THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 252306. September 15, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. CAESAR TUPPIYAC y PUMOS-AN, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 15, 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 252306 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,v. CAESAR TUPPIYAC y PUMOS-AN, Accused-Appellant.) — On appeal 1 is the Decision 2 promulgated on 26 July 2016 by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11717, which affirmed the Decision 3 dated 20 March 2018 of Branch 25, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bulanao, Tabuk City, Kalinga in Criminal Case No. (Crim. Case) 19-2014-C.
The RTC found accused-appellant Caesar Tuppiyac y Pumos-an (appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 4 for illegal sale of dangerous drugs. Appellant was sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Php500,000.00.
Antecedents
An Information dated 27 January 2014 was filed against appellant as follows:
That at about 8:20 p.m. of January 22, 2014, at Purok 2, Viloria St., Bulanao Norte, Tabuk City, Kalinga, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have in his possession five (5) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or "Shabu," weighing more or less 0.203 grams and sell or distribute without license, permit or authority from any appropriate government entity or agency.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
Appellant entered a plea of "not guilty" during arraignment on 19 August 2014. Trial ensued after pre-trial conference on 19 November 2014. 6
The CA summarized the testimonies as thus:
Evidence for the Prosecution
The prosecution presented as witnesses: Senior Police Officer 1 Ernesto Pagtan (SPO1 Pagtan) and Senior Police Officer 1 Jackson Apil (SPO1 Apil), who were members of the Kalinga Police Provincial Office (KPPO) in Camp Juan Duyan, Bulanao, Tabuk City, Kalinga.
According to their testimonies, in the morning of [20 January 2014] SPO1 Pagtan was on duty at KPPO when Senior Police Officer 3 Allan Figuracion (SPO3 Figuracion) received an information from a confidential informant (CI) about illegal drug activities of accused-appellant Caesar Tuppiyak, alias "Buyugan." The CI, who later arrived at the police station, was given instructions by SPO1 Gilbert Calderon (SPO1 Calderon) to conduct a "test buy" to check the veracity of the information. The CI was given a [Php]500.00 bill to be used for the test buy.
At around 10:00 [a.m.] of the same day, the CI returned to the station with a heat-sealed, plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance which he claimed to have been bought from the accused-appellant. When the sachet was brought to the KPPO Crime Laboratory for forensic examination, the crystalline substance tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
The Officer-in-Charge, Police Senior Inspector (PSI) Baltazar B. Lingbawan (OIC Lingbawan) immediately formed a team to conduct a buy-bust operation. SPO1 Pagan was designated as the poseur-buyer, SPO1 Apil as the seizing officer, while PO3 Figuracion, PO3 Jonaldo Songday (PO3 Songday) and SPOI Calderon as the arresting officers. The buy-bust bills were prepared and the team coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA).
SPO1 Pagtan told the CI to contact the accused-appellant but the latter did not answer the call made by the CI. After a while, the CI received a call from the accused-appellant. During that call, the CI informed the accused-appellant of a prospective buyer and therein introduced SPO1 Pagtan. The accused-appellant then directly called the cell phone of SPO1 Pagtan, in which he was told to be at Desingco Building, Viloria Street, Purok 2, Bulanao, Tabuk City, Kalinga between 8:00 [p.m.] and 9:00 [p.m.] of 22 January 2014 for the sale.
The buy-bust team had a short briefing to familiarize themselves with the face of the accused-appellant after which they all boarded an unmarked Toyota Innova and proceeded to the meeting place.
Poseur-buyer SPO1 Pagtan waited by the gate of the Desingco Building while the other team members positioned themselves in strategic places nearby. A red XRM Honda motorcycle arrived at around 8:15 o'clock in the evening with the accused-appellant and a woman. The accused-appellant nodded at SPO1 Pagtan and then left. Five (5) minutes later, the accused-appellant returned alone using the same motorcyle. He stopped and parked the motorcycle beside SPO1 Pagtan. As the accused-appellant approached SPO1 Pagtan, the latter, in Ilocano vernacular, asked: "Ayan na ngay ngarud?" (Where is it?) to which accused-appellant responded: "Daytoy man ni" (Here it is). SPO1 Pagtan gave the buy-bust money totaling [Php]1,200.00 to the accused-appellant. The latter took his small back pack and brought out two (2) pieces of small heat-sealed, plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance and handed them to SPO1 Pagtan. SPO1 Pagtan gave the signal to the team members that the transaction was consummated by removing his ball cap.
The team members promptly responded and arrived at the scene to assist SPO1 Pagtan. The accused-appellant was immediately arrested. SPO1 Pagtan handed over the two (2) heat-sealed sachets to SPO2 Apil, the designated seizing officer. The latter then conducted a body search of the accused-appellant and recovered the buy-bust money consisting of seven (7) [Php]100.00 bills and ten (10) [Php]50.00 bills as well as three (3) more small, heat-sealed, plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance kept inside a red Marlboro cigarette and an improvised smoking pipe-container of Ceelin chewable.
Because it was dark and cold at the place of seizure and it was "dangerous for the operatives to stay further at the area" the team brought the accused-appellant to the Bulanao Police Sub-station 1, at Bulanao Public Market where the marking, inventory and photo documentation of the seized items were done, witnessed by the accused-appellant himself, two (2) barangay officials namely, Kagawad Rogelio Marcelino and Kagawad Maria Teresa Valdez, Gigi Dumatlig from the media, and Bernadette Malayao from the Department of Justice (DOJ).
The five (5) sachets of white crystalline substance were seasonably brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory for forensic examination.
The testimonies of the other members of the buy-bust team, namely: SPO1 Calderon, PO3 Songday and PO3 Figuracion were dispensed with after the prosecution and the defense agreed on the following stipulation of facts:
"1. That on [22 January 2014], the three (3) witnesses were part of the team that conducted a buy-bust operation against the accused, with them acting as arresting officers;
2. That the agreed pre-arranged signal was for the poseur-buyer SPO1 Pagtan, to remove his bull [ball] cap; and
3. That during the buy-bust operation, upon seeing SPO1 Pagtan remove his bull [ball] cap, they immediately rushed to the scene and placed the accused under arrest."
The testimony of Police Chief Inspector Gina Claire Bentican (PCI Bentican) was also dispensed with under the following stipulation of facts:
"1. That she was the one who personally received from SPO1 Apil the five (5) sachets of crystalline substance, with markings, which the latter submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory for laboratory examination, as reflected in the Chain of Custody Form and Request for Laboratory Examination;
2. That she conducted the desired examination on the specimens;
3. That the examination conducted on the specimens gave positive result to the tests for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a prohibited drug;
4. That she will be able to identify the five (5) drug items as well as the Chain of Custody Form, the Request for Laboratory Examination, and Chemistry Report if required to do so."
On [0]4 January 2018, the accused-appellant filed a motion for extension of time to file a Demurrer to Evidence but the trial court denied the same because it was filed one month after the receipt of the prosecution's offer of exhibits. The accused-appellant nevertheless filed his Demurrer to Evidence even though it was ignored by the trial court that ordered instead the reception of evidence for the defense.
Evidence for the Defense
The defense presented the accused-appellant as its lone witness. His testimony, as summarized by the trial court, follows:
"The accused denied the accusations against him. He testified that on [22 January 2014], around 8:00 [p.m.], he went to the Desinco's residence to fetch his brother who had texted him. Upon arriving thereat, three (3) policemen, who were with two (2) persons earlier arrested by them, accosted him. The police officers hand-cuffed him and brought him along with the arrested persons to the police station at Bulanao, Tabuk City, Kalinga. The two arrested persons were later released by the police. He was detained at the said police station for one night and was later transferred to the office of SPO2 Apil, where he was detained for three (3) nights before he was finally brought to the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP), Tabuk City, Kalinga.
He denied any drug transaction between him and SPO1 Pagtan. He also denied that the police recovered from his jacket a box containing drugs, claiming that he was not wearing a jacket at the time he was arrested. He alleged that he had the intention to file a case for arbitrary detention against the police officers who unlawfully arrested and detained him for unreasonable length of time but he was not able to do so because of his detention at the BJMP." 7
Ruling of the RTC
On 20 March 2018, the RTC found appellant guilty of violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 in Crim. Case No. 19-2014-C. The dispositive portion of the RTC's Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing considerations, this court finds the accused, Caesar Tuppiyac y Pumos-an, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165, for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos ([Php]500,000.00).
In the service of his sentence, the accused shall be credited with the period during which he has been under preventive imprisonment.
The subject sachets of shabu are forfeited in favor of the government, to be disposed of in accordance with the pertinent provisions of [RA] 9165 and its implementing rules and guidelines.
SO ORDERED. 8
The RTC found moral certainty that the appellant is criminally liable for the offense charged in the Information. The appellant was caught in a buy-bust operation and was positively identified in court by SPO1 Pagtan as the same person who sold shabu to him for Php1,200.00. 9
In a similar manner, the RTC ruled that the prosecution was able to prove the identity and integrity of the seized items. The plastic sachets given by appellant to SPO1 Pagtan were then given to SPO1 Apil who marked them with his initials, "JSA," his signature, and the date of seizure. The marking, photographs, and inventory of the seized items were done immediately upon the arrival of the appellant with the buy-bust team at the Bulanao Police Station and in the presence of appellant, two barangay kagawads, a representative from the media, and a representative from the Department of Justice. SPO1 Apil brought the sachet of suspected shabu to the PNP Crime Laboratory, where they were personally received by PCI Bentican. Tests on the specimens confirmed the presence of shabu. The marked sachets 10 were presented and identified in open court by SPO1 Pagtan and SPO1 Apil as the same items seized from appellant. 11
The RTC likewise upheld the presumption of regularity in SPO1 Apil and SPO1 Pagtan's performance of their official duties. Appellant's bare denial cannot prevail over the positive identification of the two officers that he is the same person who sold the shabu to SPO1 Pagtan. Meanwhile, even though the marking of the evidence was not done at the place where the items are seized, the RTC noted that marking was done in the presence of appellant and of the required witnesses. There was adequate explanation why the marking was not immediately done at the place of seizure. The RTC also held that the non-presentation in court of the buy-bust money does not create a hiatus in the evidence for the prosecution as long as the sale of the dangerous drugs is proven and the subject of the transaction is presented before the court. 12
Acting Presiding Judge Nicanor S. Pascual, Jr. (Judge Pascual) issued a Mittimus Order 13 dated 24 July 2018 committing appellant to the Bureau of Corrections in Muntinlupa City. 14 Appellant's motion for reconsideration was denied by the RTC in an Order 15 dated 31 July 2018. On 10 August 2018, Senior Inspector Gannisi W. Olosan, officer-in-charge of the Tabuk District Jail, sent a Letter 16 to Judge Pascual that appellant escaped from the facility at approximately 5:25 p.m. of 09 August 2018. The Public Attorney's Office (PAO) filed a Notice of Appeal dated 13 August 2018. 17
Ruling of the CA
In his Appellant's Brief 18 dated 14 March 2019, appellant pointed out three errors committed by the RTC:
I. The trial court gravely erred in convicting the accused-appellant of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs despite the fact that the witnesses required by Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 were not immediately present after seizure and confiscation of the corpora delicti;
II. The trial court gravely erred in convicting the accused-appellant of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs despite the prosecution's failure to establish all the links in the chain of custody of the corpora delicti; and
III. The trial court gravely erred in convicting the accused-appellant of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs when it relied on the disputable presumption of regularity in the performance of duty in favor of the police officers. 19
The CA found no merit in the appeal. 20
Marking and inventory was not immediately done at the place of seizure because the police officers found it "dangerous for the operatives to stay further in the area." The police station where the appellant was brought was only around 400 meters away from where the buy-bust operation was conducted and the shabu was seized. The CA ruled that the location of the place of seizure as well as the weather at the time of the incident made it impractical for the police officers to comply with the procedure laid down in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. Despite the impracticality, the police officers took all the necessary measures to handle the evidence properly. Finally, the CA ruled that there is proof beyond reasonable doubt that the illegal sale of the dangerous drug actually took place and the corpus delicti was fully presented as evidence before the RTC. 21
The dispositive portion of the CA's Decision read:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The assailed Decision is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED. 22
The CA gave due course to appellant's Notice of Appeal in a Resolution dated 05 September 2019. 23
In a letter dated 19 November 2020, CCI Joel R. Calvelo (CCI Calvelo), Acting Superintendent of New Bilibid Prison-North (NBP), responded to this Court's Notice in connection with the present case. CCI Calvelo informed this Court that, based on the records at the Inmate Document Processing Division, there is no person by the name of Caesar Tuppiyac y Pumos-an confined in the NBP. This confirms that appellant, who earlier escaped in prison, remains at large. 24
The PAO, in its Manifestation in lieu of Supplemental Brief 25 dated 01 December 2020, stated that they adopt all the arguments raised in the appellant's brief and no longer intend to file a supplemental brief. The Office of the Solicitor General made a similar manifestation 26 with respect to its appellee's brief.
Issues
Ordinarily, We would have considered the three errors assigned by the appellant in his brief filed before the CA: non-compliance with Section 21, RA 9165; non-establishment of all links in the chain of custody of the corpora delicti; and reliance on the disputable presumption of regularity in the performance of duty in favor of the police officers despite existence of an irregularity. 27 However, in view of appellant's escape from jail, We also address the consequences of such escape upon our exercise of jurisdiction.
Ruling of the Court
The appeal lacks merit.
Despite appellant's escape, We exercise our discretion in reviewing the present appeal and examining the rulings of the RTC and of the CA.
The second paragraph of Section 8, Rule 124 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides: the CA may also, upon motion of the appellee or motu proprio, dismiss the appeal if the appellant escapes from prison or confinement, jumps bail or flees to a foreign country during the pendency of the appeal. The procedure in the Supreme Court in original and in appealed cases shall be the same as in the CA, unless otherwise provided by the Constitution or by law. 28
People v. Mamalias29(Mamalias) instructs us on the exercise of jurisdiction when an appellant's whereabouts are unknown. Promulgated in 2000, Mamalias gave us the general rule and its exceptions, thus:
The first issue is the jurisdiction of this Court to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused-appellant in view of the fact that his whereabouts is now unknown. x x x
xxx xxx xxx
The general rule is that ''a party appealing who flees the jurisdiction, pending the appeal, is in contempt of the authority of the court and of the law and places himself in a position to speculate on the chances for a reversals, meanwhile keeping out of the reach of justice and preparing to render the judgment nugatory or not, at his option. Such conduct is intolerable and does not invite leniency on the part of the appellate court." Moreover, the escapee loses his standing in court and unless he surrenders or submits to the jurisdiction of the court, he is deemed to have waived any right to seek relief from the court.
Be that as it may, the escape of an accused-appellant during the pendency of his appeal will not necessarily prevent this Court from exercising its jurisdiction in exceptional cases. Thus, in People vs. Araneta, we held:
"Since the accused-appellant has jumped bail, we shall determine whether the Court should proceed to exercise jurisdiction over his appeal. Section 8, Rule 124 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure provides:
'SECTION 8. Dismissal of appeal for abandonment or failure to prosecute. — The appellate court may, upon motion of the appellee or on its own motion and notice to the appellant, dismiss the appeal if the appellant fails to file his brief within the time prescribed by this rule, except in case the appellant is represented by a counsel de oficio.
The court may also, upon motion of the appellee or on its own motion, dismiss the appeal if the appellant escapes from prison or confinement or flees to foreign country during the pendency of the appeal.'
Under the second paragraph, the Court has the discretion to dismiss the appeal in case the appellant escapes from custody or jumps bail.
We hold that dismissal of accused-appellant's appeal at this stage will result in injustice. In Criminal Case No. 34642, the Decision of the trial court finding him guilty of homicide and sentencing him to a minimum of prision mayor to a maximum of reclusion temporal will become final. The findings of the Court of Appeals that he should instead be convicted for murder and meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua can no longer be acted upon by this Court. And in Criminal Case No. 34643, accused-appellant will be acquitted from the charge of frustrated homicide as found by the Court of Appeals. In fine, accused-appellant will be benefited by his act of jumping bail. To avoid this mockery of justice, we resolve to continue exercising jurisdiction over Criminal Case No. 34642. The acquittal of accused-appellant in Criminal Case No. 34643, however, can no longer be reviewed in view of the rule on double jeopardy."
Similarly, instructive is the case of People vs. Francisco, where the accused-appellant was convicted of murder and meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He escaped from confinement during the pendency of his appeal. Nevertheless, we reviewed his sentence and eventually acquitted him of the crime charged. We held:
"During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant escaped from prison or confinement. The appeal, therefore, could have been dismissed under Section 8, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court. In view, however, of the comment of the Solicitor General as counsel for the appellee, the People of the Philippines, that since the appellant had already filed his brief, the proceedings may continue despite the reported escape of appellant from prison, as well as his manifestation in lieu of appellee's brief, recommending the acquittal of the appellant on the ground that his culpability of the crime charged has not been shown beyond legal and moral certainty and finding such recommendation to be meritorious. We have taken the burden of deciding the case on the merits in order to avoid a miscarriage of justice."
In the case at bar, we hold that this Court should retain its jurisdiction to pass upon the guilt or innocence of the accused-appellant to prevent a miscarriage of justice. The ultimate task of this Court is to render justice and rules of procedure should be interpreted to serve this objective. No obeisance should be rendered to any technical rule when its result will be to frustrate the rendition of a just decision. Again, we reiterate our fealty to the rule of justice and not to the role of technicalities.
Mamalias taught us that generally, an appeal from a judgment of conviction in a criminal case may be dismissed when it is filed by an escaped appellant. However, the court may exercise its discretion and continue to hear the case when one of these two exceptions exist: (1) when the dismissal of the appeal would result in injustice, such as when the penalty meted by the appellate court is heavier than that meted by the trial court; and (2) to avoid a miscarriage of justice, such as when an acquittal is merited on the ground of the prosecution's failure to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. 30 None of these circumstances, however, exists.
In this case, even before appellant could file an appeal, he already escaped from confinement. To recall, based on the letter addressed to the trial court sent by Senior Inspector Gannisi W. Olosan, officer-in-charge of the Tabuk District Jail, appellant escaped from the facility on 09 August 2018, or after the rendition of the RTC's judgment of conviction on 20 March 2018 and the denial of the motion for reconsideration thereof on 18 July 2018. Meanwhile, the PAO, who appears to have no knowledge of appellant's escape, proceeded to file a Notice of Appeal a few days after, or on 13 August 2018, and eventually filed an appeal brief before the CA on behalf of appellant. It bears noting, too, that there is nothing in the CA's Decision alluding to the fact of appellant's escape. The said Decision dismissed the appeal based on evidence.
Section 8, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court provides that the Court of Appeals may also, upon motion of the appellee or motu proprio, dismiss the appeal if the appellant escapes from prison or confinement, jumps bail or flees to a foreign country during the pendency of the appeal. Once an accused escapes from prison or confinement or jumps bail or flees to a foreign country, he loses his standing in court and unless he surrenders or submits to the jurisdiction of the court he is deemed to have waived any right to seek relief from the court. 31 Thus, appellant, in this case, should have been deemed to have abandoned his appeal, and as a result, his appeal should have been dismissed 32 by the CA.
In any event, even if We disregard procedural rules, inasmuch as the CA proceeded to determine the propriety of the appeal based on evidence without regard to the escape of appellant, the appeal must still be dismissed.
A conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, as defined and penalized by Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, demands that the following elements be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and its consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. 33
The PAO, as counsel for appellant, questions the establishment of the identity of the seized items and puts in issue the prosecution's compliance with the procedure outlined in Section 21 (1), Article II of RA 9165 before its amendment in 2015.
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 persons from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, That the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served: or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures: Provided, finally, That noncompliance of these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items.
We summed up these guidelines in People v. Adobar: 34
In sum, the applicable law mandates the following to be observed as regards the time, witnesses and proof of inventory in the custody of seized dangerous illegal drugs:
1. The initial custody requirements must be done immediately after seizure or confiscation;
2. The physical inventory and photographing must be done in the presence of:
a. the accused or his representative or counsel;
b. a representative from the media;
c. a representative from the DOJ; and
d. any elected public official.
3. The conduct of the physical inventory and photograph shall be done at the:
a. place where the search warrant is served; or
b. at the nearest police station; or
c. nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizure.
The prosecution's narration of events shows that there were seeming defects in the chain of custody. The proffered justification that "it was dark and cold" and "it was dangerous for the operatives to stay further" convinces this Court of the adjustments needed in the careful planning of the buy-bust operation. The prosecution admitted that SPO1 Pagtan's team had to bring appellant and the seized items to the Bulanao Police Substation for marking and inventory. This had to be done despite the proximity of the alleged dangerous place to the substation and the planning conducted before the actual buy-bust operation. Although none of the required witnesses were present during actual seizure, the interval of time and of distance between the actual seizure and taking of inventory where the required witnesses were all present were not significant.
The following links must be established in order to ensure that the identity and integrity of the seized items had not been compromised: 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. 35
In the present case, the prosecution was able to solidly establish the first link in the chain of custody. All the required witnesses were present at the time and place of the taking of the inventory. SPO1 Apil turned over the seized items to the PNP Crime Laboratory. The non-drug items were kept in the case folder while the sachets of shabu were stored and locked in the office of SPO1 Apil. The seized items were delivered to the crime laboratory at 11:00 in the morning of 23 January 2014. Insp. Bentican was in possession of the corpora delicti until they were turned over to the RTC. The defense failed to overcome the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties.
The penalty for the unauthorized sale of illegal drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 is life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Php500,000.00 to Php10,000,000.00, regardless of its quantity and purity. However, with the enactment of RA 9346, only life imprisonment and fine shall be imposed. The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of Php500,000.00 imposed by the RTC and affirmed by the CA is thus proper.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated 26 July 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11717, affirming the Decision dated 20 March 2018 of Branch 25, Regional Trial Court of Bulanao, Tabuk City, Kalinga in Criminal Case No. 19-2014-C, finding accused-appellant CAESAR TUPPIYAC y PUMOS-AN, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, and imposing the penalty of life imprisonment and fine of Php500,000.00, is AFFIRMED.
The Department of Justice and the Department of the Interior and Local Government should also be furnished with copies of this Resolution so that accused-appellant Caesar Tuppiyac y Pumos-an, who escaped from confinement and remains at-large, may be brought to justice.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) RUMAR D. PASIONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 23-24. See Notice of Appeal, 13 August 2019.
2. Id. at 3-21. Penned by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Germano Francisco D. Legaspi and Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas of the Special Eight (8th) Division of the court of Appeals, Manila.
3. CA rollo, pp. 53-61. Penned by Acting Presiding Judge Neljoe A. Cortes.
4. Entitled "AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on 23 January 2002.
5. Rollo, pp. 4-5.
6. Id. at 5.
7. Rollo, pp. 5-10. Boldface and italics in the original.
8. CA rollo, p. 61.
9. Id. at 58-59.
10. Marked as JSA1 P2 BTC 1/22/14, JSA2 P2 BTC 1/22/14, JSA3 P2 BTC 1/22/14, JSA4 P2 BTC 1/22/14, and JSA5 P2 BTC 1/22/14.
11. CA rollo, p. 59.
12. Id. at 60-61.
13. Rollo, p. 27.
14. Id.
15. CA rollo, p. 19.
16. Rollo, p. 23.
17. CA rollo, p. 19.
18. Id. at 39-51.
19. CA rollo, p. 41.
20. Rollo, p. 12.
21. Id. at 12-21.
22. Id. at 21.
23. CA rollo, p. 115.
24. Rollo, p. 31.
25. Id. at 33-37.
26. Id. at 38-42.
27. CA rollo, pp. 45-49.
28. Section 1, Rule 125 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
29. 385 Phil. 499 (2000), G.R. 128073, 27 March 2000 [Per J. Puno]. Italics in the original. Boldface added. Citations omitted.
30. See Chiok v. People, 774 Phil. 230 (2015), G.R. No. 179814, 07 December 2015 [Per J. Jardeleza].
31. Usares v. People, G.R. No. 209047, 07 January 2019 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe], citing People v. Mapalao, 274 Phil. 354 (1991), G.R. No. 92415, 14 May 1991 [Per J. Gancayco].
32. See People v. Codilla, 295 Phil. 990 (1993), G.R. Nos. 100720-23, 30 June 1993 [Per J. Regalado].
33. See People v. Dumlao, 584 Phil. 732 (2008), G.R. No. 181599, 20 August 2008 [Per J. Ynares-Santiago].
34. 832 Phil. 731 (2018), G.R. No. 222559, 06 June 2018 [Per J. Caguioa].
35. People v. De Guzman, 825 Phil. 43 (2018), G.R. 219955, 05 February 2018 [Per J. Del Castillo], citing Derilo v. People, 784 Phil. 679, 686 (2016), G.R. No. 190466, 18 April 2016 [Per J. Brion].