THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 199603. October 14, 2015.]
PAUL RHINGO STO. DOMINGO Y RAMOS AND CHRISTOPHER MENDOZA Y BRIONES, petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated October 14, 2015, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 199603 (Paul Rhingo Sto. Domingo y Ramos and Christopher Mendoza y Briones vs. People of the Philippines). — Before this Court is a petition for review assailing the May 25, 2011 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 32359 finding petitioners Paul Rhingo Sto. Domingo y Ramos and Christopher Mendoza y Briones guilty of violation of Sections 11 and 12, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002." The CA affirmed with modification the Decision 2 rendered by Branch 67 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Binangonan, Rizal in Criminal Case No. 06-034 and affirmed in all respects said Decision insofar as Criminal Case No. 06-035 is concerned. Also assailed is the CA Resolution 3 dated December 5, 2011 denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration.
The Facts
The prosecution established that on February 27, 2005, a report was received by the Cardona Police about a hit-and-run incident involving a Nissan Patrol with plate number PLL-559 heading in the direction of Cardona, Rizal. Acting on the report, PO3 Ian Albert Voluntad, PO3 Florencio Negranza, Jr. and SPO1 Rey Rewel Alcala set up a checkpoint in Brgy. Patunhay, Cardona. After one hour, they returned to their station when the vehicle did not pass through the checkpoint. The police officers later learned that the subject vehicle was parked inside Calahan Elementary School. Inside the school compound, they saw the parked vehicle and approached it. Petitioners Sto. Domingo and Mendoza were inside the vehicle, with both front doors open. Thereafter, the police officers noticed the smell of marijuana coming out of the vehicle. SPO1 Alcala saw an opened black toolbox containing what appeared to be marijuana leaves, rolling paper and rollers of marijuana. They arrested petitioners and brought them to the police station. SPO1 Alcala took the marijuana and drug paraphernalia and turned them over to SPO2 Carlos who marked these as "PRS-1" and "PRS-2." The items were sent to the PNP Crime Laboratory, 4 where Forensic Chemical Officer, Police Chief Inspector (PCI) Isidro Cariño, after conducting a chemical analysis, confirmed that these contained marijuana. 5
On the other hand, only petitioner Mendoza testified for the defense. He narrated that in the afternoon of February 27, 2005, after coming from a party in Antipolo, he and Sto. Domingo went swimming in Daranak Falls. Later, they parked inside Calahan Elementary School to rest. Sto. Domingo then told him that he felt that he might have hit something along the way. To calm their nerves, they decided to smoke marijuana, which made them fall asleep. Mendoza denied possessing the drugs allegedly found by the police officers in the toolbox. He claimed that there were only stems and seeds of marijuana left in the box. Thus, he argued that they should have only been charged with the use of prohibited drugs under Section 15 of R.A. No. 9165. Furthermore, they have already undergone drug rehabilitation and had realized the error of their ways. 6
The RTC held that petitioners were guilty of illegal possession of a total of 1.89 grams of marijuana and sentenced them to an indeterminate penalty of 12 years and 1 day, as minimum, to 13 years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P300,000. It also held that petitioners were guilty of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia and accordingly sentenced them to a penalty of 7 months and ordered to pay a fine of P10,000. It was noted that petitioners were caught with marijuana after a valid search and seizure during the time that the police officers were responding to a report that a crime had just been committed. On that occasion, the police found a vehicle that matched the description of the one involved in the incident. As the police approached the vehicle, they were able to smell the marijuana. As to the marijuana and other smoking implements, these were in plain view of the police officers.
The CA affirmed the RTC Decision in Criminal Case No. 06-034 finding petitioners guilty of violation of Section 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 with modification only with regard to the penalty imposed. It also affirmed the RTC in Criminal Case No. 06-035 finding petitioners guilty of violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The fallo of the CA Decision reads: AIDSTE
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed decision of the Regional Trial Court in Binangonan, Rizal in Criminal Case No. 06-034 finding accused-appellants guilty of violation of Section 12, Article II of R.A. 9165 is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that accused-appellants are sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of seven (7) months as minimum to two (2) years as maximum, and to pay a fine of P10,000.00.
The Decision of the trial court finding the accused-appellants guilty of violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 in Criminal Case No. 06-035 is hereby AFFIRMED in all respects.
SO ORDERED. 7
Hence, this petition.
Issue
WHETHER THE CA ERRED IN FINDING THAT PETITIONERS' GUILT WAS PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
Our Ruling
The petition is without merit.
The well-established rule is that findings of the trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve credibility are accorded respect when no glaring errors; gross misapprehension of facts; or speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. 8 The determination by the trial court of the credibility of witnesses, when affirmed by the appellate court, as in this case, is accorded full weight and credit as well as great respect, if not conclusive effect. 9 We find no reason to disagree with the trial and appellate courts.
Indeed, the police officers testified that petitioners were inside their parked car where the marijuana leaves, improvised pipe and roller were found. It is clear that petitioners had constructive possession of the prohibited articles. As correctly explained by the CA, possession includes not only actual possession, but also constructive possession because petitioners had the right to exercise dominion and control over the place where the marijuana was found. 10
Moreover, the warrantless search and seizure as well as petitioners' warrantless arrest did not transgress their constitutional rights. Under the plain view doctrine, unlawful objects within the plain view of an officer who has the right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented in evidence. Nonetheless, the seizure of evidence in plain view must comply with the following requirements: (a) a prior valid intrusion in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties; (b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be where they are; (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent; and (d) the plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without further search. 11
Under the circumstances, we are convinced that all the elements of seizure in plain view are present. Records show that the police officers were able to confirm that the parked vehicle inside the school was the one that was involved in a hit-and-run incident. When the police walked towards it, they smelled a burning odor coming from the vehicle. Thereafter, the police officers peeked and saw an open toolbox containing suspected marijuana leaves, an improvised pipe and a roller. Petitioners were then sleeping in the driver and passenger seats. Thus, the police officers validly arrested petitioners who were committing a crime in flagrante delicto as they were in possession of marijuana and other drug paraphernalia.
On the issue of integrity of the evidence, we have held that failure to strictly comply with the prescribed procedures in the inventory of seized drugs does not render an arrest of the accused illegal or the items confiscated from him inadmissible. What is essential is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. 12
In this case, it was shown that the chain of custody of the seized items was not broken. After SPO1 Alcala took the suspected marijuana leaves and drug paraphernalia found inside the car, the same were turned over to SPO2 Carlos who marked these with "PRS-1" and "PRS-2" at the nearest police station. SPO2 Carlos then forwarded the items to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. After a qualitative examination conducted on the specimen, PCI Cariño confirmed that the specimen tested positive for marijuana, a dangerous drug. Thus, we hold that the crucial link in the chain of custody of the seized items from the time they were first discovered until they were brought for examination was duly established.
Petitioners further raised issue on the alleged failure of the prosecution to present competent evidence of the existence of the corpus delicti. They contend that what the prosecution formally offered was Exhibit "D" which is a brown envelope.
The contention utterly lacks merit. AaCTcI
The formal offer made during the August 27, 2008 hearing clearly implies that the reference to Exhibit "D" was inclusive of the items contained inside the brown envelope with its sub-markings: (1) the plastic sachet containing dried leaves suspected to be marijuana in seven rolled papers marked as Exhibit "D-1"; (2) one improvised cigarette roller marked as Exhibit "D-2-a"; and (3) test tube and glass tubing containing suspected dried marijuana leaves marked as Exhibits "D-2-c" and "D-2-d" (The plastic bag containing drug paraphernalia was marked as Exhibit "D-2"). 13 This can be gleaned from the statement of Prosecutor Marcosa Aragones that Exhibit "D" is the "Subject Specimen" which have been sent to Forensic Chemical Officer Cariño and which items tested positive for marijuana, a dangerous drug. 14
Finally, in convicting petitioners for violation of Section 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the RTC sentenced them to suffer the penalty of 7 months and to pay a fine of P10,000. However, Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law provides that when the offense is punished by a law other than the Revised Penal Code, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same. Hence, we find that the CA correctly modified the penalty imposed by the RTC by sentencing petitioners to suffer the indeterminate penalty of seven (7) months, as minimum, to two (2) years, as maximum, in Criminal Case No. 06-034.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated May 25, 2011 and Resolution dated December 5, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 32359, are hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
With costs against the petitioners. (Reyes, J., on leave; Mendoza, J., designated Acting Member per Special Order No. 2084 dated June 29, 2015; Jardeleza, J., no part, due to his prior action as Solicitor General; Perez, J., designated additional Member per Raffle dated January 5, 2015.)
SO ORDERED." acEHCD
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 79-102. Penned by Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybañez with Associate Justices Bienvenido L. Reyes (now a Member of this Court) and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe (now a Member of this Court) concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 19-20. Penned by Presiding Judge Dennis Patrick Z. Perez.
3. Rollo, pp. 135-136. Penned by Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybañez with Associate Justices Stephen C. Cruz and Angelita A. Gacutan concurring.
4. Rollo, pp. 82-83; TSN, November 29, 2007, pp. 4-13; TSN, July 3, 2008, pp. 4-20; and TSN, August 27, 2008, pp. 4-21.
5. TSN, February 27, 2008, p. 9; Physical Sciences Report No. D-85-05E, records, p. 7.
6. Rollo, pp. 83-84; TSN, November 12, 2008, pp. 3-26.
7. Rollo, p. 101.
8. People v. Presas, 659 Phil. 503, 511 (2011).
9. People v. Sabadlab, 679 Phil. 425, 438 (2012).
10. Rollo, pp. 87-A to 88, citing Quelnan v. People, 553 Phil. 618, 630 (2007).
11. People v. Aspiras, 427 Phil. 27, 39 (2002).
12. People v. Le, 636 Phil. 586, 598 (2010).
13. TSN, February 27, 2008, pp. 6-9.
14. TSN, August 27, 2008, pp. 21-22.