THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 222644. June 8, 2020.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.REMEDIOS SANDOVAL y SIGASIG a.k.a. "REME", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated June 8, 2020, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 222644 (People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee,v. Remedios Sandoval y Sigasig a.k.a. "Reme," Accused-Appellant). — This appeal 1 assails the 29 September 2015 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01884. The CA affirmed the 25 June 2014 Joint Judgment 3 of Branch 30, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City in Criminal Case Nos. 21721 and 21722 finding accused-appellant Remedios Sandoval y Sigasig a.k.a. "Reme" (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Antecedents
Accused-appellant was charged in two (2) Informations, the accusatory portions of which stated:
Criminal Case No. 21721
That on or about the 30th day of May 2013, in the City of Dumaguete, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, not being then authorized by law, did, then and there[,] willfully, unlawfully [,] and criminally sell and/or deliver to a poseur-buyer one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet [,] containing 0.03 gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, commonly called ["shabu,"] a dangerous drug.
Contrary to Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. 4
Criminal Case No. 21722
That on or about the 30th day of May 2013, in the City of Dumaguete, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, not being then authorized by law, did, then and there [,] wilfully, unlawfully and criminally have under her direct control, custody and possession seven (7) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing an approximate aggregate weight of 1.76 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, commonly called ["shabu,"] a dangerous drug. Contrary to Section 11, Article II of RA 9165. 5
Upon arraignment, accused-appellant entered a plea of "not guilty." After pre-trial, trial on the merits ensued.
Version of the Prosecution
On 30 May 2013, the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Negros Oriental Provincial Office received information from a confidential informant that a person named "Reme," later identified as accused-appellant, was engaged in illegal drug trade in Purok Kamia, Barangay Kalindagan, Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental. A buy-bust team was thus organized to entrap accused-appellant, with IOI Carlito Mascardo, Jr. (IOI Mascardo) assigned as the poseur-buyer while IOI Julieta Amatong (IOI Amatong) acted as the back-up arresting officer. 6
In the afternoon of the same day, the buy-bust team proceeded to the target area. The informant told IOI Mascardo that the woman inside the sari-sari store was accused-appellant, their target. Upon seeing the informant, accused-appellant exchanged pleasantries and the former introduced IOI Mascardo as his close friend who wanted to buy "butang" or shabu. Accused-appellant demanded payment and IOI Mascardo gave the Php500.00 marked bill to her. 7 She then went to the cashier's table inside her sari-sari store and took one (1) heat-sealed transparent sachet from a blue metal box. She handed the same to IOI Mascardo through a small opening of the store. IOI Mascardo inspected the sachet which contained white crystalline substance, and made the pre-arranged signal to alert IOI Amatong. 8
As IOI Amatong approached, IOI Mascardo announced accused-appellant's arrest. IOI Mascardo asked accused-appellant to open the door but she refused which led to the buy-bust team to forcibly open the door of the store. IOI Mascardo entered and immediately got the blue box where accused-appellant earlier took the sachet sold to him. Upon opening the box, IOI Mascardo found seven (7) other sachets containing white crystalline substance believed to be shabu. IOI Amatong went inside the store and formally arrested accused-appellant. 9
Fearing for their safety, the buy-bust team immediately pulled out of the area and brought accused-appellant to their office. IOI Mascardo, who was in possession of all the confiscated specimens, marked the items and conducted the inventory in the presence of accused-appellant, local media practitioner Neil Rio, Department of Justice (DOJ) representative Anthony Chilius Benlot, and Barangay Kagawad Ronnie Pasunting. IOI Amatong took photographs during the inventory. 10
Thereafter, IOI Mascardo delivered the items, placed in a staple-sealed transparent plastic pack, to the crime laboratory for examination. PO2 Michelle Cañete received the items and turned over the same to Police Chief Inspector Josephine Llena (PCI Llena). PCI Llena conducted the qualitative examination on the submitted specimens and found them positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. 11
Version of the Defense
Accused-appellant, through counsel, waived her right to present evidence on her behalf. 12
Ruling of the RTC
In its 25 June 2014 Joint Judgment, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offenses charged and sentenced her as follows: (a) in Criminal Case No. 21721, to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Php500,000.00; and (b) in Criminal Case No. 21722, to suffer the indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of Php400,000.00. 13
The RTC found the prosecution to have established accused-appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, as she was caught selling shabu in a legitimate buy-bust operation, and thereafter, was found in possession of seven (7) sachets which also contained shabu. The RTC also held that the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs seized had been duly preserved since the police officer complied with the chain of custody rule. 14
Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed to the CA.
Ruling of the CA
In its 29 September 2015 Decision, the CA sustained the RTC's findings and affirmed accused-appellant's conviction for both offenses. 15
Hence, this appeal.
Ruling of the Court
The appeal has no merit.
In order to properly secure the conviction of an accused charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must prove: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. 16 On the other hand, the prosecution must establish the following elements in an illegal possession of dangerous drugs to warrant accused-appellant's conviction: (a) the accused was in possession of an item or object identified as a prohibited drug; (b) such possession was not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. 17
Both the RTC and the CA found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165. The prosecution was able to satisfactorily establish the offenses charged as accused-appellant sold one (1) plastic sachet of shabu to IOI Mascardo during a legitimate buy-bust operation, and was subsequently found in possession of seven (7) other sachets of shabu without authority of law.
Settled is the rule that factual findings of the RTC, when affirmed by the CA, are entitled to great weight and respect by this Court and are deemed final and conclusive when supported by the evidence on record. Absent any showing that the trial and the appellate courts overlooked certain facts and circumstances that could substantially affect the outcome, their rulings must be upheld. 18 Also, no ill motive was shown on the part of the police officers to tarnish their positive testimonies. The Court has time and again held that categorical and consistent positive identification, without any ill motive, prevails over alibi and denial. 19 We see no cogent reason to depart from these settled rules.
Further, the Court notes that the buy-bust team had sufficiently complied with the chain of custody rule under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165.
Case law states that in drugs cases, it is essential for the identity of the prohibited drug to be established with moral certainty. Thus, in order to obviate any unnecessary doubts on the identity of the dangerous drugs, the prosecution has to show an unbroken chain of custody over the same. It must be able to account for each link in the chain of custody over the dangerous drug from the moment of seizure up to its presentation in court as evidence of the corpus delicti. 20
As part of the chain of custody procedure, the law requires, inter alia, that the marking, physical inventory, and photography of the seized items be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation of the same. The law further requires that the said inventory and photographing be done in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his/her representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: (a) if prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official; or (b) if after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media. The law requires the presence of these witnesses primarily to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence. 21
In this case, the prosecution was able to clearly establish the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated sachets of shabu. No evidence was presented to overturn the fact that IOI Mascardo did not lose possession and control of the shabu from the time they were recovered from accused-appellant until their turnover to the forensic chemist for qualitative examination. Further, the inventory of the items was witnessed by the required personalities under the law.
The records show that after accused-appellant was arrested during the buy-bust operation, the buy-bust team opted to conduct the inventory in the PDEA office because the buy-bust team leader feared for their safety as persons were milling around the area of arrest. 22 IOI Mascardo took custody of the drugs subject of the sale and the drugs found in accused-appellant's possession. He brought the same to the PDEA office for inventory where he marked the items and conducted inventory in the presence of the DOJ and media representatives, together with an elected public official, as shown by the certificate of inventory. On the same day, he brought the specimens to the crime laboratory for qualitative examination by PCI Llena. From the foregoing, the Court holds that the PDEA agents sufficiently complied with the chain of custody rule and the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti had been duly preserved.
In conclusion, the Court affirms accused-appellant's conviction for the offenses charged. Thus, the penalty for the offense of illegal sale of life imprisonment and a fine of Php500,000.00 imposed by the CA are sustained, being within the range provided by law. The Court likewise sustains the indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, as maximum, and the fine of Php400,000.00 imposed upon accused-appellant for the offense of illegal possession, being within the range specified under RA 9165.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. Accordingly, the Decision dated 29 September 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01884 is AFFIRMED. Accused-appellant Remedios Sandoval y Sigasig a.k.a. "Reme" is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offenses of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, defined and penalized under Sections 5 and 11, respectively of Article II of RA 9165. She is sentenced as follows: (a) in Criminal Case No. 21721, to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment, and to pay a fine of Php500,000.00; and (b) in Criminal Case No. 21722, to suffer the indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of Php400,000.00.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 24-27.
2.Id. at pp. 4-23; penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez and concurred in by Associate Justices Pamela Ann Abella Maximo and Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob of the Special Twentieth Division, Court of Appeals, Cebu.
3. CA rollo, pp. 40-45; penned by RTC Judge Rafael Crescencio C. Tan, Jr.
4. Records, pp. 3-4.
5.Id. at 53-54.
6.Rollo, pp. 8-9, CA rollo, p. 40.
7.Id. at 9.
8.Id.
9.Id. at 9.
10.Id. at 10-11.
11.Id. at 11.
12.Id. at 13; CA rollo, p. 42.
13. CA rollo, p. 45.
14.Id. at 42-45.
15.Rollo, pp. 17-22.
16.People v. Sumili, 753 Phil. 342-353 (2015); G.R. No. 212160, 04 February 2015, 750 SCRA 143, 149.
17.People v. Bio, 753 Phil. 730-740, 736 (2015); G.R. No. 195850, 16 February 2015, 750 SCRA 572, 578.
18.People v. Palma, et al., 754 Phil. 371, 377 (2015); G.R. No. 212151, 18 February 2015, 751 SCRA 233, 239, cited in Miranda v. People, G.R. No. 234528, 23 January 2019.
19.People v. Ascarraga, G.R. No. 222337, 23 July 2018.
20.People v. De Dios, G.R. No. 243664, 22 January 2020.
21.People v. Baradi, G.R. No. 238522, 01 October 2018, 881 SCRA 299, 306.
22. Jurisprudence recognizes that "[m]arking upon immediate confiscation contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team." People v. Mamalumpon, 767 Phil. 845, 855 (2015), citing Imson v. People, 669 Phil. 262, 270-271 (2011). See also People v. Ocfemia, 718 Phil. 330, 348 (2013), citing People v. Resurreccion, 618 Phil. 520, 532 (2009). As such, the failure to immediately mark the confiscated items at the place of arrest neither renders them inadmissible in evidence nor impairs the integrity of the seized drugs, as the conduct of marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team is sufficient compliance with the rules on chain of custody. See Tumulak, 791 Phil. 148, 160-161 (2016); and People v. Rollo, 757 Phil. 346, 357 (2015).