G.R. No. 185719, June 17, 2013 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.

MARCELINO
COLLADO Y CUNANAN, MYRA COLLADO Y SENICA, MARK CIPRIANO Y ROCERO, SAMUEL SHERWIN
LATARIO Y ENRIQUE,* AND REYNALDO RANADA Y ALAS,** Accused-Appellants.

G.R. No. 185719, June 17, 2013 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARCELINO
COLLADO Y CUNANAN, MYRA COLLADO Y SENICA, MARK CIPRIANO Y ROCERO, SAMUEL SHERWIN
LATARIO Y ENRIQUE,* AND REYNALDO RANADA Y ALAS,** Accused-Appellants.

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 185719, June 17, 2013

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARCELINO COLLADO Y CUNANAN, MYRA COLLADO Y

SENICA, MARK CIPRIANO Y ROCERO, SAMUEL SHERWIN LATARIO Y ENRIQUE,* AND REYNALDO RANADA
Y ALAS,**Accused-Appellants.

DECISION

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

Mere allegations and self-serving statements will not overcome the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duties accorded to police officers. There must be a showing of clear and
convincing evidence to successfully rebut this presumption.
On appeal is the February 28, 2008 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02626
which affirmed with modification the December 7, 2005 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Pasig City, Branch 154 in Criminal Case Nos. 13781-D, 13783-D and 13784-D. The RTC convicted the
appellants and several other accused for violations of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 or the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and imposed upon them the penalty of imprisonment and payment of
fine in each of their respective cases.

Factual Antecedents

On October 14, 2004, appellants Marcelino Collado (Marcelino) and Myra Collado (Myra) were charged
with the crimes of sale of dangerous drugs and maintenance of a den, dive or resort in violation of
Sections 5 and 6 of Article II, RA 9165 docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 13781-D and 13782-D,
respectively, viz:cralavvonlinelawlibrary

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 13781-D

On or about October 9, 2004, in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
accused, conspiring and confederating together and both of them mutually helping and aiding one
another, not being lawfully authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
sell, deliver and give away to PO2 Richard N. Noble, a police poseur buyer, one (1) heat-sealed
transparent plastic sachet containing three (3) centigrams (0.03 gram) of white crystalline substance,
which was found positive to the test for methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in
violation of the said law.

Contrary to law.3

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 13782-D

On or about or immediately prior to October 9, 2004, in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the accused, conspiring and confederating together and both of them mutually
helping and aiding one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously maintain a den,
dive or resort located at No. 32 R. Hernandez St., Brgy. San Joaquin, Pasig City, where x x x dangerous
drugs are used or sold in any form, in violation of the said law.

Contrary to law.4
Marcelino was also charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of the
same law docketed as Criminal Case No. 13783-D, viz:cralavvonlinelawlibrary

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 13783-D

On or about October 9, 2004, in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and under his custody and control one (1) heat-sealed
transparent plastic sachet containing six centigrams (0.06 gram) of white crystalline substance, which
was found to be positive to the test for methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in
violation of the said law.

Contrary to law.5nadcralavvonlinelawlibrary

On the other hand, appellants Mark Cipriano (Cipriano), Samuel Sherwin Latario (Latario), Reynaldo
Ranada (Ranada), together with co-accused Melody Apelo (Apelo), Marwin Abache (Abache), Michael
Angelo Sumulong (Sumulong), and Jay Madarang (Madarang), were charged with possession of drug
paraphernalia in violation of Section 14, Article II of RA 9165, docketed as Criminal Case No. 13784-D,
viz:cralavvonlinelawlibrary

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 13784-D

On or about October 9, 2004, in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
accused, each being in the proximate company of two (2) persons and in conspiracy with one another,
without having been duly authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have
in their possession and under their custody and control the following paraphernalias [sic], fit or intended
for smoking, consuming, administering or introducing any dangerous drug into the body, to
wit:cralavvonlinelawlibrary

a. one (1) strip aluminum foil containing traces of white crystalline substance marked as Exh-
D;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

b. one (1) improvised glass tooter containing traces of white crystalline substance marked as Exh-
D1;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

c. one (1) pack transparent plastic sachet marked as Exh-D2;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

d. two (2) plastic disposable lighters marked as Exhs. “G-H”;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

e. one (1) tape-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing three (3) rolled aluminum foil marked as
Exh. D5;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

f. five (5) unsealed transparent plastic sachets marked as Exh. D6;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

g. one (1) stainless scissor marked as Exh. D7;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

h. one (1) rectangular glass marked as Exh. D8; and

i. one (1) roll of aluminum foil marked as Exh. D9.

[Specimens] marked as Exh-D and Exh-D1 were found positive to the test for methylamphetamine
hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of the said law.

Contrary to law.6nadcralavvonlinelawlibrary

Upon arraignment on November 4, 2004, all the appellants and the other accused pleaded not guilty.7
Pre-trial and joint trial on the merits subsequently ensued.

Version of the Prosecution

The prosecution presented as witnesses PO2 Richard Noble (PO2 Noble) and SPO2 Bernardo Cruz (SPO2
Cruz) who were involved in the buy-bust operation that led to the arrest of the appellants. Their
testimonies are summarized as follows:cralavvonlinelawlibrary

On October 9, 2004, PO2 Noble received information from a civilian asset that spouses Marcelino and
Myra were engaged in selling shabu and that drug users, including out-of-school youth, were using their
residence in 32 R. Hernandez St., San Joaquin, Pasig City, for their drug sessions.8 After recording the
report in the police blotter, PO2 Noble relayed the information to his superior, P/Insp. Earl B. Castillo
(P/Insp. Castillo), who in turn ordered the conduct of a surveillance operation.9 PO2 Noble, SPO2 Cruz
and PO1 Anthony Bitbit, conducted a surveillance on the couple’s residence. After confirming the
reported activities, SPO2 Cruz looked for an asset who could introduce them to Marcelino and Myra in
the ensuing buy-bust operation.10

A buy-bust operation team was thereafter formed. After coordinating with the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency as evidenced by a Pre-Operation Report,11 the team proceeded to Marcelino’s and
Myra’s residence on board two private vehicles. Upon reaching the target area, the asset introduced
PO2 Noble to Marcelino as a regular buyer of shabu.12 When asked how much shabu he needed, PO2
Noble replied, “dalawang piso,” which means P200.00 worth of drugs. But when PO2 Noble was
handing over the marked money to Marcelino, the latter motioned that the same be given to his wife,
Myra, who accepted the money. Marcelino then took from his pocket a small metal container from
which he brought out a small plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance and gave the same to
PO2 Noble. While PO2 Noble was inspecting its contents, he noticed smoke coming from a table inside
the house of the couple around which were seven persons.13 When PO2 Noble gave the pre-arranged
signal, the backup team rushed to the scene. Simultaneously, PO2 Noble introduced himself as a
policeman and arrested Marcelino. He frisked him and was able to confiscate the metal container that
contained another sachet of white crystalline substance. PO2 Noble wrote the markings “MCC-RNN
October 9, 2004” on both the plastic sachets of white substance sold to him by Marcelino and the one
found inside the metal container.

Meanwhile, SPO2 Cruz and another police officer went inside the house of Marcelino and Myra, where
they found Apelo, Cipriano, Ranada, Abache, Sumulong, Madarang and Latario gathered around a table
littered with various drug paraphernalia such as an improvised water pipe, strips of aluminum foil with
traces of white substance, disposable lighters, and plastic sachets. A strip of aluminum foil used for
smoking marijuana was recovered from Ranada. The buy-bust team arrested all these persons, advised
them of their constitutional rights, and brought them to police headquarters for investigation and drug
testing.

A chemistry report14 on all the seized items yielded positive results for methylamphetamine
hydrochloride. Another chemistry report15 showed Marcelino, Apelo, Cipriano, and Ranada positive for
drug use while Myra, Abache, Sumulong, Madarang, and Latario were found negative.

Version of the Defense

The defense presented the testimonies of Marcelino, Myra, and Ranada, who all essentially put up the
defense of denial. The following is their version of the story.

Marcelino and Myra owned an electronics and appliance repair shop annexed to their house. In the
evening of October 9, 2004, Marcelino was in the living room with his children and nieces fixing a VCD
player. Apelo, their househelp, was in the kitchen preparing food while Ranada, their repairman, was
outside the house fixing Sumulong’s motorcycle. Cipriano and Madarang were also present at the shop,
the former to redeem his car stereo and the latter to borrow a play station CD. Latario, a housemate of
Marcelino and Myra, was also present at the time.
Marcelino suddenly heard someone say “Walang tatakbo!” Four armed men rushed inside the house
and pointed their guns at him and said “Wag ka nang pumalag.” He was thereafter dragged outside
where he saw the other accused already in handcuffs. Marcelino was later informed that they were
being arrested for selling shabu. Marcelino protested and disclaimed any knowledge about drugs. When
the officers frisked all the accused, Marcelino claimed that nothing illegal nor incriminating was
recovered from them.

When Myra arrived at the scene, she was shocked to see her husband being arrested. The police
officers then brought all the accused to the police station for further questioning.

At the police station, PO2 Noble asked Marcelino for P50,000.00 as settlement of their case. Marcelino,
Apelo, Cipriano, and Ranada were also made to drink water that according to Marcelino tasted bitter.16
They were then brought to Camp Crame for medical examination and drug tests. Those who drank the
bitter water tested positive for drugs use while the others, who did not drink, tested negative.

Marcelino surmised that their arrest was due to a misunderstanding he had with a former police officer
named Rey who bought a VCD player from his shop. He specifically instructed Rey not to let anyone
repair the VCD player should it malfunction. However, when the VCD player malfunctioned, Rey had it
repaired by somebody else, hence Marcelino refused to accept the VCD player and return Rey’s money.
This earned the ire of Rey who threatened him with the words “Humanda ka pagbalik ko.”17

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

In its Decision18 dated December 7, 2005, the RTC disposed of the case as
follows:cralavvonlinelawlibrary

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:cralavvonlinelawlibrary

In Crim. Case No. 13781-D, finding the accused MARCELINO COLLADO y Cunanan and MYRA COLLADO y
Senica GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section 5 of R.A. 9165 (sale of
dangerous drug) and they are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT.

Additionally, the two accused are ordered to pay a fine of ONE MILLION PESOS (P1,000,000.00) EACH.
In Crim. Case No. 13782-D, judgment is rendered finding the accused MARCELINO COLLADO y Cunanan
and MYRA COLLADO y Senica NOT GUILTY of the crime of violation of Section 6.

In Crim. Case No. 13783-D, finding the accused MARCELINO COLLADO y Cunanan GUILTY of the offense
of violation of Section 11 of R.A. 9165 and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of
imprisonment of TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY to FIFTEEN (15) YEARS.

The accused Marcelino Collado is also ordered to pay a fine of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS
(P300,000.00).

In Crim. Case No. 13784-D, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused MELODY APELO y Roman,
MARK CIPRIANO y Rocero, MARWIN ABACHE y Aquilino, MICHAEL ANGELO SUMULONG y Belarmino,
JAY MADARANG y Gomez, SAMUEL SHERWIN LATARIO y Enrique and REYNALDO RANADA y Alas GUILTY
of the offense of violation of Section 14 of R.A. 9165 and they are hereby sentenced to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of TWO (2) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY to FOUR (4) YEARS
imprisonment. Each of them is also ordered to pay a fine of TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000.00).

Let the shabu and paraphernalia alleged to be the subject[s] of the Information be turned over and
delivered immediately to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper disposition.

SO ORDERED.19nadcralavvonlinelawlibrary

Accused Apelo, Abache, Sumulong and Madarang applied for probation.20 Hence, only Marcelino,
Myra, Cirpriano, Latario and Ranada appealed to the CA.21

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The appellate court found the warrantless arrest of the appellants to be lawful considering that they
were caught in the act of committing a crime.22 Thus, the CA affirmed the conviction of Marcelino and
Myra for violation of Section 5 of RA 9165 (sale of dangerous drugs), as well as the conviction of
Marcelino for violation of Section 11 of RA 9165 (illegal possession of dangerous drugs). Anent the
violation of Section 14 of RA 9165 (possession of drug paraphernalia), the CA affirmed the conviction of
Ranada as he was caught having custody and control of a drug paraphernalia intended for smoking and
injecting illegal drugs into one’s body.23 As regards Cipriano and Latario, as well as the other accused
Apelo, Abache, Sumulong and Madarang, the CA found them guilty not as principals but only as
accessories.

Thus, the appellate court affirmed with modification the trial court’s Decision through a Decision24
dated February 28, 2008, the dispositive portion of which states:cralavvonlinelawlibrary

WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision is AFFIRMED with respect to the conviction and imposition of the
respective penalties against the following: (A) appellants Marcelino Collado and Myra Collado in Crim.
Case No. 13781-D25 for violation of Section 5, Article II, RA No. 9165; (B) appellant Marcelino Collado in
Crim. Case No. 13783-D for violation of Section 11, Article II, RA No. 9165; (C) appellant Reynaldo
Ranada in Crim. Case No. 13784-D for violation of Section 14, Article II, RA No. 9165.

In Crim. Case No. 13784-D, MODIFICATION is hereby ordered as to appellants Mark Cipriano and
Samuel Sherwin Latario, including co-accused Melody Apelo, Marwin Abache, Michael Angelo Sumulong
and Jay Madarang – insofar as they were found GUILTY, not as principals, but as ACCESSORIES in the
offense of violation of Section 14, Article II of RA No. 9165, in relation to the aforecited provision of the
Revised Penal Code. Each of them shall suffer the straight penalty of Four (4) Months of arresto mayor.
The fine of Ten Thousand Pesos already imposed by the trial court upon each of them is MAINTAINED.

SO ORDERED.26nadcralavvonlinelawlibrary

Not satisfied, the appellants are now before this Court arguing that irregularities attended their arrest
and detention as well as the procedure in handling the specimen allegedly seized from them. Because
of these, they assert that their guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Our Ruling

The appealed Decision should be affirmed, with modification.

The presumption of regularity in the

performance of official duties must

be upheld in the absence of clear and

convincing evidence to overturn the

same.

Appellants question the validity of the buy-bust operation and point out the following irregularities
which they claim attended its conduct: (1) lack of warrant of arrest; (2) non-compliance with the
procedures laid down under Section 21 of RA 9165; and, (3) the alleged extortion of money from them
by PO2 Noble in exchange for dropping the charges against them. Due to these irregularities, appellants
argue that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties accorded to police officers
does not apply in this case.

Lack of a warrant of arrest

Appellants argue that the arrest, search, and seizure conducted by the police were illegal since it was
not supported by a valid warrant. They thus posit that their right to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures was violated.27

Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court provides for lawful warrantless arrests,
viz:cralavvonlinelawlibrary

Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. -- A peace officer or a private person may, without a
warrant, arrest a person:cralavvonlinelawlibrary

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on
personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who escaped from a penal establishment or place
where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped
while being transferred from one confinement to another.

Section 5(a) is what is known as arrest in flagrante delicto. For this type of warrantless arrest to be valid,
two requisites must concur: “(1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he
has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and, (2) such overt act is
done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer.”28 A common example of an arrest in
flagrante delicto is one made after conducting a buy-bust operation.

This is precisely what happened in the present case. The arrest of the appellants was an arrest in
flagrante delicto made in pursuance of Sec. 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. The arrest was effected
after Marcelino and Myra performed the overt act of selling to PO2 Noble the sachet of shabu and
Ranada of having in his control and custody illegal drug paraphernalia. Thus, there is no other logical
conclusion than that the arrest made by the police officers was a valid warrantless arrest since the same
was made while the appellants were actually committing the said crimes.

Moreover, assuming that irregularities indeed attended the arrest of appellants, they can no longer
question the validity thereof as there is no showing that they objected to the same before their
arraignment. Neither did they take steps to quash the Informations on such ground.29 They only raised
this issue upon their appeal to the appellate court. By this omission, any objections on the legality of
their arrest are deemed to have been waived by them.30

Anent their claim of unreasonable search and seizure, it is true that under the Constitution, “a search
and consequent seizure must be carried out with a judicial warrant; otherwise, it becomes unreasonable
and any evidence obtained therefrom shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.”31 This
proscription, however, admits of exceptions, one of which is a warrantless search incidental to a lawful
arrest.32

The arrest of the appellants was lawful. Under Section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, “[a] person
lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or
constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant.” The factual milieu of this
case clearly shows that the search was made after appellants were lawfully arrested. Pursuant to the
above-mentioned rule, the subsequent search and seizure made by the police officers were likewise
valid. Hence, appellants’ claim of unreasonable search and seizure must fail.

Extortion

Appellants aver that PO2 Noble tried to extort money from them in exchange for dropping the drug
charges against them.

The defense of extortion and/or frame-up is often put up in drugs cases in order to cast doubt on the
credibility of police officers. This is a serious imputation of a crime hence clear and convincing evidence
must be presented to support the same. There must also be a showing that the police officers were
inspired by improper motive. In this case, we find such imputation unfounded.

In People v. Capalad,33 this Court held thus:cralavvonlinelawlibrary

Charges of extortion and frame-up are frequently made in this jurisdiction. Courts are, thus, cautious in
dealing with such accusations, which are quite difficult to prove in light of the presumption of regularity
in the performance of the police officers’ duties. To substantiate such defense, which can be easily
concocted, the evidence must be clear and convincing and should show that the members of the buy-
bust team were inspired by any improper motive or were not properly performing their duty. Otherwise,
the police officers’ testimonies on the operation deserve full faith and credit.

Here, aside from Marcelino’s self-serving testimony, appellants’ claim of extortion is not substantiated
by other convincing evidence. Neither was it established during trial that PO2 Noble or the other
members of the buy-bust team were impelled by improper motive. Appellants’ allegation that PO2
Noble and his team arrested them because of Marcelino’s previous misunderstanding with a certain
retired policeman named Rey deserves no credence. No evidence was presented to show any
connection between Rey and the buy-bust team. It was not even shown by the defense who this person
Rey really is. Also, it is highly unlikely that a team of police officers would pursue a surveillance, conduct
a buy-bust operation, and arrest all the accused for a measly P1,000.00 VCD player. In view of these,
appellants’ allegation of extortion and improper motive deserves no credence.

Chain of Custody

Appellants argue that the procedure laid down in Section 21 of RA 9165 was not followed. They
specifically harp on the fact that the confiscated drugs were not photographed and inventoried.
Moreover, they contend that the police officers who handled the seized specimen were not presented
in court to testify on the condition in which they received the said specimen. For the appellants, these
defects constitute a clear break in the chain of custody and, consequently, the prosecution failed to
establish corpus delicti.34

The Court, however, finds this argument unmeritorious.

Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of RA 9165 provides for the custody and disposition of the confiscated
drugs, to wit:cralavvonlinelawlibrary
(1) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately
after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the
accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and
any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy
thereof;

This rule is elaborated in Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165,
viz:cralavvonlinelawlibrary

a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after
seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused
or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or
counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public
official 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 seizure; Provided, further, that non-compliance with
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 of and custody over said items. (Emphasis supplied)

Pursuant to the above-cited provisions, this Court has consistently ruled that the failure of the police
officers to inventory and photograph the confiscated items are not fatal to the prosecution’s cause,35
provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized substance were preserved, as in this case.
Here, PO2 Noble, after apprehending Marcelino and confiscating from him the sachets of shabu,
immediately placed his markings on them. He testified thus:cralavvonlinelawlibrary

PROSECUTOR PAZ:cralavvonlinelawlibrary

Q: What did you do with that sachet containing white substance that was bought from Marcelino and
the one that you were able to confiscate from him?

A: I put my markings.

Q: What were those markings?

A: MCC-RNN October 9, 2004.36

In the Request for Laboratory Examination37 the seized items were listed and inventoried. After the
conduct of the laboratory examination, Chemistry Report No. D-807-0438 revealed that the contents of
the said sachets tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.

Moreover, it is of no moment that Forensic Chemist Alejandro De Guzman who conducted the
laboratory examination was not presented as a witness. The non-presentation as witnesses of other
persons who had custody of the illegal drugs is not a crucial point against the prosecution.39 There is no
requirement for the prosecution to present as witness in a drugs case every person who had something
to do with the arrest of the accused and the seizure of the prohibited drugs from him.40 To stress, the
implementing rules are clear that non-compliance with the 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 of and custody over said
items.41

Criminal Case No. 13784-D

With regard to Criminal Case No. 13784-D for illegal possession of drug paraphernalia, we find it
imperative to re-examine the findings of both the RTC and the CA.

The RTC’s findings are as follows:cralavvonlinelawlibrary

The evidence for the prosecution clearly shows that certain things or paraphernalia which are fit or
intended [for] smoking shabu were found in the house of the accused Marcelino and Myra Collado on
the same occasion that the said spouses were arrested by the police officers. This fact makes all the
accused without exception liable for violation of Section 14. While it was only Reynaldo Ranada who was
caught having in his possession an item used in smoking marijuana, i.e., a strip of aluminum foil x x x and
nothing was found in the possession of the other accused, this fact nonetheless does not render
Reynaldo Ranada the only person liable for violation of Section 14. [Take note] that the law speaks not
only of possession but also of having under one’s control the paraphernalia intended for smoking. In the
instant case, the paraphernalia were found by the police on top of the table around which the accused
were gathered. Hence, even if the x x x accused other than Ranada did not have in their possession any
of the paraphernalia, it can, however, be said that the paraphernalia found on top of the table were
under their control. x x x42

Thus, the RTC found Ranada, Cipriano, Latario, Apelo Abache, Sumulong and Madarang all equally guilty
of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia.
On appeal, however, the CA found Ranada guilty as principal while Cipriano, Latario, Apelo, Abache,
Sumulong and Madarang were adjudged as accessories only for the crime of illegal possession of drug
paraphernalia. The CA ratiocinated thus:cralavvonlinelawlibrary

On the one hand, we sustain the conviction of Rañada in Crim. Case 13784-D. He was actually caught
having custody and control of the confiscated drug paraphenalia intended for smoking, injecting, etc.
into one’s body. It was also indubitably shown that he failed to present authority to possess the
prohibited articles, much less, an explanation of his possession thereof. However, as regards the other
accused who were seen in the company of Rañada, the evidence of conspiracy against them was
insufficient.

To hold an accused guilty as co-principal by reason of conspiracy, he must be shown to have performed
an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity. Responsibility of a conspirator is not confined
to the accomplishment of a particular purpose of conspiracy but extends to collateral acts and offenses
incident to and growing out of the purpose intended.

It may be that appellants Mark Cipriano and Samuel Sherwin Latario and co-accused Melody Apelo,
Marwin Abache, Michael Angelo Sumulong, Jay Madarang were in close proximity [to] Rañada at the
time and place of the incident. But mere presence at the scene of the crime does not imply conspiracy.
The prosecution failed to show specific overt acts that would link these accused to Ranada’s possession
of the said contrabands. As to why they were there [in] the vicinity of the crime scene was not
explained. They could be mere innocent onlookers although they were aware of the illegality of the
principal’s acts.

In any event, appellants Cipriano and Latario and the rest of the accused cannot be totally exonerated.
[However, we] downgrade their culpability corresponding to their criminal design and participation.
Evidently, they are guilty as accessories who, according to paragraph 1, Article 19 of the Revised Penal
Code, are criminally liable by ‘profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of
the crime’.43

We find that the CA erred in convicting Cipriano, Latario, Apelo, Abache, Sumulong and Madarang as
accessories. As pointed out by Justice Arturo D. Brion:cralavvonlinelawlibrary

“[I]llegal possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs
during parties, social gatherings or meetings under Section 14 of R.A. No. 9165 is a crime of malum
prohibitum, that is, the act is made wrong or evil because there is a law prohibiting it. x x x
Since violation of Section 14 of R.A. No. 9165 is a crime of mala prohibita, the degree of participation of
the offenders is not considered. All who perpetrated the prohibited act are penalized to the same
extent. There is no principal or accomplice or accessory to consider. In short, the degree of participation
of the offenders does not affect their liability, and the penalty on all of them are the same whether they
are principals or merely accomplices or accessories.44

In addition, Section 98 of RA 9165 specifically provides that “[n]otwithstanding any law, rule or
regulation to the contrary, the provisions of the Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3814), as amended, shall
not apply to the provisions of this Act, except in the case of minor offenders. Where the offender is a
minor, the penalty for acts punishable by life imprisonment to death provided herein shall be reclusion
perpetua to death.” It is therefore clear that the provisions of the Revised Penal Code, particularly
Article 19 on Accessories, cannot be applied in determining the degree of participation and criminal
liability of Ranada’s co-accused.

At any rate, this Court is convinced that only Ranada should be held liable for violation of Section 14 of
RA 9165. It is clear that it was only Ranada who was caught having in his possession an aluminum foil
intended for using dangerous drugs.45 As to the other co-accused, namely Apelo, Abache, Cipriano,
Latario, Madarang, and Sumulong, not one drug paraphernalia was found in their possession. The police
officers were only able to find the other drug paraphernalia scattered on top of a table. It is already
established that there was no conspiracy between Ranada and the other co-accused. As the CA
correctly held, mere presence at the scene of the crime does not imply conspiracy.46

PO2 Noble, when placed on the witness stand, only testified as follows:cralavvonlinelawlibrary

A-

While I was checking the item that I bought, I saw several persons inside their house.

Q-

What were these persons doing?

A-

Some were seated, some were standing and there was x x x smoke.

Q-

Where was this smoke coming from?

A-
I did not see where the smoke [was] coming from because some of the persons were blocking [my view].

Q-

About how many persons were inside who were seated and who were standing?

A-

Seven (7).

Q-

Will you tell us if they are male or female or both?

A-

Six (6) male persons and one (1) female.

Q-

What are these persons who were seated inside the house doing?

A-

They were allegedly engaged in drug session.

COURT:

Q-

What do you mean allegedly?

A-

Because there was smoke and I did not see what they were using.

PROSECUTOR PAZ:

Q-

What about those who were standing, what were they doing?

A-

The persons who were standing were looking at the persons who were sitting. I could not see them
clearly because some of them were blocking my view.

Q-

How far were they, those who were seated and those who were standing?

A-

They were close to each other.

Q-
How long did you take a look at these persons inside the house?

A-

Only for a while, only for a glance, sir.47

On the other hand, SPO2 Bernardo Cruz testified that it was only Ranada who was caught holding the
aluminum foil, viz:cralavvonlinelawlibrary

Q-

How about the aluminum foil that you recovered from another?

A-

I saw him holding the strip of aluminum foil, sir.

Q-

So, nothing was confiscated in the person of all other accused except for Ranada?

A-

Yes, sir.48

Therefore, Apelo, Abache, Cipriano, Latario, Madarang, and Sumulong should be acquitted of the charge
of violation of Section 14, RA 9165 on possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus and other
paraphernalia for dangerous drugs.

All told, this Court upholds the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by the
police officers involved in this case. The defense was not able to show by clear and convincing evidence
why the presumption should be overturned. The prosecution, on the other hand, was able to establish
that Marcelino, Myra and Ranada committed the crimes imputed against them, they having been caught
in flagrante delicto. This Court, being convinced that the guilt of Marcelino, Myra, and Ranada have
been proven beyond reasonable doubt, must uphold their conviction.

As to Apelo, Abache, Cipriano, Latario, Madarang, and Sumulong, the Court finds that they should be
acquitted of the offense of violation of Section 14, Article II, RA 9165, since the prosecution was not able
to clearly show specific overt acts that would prove that they were in possession of drug paraphernalia.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is PARTLY GRANTED. The February 28, 2008 Decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02626 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that appellants Mark Cipriano and Samuel
Sherwin Latario, including co-accused Melody Apelo, Marwin Abache, Michael Angelo Sumulong, and
Jay Madarang are hereby ACQUITTED of the crime of violation of Section 14, Article II of Republic Act
No. 9165. They are ordered released unless they are being lawfully held for some other cause.

SO ORDERED.

Carpio, (Chairperson), Brion, Del Castillo, Perez, and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:

* Also referred to as Samuel Sherwin Latorio y Enriquez in some parts of the records.cralawlibrary

** Also referred to as Reynaldo Rañada y Alas in some parts of the records.cralawlibrary

1 CA rollo, pp. 181-207; penned by Associate Justice Magdangal M. De Leon and concurred in by
Associate Justices Rebecca De Guia-Salvador and Ricardo R. Rosario.cralawlibrary

2 Records, pp 201-213; penned by Judge Abraham B. Borreta.cralawlibrary

3 Id. at 1.cralawlibrary

4 Id. at 21.cralawlibrary

5 Id. at 23.cralawlibrary

6 Id. at 26-27.cralawlibrary

7 Id. at 31-41.cralawlibrary
8 TSN, January 6, 2005, p. 5.cralawlibrary

9 Id. at 5-6.cralawlibrary

10 Records, p. 202.cralawlibrary

11 Id. at 150.cralawlibrary

12 TSN, January 6, 2005, p. 10.cralawlibrary

13 Id. at 12.cralawlibrary

14 Chemistry Report No. D-807-04, records, p. 147.cralawlibrary

15 Chemistry Report Nos. DT-692-04 to DT-700-04, id. at 151.cralawlibrary

16 TSN, August 10, 2005, pp. 19-20.cralawlibrary

17 TSN, July 13, 2005, pp. 14-15; TSN, August 10, 2005, p. 16.cralawlibrary

18 Records, pp. 201-213.cralawlibrary

19 Records, pp. 212-213.cralawlibrary

20 Id. at 217-218.cralawlibrary

21 Id. at 216.cralawlibrary

22 Id. at 193-194.cralawlibrary
23 Id. at 204.cralawlibrary

24 CA rollo, pp. 181-207.cralawlibrary

25 See Resolution dated June 11, 2008, id. at 216-217.cralawlibrary

26 Id. at 26.cralawlibrary

27 Id. at 95-98.cralawlibrary

28People v. Judge Laguio, Jr., 547 Phil. 296, 329 (2007).cralawlibrary

29Esquillo v. People, G.R. No. 182010, August 25, 2010, 629 SCRA 370, 382.cralawlibrary

30 Id.cralawlibrary

31 People v. Racho, G.R. No. 186529, August 3, 2010, 626 SCRA 633, 641.cralawlibrary

32 Id.cralawlibrary

33 G.R. No. 184174, April 7, 2009, 584 SCRA 717, 727 citing People v. Bayani, G.R. No. 179150, June 17,
2008, 554 SCRA 741, 753 and People v. Naquita, G.R. No. 180511, July 28, 2008, 560 SCRA 430,
454.cralawlibrary

34Rollo, p. 44.cralawlibrary

35 People v. Campos, G.R. No. 186526, August 25, 2010, 629 SCRA 462, 467.cralawlibrary
36 TSN, January 6, 2005, p. 15.cralawlibrary

37 Records, p. 17-18.cralawlibrary

38 Id. at 19.cralawlibrary

39People v. Padua, G.R. No. 174097, July 21, 2010, 625 SCRA 220, 235.cralawlibrary

40 People v. Habana, G.R. No. 188900, March 5, 2010, 614 SCRA 433, 438.cralawlibrary

41 Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No.
9165.cralawlibrary

42 Records, pp. 211-212.cralawlibrary

43 CA rollo, p. 204. Citation omitted.cralawlibrary

44 Citing Boado, Notes and Cases on the Revised Penal Code, 2008 edition.cralawlibrary

45 Records, p. 211.cralawlibrary

46 CA rollo, p. 204, Citation omitted.cralawlibrary

47 TSN, January 6, 2005, pp. 12-13.cralawlibrary

48 TSN, June 22, 2005, pp. 4-5.

G.R. No. 218402, February 14, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RAMIL GALICIA Y
CHAVEZ, Accused-Appellants.

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 218402, February 14, 2018

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RAMIL GALICIA Y CHAVEZ, Accused-Appellants.

DECISION

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

This resolves the appeal filed by Ramil Galicia y Chavez (appellant) assailing the March 22, 2013
Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR H.C. No. 04637 which affirmed the December 19,
2007 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 154, in Criminal Case Nos. 14821-
D, 14822-D, 14823-D, and 14824-D finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections
6, 11, 12, and 15, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

Appellant was charged with violation of Sections 6, 11, l 2, and 15, Article II of RA 9165 allegedly
committed as follows:

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 14821-D

(For violation of Section 6, Article II, RA 9165)

That on or about February 10, 2006, in the City of Pasig, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above named accused, without any lawful authority, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously maintain a drug den located at the compound along F. Soriano Street,
Barangay Palatiw, Pasig City, where dangerous drugs and/ or controlled precursors and essential
chemicals arc administered, delivered, stored for illegal purposes, distributed, sold, or used in any form,
in violation of the above-cited law.

CONTRARY TO LAW.3

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 14822-D

(For violation of Section 11, Article II, RA 9165)

That on or about February 10, 2006, in the City of Pasig, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not having been lawfully authorized to possess or
otherwise use any dangerous drugs, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, feloniously, and knowingly
have in his possession, custody, and control the following:
 a) 0.16 [gram] 'RLB-1'

b) 0.15 [gram] 'RLB-2'

c) 0.15 [gram] 'RLB-3'

d) 0.13 [gram] 'RLB-4'

e) 0.11 [gram] 'RLB-5'

f) 0.19 [gram] 'RLB-6'

g) 0.11 [gram] 'RLB-7'

h) 0.15 [gram] 'RLB-8'

totalling 1.15 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride. commonly known as 'shabu' a dangerous

drug, and twenty (20) unsealed transparent plastic sachets and four (4) aluminum foils (specimen J [RLB-
10], specimen L [RLB-12], specimen M [RLB-13], specimen Q [RLB-17]), each containing traces of 'shabu'
in violation of the above-cited law.

CONTRARY TO LAW.4

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 14823-D

(For violation of Section 15, Article II, RA 9165)

That on or about February 10, 2006, in the City of Pasig, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there, willfully, unlawful1y. knowingly, and
feloniously use, sniff, inhale, or introduce to [his] body, in any manner, methamphetamine
hydrochloride commonly known as 'shabu', a dangerous drug, in violation of the aforecited law.

Contrary to law.5

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 14824-D

(For violation of Section 12, Article II, RA 9165)

That on or about February 10, 2006, in the City of Pasig, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, feloniously, and
knowingly have in his possession, custody, and control the following, to wit:

a) One (1) digital Tanika black weighing scale

b) One (1) digital Tanika blue weighing scale

c) Seven (7) disposable lighters and

d) Four (4) stainless scissors

e) Five (5) improvised aluminum tooters

which are fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, ingesting, or introducing any
dangerous drug into the body, in violation of the above-cited law.

CONTRARY TO LAW.6

Appellant pleaded not guilty to the offenses charged. Joint trial on the merits followed.

Version of the Prosecution

Arnel Tugade (Tugade), a camera man of the television program "Mission X," received an anonymous
call regarding a shabu tiangge inside the Mapayapa compound along F. Soriano Street, Pasig City where
there was rampant selling and use of shabu. Tugade verified the tip by bringing a camera in the
compound where he conducted an undercover surveillance and filmed the drug-related activities he
witnessed inside the said compound.

On January 30, 2006, Tugade went to the oft1ce of the Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Force
(AIDSOTF) to report the rampant selling and use of shabu within the said compound. Tugade showed the
PNP Chief Director and other officers of the AIDSOTF a 15 minute video showing several persons selling
and using shabu inside shanties found within the compound.

After watching the surveillance footage, Police Senior Inspector Ismael G. Fajardo, Jr. (P/Insp. Fajardo,
Jr.) was instructed to conduct further surveillance of the activities inside the compound, P/Insp. Fajardo,
Jr. assigned PO2 James Nepomuceno (PO2 Nepomuceno) to accompany Tugade inside the compound to
take another video of the compound and to conduct a test-buy.

On January 31, 2006, PO2 Nepomuceno and Tugade went to the compound and conducted a
surveillance. They were able to take video footage of several persons selling and using shabu inside the
compound. They were also able to conduct a test-buy of shabu worth P300.00. The following day, PO2
Nepomuceno and Tugade conducted another test-buy inside the compound and they were able to buy
P100.00 worth of shabu. Both specimen were submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory fbr examination
and both tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.

After reviewing the results of the laboratory examination, P/Insp. Fajardo, Jr. reported the same to
Superintendent Eduardo Acierto (Supt. Acierto) who, in turn, made his own report to General Marcelo
Ele (Gen. Ele). Gen. Ele verified the findings and ordered an aerial and ground surveillance of the
compound. Further test-buys were again conducted in the area which confirmed the reported rampant
selling and use of shabu therein.

Since the reported selling and use of shabu in the compound were confirmed, Gen. Ele instructed
P/Insp. Fajardo Jr. to apply for a search warrant before the RTC. P/Insp. Fajardo, Jr. applied for a search
warrant and presented PO2 Nepomuceno and Tugade as witnesses. Pictures of persons who were
positively identified as sellers and maintainers of drug dens were submitted along with video footage
taken by Tugade and the rest of the "Mission X" crew showing drug transactions and use of shabu.

On February 9, 2006, Executive Judge Natividad A. Giron-Dizon of the RTC of Quezon City issued Search
Warrant No. 4271(06).7 Gen. Ele was tasked with the supervision and implementation of the search
warrant while Supt. Acierto was the designated ground commander.

On February 10, 2006, around 200 men under the command of Supt. Acierto from the joint forces of the
Philippine National Police (PNP) AIDSOTF, Special Operations Unit (SOU), Special Action Force (SAF),
Traffic Management Group (TMG), and Scene of the Crime Operative (SOCO),joined by members of the
media and representatives from the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), raided the
Mapayapa Compound to serve Search Warrant No. 4271-06 against several persons who were alleged to
have been engaged in selling and possessing dangerous drugs and shabu paraphernalia as well as
maintaining a drug den inside the said compound. More than 300 persons were arrested in the raid, 212
of whom were charged in court for various violations under RA 9165. Appellant was one of the persons
arrested and charged with the following violations: maintenance of a drug den in violation of Section 6,
RA 9165; illegal possession of dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia in violation of Sections 11 and 12
respectively, RA 9165; and use of dangerous drugs in violation of Section 15, RA 9165.
There were numerous shanties inside the compound requiring the raiding team to divide the compound
into different target areas. Assigned to implement the search warrant in Target No. 8 was the team of
PO2 Roberto Beascan8 (PO2 Beascan), SPO2 Roberto Agbalog (SPO2 Agbalog), P/Insp. Ancieto Pertoza9
(P/Insp. Pertoza) and P/Supt. Melecio M. Buslig, Jr. When the team entered the target area, persons
found inside scampered away. P/Insp. Pertoza presented the search warrant to appellant who was then
found inside the shanty designated as Target No. 8. together with his pregnant wife. Appellant
attempted to flee but the team was able to place him under control. The team then proceeded to search
the premises.

Appellant and his wife were inside the shanty during the search. Appellant was sitting in front of a drug
paraphernalia when the team started to conduct its search. In the course of their search, the team
found appellant's driver's license inside a wallet found in the sala. The team discovered that the address
of the appellant as stated in his driver's license was F. Soriano St., Sto. Tomas, Pasig City, which was the
same as the address of Target No. 8. The team likewise noticed that the appellant had a picture of
himself inside the house although the same was not seized since it was not listed in the search warrant.
When interviewed by the team, appellant admitted that he was the owner of Target No. 8 although this
admission was made without the presence of counsel.

In the course of the search, the team was able to find and seize from the appellant plastic sachets
containing crystalline substances, weighing scale, cellphone, assorted lighters, wallet containing dollars
and a few coins, aluminum foil, and assorted cutters and scissors. The seized items were marked and
inventoried in the Receipt of the Property Seized at Target No. 8. The seized items were handled by
SPO2 Agbalog. Appellant was informed of his rights and thereafter arrested. Appellant, along with the
other persons arrested in the compound, were then brought to Camp Crame.

Meanwhile, the seized items were forwarded to the PNP Crime Laboratory where results yielded
positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. Likewise, Forensic Chemist P/Insp. Angel Timario
reported that the urine sample taken from appellant tested positive for the presence of dangerous
drugs.

Version of the Defense

For his defense, appellant claimed that in the morning of February 10, 2006, he was with his pregnant
wife on their way to a hospital for a check-up. They were about to board a tricycle when men in uniform
who looked like soldiers stopped them and ordered them to inside the Mapayapa Compound.

Inside the compound, appellant was ordered to join a group of men who were arrested and were lying
face down on the ground. His wife was brought to an area inside the compound where she joined
several other females who were also arrested. They were all brought to Camp Crame and were
thereafter processed and were charged with various violations under RA 9165.

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

On December 19, 2007, the RTC of Pasig City, Branch 154 rendered judgment finding appellant guilty as
charged. The RTC was convinced that the prosecution, through the testimonies of the arresting officers
who conducted the search, was able to establish the guilt of appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

The dispositive portion of the RTC's Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

In the cases for violation of Section 6, R.A. 9165 (maintenance of a den)

xxxx

The accused Rosalino Babao and Ramil Galicia are hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
violation of Section 6 of R.A. 9165 and they are hereby sentenced to suffer life imprisonment; they are
also ordered to pay a fine of P1,000,000.00 EACH.

xxxx

In the cases for violation of Section 11 of R.A. 9165 (possession of dangerous drugs)

The following accused are hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the charge of possession of
dangerous drugs as charged against them in the information to wit:

Ronnie Catubig Crim. Case No. 14618-D

Aiko Escullar Crim. Case No. 14621-D

Ramil Galicia Crim. Case No. 14822-D and

Roy Bohol Montefero Crim. Case No. 14617-D

and each of them is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS and
ONE (1) DAY to TWENTY (20) YEARS of imprisonment.

xxxx

Each of them is also ordered to pay a fine of P400,000.00

In the cases for violation of Section 12 of R.A. 9165 (possession of drug paraphernalia)

The accused ROSALINO BABAO, RAMIL GALICIA and ABUBACAR MAUNA SALIC are hereby found GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 12 of R.A. 9165 (possession of drug paraphernalia).
They are hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of ONE (1) YEAR and
ONE (1) DAY to THREE (3) YEARS of imprisonment.

Each of them is also ordered to pay a fine of P10,000.00

xxxx

In the cases for violation of Section 15 of R.A. 9165 (use of dangerous drugs)

The following accused are hereby found GUILTY, it being established beyond reasonable doubt after a
confirmatory test that they used dangerous drugs (shabu/marijuana), to wit:

xxxx

20. Ramil Galicia - Crim. Case No. 14823-D

xxxx

They are hereby ordered to undergo rehabilitation in a government rehabilitation center for a period of
ONE (1) YEAR or until they are fully cured/rehabilitated.
xxxx

SO ORDERED.10

Aggrieved by the RTC's Decision, appellant appealed to the CA.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

On March 22, 2013, the CA affirmed the RTC's Decision and held as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated 19 December 2007 issued by the Regional Trial
Court of Pasig City, Branch 154, in Criminal Case Nos. 14821-D, 14822-D, 14823[-D], and 14824[-D] is
hereby AFFIRMED

SO ORDERED.11

Dissatisfied with the CA's Decision, and after denial of his Motion for Reconsideration, appellant filed a
Notice of Appeal12 dated December 19, 2014 manifesting his intention to appeal the CA Decision to this
Court.

Issue

The issue in this case is whether appellant is guilty of maintenance of a drug den, illegal possession of
dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia, and use of dangerous drugs. According to appellant, the RTC
erroneously convicted him in view of the fact that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt in all the offenses charged.

Our Ruling

The appeal is partly meritorious.

In Criminal Case No. 14821-D, the prosecution failed to prove that appellant was guilty of maintenance
of a drug den.
Appellant was charged with maintenance of a drug den in violation of Section 6, Article II of RA 9165
which provides:

SEC. 6. Maintenance of a Den, Dive or Resort. - 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 or group of persons who shall maintain a den, dive or resort where any
dangerous drug is used or sold in any form.

The penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a
fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person or group of persons who shall maintain a den, dive, or
resort where any controlled precursor and essential chemical is used or sold in any form.

The maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed in every case where any
dangerous drug is administered, delivered or sold to a minor who is allowed to use the same in such a
place.

Should any dangerous drug be the proximate cause of the death of a person using the same in such den,
dive or resort, the penalty of death and a fine ranging from One million (P1,000,000.00) to Fifteen
million pesos (P15,000,000.00) shall be imposed on the maintainer, owner and/or operator.

If such den, dive or resort is owned by a third person, the same shall be confiscated and escheated in
favor of the government: Provided, That the criminal complaint shall specifically allege that such place is
intentionally used in the furtherance of the crime: Provided, further, That the prosecution shall prove
such intent on the part of the owner to use the property for such purpose: Provided, finally, That the
owner shall be included as an accused in the criminal complaint.

The maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed upon any person who organizes,
manages or acts as a 'financier' of any of the illegal activities prescribed in this Section.

The penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years of imprisonment and a fine ranging
from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall
be imposed upon any person, who acts as a 'protector/coddler' of any violator of the provisions under
this Section.

A drug den is defined under Section 3(l) of RA 9165 as follows:

(1) Den, Dive or Resort. - A place where any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential
chemical is administered, delivered, stored for illegal purposes, distributed, sold or used in any form.

For an accused to be convicted of maintenance of a drug den, the prosecution must establish with proof
beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is maintaining a den where any dangerous drug is
administered, used, or sold. It must be established that the alleged drug den is a place where dangerous
drugs are regularly sold to and/or used by customers of the maintainer the den. As correctly pointed out
by the appellate court:

To convict an accused under this section, the prosecution must show that the place he is maintaining is a
den, dive, or resort where dangerous drug is used or sold in any form. Hence, two things must be
established, thus: (a) that the place is a den - a place where any dangerous drug and/or controlled
precursor and essential [chemical] is administered, delivered, stored for illegal purposes, distributed,
sold, or used in any form; (b) that the accused maintains the said place. Hence, it is not enough that the
dangerous drug or drug paraphernalia were found in the place. More than a finding that dangerous drug
is being used thereat, there must also be a clear showing that the accused is the maintainer or operator
or the owner of the place where the dangerous drug is used or sold.13 (Emphasis supplied)

In this case however, the evidence relied upon by the RTC to convict the appellant of maintenance of a
drug den consists of the following: (1) existence of drug paraphernalia inside the shanty known as Target
No. 8; (2) the appellant's driver's license allegedly found in the living room; and (3) appellant's picture
found inside the shanty.14

The prosecution presented the testimonies of PO2 Beascan and SPO3 Agbalog to establish that
appellant was maintaining a drug den. They testified that when they served the search warrant for
Target No. 8, they saw drug paraphernalia inside the shanty, appellant's driver's license and picture. PO2
Beascan narrated as follows:

[PROSEC. TOLENTINO:]

Q:

When you searched the area, what did you find out?

A:

[W]hen we searched target no. 8, we found some plastic sachets containing crystallin; substance,
weighing scale, cell[ph]one, assorted lighters, wallet containing dollars and some coins.

xxxx

Q:

And after these items were seized, what did you do with the person with whom you presented the
search warrant?

A:
We told him his rights.

Q:

You mean to tell us you arrested him?

A:

Yes, sir.

Q:

What did you do next?

A:

We proceeded to our office, sir.

Q:

And to whom did you turn over the person of Ramil Galicia?

A:

To our office, sir[,]

Q:

By th way, how did you corne to know his name?

A:

By virtue of the ID we recovered from the target area, sir.

Q:

What kind of ID was that?

A:

Driver's license. sir.

Q:

Where did you find that driver's license?

A:

Inside the target area, sir.

Q:

In what part of the target area?

A:

In a small living room, sir.

Q:

What else did you find in that target area no. 8?

A:

Weighing scale, drug, aluminum foil.15

During cross examination, PO2 Beascan added:

Q:

Now, Mr. Witness, during the time that you implemented the search warrant, you also said that you
found specifically among others the driver's license of the accused Ramil Galicia. Where exactly did you
find that driver's license?

A:

It is contained in a wallet, sir.

Q:

[W]here did you find that wallet containing the driver's license?

A:

In the sala, sir.

Q:

Were you able to see for yourself the driver's license?

A:

Yes, sir.

xxxx

Q:

What was the address indicated in the driver's license?

A:

I cannot recall the address, sir.

Q:

Is it the same address as the address where you implemented the search warrant?

A:

No, sir.

xxxx
Q:

So you are not sure if the address indicated in the driver's license is the same address as the one written
on the search warrant you implemented as F. Soriano street?

A:

I am not sure, sir.

xxxx

Q:

Since you are not surre whether the accused is really the owner of that target no. 8 because your only
connection to this mutter is the driver's license, [is it] also possible that the accused is only a visitor?

A:

No, sir, because he has a picture inside the house.16

After scouring through the records of the case, the Court finds that the prosecution failed to clearly
establish that the appellant was guilty of violation of maintenance of a drug den. From ihe testimonies
of the arresting officers, it is clear that the prosecution failed to establish that the shanty where
appellant was found was a place where dangerous drugs were sold or used. The prosecution's witnesses
merely testified that when they entered Target No. 8, they found drug paraphernalia inside the shanty
and sachets of crystalline substance in the person of the appellant. The prosecution failed to allege and
prove an essential element of the offense - that dangerous drugs were being sold or used inside the
shanty located at Target No, 8. What was clear was that appellant was caught in possession of shabu
and drug paraphernalia. There was nothing in evidence that would indicate that the arresting officers
saw that dangerous drugs were being sold and/or used at Target No. 8 in the course of the search of the
premises. Since there was no evidence that dangerous drugs were sold and/or used in the shanty
located at Target No. 8, appellant may not be held liable for violation of Section 6, Article II, RA 9165 on
maintenance of a drug den.

Moreover, the Court is not convinced that the appellant's driver's license and picture allegedly found
inside the shanty can serve as a valid basis for convicting him of maintenance of a drug den. First, these
items do not prove that the shanty was being used as a drug den. The driver's license and picture only
bolster the allegation of appellant's ownership or occupation of the shanty. It did not establish the fact
that the shanty was a drug den. Second and more importantly, these items were not offered in evidence
and were not part of the records of the case. The arresting officers testified that they did not seize the
driver's license and picture because the search warrant they enforced only authorized them to
confiscate dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia. Consequently, the Court will not convict an accused
based on evidence that does not appear on the record of the case. Mere assumptions or conjectures
cannot substitute the required quantum of evidence in criminal prosecution.
An accused enjoys the presumption of innocence enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Proof beyond
reasonable doubt is the quantum of evidence required to sustain appellant's conviction of maintenance
of a drug den. Based on all the foregoing, the Court is constrained to acquit the appellant of violation of
Section 6, Article II, RA 9165 for insufliciency of the prosecution's evidence.

Use of dangerous drugs is absorbed by illegal possession of drugs.

Section 15, Article II, RA 9165 on use of dangerous drugs, provides:

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.

It is clear from the above that the Section 15 does not apply when a person charged with violation of
Section 15, Article II, RA 9165 on use of dangerous drugs, is also found to have possession of such
quantity of drugs provided under Section 11 of the same law. This means that appellant may not be
charged separately of violation of Section 11 on illegal possession of dangerous drugs and of Section 15
on use of dangerous drug since it is clear from the above that the provisions of Section 11 shall apply.
Illegal possession of dangerous drugs absorbs the use of dangerous drugs. This is especially true in this
case since appellant was not caught in the act of using drugs. Instead he was caught in the act of
possessing drugs and drug paraphernalia. For this reason, the Court dismisses Criminal Case No. 14823-
D against appellant on use of dangerous drugs as the same is absorbed by Section 11 on illegal
possession of dangerous drugs.

Appellant is guilty of illegal possession of dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia.

Appellant was charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs after being caught whh eight sachets
of shabu with a total amount of 1.15 grams in his possession. Likewise, appellant was charged with
illegal possession of drug paraphernalia for having possession of seven disposable lighters, five
improvised aluminum foil tooters, four sheets aluminum foil, and two weighing scales. The relevant
provisions of the law provides as follows:

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:

(1) 10 grams or more of opium;

(2) 10 grams or more of morphine;

(3) 10 grams or more of heroin;

(4) 10 grams or more of cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride;

(5) 50 grams or more of methamphetamine hydrochloride or 'shabu';

(6) 10 grams or more of marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil;

(7) 500 grams or more of marijuana; and

(8) 10 grams or more of other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to,
methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) or 'ecstasy', paramethoxyamphetamine (PMA),
trimethoxyamphetamine (TMA), lysergic acid diethylamine (LSD), gamma hydroxybutyrate (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, as determined and
promulgated by the Board in accordance to Section 93, Article XI of this Act.

Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be graduated
as follows:

(1) Life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five
hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), if the quantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride or 'shabu' is
ten (10) grams or more but less than fifty (50) grams;
(2) Imprisonment 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), if the quantities
of dangerous drugs are five (5) grams or more but less than ten (10) 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
three hundred (300) grams or more but less than five hundred (500) grams of marijuana; and

(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.

Section 12. Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous
Drugs. - The penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and a
fine ranging from Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) to Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) shall be
imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess or have under his/her control
any equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming,
administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body: Provided, That in
the case of medical practitioners and various professionals who are required to carry such equipment,
instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia in the practice of their profession, the Board shall
prescribe the necessary implementing guidelines thereof.

The possession of such equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia fit or intended for
any of the purposes enumerated in the preceding paragraph shall be prima facie evidence that the
possessor has smoked, consumed, administered to himself, injected, ingested or used a dangerous drug
and shall be presumed to have violated Section 15 of this Act.

SPO2 Agbalog testified that he confiscated the eight sachets of shabu from the appellant whom he
identified in open court. His testimony was, as follows:

Q:

And with these seized items [which] specially contains this plastic sachet, 8 packs containing crystalline
substance upon seizing the same or confiscating the same at Target No. 8, what did you do?

A:
I turned it over to Robert Biascan, sir.

Q:

And what did this police officer do after you have turned it over to him?

A:

He made the markings, sir.

Q:

I am showing to you a plastic sachet, brown envelop will you please go over the same and tell us what is
this in relation to this plastic sachet containing this shabu that you have found in Target No. 8?

A:

These are the same items that we have confiscated, sir.

Q:

And those were confiscated from where, Mr. Witness?

A:

From the accused Ramil Galicia, sir.

Q:

Where, from the person or in the place?

A:

From the person of the accused, sir.

xxxx

Q:

What were the items that you have confiscated from the accused?

A:

These items, sir. These 8 plastic sachets, sir.17

With regard to the alleged drug paraphetnalia found in the possession of appellant, PO2 Beascan
testified that aside from the plastic sachets of shabu, they also found drug paraphernalia consisting of
aluminum foil used for heating shabu, improvised aluminum foil tooters used for inhaling the smoke
emitted when shabu is heated, disposable lighters, and weighing scales.

The Court finds that the prosecution sufllciently established appellant's possession of drugs and drug
paraphernalia, Both PO2 Beascan and SPO3 Agbalog categorically declared that they found the drugs
and the drug paraphernalia in the possession of the appellant during the course of the implementation
of the search warrant.

Chain of custody of the seized drugs and drug paraphernalia.

With regard to the alleged failure of the police officers to comply with the procedure required in the
seizure of drugs, the records show that the prosecution was able to establish an unbroken chain of
custody over the seized drugs - from the seizure and confiscation of the shabu up to the delivery of the
same to the crime laboratory and presentation in Court. As correctly held by the CA, the police officer
properly preserved the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items when SPO2 Agbalog and PO2
Beascan seized and marked the sachets of shabu with the markings "RLB-1 to RLB-8" and "RLB-9-RLB17"
for the aluminum foil tooters. Thereafter, the items were inventoried under the Receipt of

Property Seized.18 PO2 Beascan then delivered the items to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination.
In the Initial Laboratory Report No. D-122-06 dated February 11, 2006 by Forensic Chemist P/Insp.
Alejandro C. De Guzman, "RLB-1" to "RLB-8" as well as the aluminum foil tooters marked as "RLB-10",
"RLB-12", "RLB-13", and "RLB-17" tested positive for the presence of Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride.19 Finally, the same sachets and aluminum foil tooters were presented and turned over
to the court where SPO2 Agbalog declared that the said items were the same items that were seized
from the appellant.

The failure of the prosecution to present the forensic chemist to testify on how the seized items were
handled and taken into custody is not fatal to the admissibility of the seized drugs and its paraphernalia.
In People v. Padua,20 the Court held:

Further, not all people who came into contact with the seized drugs are required to testify in court.
There is nothing in Republic Act No. 9165 or in any rule implementing the same that imposes such
requirement. As long as the chain of custody of the seized drug was clearly established not to have been
broken and that the prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drugs seized, it is not indispensable
that each and every person who came into possession of the drugs should take the witness stand. x x x

What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
drugs. In this case, the Court upholds the findings of the CA that the shabu and its paraphernalia that
were presented in court were the same items seized from the appellant with its integrity and
evidentiary value uncompromised.

Based on the evidence on record, the Court finds no reason to disturb the findings of the CA in Criminal
Case Nos. 14822-D and 14824-D on illegal possession of dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia.
WHEREFORE, the March 22, 2013 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CR H.C. No. 04637 is
AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:

1. In Criminal Case No. 14821-D for violation of Section 6, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165, appellant
Ramil Galicia y Chavez is ACQUITTED for insufficiency of evidence;

2. Criminal Case No. 14823-D for violation of Section 15, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Sereno, C.J., (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, and Tijam, JJ., concur.

Martires,*J., on official leave.

Endnotes:

* Designated as addition member per October 18, 2017 raffle vice J. Jardeleza who recused due to prior
action as Solicitor General.

1 CA rollo, pp. 352-372; penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion and concurred in by
Associate Justices Vicente S.E. Veloso and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr.

2 Records, pp. 131-215; penned by Judge Abraham B. Borreta.

3 Id. at 1-2.

4 Id. at 32-33.

5 Id. at 35.

6 Id. at 38-39.
7 Id. at 12.

8 Spelled as "Biascan" in some parts of the records.

9 Spelled as "Partosa" in some parts of the records.

10 Id. at 210-215.

11 CA rollo, pp. 371-372.

12 Id. at 405-407.

13 CA rollo, pp. 361-362.

14 Records, pp. 189-190.

15 TSN, March 7, 2007, pp. 2-4.

16 Id. at 8-11.

17 TSN, April 18, 2007, pp. 7-8.

18 Records, pp. 15-16.

19 CA rollo, p. 369. See also records, p. 29.

March 13, 2017////////////////

G.R. No. 214536

MEDEL CORONEL y SANTILLAN, RON ALDO PERMEJO y ABARQUEZ, NESTOR VILLAFUERTE y SAPIN and
JOANNE OLIVAREZ y RAMOS, Petitioners

vs
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent

RESOLUTION

LEONEN, J.:

This resolves the motion for reconsideration of the Resolution dated January 11, 2016 of this Court
denying petitioners' Petition for Review on Certiorari.1 The petition assailed the Court of Appeals
Decision,2 which affirmed the Regional Trial Court Decision3 finding accused-petitioners Medel Coronel
y Santillan (Coronel), Ronaldo Permejo y Abarquez (Permejo), Nestor Villafuerte y Sapin (Villafuerte),
and Joanne Olivarez y Ramos (Olivarez) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Article II, Sections 7
and 15 of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002).

Two (2) Informations were filed before the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 23I,4 alleging that
on or about May I9, 20IO, Coronel, Permejo, Villafuerte, and Olivarez were caught knowingly and
illegally visiting a drug den and using methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu).5

The prosecution's version of events is as follows:

On May I9, 2010, a Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) team meeting for the implementation of
a search warrant6 covering a building at No. I 734 F. Mufioz Street, Tramo Street, Barangay 43, Zone 6,
Pasay City was held.7 The Special Enforcement Group Team Leader of the Metro Manila Regional Office
- Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, IO2 Randy Paragasa (I02 Paragasa), designated IO2 Daniel
Discaya (IO2 Discaya) as the seizing officer, and IOI Jake Edwin Million (IOI Million) and IOI Jayson Albao
(IOI Albao) as the arresting officers.8 The team prepared the pre-operations report form, coordination
form, authority to operate, and inventory of seized property/items form.9

The PDEA team coordinated with a team from the Philippine National Police - Southern Police District in
implementing the search warrant.10 They arrived at the subject building at around 2:00 p.m., knocked
on the door, and announced that they had a search warrant.11 A PDEA agent shouted that somebody
had jumped out the window and the door was forced open with a battering ram.12 IOI Million and IO1
Albao chased down those who jumped out the window.13

Three (3) persons, identified as Olivarez, Erlinda Fetalino, and Benjie Guday, were found inside the
subject building.14 I02 Discaya read to them the contents of the search warrant.15 Coronel, Permejo,
and Villafuerte were apprehended after trying to escape out of the window.16 They were brought back
to the subject building, where the contents of the search warrant was read to them.17 Thereafter,
Barangay Kagawad Oga Hernandez (Barangay Kagawad Hernandez), Herald Santos (Santos), Assistant
City Prosecutor of Pasay City Angel Marcos (Atty. Marcos), and DZAR Sunshine Radio Reporter Jimmy
Mendoza (Mendoza) arrived, and the search was conducted in their presence.18

During the search, the team recovered, among others, transparent plastic sachets, aluminium foils,
containers of white crystalline substance and white powdery residue, disposable lighters, improvised
plastic scoops, a total amount of ₱580.00 in assorted bills, and ₱165.00 in coins.19

Coronel, Permejo, Villafuerte, and Olivarez were arrested and apprised of their constitutional rights.20
The confiscated items were also inventoried, photographed, and marked in their presence, as well as in
the presence of the Barangay officials and the Department of Justice and media representatives.21

The arrested suspects were brought to the PDEA Headquarters for investigation and mandatory drug
testing, together with the seized objects, one of which was identified as shabu. Coronel, Villafuerte,
Permejo, and Olivarez tested positive for shabu.22

The prosecution submitted the following in its formal offer of evidence:

1) Search Warrant No. 4680(10); 2) Joint Affidavit of the Arresting Officers; 3) Pre-Operation Report
dated 19 May 2010; 4) Authority to Operate dated 19 May 201 O; 5) Certificate of Coordination; 6)
Certification from the Barangay; 7) Inventory of the Seized

Property/Items and Receipt of property seized; 8) Pictures of the incident; 9) Request for Laboratory
Examination; 10) Request for Drug Test dated 19 May 2010; 11) Chemistry Report N[o]. PDEA-DTOl0-148
to 153; 12) Booking Sheets and Arrest Reports of [petitioners]; 13) strips of aluminum foils; 14) medicine
box with white residue; [15]) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline
substance; [16]) improvised white plastic scoops; [17]) metal rectangular cash box containing traces of
white crystalline substance; [18]) improvised plastic pipes; [19]) plastic sachets; [20]) plastic tray
containing traces of white crystalline substance; and [21]) silver card boards.23

The defense's version of events is as follows:

Coronel testified that he did not know Permejo, Villafuerte, and Olivarez.24 On May 19, 2010, at around
2:00 p.m., he was looking for a certain Rommel Yabut (Yabut) in Tramo, Pasay to invite him to the
christening of his child.25 Suddenly, there was a commotion, and someone in a shirt that read
"Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency" pointed a gun at him and asked if he was among those being
arrested.26 Coronel responded that he was just looking for someone.27 Another man who appeared to
be the leader of the PDEA team told the man holding the gun that Coronel should be brought with
them.28 Coronel was handcuffed and brought to the drug den.29 He denied being at the drug den out
of his own volition.30

Permejo also testified that he did not know Coronel, Villafuerte, and Olivarez.31 While walking along
Tramo, Pasay from his cousin's place in Zapanta, two (2) armed men approached him, took him to
another alley, and handcuffed him.32 After about an hour, they made him board a van, and took him to
the PDEA office.33

Villafuerte testified that at the time of the incident, he was walking along Tramo with Olivarez, two (2)
men wearing shirts that read "Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency" approached them and forced them
into an alley, where he saw other persons handcuffed.34 After being told to stay put, he and Olivarez
were handcuffed and made to board a van that brought them to the PDEA office.35 At the office, they
were made to sign documents, and brought to detention cells.36

After trial on the merits, the Regional Trial Court found Coronel, Permejo, Villafuerte, and Olivarez guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of violating Article II, Sections 7 and 15 of Republic Act No. 9165. The
dispositive reads:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

a) ACQUITTING the accused BENJIE GUDAY Y MANTILLA, FIDEL BALBOA Y MEMORACION and ERLINDA
FETALINO Y BATICA of the charge of Violation of Section 7, of Republic Act 9165 in Criminal Case No. R-
PSY-10-02059-CR for failure of prosecution's evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt;

b) Finding accused MEDEL CORONEL Y SANTILLAN, RONALDO PERMEJO Y ABARQUEZ, NESTOR

VILLAFUERTE Y SAPIN and JOANNE OLIVAREZ Y RAMOS a.k.a. JOANNE OLIV ARE, guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the charge of Violation of Section 15, Article II, Republic Act [No.] 9165 in Criminal
Case No. RPSY-10-02058-CR and are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of six (6) months
rehabilitation in a government center; [and]
[c] Finding accused MEDEL CORONEL Y SANTILLAN, RONALDO PERMEJO Y ABARQUEZ, NESTOR
VILLAFUERTE Y SAPIN and JOANNE OLIVAREZ Y RAMOS a.k.a. JOANNE OLIV ARE, guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the charge of Violation of Section 7, (Visitors of Den, Dive or Resort) of Republic Act
No. 9165 in Criminal Case No. R-PSY-10-02059[-CR] and are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to fourteen (14) years as maximum and
for each of them to pay a fine of one hundred thousand pesos (Phpl00,000) with subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency.37 (Emphasis in the original)

Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove their
guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

In the Decision dated April 29, 2014, the Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the Regional Trial
Court.38 The dispositive portion reads:

Finally, considering that the penalties imposed upon accused-appellants are all in accord with the
provisions of R.A. No. 9165, more so since they never questioned the same in their Brief, this Court
affirms the imposition of said penalties by the court a quo.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Appeal is DISMISSED. The Joint Decision dated 30
October 2012 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 231 in Criminal Case Nos. R-PSY-010-
02059-CR and R-PSY-010-02058-CR is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.39 (Emphasis in the original)

On November 21, 2014, petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with this Court.40 This Court
denied the petition for lack of merit in its Resolution41 dated January 11, 2016:

WHEREFORE, this court resolves to DENY this Petition for lack of merit. Petitioners Medel Coronel y
Santillan, Ronaldo Permejo y Abarquez, Nestor Villafuerte y Sapin, and Joanne Olivarez y Ramos a.k.a.
Joanne Olivare, are GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the following:

a) violating Article II, Section 15 of Republic Act No. 9165 in Criminal Case No. R-PSY-10-02058-CR and
are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of six (6) months of rehabilitation in a government center;
and
b) violating Article II, Section 7 of Republic Act No. 9165 in Criminal Case No. R-PSY-10-02059-CR and are
hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as
minimum to fourteen (14) years as maximum and for each of them to pay a fine of ₱100,000.00 with
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

SO ORDERED.42

Hence, petitioners have filed this Motion for Reconsideration.43 Petitioners stress that in its Resolution,
this Court did not address the prosecution's failure to establish both a continuous and unbroken chain of
custody of the subject evidence,44 that the house, where petitioners were apprehended, was a drug
den,45 or that petitioners were aware that said house was a drug den and that they visited it
knowingly.46 The Office of the Solicitor General has not commented, but instead has manifested that
the motion for reconsideration was merely a re-pleading of petitioners' prior arguments.47

Contrary to petitioners' claim, the Resolution dated January 11, 2016 sufficiently disposed of the matter
of chain of custody. The requirements under Section 2l(a) of the implementing rules and regulations of
Republic Act No. 9165 were complied with.48 It was established during trial that "there was physical
inventory, marking, and taking of photographs of the seized items."49 This was done in the presence of
petitioners themselves, Barangay Kagawad Hernandez, Santos, Atty. Marcos, and media representative
Mendoza.50 The inventory, which "bore the signature[s] of these witnesses ... was presented and
formally offered as evidence."51 Although forensic chemist Richard Allan Mangalip (Mangalip), who
examined the specimen subject of this case, was not presented, this did not detract from the chain of
custody.52 The defense agreed to stipulate on the competency and qualifications of Mangalip and his
testimony on the examination of the specimen subject of the case.53 It was also stipulated that "the
specimen subject of [the] case marked as Exhibit 'D' for the prosecution was the same item subject of a
request for laboratory examination dated April 16, 2009 marked as Exhibit 'B, "' which was "the same
specimen . . . examined by [Mangalip] as reported in the Physical Science Report No. D-192-09S marked
as Exhibit 'C."'54

The Resolution dated January 11, 2016 also pointed out that in People of the Philippines v. Mali,55 this
Court said that the non-presentation of a forensic chemist during trial would not cause an acquittal in
illegal drug cases.56

However, the issue of whether the prosecution has established that petitioners knowingly visited a drug
den deserves further review.

Section 7 (b) of Republic Act No. 9165 penalizes the act of knowingly visiting a drug den:
Section 7. Employees and Visitors of a Den, Dive or Resort. - The penalty of imprisonment ranging from
twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand
pesos (₱l00,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (₱500,000.00) shall be imposed upon:

(a) Any employee of a den, dive or resort, who is aware of the nature of the place as such; and

(b) Any person who, not being included in the provisions of the next preceding paragraph, is aware of
the nature of the place as such and shall knowingly visit the same.

Before a person may be convicted under the foregoing provision, it must be shown that he or she knew
that the place visited was a drug den, and still visited the place despite this knowledge.

The Court of Appeals relied only on drug test results to conclude that the petitioners were aware of the
nature of the subject house as a drug den:

Contrary to accused-appellants' claim that they had no knowledge of the nature of the drug den, records
reveal otherwise. In the Chemistry Report No. PDEA-DTOI0-148 to 153, the urine specimens taken from
accused-appellants yielded "positive results for the presence of Methamphetamine[.]" Obviously,
accused-appellants cannot claim that they have no knowledge of the nature of said drug den when they
were positively identified by a police officer as present in the premises, and their drug test results
indicate that their urine samples contain Methamphetamine, a dangerous drug. Moreover, it is well-
established that the defense of denial, in the absence of convincing evidence, is invariably viewed with
disfavor by the courts for it can be easily concocted, especially in cases involving the Dangerous Drugs
Act.57 (Emphasis in the original, citations omitted)

Similarly, the Regional Trial Court ratiocinated:

With regard to the charge for Violation of Section 7 of Republic Act No. 9165, to render a verdict of
conviction, it is not enough that the integrity and evidentiary value of the specimen were preserved and
that the presumption of regularity of performance of duties was upheld. It is primordial for the
prosecution to establish the allegation that the accused knowingly visit[ed] a drug den.

….
As for accused Medel Coronel y Santillan, Ronaldo Permejo y Abarquez, Nestor Villafuerte y Sapin and
Joanne Olivarez y Ramos a.k.a. Joanne Olivare, with the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence
preserved, the presumption of regularity in the performance of duties upheld and their respective drug
tests yielding positive results to existence of Methamphetamine, a dangerous drug, the court is
convinced that evidence for the prosecution has established the allegations of the information beyond
reasonable doubt, thus, sustain a verdict of conviction.58

Likewise, respondent claims that the prosecution has established that petitioners knew that the place
was a drug den, based solely on the positive drug test results:

A drug den is a lair or hideaway where prohibited or regulated drugs are used in any form or are found.
Its existence [may be] proved not only by direct evidence but may also be established by proof of facts
and circumstances, including evidence of the general reputation of the house, or its general reputation
among police officers.1âwphi1 The prosecution established that appellants knew that the place is a drug
den. All the appellants in the instant case tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. The drug
tests were conducted right after the appellants were arrested. Taken together, these facts prove that
appellants knowingly visited a drug den on the day the search warrant was implemented.59

Respondent apparently maintains that because the petitioners' drug tests were conducted right after
their arrest, it was proven that drugs were used at the drug den itself. Moreover, the use of drugs at a
drug den automatically implies that the drug users were aware of the nature of the place as a drug den
before visiting it.

This position is untenable.

True, the drug test results sufficiently proved that petitioners had used drugs some time before their
arrest. However, assuming that petitioners were, in fact, at the alleged drug den before their arrest,
there was no showing how long petitioners were at the alleged drug den, or how long the drugs had
been in their system. In other words, there is no basis to assume that petitioners used drugs at the
moment immediately before arrest, and thus, at the location of the arrest.

Assuming that persons who test positive for drugs used them at the place of arrest is not sufficient to
show that they were aware of the nature of the suspected drug den before visiting it, absent any other
circumstantial evidence.
There was no attempt to show that petitioners knew the nature of the alleged drug den, or even that
they used drugs in the premises.1avvphi1 The petitioners were not found to be in possession of any
drugs. When petitioners were arrested, nobody was found "in the act of using, selling or buying illegal
drugs, nor packaging nor hiding nor transporting the same."60 There were no acts alleged or evidence
found, which would tend to show a familiarity with the nature of the place as a drug den.

The crime of knowingly visiting a drug den under Article II, Section 7 of Republic Act No. 9165 carries
with it a minimum penalty of imprisonment of 12 years and one (1) day, and a maximum of 20 years. It
is not to be taken so lightly that its elements can be presumed to exist without any effort to show them.
Given the dearth of evidence in this case, we are constrained to acquit petitioners of this particular
charge.

However, petitioners do not assail the determination that they violated Article II, Section 15 of Republic
Act No. 9165, and this conviction must be sustained.

WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is hereby GRANTED. The January 11, 2016 Resolution of
this Court, and the April 29, 2014 Decision and September 17, 2014 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CR. No. 35399 are SET ASIDE.

The decision of the Regional Trial Court, Pasay City, Branch 231 dated October 30, 2012 is AFFIRMED
with MODIFICATION, and judgment on petitioners Medel Coronel y Santillan, Ronaldo Permejo y
Abarquez, Nestor Villafuerte y Sapin, and Joanne Olivarez y Ramos is rendered as follows:

a) ACQUITTING petitioners of violation of Section 7 of Republic Act No. 9165, for failure of the
prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt; and

b) Finding accused GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the charge of violation of Section 15, Article
II of Republic Act No. 9165 in Criminal Case No. R-PSY-10-02058-CR, and hereby sentencing them to
suffer the penalty of six (6) months of rehabilitation in a government center.

Let a copy of this resolution be furnished to the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City
for immediate implementation.1âwphi1 The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to report
to this Court within five (5) days from receipt of this decision on the action he has taken. Copies shall
also be furnished to the Director General of Philippine National Police and the Director General of
Philippine Drugs Enforcement Agency for their information.
SO ORDERED.

MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ANTONIO T. CARPIO

Associate Justice

Chairperson

DIOSDADO M. PERALTA

Associate Justice JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA

Associate Justice

SAMUEL R. MARTIRES

Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case
was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO

Associate Justice

Chairperson, Second Division

CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to the Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I
certify that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case
was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

Chief Justice

Footnotes

1 Rollo, pp. 13-44.

2 Id. at 112-127. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion and concurred in
by Associate Justices Vicente S.E. Veloso and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela of the Eleventh Division, Court
of Appeals, Manila.

3 Id. at 71-86. The Decision was penned by Presiding Judge Divina Gracia Lopez Pelifio of Branch 231,
Regional Trial Court, Pasay City.

4 Id. at 112.

5 Id. at 71-72.

6 The search warrant was issued by Judge Fernando T. Sagun on May 15, 2010.

7 Rollo, p. 116.

8 Id.

9 Id.
10 Id.

11 Id.

12 Id.

13 Id.

14 Id.

15 Id.

16 Id.

17 Id.

18 Id.

19 Id. at 114-115.

20 Id. at 116.

21 Id.

22 Id.

23 Id. at 117.
24 Id.

25 Id.

26 Id.

27 Id.

28 Id. at 117-118.

29 Id. at 118.

30 Id.

31 Id.

32 Id.

33 Id.

34 Id.

35 Id.

36 Id.

37 Id. at 85-86.

38 Id. at 112-127.
39 Id. at 126.

40 Id. at 13--44.

41 Id. at 147-158.

42 Id. at 15 7.

43 Id. at 159-173.

44 Id. at 163.

45 Id. at 168.

46 Id. at 169.

47 Id.atl75-176.

48 Id. at 155.

49 Id.

50 Id.

51 Id.

52 Id. at 156.
53 Id.

54 Id.

55 723 Phil. 837 (2013) [Per J. Reyes, First Division].

56 Id. at 856-857.

57 Rollo, p. 123.

58 Id. at 84-85.

59 Id. at 99.

60 Id. at 168.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 198452 February 19, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
VICENTE ROM, Accused-Appellant.

DECISION

PEREZ, J.:

On appeal is the Decision1 dated 9 August 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00579
affirming with modification the Decision2 dated 24 June 2002 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu
City, Branch 10, in Criminal Case Nos. CBU-55062, CBU-55063 and CBU-55067, finding herein appellant
Vicente Rom guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 153 (illegal sale of shabu), 15-A4
(maintenance of a drug den) and 165 (illegal possession of shabu), Article III of Republic Act No. 6425,
also known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659.6 In Criminal
Case Nos. CBU-55062 and CBU-55063, for respectively violating Sections 15 and 16, Article III of Republic
Act No. 6425, as amended, the trial court imposed on the appellant the penalty of prision correccional in
its medium period ranging between two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day, as minimum, to four
(4) years and two (2) months, as maximum. While in Criminal Case No. CBU-55067, that is for violating
Section 15-A, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, the trial court sentenced the appellant to
reclusion perpetua and he was likewise ordered to pay a fine of ₱500,000.00. The Court of Appeals,
however, modified and reduced the penalty in Criminal Case Nos. CBU-55062 and CBU-55063 to an
imprisonment of six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of
prision correccional, as maximum, after applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

In three separate Informations7 all dated 1 September 2000, the appellant was charged with violation of
Sections 15, 15-A and 16, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended. The three Informations read:

Criminal Case No. CBU-55062

That on or about the 31st day of August 2000, at about 10:30 P.M. in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, [herein appellant], with deliberate intent and without
being authorized by law, did then and there sell, deliver or give away to a poseur buyer one (1) heat
sealed plastic packet of white crystalline substance weighing 0.03 gram locally known as "shabu",
containing Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a regulated drug.8 (Emphasis and italics supplied).

Criminal Case No. CBU-55063

That on or about the 31st day of August 2000, at about 10:30 P.M., in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, [appellant], with deliberate intent and without being
authorized by law, did then and there have in [his] possession and control or use the following:

Four (4) heat sealed plastic packets of white crystalline substance weighing 0.15 gram locally known as
"shabu", containing Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a regulated drug, without the corresponding
license or prescription.9 (Emphasis and italics supplied).

Criminal Case No. CBU-55067

That on the 31s[t] day of August, 2000, at about 10:30 P.M., in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, [appellant], with deliberate intent, did then and there
knowingly maintain a den for regulated users along the interior portion of Barangay T. Padilla in
violation to (sic) the provision of Sec. 15-A of Art. III of RA 6425.10 (Emphasis supplied).

On arraignment, the appellant, with the assistance of counsel de parte, pleaded NOT GUILTY11 to all the
charges. A pre-trial conference was conducted on 2 April 2001, but no stipulation or agreement was
arrived at.12 The pre-trial conference was then terminated and trial on the merits thereafter ensued.

The prosecution presented as witnesses Police Officer 2 Marvin Martinez (PO2 Martinez), the
designated poseur-buyer; PO3 Franco Mateo Yanson (PO3 Yanson); and Police Senior Inspector Marvin
Sanchez (P/Sr. Insp. Sanchez), the team leader of the buy-bust operation against the appellant. They
were all assigned at the Vice Control Section of the Cebu City Police Office (VCS-CCPO). The testimony,
however, of P/Sr. Insp. Mutchit G. Salinas (P/Sr. Insp. Salinas), the forensic analyst, was dispensed13
with in view of the admission made by the defense as to the authenticity and due existence of Chemistry
Report No. D-1782-200014 dated 1 September 2000 and the expertise of the forensic analyst.

The prosecution’s evidence established the following facts:

Two weeks prior to 31 August 2000, the VCS-CCPO received confidential information from their
informant that alias Dodong, who turned out later to be the appellant, whose real name is Vicente Rom,
was engaged in the illegal sale of shabu and also maintained a drug den at his residence in Barangay T.
Padilla, Cebu City. Thus, the VCS-CCPO, particularly PO2 Martinez, conducted surveillance and
monitoring operation.15
On 31 August 2000, at around 10:15 p.m., P/Sr. Insp. Sanchez, Chief of VCS-CCPO, formed a team to
conduct a buy-bust operation against the appellant. The buy-bust team was composed of PO2 Martinez
(poseur-buyer), Senior Police Officer 1 Jesus Elmer Fernandez (SPO1 Fernandez), PO3 Yanson, PO3
Benicer Tamboboy (PO3 Tamboboy), PO3 Jaime Otadoy (PO3 Otadoy) and P/Sr. Insp. Sanchez (team
leader). Being the designated poseur-buyer, PO2 Martinez was provided with a ₱100.00 peso bill and a
₱10.00 peso bill buy-bust money bearing Serial Nos. AD336230 and AM740786, respectively, and both
were marked with the initials of PO2 Martinez, i.e. "MM." The former amount would be used to buy
shabu while the latter amount would serve as payment for the use of the drug den.16

After the briefing, the buy-bust team proceeded to the target area and upon arrival there at around
10:20 p.m., PO2 Martinez proceeded directly to the appellant’s house, which was earlier pointed to by
their informant, who was also with them during the buy-bust operation. The rest of the buy-bust team
strategically positioned themselves nearby. Once PO2 Martinez reached the appellant’s house, he
knocked on the door, which the appellant opened. PO2 Martinez subsequently told the appellant that
he wanted to buy shabu worth ₱100.00. The appellant looked around to check if PO2 Martinez had a
companion. Seeing none, the appellant took out his wallet from his pocket and got one heat-sealed
plastic packet containing white crystalline substance, later confirmed to be shabu, and gave it to PO2
Martinez. The latter, in turn, gave the ₱100.00 peso bill marked money to the appellant. While this sale
transaction was going on, PO3 Yanson and P/Sr. Insp. Sanchez were only five to eight meters away from
PO2 Martinez and the appellant. P/Sr. Insp. Sanchez clearly witnessed the sale transaction as it
happened right outside the door of the appellant’s house.17

Afterwards, PO2 Martinez told the appellant that he wanted to sniff the shabu, so the latter required
the former to pay an additional amount of ₱10.00 as rental fee for the use of his place. After paying the
said amount, the appellant allowed PO2 Martinez to enter his house. Once inside the house, PO2
Martinez was directed by the appellant to proceed to the room located at the right side of the sala.
Upon entering the said room, PO2 Martinez saw three persons, later identified to be Jose Delloso
(Delloso), Danilo Empuerto (Empuerto) and Arnie Ogong (Ogong), already sniffing shabu.18

Thereupon, PO2 Martinez made a missed call to P/Sr. Insp. Sanchez, which was their pre-arranged
signal, to signify that the whole transaction was consummated. After the lapsed of about 10 to 15
seconds, the rest of the team, who were just few meters away from the appellant’s house, barged in
and identified themselves as police officers. PO2 Martinez then told PO3 Yanson to hold the appellant.
PO3 Yanson grabbed the appellant and made a body search on the latter that led to the recovery of four
heat-sealed transparent plastic packets containing white crystalline substance, which were inside the
appellant’s brown wallet that was tucked in his pocket; the buy-bust money consisting of ₱100.00 peso
bill and ₱10.00 peso bill; and ₱280.00 consisting of two ₱100.00 peso bills, one ₱50.00 peso bill and
three ₱10.00 peso bills believed to be the proceeds of the appellant’s illegal activities. The one heat-
sealed plastic packet of shabu bought by PO2 Martinez from the appellant remained in the possession of
the former.19
The appellant, Delloso, Empuerto and Ogong were informed of their constitutional rights and were later
brought by the buy-bust team to their office, together with the confiscated items, for documentation. At
the office of the buy-bust team, the confiscated items were given to their investigator, SPO1 Fernandez,
who marked the one heat-sealed plastic packet containing white crystalline substance, which was the
subject of the sale transaction, with VRR-8-31-2000-01 (buy-bust) while the other four heat-sealed
plastic packets containing white crystalline substance, which were recovered from the appellant, were
similarly marked with VRR-8-31-2000-02 to VRR-8-31-2000-05. The "VRR" in the markings are the initials
of the appellant, i.e., Vicente Ramonida Rom.20

Thereafter, all the five heat-sealed plastic packets containing white crystalline substance, together with
the Request for Laboratory Examination, were brought by PO3 Yanson to the Philippine National Police
(PNP) Crime Laboratory for chemical analysis, which examination yielded positive results for the
presence of methylamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu,"21 as evidenced by Chemistry Report No. D-
1782-2000.22

For its part, the defense presented the appellant and Teresita Bitos, whose testimonies consist of sheer
denials. Their version of the 31 August 2000 incident is as follows:

At around 10:15 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. of 31 August 2000, the appellant was at the house of his daughter,
Lorena Cochera (Lorena), in Barangay T. Padilla, Cebu City, as Lorena had asked her father to get the
monthly house rental fee from Teresita Bitos, whose nickname is "Nene." While the appellant and Nene
were talking, the police officers suddenly barged in. The appellant noticed that PO2 Martinez proceeded
to the inner portion of the house and opened the door of the rooms. Nene stopped them but the police
officers told her to just keep quiet. The police officers went on opening the door of the two rooms,
where they saw three male persons. The police officers frisked the appellant and the three other men.
The police officers likewise took appellant’s wallet containing ₱360.00. The appellant then requested
Nene to tell his daughter that he was arrested. Thereafter, the police officers brought the appellant and
the three other men to the police station.23

The appellant denied that he sold shabu to PO2 Martinez. He also denied that he was maintaining a drug
den and that he allowed persons to sniff shabu inside the house in Barangay T. Padilla, Cebu City, in
exchange for a sum of money. The appellant likewise denied that he knew the three other men who
were arrested inside the room in the said house. The appellant claimed instead that he knew PO2
Martinez prior to 31 August 2000 because the latter usually stayed at the house to apprehend snatchers.
Also, a week before 31 August 2000, he and PO2 Martinez had a conversation and he was asked to
pinpoint the "fat fish," which is the code for the big time pusher. When he said that he does not know of
such pusher, PO2 Martinez got angry. The appellant maintained that on 31 August 2000, he was no
longer living in the house in Barangay T. Padilla, Cebu City, as his daughter had already brought him to
Minglanilla, Cebu, as early as July 1999. On the said date, Nene was already occupying the house and
had subleased one of its rooms as his daughter Maya told him so. The appellant admitted that a year
prior to 31 August 2000, and before he transferred to Minglanilla, he was apprehended for illegal
possession of shabu.24

The narration of the appellant was corroborated by Nene on all material points.

Testifying on rebuttal, PO2 Martinez denied that he knew the appellant prior to 31 August 2000. PO2
Martinez clarified that he came to know the appellant only on the night that they conducted the buy-
bust operation.25

Finding the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses to be credible, competent and convincing as they
were able to satisfactorily prove all the elements of the offenses charged against the appellant, the trial
court, in its Decision dated 24 June 2002, held the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation
of Sections 15, 15-A and 16, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended. The trial court disposed of
the case as follows:

IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING CIRCUMSTANCES, the Court finds the [herein appellant] for –

1) Criminal Case No. CBU-55062, for violating Section 15, Article III, Republic Act No. 6425, as amended,
GUILTY. There being no mitigating nor any aggravating circumstance proven, the Court hereby imposes
the penalty of PRISION CORRECCIONAL in the MEDIUM PERIOD ranging between TWO (2) YEARS, FOUR
(4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY, as minimum[,] to FOUR (4) YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS, as maximum;

2) Criminal Case No. CBU-55063, for violating Section 16, Article III, Republic Act No. 6425, as amended,
GUILTY. In the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance, the Court imposes the penalty of
PRISION CORRECCIONAL in the MEDIUM PERIOD ranging between TWO (2) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS
and ONE (1) DAY, as minimum to FOUR (4) YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS, as maximum; and

3) Criminal Case No. CBU-55067, for violating Section 15-A, Article III, Republic Act No. 6425, as
amended, GUILTY. The court hereby imposes upon the [appellant] the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA
and a FINE of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND (₱500,000.00) PESOS.

The five (5) heat-sealed plastic packets of white crystalline substance containing methylamphetamine
hydrochloride, locally known as shabu, are hereby CONFISCATED in favor of the government and shall be
destroyed in accordance with the law prohibiting said drug.26 (Emphasis, italics and underscoring
supplied).

The appellant appealed the trial court’s Decision to this Court via Notice of Appeal.27 However,
pursuant to this Court’s decision in People v. Mateo,28 the case was transferred to the Court of Appeals
for intermediate review.

On 9 August 2010, the Court of Appeals rendered the now assailed Decision affirming with modification
the ruling of the trial court. Its decretal portion reads, thus:

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Decision of the RTC, Branch 10, Cebu City in Criminal Cases
No. CBU-55062, CBU-55063 and CBU-55067 is hereby AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION concerning
Criminal Cases No. CBU-55062 and CBU-55063, for which [the herein appellant] is sentenced to suffer
the penalty of imprisonment from six months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four years and two
months of prision correccional, as maximum of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.29

The Court of Appeals upheld the conviction of the appellant on all the charges against him as the
prosecution was able to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt since all the essential elements of
illegal sale and possession of shabu were duly proven by the prosecution. As to the charge of
maintaining a drug den, the same was also established by the fact that PO2 Martinez himself paid
₱10.00 to sniff the shabu in one of the rooms of the appellant’s house. The appellant’s denial, therefore,
cannot prevail over the evidence hurled against him.

The Court of Appeals, however, deemed it necessary to modify the penalty in Criminal Case Nos. CBU-
55062 and CBU-55063. It explained that the sale of less than 200 grams of shabu is punishable with a
penalty ranging from prision correccional to reclusion temporal, depending on the quantity. In this case,
the quantity of shabu illegally sold to the poseur-buyer by the appellant was 0.03 gram. Pursuant to the
second paragraph of Section 20,30 Article IV of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, the proper penalty
to be imposed for the illegal sale of 0.03 gram of shabu would be prision correccional. Also, in this case,
the appellant had in his possession 0.15 gram of shabu, which is punishable also with imprisonment of
prision correccional. Thus, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the appellant must be sentenced
to an imprisonment of six months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four years and two months of
prision correccional, as maximum, in Criminal Case No. CBU-55062, as well as in Criminal Case No. CBU-
55063.31

Still unsatisfied, the appellant appealed the Court of Appeals’ Decision to this Court via Notice of
Appeal.32
Both the appellant and the Office of the Solicitor General manifested33 that they would no longer file
their respective supplemental briefs as the issues have already been fully discussed in their respective
appeal briefs34 with the Court of Appeals.

The appellant’s assignment of errors as stated in his Appellant’s Brief are as follows:

I. The Regional Trial Court erred in convicting the [herein appellant] notwithstanding the inherent
incredibility of evidence for the prosecution;

II. The Regional Trial Court gravely erred in allowing the evidence of the prosecution despite the
indubitable evidence that the [appellant] i[s] innocent of the crime[s] charged; [and]

III. The Regional Trial Court erred in convicting the [appellant] in spite of the failure of the prosecution to
prove the guilt of the [appellant] beyond reasonable doubt.35

The appellant avers that the testimony of the poseur-buyer was absurd, illogical, contrary to reason and
highly incredible for no person who is engaged in an illegal transaction would leave the door of the
house open after such transaction. Moreover, no person would sell shabu to a buyer when he knew all
along that the said buyer was a police officer as it was ridiculous to expose oneself to the danger of
being caught and arrested.

The appellant similarly holds that the entry in the house was illegal and there was certainly no
transaction that took place therein. The search and the seizure made in connection thereto were also
invalid. Thus, the pieces of evidence allegedly obtained by the police officers were inadmissible for being
the "fruit of a poisonous tree." The same cannot be used against him in violation of his rights.

The appellant believes that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt as their
testimonies as to the facts and circumstances surrounding the case were contrary to human conduct,
especially with regard to the allegation that he knowingly maintained a drug den, since he was no longer
the owner of the house, which was the subject of the search, and he did not live there anymore.

The appellant’s contentions are devoid of merit.

In essence, the issues in this case hinge on the credibility of the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses.

It is a fundamental rule that findings of the trial court which are factual in nature and which involve the
credibility of witnesses are accorded with respect, more so, when no glaring errors, gross
misapprehension of facts, and speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from
such findings. The reason behind this rule is that the trial court is in a better position to decide the
credibility of witnesses having heard their testimonies and observed their deportment and manner of
testifying during the trial.36 The rule finds an even more stringent application where the trial court’s
findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals.37

After a careful perusal of the records, this Court finds no cogent or compelling reason to overturn the
findings of both lower courts, which were adequately supported by the evidence on record.

To secure a conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu, the following essential elements
must be duly established: (1) identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2)
the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.38 Succinctly, the delivery of the illicit drug to
the poseur-buyer, as well as the receipt of the marked money by the seller, successfully consummates
the buy-bust transaction. Hence, what is material is the proof that the transaction or sale transpired,
coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence.39

In the case at bench, the prosecution was able to establish the above-enumerated elements beyond
moral certainty. The prosecution witnesses adequately proved that a buy-bust operation actually took
place on which occasion the appellant was caught red-handed giving one heat-sealed plastic packet
containing white crystalline substance to PO2 Martinez, the poseur-buyer, in exchange for ₱100.00. PO2
Martinez, being the poseur-buyer, positively identified the appellant in open court to be the same
person who sold to him the said one-heat sealed plastic packet of white crystalline substance for a
consideration of ₱100.00,40 which when examined was confirmed to be methylamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu per Chemistry Report No. D-1782-2000 issued by P/Sr. Insp. Salinas, Head,
Chemistry Branch, PNP Regional Crime Laboratory Office 7. Upon presentation thereof in open court,
PO2 Martinez duly identified it to be the same object sold to him by the appellant as it had the marking
"VRR-8-31-2000 (buy-bust)," which SPO1 Fernandez had written thereon in their presence.41 This
testimony of PO2 Martinez was corroborated by P/Sr. Insp. Sanchez, who was just five to eight meters
away from the former and the appellant during the sale transaction.42

Evidently, the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt the appellant’s guilt for the offense
of illegal sale of shabu in violation of Section 15, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended.
We already had occasion to show the unacceptability of the contention of the appellant that the
testimony of the poseur-buyer was absurd, illogical, contrary to reason and highly incredible for no
person who is engaged in an illegal transaction would leave the door of the house open after such
transaction. In case after case, we observed that drug pushers sell their prohibited articles to any
prospective customer, be he a stranger or not, in private as well as in public places, even in the daytime.
Indeed, the drug pushers have become increasingly daring, dangerous and, worse, openly defiant of the
law. Hence, what matters is not the existing familiarity between the buyer and the seller or the time and
venue of the sale, but the fact of agreement and the acts constituting the sale and the delivery of the
prohibited drugs.43

With regard to the offense of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, like shabu, the following elements
must be proven: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object that is identified to be a prohibited
drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possesses
the said drug.44 All these elements have been established in this case.

On the occasion of the appellant’s arrest for having been caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu, PO3
Yanson conducted a body search on the former resulting to the recovery of four more heat-sealed
plastic packets containing white crystalline substance inside his wallet that was tucked in his pocket with
an aggregate weight of 0.15 gram, which were later confirmed to be methylamphetamine hydrochloride
or shabu. PO3 Yanson identified in open the court the said four heat-sealed plastic packets of shabu with
markings "VRR-8-31-2000-02" to "VRR-8-31-2000-05" written thereon by SPO1 Fernandez to be the
same objects recovered from the appellant.45 PO2 Martinez, the poseur-buyer, corroborated this
testimony of PO3 Yanson.46

Definitely, the records do not show that the appellant has the legal authority to possess the four heat-
sealed plastic packets of shabu. Settled is the rule that possession of dangerous drugs constitutes prima
facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of a
satisfactory explanation of such possession. As such, the burden of evidence is shifted to the accused to
explain the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi,47 which the appellant in this case miserably
failed to do.

There is also no truth on the appellant’s claim that the entry in the house was illegal making the search
and the seizure in connection thereto invalid, rendering the pieces of evidence obtained by the police
officers inadmissible for being the "fruit of a poisonous tree."

This Court in Dimacuha v. People48 clearly states:

The Constitution enshrines in the Bill of Rights the right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any
purpose. To give full protection to it, the Bill of Rights also ordains the exclusionary principle that any
evidence obtained in violation of said right is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

In People v. Chua Ho San [citation omitted] we pointed out that the interdiction against warrantless
searches and seizures is not absolute and that warrantless searches and seizures have long been
deemed permissible by jurisprudence in the following instances: (1) search of moving vehicles; (2)
seizure in plain view; (3) customs searches; (4) waiver or consented searches; (5) stop and frisk
situations (Terry search); and (6) search incidental to a lawful arrest. The last includes a valid warrantless
search and seizure pursuant to an equally warrantless arrest, for, while as a rule, an arrest is considered
legitimate if effected with a valid warrant of arrest, the Rules of Court recognizes permissible
warrantless arrest, to wit: (1) arrest in flagrante delicto; (2) arrest effected in hot pursuit; and (3) arrest
of escaped prisoners.

Here, the petitioner was caught in flagrante delicto while in the act of delivering 1.15 grams and in
actual possession of another 10.78 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) as a result of an
entrapment operation conducted by the police on the basis of information received from Benito
Marcelo regarding petitioner's illegal drug trade. Petitioner's arrest, therefore, was lawful and the
subsequent seizure of a bag of shabu inserted inside the cover of her checkbook was justified and legal
in light of the prevailing rule that an officer making an arrest may take from the person arrested any
property found upon his person in order to find and seize things connected with the crime. The seized
regulated drug is, therefore, admissible in evidence, being the fruit of the crime.49 (Emphasis supplied).

To repeat, the appellant, in this case, was caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu, thus, he was lawfully
arrested. Following Dimacuha, the subsequent seizure of four heat-sealed plastic packets of shabu in the
appellant’s wallet that was tucked in his pocket was justified and admissible in evidence for being the
fruit of the crime.

With the foregoing, this Court is fully convinced that the prosecution had likewise proved beyond a
shadow of reasonable doubt that the appellant is guilty of the offense of illegal possession of shabu in
violation of Section 16, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended.

Going to the charge of maintaining a drug den in violation of Section 15-A, Article III of Republic Act No.
6425, as amended, the prosecution had also established appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

A drug den is a lair or hideaway where prohibited or regulated drugs are used in any form or are found.
Its existence may be proved not only by direct evidence but may also be established by proof of facts
and circumstances, including evidence of the general reputation of the house, or its general reputation
among police officers.50 In this case, this fact was proven by none other than the testimony of PO2
Martinez, the poseur-buyer, who after buying the shabu had told the appellant that he wanted to sniff
the same to which the latter responded by requiring the former to pay a rental fee of ₱10.00. The
appellant, thereafter, allowed PO2 Martinez to enter his house and directed him to proceed to one of
the rooms located at the right side of the sala. Upon entering the said room, PO2 Martinez saw three
other persons already sniffing shabu.51 This testimony of PO2 Martinez was corroborated by PO3
Yanson and P/Sr. Insp. Sanchez.52

Moreover, as aptly observed by the Court of Appeals, several peso bills were found in the appellant’s
wallet, including three ₱10.00 peso bills, which circumstances bolstered the prosecution’s assertion that
the appellant has indeed allowed his house to be used as a drug den for a fee of ₱10.00 per person.53

In his attempt to exonerate himself, the appellant vehemently asserts that he was no longer the owner
of the house in Barangay T. Padilla, Cebu City, and he was no longer residing therein. The defense also
presented Teresita Bitos to corroborate this claim of the appellant.

The testimony of Teresita Bitos corroborating the appellant’s testimony was not credible.1âwphi1 She
herself admitted that the appellant requested her to testify in his favor.54

Also, considering the seriousness of the charges against the appellant, he did not bother to present his
daughter, who is the alleged owner of the house in Barangay T. Padilla, Cebu City, to bolster his claim.

Time and again, this Court held that denial is an inherently weak defense and has always been viewed
upon with disfavor by the courts due to the ease with which it can be concocted. Inherently weak, denial
as a defense crumbles in the light of positive identification of the appellant, as in this case. The defense
of denial assumes significance only when the prosecution’s evidence is such that it does not prove guilt
beyond reasonable doubt, which is not the case here. Verily, mere denial, unsubstantiated by clear and
convincing evidence, is negative self-serving evidence which cannot be given greater evidentiary weight
than the testimony of the prosecution witness who testified on affirmative matters.55 Moreover, there
is a presumption that public officers, including the arresting officers, regularly perform their official
duties.56 In this case, the defense failed to overcome this presumption by presenting clear and
convincing evidence. Furthermore, this Court finds no ill motive that could be attributed to the police
officers who had conducted the buy-bust operation. Even the allegation of the appellant that PO2
Martinez got angry with him when he failed to pinpoint the big time pusher cannot be considered as the
ill motive in implicating the appellant on all the three charges against him for this is self-serving and
uncorroborated.
Given all the foregoing, this Court sustains the appellant's conviction on all the charges against him.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00579
dated 9 August 2010 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. No Costs.

SO ORDERED.

JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ANTONIO T. CARPIO

Associate Justice

Chairperson

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

Associate Justice BIENVENIDO L. REYES*

Associate Justice

MARVIC MARIO VICTOR F. LEONEN**

Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO

Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, I
certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

Chief Justice

Footnotes

* Per Special Order No. 1633 dated 17 February 2014.

** Per Special Order No. 1636 dated 17 February 2014.

1 Penned by Associate Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. with Associate Justices Edgardo L. Delos Santos and
Agnes Reyes Carpio, concurring. Rollo, pp. 4-14.

2 Penned by Presiding Judge Soliver C. Peras. CA rollo, pp. 24-57.

3 Sec. 15. Sale, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Transportation and Distribution of Regulated
Drugs. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos
to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall sell,
dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any regulated drug.

4 Sec. 15-A. Maintenance of a Den, Dive or Resort for Regulated Drug Users. -The penalty of reclusion
perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be
imposed upon any person or group of persons who shall maintain a den, dive or resort where any
regulated drugs is used in any form, or where such regulated drugs in quantities specified in Section 20,
paragraph 1 of this Act are found.

5 Sec. 16. Possession or Use of Regulated Drugs. − The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine
ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person who
shall possess or use any regulated drug without the corresponding license or prescription, subject to the
provisions of Section 20 hereof.

6 Also known as "An Act To Impose The Death Penalty On Certain Heinous Crimes, Amending For That
Purpose The Revised Penal Laws, As Amended, Other Special Penal Laws, And For Other Purposes."

7 CA rollo, pp. 10-15.

8 Id. at 10.

9 Id. at 12.

10 Id. at 14.

11 As evidenced by the Certificate of Arraignment and RTC Order both dated 2 October 2000.

Records, pp. 31-32.

12 Id. at 43.

13 Id. at 48.

14 Id. at 46.

15 Testimony of PO2 Martinez, TSN, 29 November 2001, pp. 3 and 15; Testimony of PO3 Yanson, TSN, 6
December 2001, pp. 11-12; Testimony of P/Sr. Insp. Sanchez, TSN, 7 February 2002, pp.
10-12.

16 Id. at 3-5; Id. at 3-4; Id. at 3-5.

17 Id. at 6-7 and 16; Id. at 4-5 and 12; Id. at 5-6 and 13-14.

18 Id. at 7-8; Testimony of P/Sr. Insp. Sanchez, TSN, 7 February 2002, id. at 8 and 13-14.

19 Id. at 8-10 and 12; Testimony of PO3 Yanson, TSN, 6 December 2001, pp. 5-8 and 18; Testimony of
P/Sr. Insp. Sanchez, id. at 6-7 and 15; Appellee’s Brief dated 5 January 2005, CA rollo, p. 166.

20 Id. at 7 and 12-13; Id. at 6, 8-9 and 11; Id. at 8 and 10.

21 Id. at 13; Id. at 9-11; Id. at 10.

22 Records, p. 46.

23 Testimony of the Appellant, TSN, 11 April 2002, pp. 2-3; Testimony of PO2 Martinez, TSN, 7 February
2002, pp. 3-5; Testimony of Teresita Bitos, TSN, 7 March 2002, p. 4.

24 Id. at 4-9; Id. at 5 and 7.

25 Testimony of PO2 Martinez (on rebuttal), TSN, 18 April 2002, pp. 4-5.

26 Records, pp. 125-126.

27 CA rollo, p. 58.
28 G.R. Nos. 147678-87, 7 July 2004, 433 SCRA 640.

29 Rollo, p. 14.

30 Sec. 20. Application of Penalties, Confiscation and Forfeiture of the Proceeds or Instruments of the
Crime. − The penalties for offenses under Section 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 of Article II and Sections 14, 14-A, 15
and 16 of Article III of this Act shall be applied if the dangerous drugs involved is in any of the following
quantities :

1. 40 grams or more of opium;

2. 40 grams or more of morphine;

3. 200 grams or more of shabu or methylamphetamine hydrochloride;

4. 40 grams or more of heroin;

5. 750 grams or more of Indian hemp or marijuana;

6. 50 grams or more of marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil;

7. 40 grams or more of cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride; or

8. In the case of other dangerous drugs, the quantity of which is far beyond therapeutic requirements,
as determined and promulgated by the Dangerous Drugs Board, after public consultations/hearings
conducted for the purpose.

Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalty shall range from
prision correccional to reclusion perpetua depending upon the quantity. (Emphasis and italics supplied).

31 CA rollo, pp. 10-14.

32 Id. at 222.

33 Rollo, pp. 21 and 28-30.

34 CA rollo, pp. 102-115 and 158-190.

35 Id. at 108.

36 People v. De Leon, G.R. No. 186471, 25 January 2010, 611 SCRA 118, 127-128.

37 People v. Veloso, G.R. No. 188849, 13 February 2013, 690 SCRA 586, 595; Quinicot v. People, G.R. No.
179700, 22 June 2009, 590 SCRA 458, 469.

38 People v. Santiago, 564 Phil. 181, 193 (2007); People v. De Vera, 341 Phil. 89, 95 (1997).

39 People v. Torres, G.R. No. 191730, 5 June 2013.

40 Testimony of PO2 Martinez, TSN, 29 November 2011, pp. 6-7 and 11.

41 Id. at 7; Testimony of PO3 Yanson, TSN, 6 December 2001, p. 11; Testimony of P/Sr. Insp. Sanchez,
TSN, 7 February 2002, p. 8.

42 Testimony of P/Sr. Insp. Sanchez, id. at 13.

43 People v. Requiz, 376 Phil. 750, 759-760 (1999).

44 Quinitcot v. People, supra note 37 at 477.

45 Testimony of PO3 Yanson, TSN, 6 December 2001, pp. 7-8.

46 Testimony of PO2 Martinez, TSN, 29 November 2011, pp. 9-10.

47 Abuan v. People, 536 Phil. 672, 695 (2006).

48 545 Phil. 406 (2007).

49 Id. at 420-421.

50 People v. Ladjaalam, 395 Phil. 1, 19-20.

51 Testimony of PO2 Martinez, TSN, 29 November 2011, pp. 7- 8.

52 Testimony of PO3 Yanson, TSN, 6 December 2001, pp. 6-8; Testimony of P/Sr. Insp. Sanchez, TSN, 7
February 2002, pp. 7 and 10.

53 CA Decision dated 9 August 2010. Rollo, p. 12; Testimony of PO2 Martinez, TSN 29 November 2011,
p. 10.

54 Testimony of Teresita Bitos, TSN, 7 March 2002, p. 7.

55 People v. Mabonga, G.R. No. 134773, 29 June 2004, 433 SCRA 51, 65-66.

56 People v. Chen Tiz Chang, 382 Phil. 669, 696 (2000).

January 17, 2018

G.R. No. 223142

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee

vs.

ROLANDO SANTOS ZARAGOZA, Accused-Appellant

DECISION

MARTIRES, J.:

This resolves the appeal of accused-appellant Rolando Santos y Zaragoza (Santos) seeking the reversal
and setting aside of the 6 August 2014 Decision1 and 2 March 2015 Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals,
Fourth Division (CA) in C.A.-G.R. CR-HC No. 05851, affirming the Decision3 of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC), Branch 120, Caloocan City, in Criminal Case Nos. C-82010 and C-82011 finding him guilty of Illegal
Possession of Dangerous Drugs and Illegal Possession of Drug Paraphernalia under Republic Act (R.A.)
No. 9165, respectively.

THE FACTS

Accused-appellant Santos was charged before the RTC of Caloocan City with three (3) counts of violation
of certain provisions of R.A. No. 9165, viz:

Crim. Case No. C-82009 (Violation of Sec. 6, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165)

That on or about the 21st day of August, 2009 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously maintain in his house at 21 Tagaytay St., Caloocan City, a drug den,
dive or resort where dangerous drugs are habitually dispensed for use by the customers and addicts.4

Crim. Case No. C-82010 (Violation of Sec. 11, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165)

That on or about the 21st day of August, 2009 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody, and control dried crushed leaves
and seeds wrapped in a newsprint and contained in transparent plastic "tea bag" marked "ELS-21-8-09-
06" weighing 1.0022 grams, when subjected for laboratory examination gave positive result to the tests
for Marijuana, a dangerous drug.5

Crim. Case No. C-82011 (Violation of Sec. 12, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165)
That on or about the 21st day of August, 2009 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have in his possession, custody, and control several strips of used
aluminum foil in a transparent plastic bag, several pieces of used plastic sachet in a transparent "tea
bag," and a plastic tube intended for sniffing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.6

In relation to Criminal Case No. C-82009 where Santos was charged for maintaining a drug den, Imee
Baltazar Loquinario-Flores (LoquinarioFlores) who was found inside the house of Santos during the
service of the search warrant, was charged with violation of Sec. 7, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165.7

When arraigned, both Santos and Loquinario-Flores pleaded not guilty.8 Joint trial of the cases
thereafter ensued.

Version of the Prosecution

The prosecution tried to prove its cases against Santos through the testimony of Special Investigator
Elson Saul (Saul), Agents Jerome Bomediano (Bomediano), Henry Kanapi (Kanapi) and Atty. Fatima
Liwalug (Atty. Liwalug), all from the Reaction, Arrest and Interdiction Division (RAID) of the National
Bureau of Investigation (NBI), and Nicanor Cruz, Jr. (Cruz), of the NBI Forensic Chemistry Division (FCD).

Prior to the application on 20 August 2009 by Atty. Liwalug for a search warrant before the RTC, Manila,
the RAID-NBI received information from their confidential informant that there was a group of
individuals at Tagaytay St., Caloocan City, selling drugs and using minors as runners. After Atty. Liwalug
interviewed the informant, she, along with an NBI team and the technical staff of Imbestigador, a GMA
Channel 7 investigative program, went to the reported area to conduct surveillance. The actual
surveillance, where videos were taken of the buying, selling, and use of drugs in the different houses on
Tagaytay St., lasted for two weeks. During the first test-buy, Bomediano was able to buy shabu from
Santos alias "Rolando Tabo." Two informants were used by the NBI for the surveillance but the spy
camera was attached to only one of them. The informants were able to buy drugs from Santos and to
use them inside his house.9

The first video,10 taken by the staff of Imbestigador, showed the informants going inside a makeshift
house on Tagaytay St. which, according to one of the informants, was owned by Santos. He was shown
standing in front of a table while preparing the paraphernalia to sniff shabu. Also shown in the video
was Jenny Coyocot, the adopted daughter of Santos, who, according to the informant, sold foil for the
price of ₱2.00 per strip. The second video11 depicted Erwin Ganata Ayon telling Jack, one of the
occupants in Santos' house, "pasok kami sa bahay ni Tabo."12 The videos were turned over by Mean de
Chavez of Imbestigador to Atty. Liwalug.13

On 21 August 2009, Kanapi, Saul, Bomediano, and SI Junnel Malaluan, armed with a search warrant,14
proceeded to the house of Santos on Tagaytay St. Kanapi and Malaluan guarded the perimeter of
Santos' house to ensure that no one could exit from or enter the house during the service of the search
warrant. Previous to the service of the warrant, the NBI RAID coordinated15 with the Department of
Justice (DOJ), the officials of the barangay, and the media.16

Saul knocked on the door of Santos' house. When nobody answered despite several minutes of waiting,
the NBI team broke open the door. Saul, Bomediano, Malaluan, and the Imbestigator team proceeded
to the second floor where they found a person who identified himself as Rolando Santos. Saul told
Santos that the team was from the NBI and that they were to serve a search warrant on him, which copy
was actually shown to Santos. The team waited for the representatives from the DOJ and the barangay
before conducting the search.17

During the conduct of the search at the living room on the second floor of the house, Saul found inside
the bedroom and beside the bed of Santos several used and unused foil strips either crumpled or rolled,
the size of a cigarette stick. The foil strips,18 numbering fourteen, were found inside a baby powder
container.19 He also found unused small plastic sachets.20 Saul placed the foil and plastic sachets on
the center table in the living room. When Saul frisked Santos, he found marijuana leaves wrapped in
paper on the right pocket of his pants. Saul informed Santos of his constitutional rights and placed the
marijuana leaves on top of the center table. Saul searched the rooms on the second floor but found
nothing. From a trash can in the kitchen, Saul found used small transparent sachets which he also placed
on the center table. Loquinario-Flores, who was caught on video selling to the informant aluminum foil
to be used with drugs, and two minor children were found on the first floor of the house. The children
admitted that they were part of a gang in the area.21

Santos, Assistant City Prosecutor Darwin Cañete, Kagawad Magno Flores, and media representative
Eugene Lalaan of lmbestigador witnessed the inventory22 of the seized items by Saul and when he
marked them. Santos, Loquinario-Flores, and the two minors were brought to the NBI office. When Saul
returned to the NBI office after the operation, he submitted the seized items to the NBI forensic
chemist. A joint affidavit of arrest23 was thereafter executed by Saul, Malaluan, Bomediano, and
Kanapi.24

The testimony of Cruz, the forensic chemist, was dispensed with after the parties agreed to stipulate on
the matters he would testify and after a short cross-examination by the defense.
Version of the Defense

The version of the defense was established through the testimony of Loquinario-Flores, Santos, and
Renamel Destriza (Destriza).

On 21 August 2009 at about 3:00 p.m., while Santos was alone at home playing his guitar, the NBI team
armed with long firearms suddenly arrived looking for a certain Roland Tabo. Santos was made to lie
face down and thereafter was frisked. The team took Santos' money amounting to ₱140.00 and his
house was searched in the presence of a kagawad from Quezon City but the search team found nothing.
As a result, the team brought out foil, lighters, and marijuana and took pictures. Loquinario-Flores was
inside the house that time as she was called by Destriza to help bring down from the second floor an
elderly who was hit by the door when the NBI team forcibly opened it. Loquinario-Flores was no longer
allowed to leave while Destriza, who was carrying a child that time, was allowed to go out of the house.
Santos, Loquinario-Flores, and the other persons arrested were brought to the NBI office. It was only
during the inquest held the following day that Santos was informed that he was being charged of
violating the provisions of R.A. No. 9165 and allowed to see the items allegedly seized from him.25

The Ruling of the RTC

The RTC26 ruled that the entry in the house of Santos by the NBI team and the subsequent confiscation
of the paraphernalia and marijuana were valid and legal since the team had a search warrant. Moreover,
it held that the search was conducted following proper procedure. Thus, the R TC resolved the cases as
follows:

Premises considered, this court finds and so holds the accused Rolando Santos y Zaragoza GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Sections 6, 11 and 12, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165,
otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 and imposes upon him the
following:

(1) In Crim. Case No. C-82009, the penalty of Life Imprisonment and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand
Pesos (₱500,000.00);

(2) In Crim. Case No. C-82010, the penalty of Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to
Fourteen (14) years and a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00); and
(3) In Crim. Case No. C-82011, the penalty of Imprisonment of six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4)
years and a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (₱l0,000.00).

Further, in Crim. Case No. C-82012, accused Imee Baltazar Loquinario-Flores was likewise found GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 7 of the above-cited law and imposes upon her the
penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and a fine of Three
Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱300,000.00).

The drugs and drug paraphernalia subject matter of these cases are hereby confiscated and forfeited in
favor of the government to be dealt with in accordance with law.

SO ORDERED.

The Ruling of the CA

Feeling aggrieved with the decision of the RTC, Santos appealed before the Court of Appeals.

In Criminal Case No. C-82009, the CA, Fourth Division27 ruled that the RTC should not have given much
weight to the video footages because these were not identified and authenticated by the confidential
informant who took them. It held that the prosecution failed to present any witness who had personal
knowledge and who could have testified that Santos' house was a drug den. The team, on the other
hand, failed to show that Santos or any other person was committing illegal activities inside the house. It
found that the testimony of the confidential informant was essential and indispensable for the
conviction of Santos because the NBI agents did not have any personal knowledge as to the alleged
illegal activities in the house that would characterize it as a drug den.28

In Criminal Case No. C-82012, because of its ruling that the prosecution failed to establish that Santos
was maintaining a drug den, the CA held that it necessarily followed that Loquinario-Flores, pursuant to
Sec. 11 (a), Rule 12229 of the Rules of Court, must be exonerated of the charge against her for violating
Sec. 7, Art. II of R.A. 9165. Despite the fact that Loquinario-Flores did not appeal, the CA relied on the
dictum that everything in an appealed case is open for review by the appellate court.30

In Criminal Case Nos. C-82010 and C-82011, the CA held that the prosecution was able to show the guilt
of Santos beyond reasonable doubt. It held that the testimony of Saul was straightforward and that
there was no proof that he had ill motive to testify against Santos. On the other hand, it found the
defense of frame-up put up by Santos was self-serving which failed to rebut the overwhelming evidence
presented by the prosecution; and that the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of Kanapi and
Bomediano were on trivial and immaterial details that do not affect their credibility.31 Hence, the
appeal of Santos was decided as follows:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Decision dated 26 September 2012 of the lower
court is MODIFIED as follows:

1. The judgment in Criminal Case No. C-82010 finding the appellant Rolando Santos y Zaragoza guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11, Article
II of RA 9165 is hereby AFFIRMED;

2. The judgment in Criminal Case No. C-82011 finding the appellant Rolando Santos y Zaragoza guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Possession of Drug Paraphernalia under Section 12,
Article II of RA 9165 is hereby AFFIRMED;

3. The judgment in Criminal Case No. C-82009 finding the appellant Rolando Santos y Zaragoza guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of maintaining a Drug Den under Section 6, Article II of RA 9165 is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant Rolando Santos y Zaragoza is hereby ACQUITTED in Criminal Case
No. C-82009 for insufficiency of evidence.

4. The judgment in Criminal Case No. C-82012 finding the accused Imee Baltazar Lquinario-Flores guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Visiting a Drug Den under Section 7, Article II of RA 9165 is
likewise REVERSED and SET ASIDE. She is hereby ACQUITTED in Criminal Case No. C-82012 for
insufficiency of evidence.

SO ORDERED.

Santos sought for a partial reconsideration32 of the decision of the CA insofar as it affirmed his
conviction in Crim. Case Nos. C-82010 and C-82011. Finding no persuasive grounds or substantial bases
to reconsider, however, the CA denied the motion.33

ISSUES
I.

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE
PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND RESONABLE DOUBT.

II.

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE PROSECUTION'S
EVIDENCE NOTWITHSTANDING ITS FAILURE TO PROVE THE INTEGRITY AND IDENTITY OF THE ALLEGED
CONFISCATED DRUGS.

OUR RULING

The appeal is without merit.

It bears to stress that while an accused in a criminal case is presumed innocent until proven guilty, the
evidence of the prosecution must stand on its own strength and not rely on the weakness of the
evidence of the defense.34The Court firmly holds that the prosecution was able to successfully
discharge its burden of overcoming the constitutional presumption of innocence of Santos and in
proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt in Crim. Case Nos. C-82010 and C-82011.

The findings of the trial court and the appellate

court as to the credibility of the prosecution

witnesses are binding and conclusive upon the Court.

Santos claimed that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were indecisive, conflicting, and
contradictory; as opposed to the version of the defense which was consistent, straightforward, and
complementary with each other.35

To justify his claim, Santos averred that when Saul first testified he stated that the second floor of the
house had a living room, kitchen, and two rooms. It was when Saul allegedly frisked Santos that he
found several used and unused aluminum foil and a sachet of marijuana, but nothing was found inside
the two rooms. When Saul was again put on the witness stand, he allegedly admitted that the five
disposable lighters and the strips of aluminum foil were found inside Santos' bedroom.36

Contrary to the claim of Santos, the testimonies of Saul were not inconsistent with each other. When
first put on the stand, Saul admitted that he found the strips of aluminum foil in the living room; and
that when he frisked Santos he found in the right pocket of his pants the marijuana leaves wrapped in
paper.37 Clearly, Saul was forthright in stating where he found the used and unused aluminum foil and
the marijuana. Saul never claimed that the strips of aluminum foil were found on the body of Santos.

When Saul testified again, he described in detail that the strips of aluminum foil were found inside a
plastic baby powder container.38 Although Saul claimed that he found these in the bedroom of Santos,
the Court took note of the fact that in most houses in urban areas, the living room is also used as the
bedroom. What is important is that Saul was consistent that he found the strips of aluminum foil on the
second floor of the house where the living room and bedroom were located.

It must be emphasized that the finding of illicit drugs and paraphernalia in a house or building owned or
occupied by a particular person raises the presumption of knowledge and possession thereof which,
standing alone, is sufficient to convict.39 The truth that the strips of aluminum foil were found in the
house of Santos and the marijuana in his body, had not been successfully controverted by him. In fact,
there was but the lame defense of frame-up offered by Santos to overcome the presumption.
Enlightening at this point is the jurisprudence in People v. Lagman, 40 viz:

It held that illegal possession of regulated drugs is mala prohibita, and, as such, criminal intent is not an
essential element. However, the prosecution must prove that the accused had the intent to possess
(animus posidendi) the drugs. Possession, under the law, includes not only actual possession, but also
constructive possession. Actual possession exists when the drug is in the immediate possession or
control of the accused. On the other hand, constructive possession exists when the drug is under the
dominion and control of the accused or when he has the right to exercise dominion and control over the
place where it is found. Exclusive possession or control is not necessary. The accused cannot avoid
conviction if his right to exercise control and dominion over the place where the contraband is located,
is shared with another.41

The contention of Santos that the members of the raiding team gave an altogether different account as
to who actually witnessed the implementation of the search warrant,42 is a trivial and inconsequential
matter that does not affect the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. These matters do not deal with
the central fact of the crime. Besides, it has been held, time and again, that minor inconsistencies and
contradictions in the declarations of witnesses do not destroy the witnesses' credibility but even
enhance their truthfulness as they erase any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony.43
In stark contrast, the defense of denial proffered by Santos cannot prevail over the positive
identification by the prosecution witnesses. A defense of denial which is unsupported and
unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence becomes negative and self-serving deserving no
weight in law, and cannot be given greater evidentiary value over convincing, straightforward, and
probable testimony on affirmative matters.44 Courts generally view the defense of denial with disfavor
due to the facility with which an accused can concoct it to suit his or her defense.45

Equally important is that it is the general rule that "the factual findings of the trial court, its calibration
of the testimonies of the witnesses, and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its
conclusions on the credibility of the witnesses on which said findings were anchored are accorded great
respect. This great respect rests in the trial court's first-hand access to the evidence presented during
the trial, and in its direct observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while they testify on the
occurrences and events attested to."46 Settled also is the rule that factual findings of the appellate
court affirming those of the trial court are binding on this Court, unless there is a clear showing that
such findings are tainted with arbitrariness, capriciousness, or palpable error.47 Let it be underscored
that appeal in criminal cases throws the whole case open for review and it is the duty of the appellate
court to correct, cite, and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or
unassigned.48 The Court had assiduously reviewed the records but found nothing to qualify these cases
as falling within the exception to the general rule.

Santos asserted that the search warrant was only for an undetermined amount of shabu; thus, the
discovery of the incriminating items other than that described in the warrant must result from bodily
search or seized in plain view to be admissible in evidence.49

The assertion of Santos has no merit considering that he did not question the admissibility of the seized
items as evidence against him during the trial of these cases. It was only when he appealed the decision
of the RTC before the CA that he raised the issue as to the admissibility of the seized items. Well-
entrenched in our jurisprudence is that no question will be entertained on appeal unless it has been
raised in the lower court.50

There was an unbroken chain in the custody of the seized drugs and paraphernalia.

It was the position of Santos that there was doubt as to the whether the marijuana and paraphernalia
seized from him were the very same objects offered in court as corpus delicti. He claimed that there was
no explanation given regarding the items confiscated from Santos from the time these were seized until
their turnover for laboratory examination.51
"Corpus delicti is the 'actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged.' In illegal drug
cases, it refers to the illegal drug item itself. "52

The Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) - the policy making and strategy formulating body in the planning and
formulation of policies and programs on drug prevention and control tasked to develop and adopt a
comprehensive, integrated, unified, and balanced national drug abuse prevention and control
strategy53 - has expressly defined chain of custody involving dangerous drugs and other substances in
the following terms in Sec. l(b) of DDB Regulation No. I, Series of 2002,54 to wit:

b. "Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or
controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from
the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in
court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity
and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when
such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the
final disposition.55

The exacting requirement as to the chain of custody of seized drugs and paraphernalia is highlighted in
R.A. No. 9165 as follows:

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 drugs shall, immediately after
seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused
or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or
counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public
official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof;

On the one hand, the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) settles the proper procedure to be
followed in Sec. 21(a) of R.A. No. 9165, viz:
(a) The apprehending office/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after
seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused
or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or
counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public
official 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, further that non-compliance with
these requirement" 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 of and custody over said items.

The Court has explained in a catena of cases the four (4) links that should be established in the chain of
custody of the confiscated item: 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.56

On the first link, jurisprudence dictates that '"(M)arking' is the placing by the apprehending officer of
some distinguishing signs with his/her initials and signature on the items seized. It helps ensure that the
dangerous drugs seized upon apprehension are the same dangerous drugs subjected to inventory and
photography when these activities are undertaken at the police station or at some other practicable
venue rather than at the place of arrest. Consistency with the 'chain of custody' rule requires that the
'marking' of the seized items - to truly ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain and are
eventually the ones offered in evidence - should be done (I) in the presence of the apprehended violator
and (2) immediately upon confiscation.57

Saul testified that after he gathered the drug paraphernalia and the marijuana which he confiscated
from Santos, he prepared the inventory of seized items/property58 in the presence of Santos, and the
respective representatives of the DOJ, media, and the barangay. In addition to the inventory, he marked
the confiscated items as follows:

1. five (5) pieces of disposable lighters "ELS-21-8-09"

2. several pieces or strips of unused aluminum foil "ELS-21-8-09-01"

3. several pieces/strips of used aluminum foil "ELS-21-8-09-02"

4. several pieces unused small plastic sachet "ELS-21-8-09-03"

5. several pieces used small plastic sachet "ELS-21-8-09-04"

6. one (1) improvised plastic pipe "ELS-21-8-09-05"

7. undetermined amount of marijuana leaves and seed wrapped m newspaper "ELS-21-8-09-06"

Anent the second and third links, on the same day that Saul arrived at the NBI RAID office after the
service of the search warrant, he forthwith prepared the disposition form59 for the turnover of the
seized items to the FCD. The seized items were received by the FCD on 21 August 2009 at 11:05 p.m. A
certification60 dated 21 August 2009 was likewise issued by the FCD confirming that the confiscated
items marked as "ELS-21-8-09- 02", "ELS-21-8-09-04", and "ELS-21-8-09-05" yielded positive results for
the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, and positive results for marijuana for "ELS-21-8-09-
06". On 25 August 2009, the FCD released its Dangerous Drugs Report Nos. DDM-09-0861 and DD-09-
47.62

On the fourth link, the testimony of Cruz was dispensed with after the parties had agreed to stipulate on
the following facts:

That he is an expert witness, and as such is of the receipt of a letter request dated 21 August 2009;

That attached to the letter request were several pieces/strips of used aluminum foil marked as ELS-21-8-
09-02; several pieces of used small plastic sachet marked as ELS-21-8-09-04; one (1) improvised plastic
pipe marked as ELS-21-8-09-05, and undetermined amount of marijuana leaves and seed wrapped in a
newspaper marked as ELS-21-8-09-06;

That he conducted laboratory examination on the specimen submitted to their office, the result of
which he reduced into writing as evidenced by Dangerous Drugs Report No. DDM-09-08, stating that
upon examination conducted on the dried crushed leaves and seeds wrapped in a newsprint gave
positive results for "marijuana" and by Dangerous Drugs Report No. DDM-09-47, stating that upon
examinations conducted on the several strips of used aluminum foil in a transparent plastic bag; several
pieces of used plastic sachets in a transparent "tea bag" and a plastic sachet tube gave positive results
for the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, respectively;
That he issued a Certification dated 21 August 2009 to the effect that he conducted examination upon
the above-mentioned specimen submitted to their office.63

As opposed therefore, to the claim of Santos, there was no significant gap in the chain of custody of the
seized items. Moreover, the assertion of Santos that the forensic chemist did not testify to explain the
measures undertaken to preserve the integrity and identity of the substance examined until their
presentation in court,64 has no merit. As earlier mentioned, both the prosecution and the defense had
agreed to dispense with the testimony of the forensic chemist upon stipulation on certain facts.
Moreover, the defense counsel had the opportunity to cross-examine the forensic chemist but, as
revealed by the records, his cross-examination never dealt on matters pertaining to the measures
carried out by the NBI team to maintain the integrity of the confiscated items.

In the same vein, it needs to be stressed that Cruz is a public officer; thus, his reports carried the
presumption of regularity.1awp++i1 Besides, Sec. 44, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court provides
that entries in official records made in the performance of his duty by a public officer of the Philippines,
or by a person in the performance of a duty specifically enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the
facts therein stated.65 It necessarily follows that the findings of Cruz as contained in Dangerous Drugs
Report Nos. DDM-09-08 and DDM-09-47 were conclusive in view of the failure of the defense to present
evidence showing the contrary.

Noteworthy, the legal teaching in our jurisprudence is that "the integrity of the evidence is presumed to
have been preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been
tampered with. Accused-appellant bears the burden of showing that the evidence was tampered or
meddled with in order to overcome the presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public
officers and the presumption that public officers properly discharged their duties."66 Santos had
miserably failed in presenting any evidence that would justify a finding that the NBI team had ill motive
in tampering with the evidence in order to hold him liable for these grave offenses.

The prosecution was able to fully discharge its burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt its charges
against Santos.

In Crim. Case No. C-82010, Santos was charged with and convicted of violation of Sec. 11, Art. II of R.A.
No. 9165,67 the elements of which are as follows: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object,
which is identified to be prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and
(3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.68
Saul testified that when he frisked Santos, he found marijuana in the right pocket of his pants. Santos
did not offer any explanation on why he was in possession of the marijuana or if he was authorized by
law to possess the dangerous drug. Based on the Dangerous Drugs Report No. DDM-09-08, the dried
crushed leaves and seeds wrapped in newspaper and contained in the transparent plastic tea bag
marked as "ELS-21-8-09-06" and which gave a positive result for marijuana, had a net weight of 1.0022
grams.

Pursuant to Sec. 11, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one
(1) day to twenty (20) years, and a fine ranging from Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱300,000.00) to
Four Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱400,000.00), shall be imposed if the quantity of marijuana is less than
three hundred (300) grams. Thus, the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to
fourteen (14) years, and a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱300,000.00) as imposed by the RTC
and affirmed by the CA, is hereby sustained.

In Crim. Case No. C-82011, Santos was convicted of violation of Sec. 12, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165,69 its
elements being as follows: (1) possession or control by the accused of any equipment, apparatus or
other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or
introducing any dangerous drug into the body; and (2) such possession is not authorized by law.70

Saul testified that when he served the search warrant on Santos at his house on 21 August 2009, he
found thereat several strips of used aluminum foil in a transparent plastic bag, several pieces of used
plastic sachet in a transparent tea bag, and a plastic tube intended for sniffing shabu, which he
respectively marked "ELS-21-8-09-01 ," "ELS-21-8-09-04," and "ELS-21-8- 09-05." Similar to the
marijuana, Santos failed to justify his possession of these items. Significantly, Dangerous Drugs Report
No. DD-09-47 showed that the examination made on the washings of these confiscated items yielded
positive results for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride.

Pursuant to Sec. 12, Art. 11 of R.A. No. 9165, the penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) months
and one (1) day to four (4) years, and a fine ranging from Ten Thousand Pesos (₱10,000.00) to Fifty
Thousand Pesos (₱50,000.00) shall be imposed for violation of this provision of the Act. Finding no error
in the penalty of imprisonment of six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years, and a fine of Ten
Thousand Pesos (₱l0,000.00) imposed by the RTC, which was affirmed by the CA, the Court hereby
maintains the same.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The 6 August 2014 Decision and 2 March 2015 Resolution of the
Court of Appeals, Fourth Division in C.A.-G.R. CR-HC No. 05851 are hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.
SAMUEL R. MARTIRES

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

Associate Justice

Chairperson

LUCAS P. BERSAMIN

Associate Justice MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN

Associate Justice

ALEXANDER G. GESMUNDO

Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decisionhad been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

Associate Justice

Chairperson, Third Division

CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to the Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, I
certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

Chief Justice

Footnotes

1 Rollo, pp. 2-21.

2 CA rollo, pp. 189-190.

3 Records, pp. 408-422.

4 Id. at 277.

5 Id. at 25.

6 Id. at 48.

7 Id. at 269, docketed as Crim. Case No. C-82012.

8 Id. at 174.

9 TSN, 29 March 2011, pp.10-12; TSN, 4 October201 l, pp. 15-17.

10 Records, p. 336, Exh. "O."

11 Id.; Exh. "0-1."

12 TSN, 4 October 2011, p. 18; TSN, 8 November 2011, pp. 4-6.

13 TSN, 8 November 2011, p. 8.

14 Records, p. 343-344; Exh. "G."

15 Records, pp. 347-348; Exhs. "N" and "N-1."

16 TSN, 4 October 2011, pp. 4-6; TSN, 29 September 2010, p. 10; TSN, 9 March 2011, p. 5.

17 TSN, 29 September 20 10, pp. 7-10.

18 Exh. "K."

19 Exh. "L."

20 Exh. "M."

21 TSN, 29 September 2010, pp. 10-14, 24; TSN, 10 November 2010, pp. 4-6; TSN, 29 March 2011, pp.
15-16; TSN, 4 October 2011, p.10.

22 Record s, p. ", 45 , E x h . "H ."

23 Id. at 330-332, Exhs. "I", "1-1", and "1-2."

24 TSN, 29 September 2010, pp.14-17, 20 and 25-26.

25 TSN, 22 May 2012, pp. 3-4; TSN, 26 June 2012, pp. 3-7; TSN, 31 July 2012, pp. 4-5.

26 Records, pp. 408-422; penned by Judge Aurelio R. Ralar, Jr.

27 CA rollo, pp. 189-190; penned by Associate justice Rosmari D. Carandang and concurred in by
Associate Justices Marlene Gonzales-Sison and Edwin D. Sorongon.

28 Rollo, pp. 18-19.

29 Section l l. Effect of appeal by any of several accused. -

(a) An appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except
insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter;

xxx

30 Rollo, p. 19.

31 Id. at 18-19.

32 CA rollo,pp.173-179.

33 Id. at 189-190.

34 People v. Calantiao, 736 Phil. 661, 674-675 (2014).

35 CA rollo, p. 58.
36 Id.

37 TSN, 29 September 2010, pp. 10-12.

38 TSN, 10 November 2010, pp. 4-5.

39 People v. Dela Trinidad, 742 Phil. 347, 358 (2014).

40 593 Phil. 617, 625 (2008), citing People v. Tira, 474 Phil. 152, 173-174 (2004).

41 People v. Dela Trinidad, supra note 39 at p. 348.

42 CA rollo, pp. 58-59.

43 People v. Rebotazo, 711 Phil. 150, 172-173 (2013).

44 People v. Salvador, 726 Phil. 389, 402(2014).

45 Zalamedav. People, 614 Phil. 710, 733 (2009).

46 Luy v. People of the Philippines, G .R. No. 200087, 12 October 2016, 805 SCRA 710, 718-719; citing
Gulmatico v. People, 562 Phil. 78,87 (2007); People v. De Guzman, 564 Phil. 282, 290 (2007); People v.
Cabugatan, 544 Phil. 468, 479 (2007); People v. Taan, 536 Phil. 943, 954 (2006); Perez v. People, 515
Phil. 195, 203-204 (2006); People v. Tonog, Jr., 477 Phil. 161, 177 (2004); People v. Genita, Jr., 469 Phil.
334, 341-342 (2004); People v. Pacheco, 468 Phil. 289, 299 (2004); People v. Abolidor, 467 Phil. 709, 716
(2004); People v. Santiago, 465 Phil. 151, 162 (2004).

47 People v. Bontuyan, 742 Phil. 788, 798 (2014).

48 People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 225 (2015).

49 CA rollo, p. 60

50 Tionco v. People, 755 Phil. 646, 654 (2015).

51 CA rollo, p. 62.

52 Rontos v. People, 710 Phil. 328, 336-337 (2013).

53 sec. 77, R.A. No. 9165.

54 Guidelines on the Custody and Disposition of Seized Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and
Essential Chemicals, and Laboratory Equipment pursuant to Section 21, Article II of the IRR of RA No.
9165 in relation to Section 81 (b ), Article IX of R.A. No. 9165.

55 Peoplev. Gonzales, 708 Phil. 121, 129-130 (2013).

56 People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78, 94-95 (2014); citing People v. Nandi, 639 Phil. 134, 144-145 (2010).

57 People v. Somoza, 714 Phil. 368, 387-388 (2013).

58 Records, p. 345, Exh. "H."

59 Id. at p.201, Exh."A."

60 Id. at 204, Exh. "D."

61 ld. at 202, Exh. "E."

62 ld. at 203, Exh. "F."

63 TSN, 11 November 2009, pp. 9-10.

64 CA rollo, p. 62.

65 Zalameda v. People, supra note 45 at p. 740.

66 People v. Dela Trinidad, supra note 39 at p. 360.

67 Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine
ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (₱500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (₱10,000,000.00) 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:

(1) 10 grams or more of opium;

(2) 10 grams or more of morphine;

(3) 10 grams or more of heroin;

(4) 10 grams or more of cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride;

(5) 50 grams or more of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu";

(6) 10 grams or more of marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil;

(7) 500 grams or more of marijuana; and

(8) 10 grams or more of other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to,
methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDA) or "ecstasy," paramethoxyamphetamine (PMA),
trimethoxyamphetamine (TMA), lysergic acid diethylamine (LSD), gamma hydroxyamphetamine (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, as determined
and promulgated by the Board in accordance to Section 93, Article XI of this Act.

Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be graduated
as follows:

(1) Life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred thousand pesos (₱400,000.00) to Five
hundred thousand pesos (₱500,000.00), if the quantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu"
is ten (10) grams or more but less than fifty (50) grams;

(2) Imprisonment of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four
hundred thousand pesos (₱400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), if the quantities
of dangerous drugs are five (5) grams or more but less than ten (10) 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 three hundred (300) grams or more but less than five (hundred) 500) grams of
marijuana; and

(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (I) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three
hundred thousand pesos (₱300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos (₱400,000.00), 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.

68 People v. Dela Trinidad, supra note 39 at p. 357.

69 Section 12. Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia/or Dangerous
Drugs. - The penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and a
fine ranging room Ten thousand pesos (₱10,000.00) to Fifty thousand pesos (₱50,000.00) shall be
imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess or have under his/her control
any equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming,
administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body: Provided, That in
the case of medical practitioners and various professionals who are required to carry such equipment,
instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia in the practice of their profession, the Board shall
prescribe the necessary implementing guidelines thereof. The possession of such equipment,
instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia fit or intended for any of the purposes enumerated in
the preceding paragraph shall be prima facie evidence that the possessor has smoked, consumed,
administered to himself/herself, injected, ingested or used a dangerous drug and shall be presumed to
have violated Section 15 of this Act.