People v. Sahagum y Ramirez

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 243188. May 10, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. RAFFY SAHAGUM y RAMIREZ, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMay 10, 2021, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 243188 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee v. RAFFY SAHAGUM y RAMIREZ, accused-appellant.) — For this Court's resolution is accused-appellant Raffy Sahagum y Ramirez' (Sahagum) appeal from his conviction for illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs.

In two separate Informations, Sahagum was charged with violating Sections 5 1 and 11 2 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The accusatory portions of the informations read:

Criminal Case No. 11-288693

That on or about December 20, 2011, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, not being lawfully authorized by law to self, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell or offer for sale to PO2 DENNIS TABLIZO/TABLISO, a police officer poseur buyer one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet marked as 'RSR' containing ZERO POINT ZERO TWO SIX (0.026) gram of white crystalline substance commonly known as SHABU containing Methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.

Contrary to law.

Criminal Case No. 11-288694

That on or about December 20, 2011, in the City of Manila, Philippine, the said accused not being authorized by law to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession and under his custody and control one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet marked as 'RSR-1' containing ZERO POINT ZERO ONE FIVE (0.015) gram of white crystalline substance commonly known as SHABU containing Methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.

Contrary to law. 3

Two witnesses testified for the prosecution: Police Officer III Dennis Tablizo (PO3 Tablizo) and Police Officer II Henor Lagunias. 4 They recounted that police officers from the Sampaloc Police Station conducted a buy-bust operation on December 20, 2011. This was based on a tip given by a confidential informant stating that a certain "Raffy" was selling drugs at Maceda Corner, Dimasalang Streets, Sampaloc, Manila. 5

Acting on the tip, the buy-bust team, composed of: (1) PO3 Tablizo as poseur buyer; (2) Police Officer II Rolando Ladres; (3) Senior Police Officer I Adolfo de Ramos; and (4) Police Officer II Josefino Callora (PO2 Callora), prepared what they described as "[p]roper documents" along with three marked hundred-peso bills. 6

Thereafter, the buy-bust team proceeded to the target area at 9:00 p.m. The informant introduced PO3 Tablizo to Sahagum as a shabu buyer. After confirming that he had shabu with him, Sahagum drew a sachet containing white crystalline substance, which he then gave to PO3 Tablizo. PO3 Tablizo handed Sahagum the marked bills and signaled to the other police officers that the sale had been completed. 7

The other officers approached Sahagum, but he went inside an e-games establishment. The officers followed Sahagum, arrested him, and brought him back outside where he was then told to empty his pockets. This yielded another sachet of apparent shabu, along with the marked bills. 8

The police officers brought Sahagum to a nearby barangay hall. There, in the presence of the rest of the buy-bust team, the barangay chairperson, and Sahagum, PO3 Tablizo marked the plastic sachet purchased from Sahagum "RSR." He also marked the other sachet "RSR-1." At another point, an inventory was conducted in the presence, in addition, of a representative from the newspaper People's Journal. 9

From the barangay hall, the police officers brought Sahagum to the police station. The sachets obtained from him were turned over to PO1 Joseph Vistan. Their contents subsequently tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. 10

Sahagum denied being "Raffy Angeles," a reputed drug pusher in their area. 11 He claimed that, in the afternoon of December 20, 2011, he was playing e-games with Eric Dela Cruz when several persons arrived, one of whom suddenly held him by the neck. 12 He recalled that a security guard approached the commotion, asked who the intruders were, and emphasized that Sahagum was merely playing. 13

Despite this, Sahagum was dragged outside, forced to board a vehicle, and brought to the police station. Once there, a police officer told him, "[t]umawag ka ng padreno mo na magdadala ng pera." Following this, Sahagum was kept in jail. At 9:00 p.m., he was taken to the barangay hall by his abductors. There, one of his abductors signed a document. Thereafter, he was taken back to the police station, where a demand was made on him to pay P100,000.00. He was unable to satisfy this demand. 14

In a March 21, 2016 Decision the Manila Regional Trial Court, Branch 13, found Sahagum guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. The dispositive portion of this Decision reads:

Criminal Case No. 11-288693

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this Court finds the accused RAFFY SAHAGUM y RAMIREZ GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as principal for violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (for pushing shabu) as charged and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a Fine in the amount of P500,000.00.

Criminal Case No. 11-288694

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this Court finds the accused RAFFY SAHAGUM y RAMIREZ GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as principal for violation of Section 11 (3) of Republic Act No. 9165 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (for possession of shabu) as charged and he is sentenced to suffer imprisonment in an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fifteen (15) years and to pay a Fine in the amount of P350,000.00.

The plastic sachets of shabu are ordered confiscated in favor of the government to be disposed of in accordance with law.

Issue a mittimus order committing RAFFY SAHAGUM y RAMIREZ to the National Bilibid Prisons in Muntinlupa City for service of sentence.

Send copies of this Decision to the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), to the Director of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and to the Director of the Manila Police District (MPD).

SO ORDERED. 15

In its assailed July 9, 2018 Decision, 16 the Court of Appeals affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court in toto.

Thereafter, Sahagum filed his Notice of Appeal. 17

For this Court's resolution is the issue of whether or not accused-appellant Raffy Sahagum y Ramirez is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165.

Accused-appellant must be acquitted. There is doubt on the integrity of the corpus delicti — the allegedly seized items — which are at the core of this case. The arresting officers' dual lapses of failing to strictly comply with the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act and failing to plead and substantiate justifications for their deviations render dubious the existence of essential elements of both offenses for which accused-appellant is charged.

The elements that must be established to secure convictions for violation of Sections 5 and 11 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act are settled. The integrity of the corpus delicti is pivotal in both of these offenses. In People v. Castillo:18

For there to be a successful prosecution for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, punished under Section 5 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, the following elements must be established: "(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."

As to the illegal possession of dangerous drugs, punished under Section 11 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, it must be established that "(1) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug, (2) such possession is not authorized by law, and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug."

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." 19 (Citations omitted)

Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act addresses the integrity of the corpus delicti. To this end, it mandates chain of custody requirements concerning allegedly confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered drugs and/or drug paraphernalia. Section 21 was amended by Republic Act No. 10640, which was approved on July 15, 2014. However, considering that the arrest of accused-appellant and seizure of items from him were made on December 20, 2011, Section 21's original formulation governs. This original formulation reads:

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 drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory 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, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof[.] (Emphasis in the original)

A number of deviations from Section 21 (1)'s requirements for which the prosecution failed to assert and substantiate justifications taint this case.

For one, the actual arrest and seizure were not witnessed by even just one of the three required witnesses: (1) a representative from the media; (2) an elected public official; and (3) a representative of the Department of Justice. The barangay chairperson was allegedly present during the initial marking, and a media representative also allegedly witnessed the inventory.

However, apart from the self-evident fact that one or two out of three mandatory witnesses is inadequate, falling short of what Section 21 (1) actually mandates, there is the more damning point — conceded at that by the prosecution — that none of the required witnesses was present during the buy-bust operation itself.

The importance of these witnesses' presence during actual arrest and seizure was discussed in People v. Tomawis:20

The presence of the witnesses from the DOJ, 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 DOJ 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 RA 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 RA 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. 21 (Citations omitted)

Second, the marking, inventory, and taking of photographs were not done right at the place of arrest and seizure. People v. Sultan22 discussed how the requirements of marking, conducting an inventory, and taking of photographs must be done at the same location as that of arrest and seizure:

Section 21 mandates the conduct of inventory and taking of photographs "immediately after seizure and confiscation," which means that these must be done at the place of the arrest. Que explained:

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 (1)'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[.] 23 (Citation omitted)

Because the marking, inventory, and taking of photographs was not done at the place of arrest and seizure, there is no independent guarantee of the identity and integrity of items from the point they were allegedly taken, to the time they were in transit, and ultimately, until they arrived at the barangay hall. The Court of Appeals summarized these stages, as follows:

[A]fter PO3 Tablizo and PO2 Ladres seized the illegal drugs from appellant, they kept exclusive possession of the said items. After appellant's arrest, they personally brought the seized items to the nearest barangay hall, and conducted the inventory, marking and photograph of the items thereat. Thereafter, PO2 Tablizo turned over the plastic sachets of shabu to PO1 Vistan. 24

The damning flaw is how the prosecution's narrative fails to account for whatever precautions, if any, the police officers took to ensure the identity and integrity of the items they were carrying. Thus, there is nothing but those same police officers' self-serving assurance that the sachets which were marked and inventoried at the barangay hall were exactly the same sachets, with absolutely the same unadulterated contents, as those allegedly obtained from accused-appellant.

This Court has, in the past, indicated its dissatisfaction at self-serving guarantees concerning the integrity of allegedly seized items. For instance, in Sultan, this Court was not impressed by a police officer's keeping in his pockets of allegedly seized items. Sultan itself referenced the prior, similar case of People v. Dela Cruz 25 where this Court explained how the guarantee of keeping items in an officer's pockets is an ultimately futile assurance of identity and integrity:

Here, the prosecution established that from the place of seizure to the barangay hall, PO2 Hechanova had sole custody of the supposedly confiscated items. But this alone cannot be taken as a guarantee of the items' integrity. On the contrary, an officer's act of personally and bodily keeping allegedly seized items, without any clear indication of safeguards other than his or her mere possession, has been viewed as prejudicial to the integrity of the items.

In People v. Dela Cruz, this Court reprehended the act of a police officer who, having custody of the sachets seized from a buy-bust operation, recklessly kept them in his pockets until they were supposedly turned over for examination:

The prosecution effectively admits that from the moment of the supposed buy-bust operation until the seized items' turnover for examination, these items had been in the sole possession of a police officer. In fact, not only had they been in his possession, they had been in such close proximity to him that they had been nowhere else but in his own pockets.

Keeping one of the seized items in his right pocket and the rest in his left pocket is a doubtful and suspicious way of ensuring the integrity of the items. Contrary to the Court of Appeals' finding that PO1 Bobon took the necessary precautions, we find his actions reckless, if not dubious.

Even without referring to the strict requirements of Section 21, common sense dictates that a single police officer's act of bodily-keeping the item(s) which is at the crux of offenses penalized under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, is fraught with dangers. One need not engage in a meticulous counter-checking with the requirements of Section 21 to view with distrust the items coming out of PO1 Bobon's pockets. That the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals both failed to see through this and fell — hook, line, and sinker — for PO1 Bobon's avowals is mind-boggling.

Moreover, PO1 Bobon did so without even offering the slightest justification for dispensing with the requirements of Section 21.

Section 21, paragraph 1, of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, includes a proviso to the effect that "noncompliance of (sic) 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." Plainly, the prosecution has not shown that on September 14, 2004, when dela Cruz was arrested and the sachets supposedly seized and marked — there were "justifiable grounds" for dispensing with compliance with Section 21. All that the prosecution has done is insist on its self-serving assertion that the integrity of the seized sachets has, despite all its lapses, nevertheless been preserved.

In Dela Cruz, this Court did not approve of the incautious keeping of allegedly seized narcotics even as the prosecution averred separating them in different pockets as a supposed measure to preserve integrity. With greater reason should this Court, in this case, reject PO2 Hechanova's claim. The bare assertion that PO2 Hechanova had possession of the items, without so much as a simulation of safekeeping measures such as the segregation in Dela Cruz, is a blatant gap in the chain of custody. The dearth of specific and detailed descriptions of how the allegedly seized items had been preserved while in transit amounts to a broken, unreliable chain of custody. This is fatal to the prosecution's case. 26 (Citations omitted)

This case is worse off than Sultan and Dela Cruz. Unlike in those cases, there is no averment here of particular safeguards taken by police officers. Rather, there is only the generic claim that what were taken from the target area are the exact same, unadulterated ones presented to the barangay chairperson and media representative at the barangay hall.

There have been cases where this Court entertained exceptions and sustained convictions despite deviations from Section 21's requirements. However, for this to happen, "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." 27

Moreover, on the matter of mandatory witnesses, this Court has explained that "it must be alleged and demonstrated that earnest efforts were undertaken to secure their attendance." 28 In People v. Lim: 29

Earnest effort to secure the attendance of the necessary witnesses must be proven. People v. Ramos requires:

It is well to note that the absence of these required witnesses does not per se render the confiscated items inadmissible. However, a justifiable reason for such failure or a showing of any genuine and sufficient effort to secure the required witnesses under Section 21 of RA 9165 must be adduced. In People v. Umipang, the Court held that the prosecution must show that earnest efforts were employed in contacting the representatives enumerated under the law for "a sheer statement that representatives were unavailable without so much as an explanation on whether serious attempts were employed to look for other representatives, given the circumstances is to be regarded as a flimsy excuse." Verily, mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses are unacceptable as justified grounds for non-compliance. These considerations arise from the fact that police officers are ordinarily given sufficient time — beginning from the moment they have received the information about the activities of the accused until the time of his arrest to prepare for a buy-bust operation and consequently, make the necessary arrangements beforehand knowing full well that they would have to strictly comply with the set procedure prescribed in Section 21 of RA 9165. As such, police officers are compelled not only to state reasons for their non-compliance, but must in fact, also convince the Court that they exerted earnest efforts to comply with the mandated procedure, and that under the given circumstances, their actions were reasonable. 30 (Citations omitted)

What ultimately seals the prosecution's defeat here is how it failed to plead and substantiate satisfactory justifying grounds for the police officers' deviations from Section 21 (1)'s requirements. This casts serious doubt on the corpus delicti of the offenses of which accused-appellant is charged. Thus, the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of establishing accused-appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

WHEREFORE, the decisions of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 13, Manila, in Criminal Case Nos. 11-288693 and 11-288694 and of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08243 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Raffy Sahagum y Ramirez is hereby ACQUITTED of the charges of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs as penalized by Sections 5 and 11 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. He 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 the action he has taken 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 seized sachets of marijuana 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. Republic Act No. 9165 (2002), Sec. 5 states:

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 chemicals 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.

2. Republic Act No. 9165 (2002), Sec. 11 states:

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 purify 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.

3. CA rollo, p. 119.

4.Id. at 120-121.

5.Id. at 120.

6.Id.

7.Id. at 120-121.

8.Id. at 121.

9.Id.

10.Id.

11.Id. at 122.

12.Id. at 121.

13.Id.

14.Id. at 122.

15.Id. at 118.

16.Id. at 117-133. The Decision in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08243 was penned by Associate Justice Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob and concurred in by Associate Justices Celia C. Librea-Leagogo (Chairperson) and Samuel H. Gaerlan (now a member of this Court) of the Court of Appeals, Eighth Division, Manila.

17.Rollo, pp. 24-25.

18People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 238339, August 7, 2019 <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/656J0> [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].

19.Id.

20. 830 Phil. 385 (2018) [Per J. Caguioa, Second Division].

21.Id. at 408-409.

22.People v. Sultan, G.R. No. 225210, August 7, 2019. <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65518> [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].

23.Id.

24. CA rollo, p. 129.

25. 744 Phil. 816 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].

26.People v. Sultan, G.R. No. 225210, August 7, 2019 <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65518> [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].

27.People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 238339, August 7, 2019 <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65610> [Per J. Leonen, Third Division], citing People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214, 234 (2008) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].

28.Id.

29. G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018, <http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64400/> [Per J. Peralta, En banc].

30.Id.