THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 238102. June 6, 2018.]
ALEXANDER PATRICK SERRANO Y REYES, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 6, 2018, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 238102 (Alexander Patrick Serrano y Reyes vs. People of the Philippines). — Assailed in this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules Court are the Decision 1 dated September 15, 2017 and the Resolution 2 dated March 2, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. G.R. No. 39008, which, respectively, dismissed the appeal of herein petitioner Alexander Patrick Serrano y Reyes and, thereby, affirmed his conviction in Crim. Case No. 13-299282 for violation of Section 11 (Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs), 3 Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165), 4 and subsequently denied his Motion for Reconsideration thereof. cCHITA
Petitioner and a certain Mark Adrian Raymundo y Rosales @ "Bimboy" (Raymundo) were charged in three separate Informations for Violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165, docketed as Crim. Case No. 13-299282 and Crim. Case No. 13-299283, and for Violation of Section 15 (Illegal Use of Dangerous Drugs), 5 Article II of RA 9165, docketed as Crim. Case No. 13-299284. The accusatory portion of the two Informations, wherein petitioner was the named accused, read:
CRIM. CASE NO. 13-299282
That on or about August 16, 2013, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said [herein petitioner], not having been 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 two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets marked as, "APSR" containing ZERO POINT EIGHT NINE ONE (0.891) gram and "APSR-1" CONTAINING ZERO POINT SEVEN SEVEN NINE (0.779) gram or all in the total amount of ONE POINT SIX SEVEN ZERO (1.670) grams of dried marijuana leaves and fruiting tops, a dangerous drug, in the company of another person, during a pot session. 6 DETACa
CRIM. CASE NO. 13-299284
That on or about August 16, 2013, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said [petitioner and Raymundo], without being authorized by law to use any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, knowingly and jointly use, sniff, ingest or consume dried leaves and fruiting tops of marijuana, a dangerous drug, during a pot session. 7
On arraignment, petitioner and Raymundo both entered a plea of not guilty to all the charges against them. During pre-trial, both the prosecution and the defense stipulated on these matters: (1) the trial court's jurisdiction; (2) that petitioner and Raymundo are the same persons charged in the Informations; (3) the qualification and competence of Police Chief Inspector Elisa G. Reyes-Arturo (PCI Reyes-Arturo) as a Forensic Chemist; and (4) the genuineness and due execution of the documents adduced by Forensic Chemist PCI Reyes-Arturo, to wit: (a) Exhibits "A," "A-1," and "A-2" (the Letter Requests for Laboratory Examination dated August 16, 2013, the stamped receipt of the WPD Crime Laboratory, and the signatures on Exhibit "A-1," respectively; (b) Exhibits "B," "B-1," "B-2," and "B-3" (the plastic container, one-heat sealed transparent plastic sachet with marking "APSR" containing dried marijuana leaves and fruiting tops, one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with marking "APSR-1" containing dried marijuana leaves and fruiting tops, and one (1) glass tube with marking "MARR" containing partially burnt marijuana leaves and fruiting tops, respectively); and (c) Exhibits "C," "C-1," and "C-2" (the Chemistry Report No. D-476-13, the findings and conclusion, and all the signatures appearing at the bottom of Exhibit "C," respectively). The parties also admitted that the specimens submitted by the police officer for laboratory examinations were the same one submitted by Forensic Chemist PCI Reyes-Arturo. 8 Thereafter, trial on the merits proceeded. CScaDH
In the course of trial, only the testimony of Police Officer 1 Wedderico Alonzo (PO1 Alonzo), one of the arresting officers, was presented by the prosecution. The latter was not able to present the testimony of PO1 Rommel Reyes (PO1 Reyes), the other arresting officer, as he went on AWOL and repeatedly failed to appear despite notice. As regards the testimony of Forensic Chemist PCI Reyes-Arturo, the same has been dispensed with in view of the stipulations made by the parties during pre-trial. 9
The prosecution's version of what transpired on August 16, 2013 is succinctly summarized by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) in its Appellee's Brief with the CA, which the latter adopted as follows:
5. At around 5:45 o'clock in the morning of August 16, 2013, [PO1 Alonzo], together with [PO1 Reyes], was on board his motorcycle conducting routine patrol along Pedro Gil corner Onyx Streets, Manila, when he noticed two persons, later identified as [herein petitioner and Raymundo], using marijuana.
6. Immediately, thereafter, PO1 Alonzo and his companion alighted from their respective motorcycles to apprehend said persons.
7. PO1 Alonzo grabbed [petitioner] and ordered him to empty his pockets. He recovered from him 2 small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets of suspected marijuana.
8. On the other hand, PO1 Reyes apprehended [Raymundo] and recovered from him a small glass tube with suspected marijuana residues.
9. After the arrest, the arresting officers brought [petitioner and Raymundo] to the barangay hall of Brgy. 812, Zone 88.
10. Thereat, PO1 Alonzo marked the plastic sachets with suspected marijuana with "APSR and APSR-l" and the small glass tube with "MARR." Photographs thereof were also taken. aHSTID
11. Said inventory of seized items was made in the presence of Brgy. Chairperson Levi Miguel.
12. The police officers brought [petitioner and Raymundo] to the Ospital ng Maynila for medical examination. cDEHIC
13. Thereafter, [petitioner and Raymundo], together with the seized items, were brought to Police Station 6 for booking and documentation.
14. Thereat, PO1 Alonzo turned over the seized items to the duty investigator, [Senior Police Officer 1 Roy Velano (SPO1 Velano)], who prepared the request for laboratory examination, among others.
15. Subsequently, PO1 Alonzo brought the items to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination which was received by Forensic Chemical Officer, [PCI Reyes-Arturo], who conducted the examination.
16. The contents of the seized plastic sachets and the residues in the small glass tube turned out positive for marijuana as indicated in Chemistry Report No. D-476-13. 10 ISCDEA
The defense, on the other hand, presented the lone testimony of the petitioner, who denied the charges against him and offered a different version of the events. As summarized in the petitioner's Appellant's Brief before the CA, the defense established that:
7. [Herein petitioner] denied the charges against him for illegal possession of dangerous drugs and claimed that he was framed up. TaCEHA
8. On [August 16, 2013], he was on his way home from a billiard bar and walking along Pedro Gil Street, Paco, Manila. Suddenly, he was arrested and frisked by [PO1 Alonzo], but nothing was found in his possession. Within a minute, co-accused [Raymundo], who was also walking, was also arrested and frisked by the same police officer. A glass pipe was found in the latter's possession. [Petitioner], confident that nothing unlawful was found in his possession and as he was self-assured that a certain Kagawad Lando Ibarra [Kgd. Ibarra] could corroborate his claim, peacefully went with the said police officer. At any rate, [u]nfortunately, the latter failed to appear for [petitioner's] behalf despite the court a quo's issuance of a subpoena. 11
On July 19, 2016, the trial court rendered a Consolidated Decision 12convicting petitioner in Crim. Case No. 13-299282 for Violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 but acquitting Raymundo in Crim. Case No. 13-299283 for the same offense for the prosecution's failure to identify the person of said accused. In the same Consolidated Decision, the trial court also acquitted both petitioner and Raymundo in Crim. Case No. 13-299284 for Violation of Section 15, Article II of RA 9165. 13 The decretal portion of the Consolidated Decision states: EDCTIa
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:
1. In Crim. Case No. 13-299282, finding [the herein petitioner] GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged and is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 12 years and 1 day[,] as minimum[,] to 17 years and 4 months[,] as maximum[,] and to pay a fine of [P]300,000.00.
2. In Crim. Case No. 13-299283, ACQUITTING accused [RAYMUNDO] on the ground of reasonable doubt. acHTIC
3. In Crim. Case No. 13-299284, ACQUITTING [the petitioner] and ACQUITTING accused [RAYMUNDO] on the ground of reasonable doubt.
The specimens are forfeited in favor of the government and the Branch Clerk of Court, accompanied by the Branch Sheriff, is directed to turn over with dispatch and upon receipt the said specimens to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper disposal in accordance with the laws and rules. 14 (Emphases supplied.) ADCIca
On appealing his conviction, petitioner mainly argued that the prosecution did not prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt as the testimony of PO1 Alonzo, the police officer who arrested him for possessing marijuana, was not credible. Petitioner further averred that the requirements set forth under Section 21 (1) of RA 9165 and Section 21 (a) of its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) were not complied with, as there were no representatives from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ) during the conduct of the inventory of the seized items. 15 In turn, the herein respondent, as represented by the OSG, argued for the affirmance of petitioner's conviction. The OSG stressed that the prosecution sufficiently established all the elements of the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized marijuana have been properly presented by the arresting officer.
In its now assailed Decision dated September 15, 2017, the CA dismissed petitioner's appeal and affirmed the trial court's Decision dated July 19, 2016 convicting him for Violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165. The appellate court sustained the findings of the trial court as to the credibility of the police officer, who testified for the prosecution. More so, the latter was able to sufficiently establish all the elements of the offense charged. As regards the lack of representatives from the media and the DOJ during the conduct of inventory of the seized items, the same would not automatically make the evidence inadmissible. While it is true that both Section 21 (1) of RA 9165 and Section 21 (a) of its IRR outline the procedure to be followed in the seizure and custody of prohibited drugs yet a simple reading thereof, particularly of the latter, would readily show that as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, then such non-compliance with the requirements under justifiable grounds shall not render void and invalid the seizure and custody of prohibited drugs. In this case, the integrity and evidentiary value of the marijuana seized from the petitioner were duly preserved and accounted for, thus, the trial court did not err in utilizing the same in determining his guilt for illegal possession of marijuana. 16 ScaCEH
Petitioner sought reconsideration but it was denied in the now questioned Resolution dated March 2, 2018.
Hence, this present Petition, substantially reiterating the same line of arguments raised before the CA.
The Petition lacks merit. ACTIHa
After a careful scrutiny hereof, this Court finds no reversible error in the ruling of the trial court and the CA. Accordingly, petitioner's conviction for illegal possession of marijuana is sustained.
In every prosecution for illegal possession of marijuana, the following elements must concur: (1) that the accused was in possession of the object identified as a prohibited or regulated drug; (2) that the drug possession was not authorized by law; and (3) that the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. 17 Mere possession of a regulated drug perse constitutes primafacie evidence of knowledge or animuspossidendi sufficient to convict an accused absent a satisfactory explanation of such possession; the onusprobandi is shifted to the accused, to explain the absence of knowledge or animuspossidendi. 18
In this case, the prosecution convincingly established beyond reasonable doubt all the afore-enumerated elements of illegal possession of marijuana. Firstly, the petitioner was found in possession of two small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing suspected marijuana, which were later confirmed to be such. This fact is very evident from the narration of PO1 Alonzo, who clearly stated that after he lawfully arrested the petitioner, he ordered him to empty his pockets; he then recovered from him two small-heat sealed transparent plastic sachets containing suspected marijuana, which were later confirmed to be such; he also marked the seized items as "APSR" and "APSR-1;" Secondly, the petitioner could not present any proof or justification that he was fully authorized by law to possess the same. Lastly, the petitioner could not give any sufficient explanation on his absence of animuspossidendi to negate a finding that he was freely and consciously aware of possessing said prohibited drug. TIEHDC
In addition thereto, just like in the case of illegal sale of any prohibited drug, it is also crucial for the prosecution to establish the identity of the seized dangerous drugs in a way that their integrity is well preserved — from the time of seizure or confiscation from the accused until the time of presentation as evidence in court. The fact that the substance said to have been illegally possessed was the very same substance offered in court as exhibit must be established. 19 This Court, in Saraum v. People, 20 enunciated that in ascertaining the identity of the illegal drugs presented in court as the ones actually seized from the accused, the prosecution must show that: (a) the prescribed procedure under Section 21 (1), Article II of RA 9165 has been complied with or falls within the saving clause provided in Section 21 (a), Article II of its IRR; and (b) there was an unbroken link (not perfect link) in the chain of custody with respect to the confiscated items. While, Section 21 (1) of RA 9165 mandates the apprehending team to immediately conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph them, non-compliance therewith is, nonetheless, not fatal as long as there is a justifiable ground and as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated/seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team. 21
Truly, in this case, the prosecution did not show any justifiable ground that might excuse the arresting officer from strictly complying with Section 21 (1), Article II of RA 9165, particularly with the requirement of conducting the inventory of the seized items in the presence of representatives from the media and the DOJ. This, notwithstanding, such omission would not render petitioner's arrest illegal or the seized items from him inadmissible in evidence. For the said "justifiable ground" will remain unknown since the petitioner failed to specifically challenge the custody and safekeeping or the issue of disposition and preservation of the seized items before the trial court. 22 To note, the petitioner only raised the issue of non-compliance with Section 21 (1), Article II of RA 9165 for the first time before the CA. Thus, this Court cannot now dwell thereon for to do so would be against the tenets of fair play and equity. 23 A more elaborate discussion on this matter was made by this Court in People v. Tripoli, et al., 24 where it held, thus:
x x x In the case of People v. Bartolome [citation omitted], although it appears that the buy-bust team did not literally observe all the requirements, like photographing the confiscated drugs in the presence of the accused, a representative from the media and from the [DOJ], and any elected public official who should be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy of it, whatever justification the members of the buy-bust team had to render in order to explain their non-observance of all the requirements would remain unrevealed because the accused did not assail such non-compliance during the trial.
It was likewise held in People v. Ros [citation omitted] that "the law excuses noncompliance under justifiable grounds. However, whatever justifiable grounds that may excuse the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation x x x from complying with Section 21 will remain unknown, because appellant did not question during trial, the safekeeping of the items seized from him. Indeed, the police officers' alleged violations of Sections 21 and 86 of RA 9165 were not raised before the trial court but were instead raised for the first time on appeal. In no instance did appellant (at) least intimate at the trial court that there were lapses in the safekeeping of seized items that affected their integrity and evidentiary value. Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of objection. Without such objection he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal." x x x 25 (Emphases supplied; italics in the original.) ACcaET
Now, going to the chain of custody of the seized items, the procedure thereon should preferably be perfect and unbroken. But since in reality it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain, hence, failure to strictly comply with Section 21 (1), Article II of RA No. 9165 would not necessarily render an accused person's arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are duly preserved, which is the most important one. 26 Here, as aptly observed by the CA, the integrity and evidentiary value of the two small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets of marijuana seized from the petitioner was duly preserved and accounted for. The same had not been compromised as the prosecution was able to establish the crucial link in the chain of custody of the seized items from the time they were recovered from the petitioner until they were brought to the court for examination, to wit:
a. Immediately after the arrest, PO1 Alonzo marked the 2 plastic sachets of suspected marijuana seized from [herein petitioner] with markings "APSR" and "APSR-l" at the barangay hall of Brgy. 812, Zone 88; CaSAcH
b. During the physical inventory conducted by PO1 Alonzo at said barangay hall, the representative of the barangay attended and signed the inventory receipt in the presence of [petitioner] and the arresting officers[;]
c. Photographs of the actual marking of the confiscated marijuana and the proceedings during the inventory were made[;]
d. PO1 Alonzo brought the seized items to Police Station 6 and turned them over to their duty investigator, [Senior Police Officer 1] SPO1 Velano, who prepared the request for laboratory examination of the seized items on the same day[;]
e. PO1 Alonzo was in possession of the subject marijuana from the time of confiscation until he personally delivered it to [PCI Reyes-Arturo] of the PNP Crime Laboratory[;]
f. [PCI Reyes-Arturo] conducted an examination and prepared Chemistry Report No. D-476-13 which concluded that the marked specimens contained marijuana; and IaHDcT
g. The marked sachets of marijuana were presented and offered as evidence in court and were positively identified by PO1 Alonzo as the same illegal drugs recovered from [petitioner]. 27
It is clear there from that the prosecution ably established with moral certainty and proved to this Court beyond reasonable doubt the crucial link in the chain of custody over the recovered drug, that is, from the time it was lawfully seized and came into the possession of the apprehending officer up to its presentation and being offered in evidence before the trial court. This is despite the fact that the conduct of inventory of the seized items was not witnessed by representatives from the media and DOJ, as persistently argued by the petitioner. That alone will not suffice to invalidate the arrest and render inadmissible the seized items. For there is still substantial compliance on the required procedure regarding the custody and control of the confiscated items. The succession of events established by evidence and the overall handling of the seized items by specified individuals all show that the evidence seized were the same evidence subsequently identified and testified to in open court. 28 CcSTHI
In comparison to the overwhelming evidence of the prosecution, the petitioner could only muster the defense of denial and frame-up, which, like alibi, have been invariably viewed by the courts with disfavor for they can easily be concocted and are common and standard defense ploys in most cases involving violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. Being both negative and self-serving evidence, they cannot attain more credibility than the testimonies of prosecution witnesses who testify clearly, providing thereby positive evidence on the various aspects of the crime committed. To merit consideration, they have to be substantiated with strong, clear and convincing evidence. 29 In this case, the petitioner failed to substantiate his claim for he did not present any corroborative evidence in support thereof.
Without a doubt, since all the elements of the offense charged were successfully proven, and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were duly preserved, the trial court and the CA properly convicted the petitioner for the offense charged as his guilt thereon was, indeed, proven beyond reasonable doubt. DEIHAa
As to the penalty, this Court sustains the amount of fine and the indeterminate sentence imposed on the petitioner by both lower courts. Paragraph 2 (3), Section 11, Article II of RA No. 9165 provides that if the quantities of the dangerous drugs involved are less than 5 grams, the imposable penalty is imprisonment of 12 years and 1 day to 20 years and a fine ranging from P300,000.00 to P400,000.00. Here, the evidence adduced by the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner possessed a total of 1.670 grams of marijuana without any legal authority. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum period of the imposable penalty shall not fall below the minimum period set by the law and the maximum period shall not exceed the maximum period allowed under the law. 30 Taking that into consideration, the penalty meted out by the trial court, as affirmed by the CA, was correct for it is within the range provided by RA No. 9165.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present Petition is hereby DENIED. The CA Decision and Resolution dated September 15, 2017 and March 2, 2018, respectively, in CA-G.R. CR. No. 39008 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion with Associate Justices Jose C. Reyes, Jr. and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes, concurring, Rollo, pp. 31-43.
2.Id. at 45-46.
3.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:
xxx xxx xxx
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be graduated as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
(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.
4. Known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
5.Section15. Use of Dangerous Drugs. — A person apprehended or arrested, who is found to be positive for use of any dangerous drug, after a confirmatory test, shall be imposed a penalty of a minimum of six (6) months rehabilitation in a government center for the first offense, subject to the provisions of Article VIII of this Act. If apprehended using any dangerous drug for the second time, he/she shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years and a fine ranging from Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) to Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00): Provided, That this Section shall not be applicable where the person tested is also found to have in his/her possession such quantity of any dangerous drug provided for under Section 11 of this Act, in which case the provisions stated therein shall apply.
6. RTC Decision dated July 19, 2016, Rollo, pp. 64-65.
7.Id. at 65.
8. CA Decision dated September 15, 2017, id. at 33-34.
9.Id. at 3.
10. CA Decision dated September 15, 2017, id. at 34-35; Appellee's Brief dated July 13, 2017, id. at 75-76.
11. Appellant's Brief dated February 21, 2017, id. at 54.
12. Penned by Presiding Judge Sarah Alma M. Lim, id. at 64-70.
13. RTC Decision dated July 19, 2016, id. at 68-70.
14. RTC Decision dated July 19, 2016, id. at 70.
15. Appellant's Brief dated February 21, 2017, id. at 49-50.
16. CA Decision dated September 15, 2017, id. at 39-41.
17. People v. Arce, G.R. No. 217979, February 22, 2017.
18 People v. Eda, G.R. No. 220715, August 24, 2016.
19. People v. Arce, supra note 17.
20. G.R. No. 205472, January 25, 2016.
21. Saraum v. People, id.
22. Id.
23. People v. Tripoli, et al., G.R. No. 207001, June 7, 2017.
24 Id.
25. Id.
26. Saraum v. People, supra note 20.
27. CA Decision dated September 15, 2017, supra note 1 at 41.
28.Saraum v. People,supra note 20.
29.Saraum v. People,supra note 20.
30. People v. Eda, supra note 18.