) 10 grams or more of heroin;
(4) 10 grams or more of cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride;
(5) 50 grams or more of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu";
(6) 10 grams or more of marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil;
(7) 500 grams or more of marijuana; and
(8) 10 grams or more of other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) or "ecstasy," paramethoxyamphetamine (PMA), trimethoxyamphetamine (TMA), lysergic acid diethylamine (LSD), gamma hydroxybutyrate (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, as determined and promulgated by the Board in accordance to Section 93, Article XI of this Act.
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be graduated as follows:
(1) Life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), if the quantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu" is ten (10) grams or more but less than fifty (50) grams;
(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
(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.
41. People v. De la Trinidad, 742 Phil. 347, 357 (2014) [Per J. Perez, First Division]. (Citations omitted)
42. People v. Sagana, 815 Phil. 356, 367 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
43. People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 238339, August 7, 2019, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65610> [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
44. Id.
45. People v. Saunar, 816 Phil. 482, 491 (2017). [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
46. Republic Act No. 10640 (2014).
47. People v. Nandi, 639 Phil. 134 (2010) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].
48. Id. at 144-145.
49. Republic Act No. 9165, Sec. 21 (1).
50. People v. Que, 824 Phil. 882, 909 (2018) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
51. Id.
52. Republic Act No. 9165, Sec. 21 (1).
53. People v. Tomawis, 830 Phil. 385, 405 (2018) [Per J. Caguioa, Second Division].
54. Id. at 405-409. Tomawis involves a buy-bust operation that occurred prior to the passage of Republic Act No. 10640, thus the requirement for three third-party witnesses. The provision, as amended, only requires the presence of the two third-party witnesses.
55. Rollo, pp. 5-6.
56. CA rollo, pp. 86-91.
57. Id.
58. Rollo. p. 6.
59. Republic Act No. 9165, Sec. 21.
60. People v. De Guzman, 630 Phil. 637, 649 (2010) [Per J. Nachura, Third Division].
61. People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 238339, August 7, 2019, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65610> (Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
62. People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78, 99 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
63. Id., citing Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 588 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].