THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 215093. March 9, 2016.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSE ZALDE ABCEDE SALCON, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated March 9, 2016, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 215093 (People of the Philippines vs. Jose Zalde Abcede Salcon). — This is an appeal from the Decision 1 dated July 30, 2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01006-MIN convicting Jose Zalde Abcede Salcon (Salcon) for violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as "The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002".
Factual Background
An information was filed charging Salcon with illegal possession of marijuana leaves weighing 477.7923 grams on July 28, 2005, at about 11:45 a.m., at Barangay Agong-ong, Buenavista, Agusan del Norte. 2
During arraignment, Salcon pleaded "not guilty". 3
It was established by the prosecution that on July 28, 2005, at about 11:45 a.m., Senior Police Officer 1 Victor S. Lafuente (SPO1 Lafuente), Police Senior Inspector Elmer B. Cinco (PS/Insp. Cinco) and other police officers of Buenavista Police Station in Agusan del Norte, personnel from the Regional Intelligence and Investigation Division, Barangay councilors Nicandro Deladar and Marcellano Andoy, ABS-CBN media personnel and photographer went to the house of Salcon in Barangay Agong-ong, Buenavista, Agusan del Norte to implement Search Warrant No. 11-200 issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Butuan City and Agusan del Norte, Branch 3. 4
Salcon, his mother-in-law and two children were inside the house when the search team arrived. They informed Salcon about the search warrant and instructed him to read it. Upon Salcon's permission, the search team entered the house and commenced the search. PS/Insp. Cinco searched the kitchen and the living room while officers SPO1 Angelito E. Avila and PO de los Santos searched the two bedrooms. 5
The search conducted in the bedrooms yielded nothing; however, they found the following on top of a table in the kitchen: (1) dried marijuana leaves; (2) dried marijuana stems; (3) one mosquito repellant coil; (4) one disposable lighter; (5) one blade; (6) a pair of scissors; (7) one blade; and (8) 113 pieces of cellophane. These were all confiscated by the search team. 6
The cellophane bag containing dried marijuana leaves was marked by SPO1 Lafuente with "M-1" while the other items were placed inside a white cellophane bag marked with the characters "Wing-On, Inc. and SO1-11-PP vs. Salcon". The photographer took pictures of the seized items then Salcon and all the other paraphernalia's confiscated were brought to the police station. 7
Upon their arrival, SPO1 Lafuente prepared the Certificate of Inventory of the items recovered, the Confiscation Receipt, Certificate of Good Search, Return of Search Warrant, Withdrawal of Confiscated Items for Laboratory Examination, Requests for Laboratory Examination, and Request for Drug Examination of Salcon. 8
He also delivered the seized marijuana to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory. A plastic sachet marked with "VSZ-1" containing marijuana weighing 2.793 g was submitted on July 28, 2005 and received by PS/Insp. Norman Gales Jovita while the rest of the specimen placed within a cellophane bag marked with "M-1" containing marijuana weighing 475 g were submitted on July 29, 2005 and received by PS/Insp. Cramwell Tanquiamco Banogon. The specimen's chemical analysis yielded positive for marijuana, a dangerous drug. 9
The defense, on the other hand, denied the charge and averred that Salcon was tending his store on July 28, 2005, at around 11:30 a.m., when he heard noises as if something fell at his living room. He went inside his house and found SPO1 Lafuente and another police officer. They did not show him any warrant and immediately handcuffed him then declared that it was a raid. He heard another noise coming from the kitchen door which was being forcibly opened. Three other police officers dressed in civilian clothes entered and started searching the bedrooms. Finding nothing, three police officers headed to the kitchen and searched. After half an hour, Salcon heard one of them saying, "Here it is." Two barangay officials and media personnel from ABS-CBN, thereafter, arrived. 10 TIADCc
The police officers continued the search but no drugs were recovered. Salcon and his mother-in-law did not see the dried marijuana leaves allegedly discovered from his kitchen. 11
Ruling of the RTC
In a Decision 12 dated December 12, 2011, the RTC convicted Salcon stating that the search warrant issued against Salcon was properly implemented and that he was apparently caught in flagrante delicto in possession of the drugs during such implementation. 13 He was sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of twenty (20) years and one (1) day as minimum to forty (40) years as maximum and to pay P400,000.00 as fine without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. 14
Ruling of the CA
In the assailed Decision 15 dated July 30, 2014, the CA affirmed the conviction based on the following: (1) all the elements provided for by law for illegal possession of dangerous drug were competently and convincingly established by the prosecution; (2) the chain of custody of the marijuana confiscated was duly proved; and (3) no evidence was adduced to prove any improper motive on the part of the arresting officers. 16 The penalty imposed by the RTC was likewise affirmed in toto.
Hence, this appeal.
Ruling of the Court
There is no cogent reason to reverse the conviction.
The RTC, as affirmed by the CA, aptly found that the prosecution duly established the following essential elements of the crime: (a) the accused was in possession of an item or object that is identified to be a prohibited or dangerous drug; (b) such possession was not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. 17
As for the chain of custody of the seized marijuana, the CA correctly stated the following:
Here, SPO1 Lafue[n]te testified that he took custody of the marijuana leaves from the house of [Salcon] to the police station until it was submitted to the Court. Thus, SPO1 Lafue[n]te made a marking of "M-1" on the cellophane where the leaves were kept. Pictures were also taken of [Salcon] with the seized items. SPO1 Lafue[n]te then turned over the items to the court, but immediately asked for its withdrawal for examination in the Crime Laboratory. The court having granted the request to withdraw the items, SPO1 Lafue[n]te delivered the specimen to the Crime Laboratory for examination, where PSI Jovita and PSI Banogon examined the specimen and confirmed that the seized items were indeed marijuana. 18 (Citations omitted)
The Court, moreover, accords full credit to the positive and credible testimonies of the police officers who arrested Salcon and clearly identified him as the possessor of the confiscated specimen. Salcon's defense of denial, on the contrary, is rejected for lack of clear and convincing evidence to corroborate it.
Lastly, the Court agrees with the penalties imposed upon Salcon as it is well within the range provided by law. Section 11, paragraph (2), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 prescribes a penalty 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) for the possession of marijuana with a quantity of 300 g or more but less than 500 g. Thus, the indeterminate sentence of twenty (20) years and one (1) day as minimum to forty (40) years as maximum, and the fine of P400,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency are correct.
WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the Decision dated July 30, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01006-MIN is AFFIRMED in toto." (Jardeleza, J., no part in view of his participation in the Office of the Solicitor General; Bernabe, J., designated Additional Member per Raffle dated November 24, 2014.) AIDSTE
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Oscar V. Badelles, with Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Pablito A. Perez concurring; CA rollo, pp. 70-80.
2. Id. at 55.
3. Id. at 38.
4. Id. at 38-41.
5. Id. at 39.
6. Id.
7. Id.
8. Id. at 73.
9. Id. at 73-74.
10. Id. at 48-49.
11. Id. at 46, 48-49.
12. Issued by Judge Godofredo B. Abul, Jr., id. at 38-46.
13. Id. at 45.
14. Id.
15. Id. at 70-80.
16. Id. at 77-78.
17. People v. Amarillo, 692 Phil. 698, 707 (2012).
18. CA rollo, p. 78.