862 Phil. 660
CAGUIOA, J:
That on or about the 4th day of May, 2011, at about 4:25 o'clock in the afternoon, at Barangay Rizal, Municipality of Tuy, Province of Batangas, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without having been authorized by law, did then and there willfully and unlawfully have in his possession, custody and control four (4) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets each containing methamphetamine hydrochloride commonly known as "shabu", having a total weight of 0.12 gram, a dangerous drug,Upon arraignment, Danilo pleaded not guilty to the offense charge.[5]
Contrary to law.[4]
From the narratives of prosecution's witnesses, PO2 Hamilton Salanguit and SPO1 Edward Plata, it is gathered that on 04 May 2011, at around 3:10 o'clock p.m., they and other police officers from Tuy (Batangas) Police Station were conducting a checkpoint in Barangay Rizal when they flagged down a Green Honda Wave motorcycle driven by accused-appellant with his wife Josefina Maria de Villa as backrider. Accused-appellant was not wearing helmet and shoes, and was only clad in sando. PO2 Salanguit approached accused-appellant and thereupon noticed that the motorcycle did not have a license plate. He asked accused-appellant to show his driver's license, but the latter could not present the same. PO2 Salanguit then requested accused-appellant to show the registration papers. Accused-appellant opened the motorcycle's utility box and took out a plastic containing the LTO - issued license plate (WG-7720) as well as the photocopies of the motorcycle's expired registration papers under the name of Alex Dayandayan which he handed to SPO1 Plata. At this instance, PO2 Sanlanguit saw two (2) plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance inside the utility box which he confiscated. Immediately, the police officers bodily searched accused-appellant and ordered him to empty the contents of his pocket. From accused-appellant's right pocket, two (2) more plastic sachets were recovered. PO2 Salanguit then marked the confiscated sachets with "DGD-1, " ["]DGD-2, " "DGD-3, " and "DGD-4, " which stands for the initials of "Danilo Guinto De Villa. "Version of the Defense
Afterwards, accused-appellant and his wife, along with the seized items and the motorcycle, were brought to the barangay hall where accused-appellant was photographed with the seized plastic sachets; and an Inventory of the Property Seized/Confiscated was prepared by PO2 Salanguit and signed by Department of Justice representative Benilda Diaz, media representative Napoleon Cabral and Barangay Chairman Ramil Sanchez. Thereafter, the seized items were brought by PO2 Salanguit and SPO1 Plata to the Batangas Provincial Crime Laboratory Office for forensic examination. In Chemistry Report No. BD-119-2011 dated 05 May 2011 issued by P/Insp. Herminia Carandang Llacuna, the test yielded a positive result for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a prohibited drug. Further investigation revealed that accused-appellant and his family were reportedly involved in the illicit drug trade in Poblacion, Tuy, Batangas. Neverthless, being a mere backrider, accused-appellant's wife was released for lack of evidence. A Traffic Citation Ticket was also issued against accused-appellant for traffic offenses, viz: driving without license, using the vehicle with expired registration papers, unattached plate number, and driving with sleeveless shirt and without shoes and helmet.[6]
On the other hand, the defense witnesses were accused-appellant and his wife Josefina Maria de Villa. They averred that on 04 May 2011, at around 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon, he and his wife went to Balayan, Batangas - using the motorcycle of his friend Alexander Dayandayan - to purchase goods. While they were traversing Barangay Rizal in Tuy, Batangas, they noticed a police patrol car was tailing them, and eventually flagged them down. A police officer, whose nameplate reads "SPO1 Buhay", alighted and asked him why the vehicle did not have [a] license number. Accused-appellant answered that it was inside the utility box which he immediately opened to retrieve the license plate and the registration papers. He handed them to SPO1 Buhay, but a certain police officer named Romasanta approached and told them that it is better to go to the police station for further investigation. At the Tuy police station, they entered a room where a police officer inspected his pocket and the goods they bought from Balayan, Batangas. At that point, accused-appellant's wife was permitted to leave in order to get the original copy of the Certificate of Registration from their house. Accused-appellant was then transferred to another room by SPO1 Plata who asked him about a person who was not known to him. After staying in the room for four (4) hours, accused-appellant was directed to board the patrol car, along with an old person and a media man, and proceeded to the barangay hall. There, he was photographed, with the plastic sachets of shabu placed on top of the table, in the presence of the barangay chairman, the media representative, and the DOJ representative. When they returned to the police station, accused-appellant was informed that he is being charged with illegal possession of shabu[7]
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this Court hereby finds accused Danilo De Villa y Guinto GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for Violation of Section 11, Paragraph 3, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for Twelve (12) Years, Four (4) Months and One (1) Day as minimum, to Fourteen (14) Years and Six (6) Months, as maximum, and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) with subsidiary imprisonment in case of non-payment thereof. With costs.
SO ORDERED.[13]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The appealed Decision dated 17 July 2013 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 09, Balayan, Batangas in Criminal Case No. 6623 is AFFIRMED.The CA likewise ruled that all the elements of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs were duly proven by the prosecution.[15] It did not give any merit to the argument of the accused that the arresting officers are not members of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) and that the former did not coordinate with said agency prior to his arrest.[16] It further ruled that the police officers were able to follow the procedure laid down in Section 21.[17] Verily, it held 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.[18] Lastly, the prosecution failed to overturn the presumption of regularity in the performance of duties.[19]
SO ORDERED.[14]
In this case, all the foregoing elements were duly proven. First, it is a conceded fact that accused-appellant was committing certain traffic infractions when he was flagged down in a police checkpoint, namely: driving without helmet and shoes; wearing only a sando; driving a vehicle without attached license plate; and holding expired registration papers which was not even under his name. When accused-appellant was asked to produce the registration papers, he voluntarily opened the motorcycle's utility and it was at this juncture when PO2 Salanguit saw the two (2) plastic sachets of shabu hidden inside. The sight, therefore, of the said illicit drugs in the possession and custody of accused-appellant gave the police officers genuine reason and authority to arrest him and to conduct a body-search incidental to the valid warrantless arrest; which search resulted to the seizure of two (2) more plastic sachets of shabu in his right pant pocket. Law and jurisprudence have laid down the principle that a warrantless search is justified as an incident to a lawful arrest; seizure of evidence in plain view; search of a moving vehicle; consented search; customs search; stop and frisk situations; and exigent and emergency circumstances. It is also worth mentioning that motorists - like accused-appellant here - and their vehicles, as well as pedestrians passing through checkpoints may be stopped and searched when there is probable cause to justify a reasonable belief of the men at the checkpoints that either the motorist is a law offender or the contents of the vehicle are or have been instruments of some offense. Secondly, it is evidently clear that accused-appellant has no legal authority to possess the contraband. Third, under the circumstances, accused-appellant's act of concealing the drugs inside the motorcycle's utility box and his pant pocket indicate that his possession and custody thereof is free, conscious and deliberate. Consequently, We find that the elements for a successful prosecution for illegal possession of shabu are present.[24]It is undeniable that the seizure of the prohibited items in this case was valid under the "plain view" doctrine. In People v. Lagman,[25] the Court laid down the following parameters for the application of this doctrine:
Objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in a position to have that view are subject to seizure even without a search warrant and may be introduced in evidence. The 'plain view' doctrine applies when the following requisites concur: (a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area; (b) the discovery of evidence in plain view is inadvertent; (c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. The law enforcement officer must lawfully make an initial intrusion or properly be in a position from which he can particularly view the area. In the course of such lawful intrusion, he came inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. The object must be open to eye and hand and its discovery inadvertent.[26]In this case, all the elements of the plain view doctrine were established.
In this instance, PO2 Salanguit testified that he confiscated the four (4) plastic sachets of shabu at the locus criminis after looking inside the motorcycle's utility box and upon frisking the accused-appellant on the occasion of the arrest. Upon seizure, he marked the items with "DGD-1, " ["]DGD-2," "DGD-3," and "DGD-4" in the presence of accused-appellant and the other police officers. On their way to the barangay hall, PO2 Salanguit was in possession of the seized items. When the photographs of accused-appellant and the seized items were taken, he was likewise present, along with DOJ representative Benilda Diaz, media representative Napoleon Cabral, and Barangay Chairman Ramil Sanchez. After preparing the Inventory of Property Seized/Confiscated and the Receipt of Property Seized, PO2 Salanguit physically delivered the items to the Batangas Provincial Crime Laboratory Office to P/Insp. Herminia Carandang Llacuna, forensic chemist, at 2:10 o'clock in the morning of 05 May 2011. In turn, P/Insp. Llacuna conducted the laboratory examination on the seized items which yielded positive result for methamphetamine hydrochloride, and, thereafter, she issued a corresponding laboratory report.[27]Verily, the prosecution was able to establish the integrity of the corpus delicti and an unbroken chain of custody. 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.[28] In this case, the prosecution was able to prove all the links that should be established in the chain of custody.
Appellant would next argue that the evidence against him was obtained in violation of Sections 21 and 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 because the buy-bust operation was made without any involvement of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). Prescinding therefrom, he concludes that the prosecution's evidence, both testimonial and documentary, was inadmissible having been procured in violation of his constitutional right against illegal arrest.It is thus clear that the PDEA is merely the lead agency, but is not the sole agency in the investigation and prosecution of drug-related cases. There is nothing in RA 9165 which even remotely indicates the intention of the legislature to make an arrest made without the participation of the PDEA illegal and evidence obtained pursuant to such an arrest inadmissible.[31] Thus, the accused's argument that his arrest and the seizure of the illegal drugs is not legal due to the non-participation of the PDEA must necessarily fail.
The argument is specious.
Section 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 reads:SEC. 86. Transfer, Absorption, and Integration of All Operating Units on Illegal Drugs into the PDEA and Transitory Provisions. — The Narcotics Group of the PNP, the Narcotics Division of the NBI and the Customs Narcotics Interdiction Unit are hereby abolished; however they shall continue with the performance of their task as detail service with the PDEA, subject to screening, until such time that the organizational structure of the Agency is fully operational and the number of graduates of the PDEA Academy is sufficient to do the task themselves: Provided, That such personnel who are affected shall have the option of either being integrated into the PDEA or remain with their original mother agencies and shall, thereafter, be immediately reassigned to other units therein by the head of such agencies. Such personnel who are transferred, absorbed and integrated in the PDEA shall be extended appointments to positions similar in rank, salary, and other emoluments and privileges granted to their respective positions in their original mother agencies.Cursory read, the foregoing provision is silent as to the consequences of failure on the part of the law enforcers to transfer drug-related cases to the PDEA, in the same way that the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act No. 9165 is also silent on the matter. But by no stretch of imagination could this silence be interpreted as a legislative intent to make an arrest without the participation of PDEA illegal nor evidence obtained pursuant to such an arrest inadmissible.
The transfer, absorption and integration of the different offices and units provided for in this Section shall take effect within eighteen (18) months from the effectivity of this Act: Provided, That personnel absorbed and on detail service shall be given until five (5) years to finally decide to join the PDEA.
Nothing in this Act shall mean a diminution of the investigative powers of the NBI and the PNP on all other crimes as provided for in their respective organic laws: Provided, however, That when the investigation being conducted by the NBI, PNP or any ad hoc anti-drug task force is found to be a violation of any of the provisions of this Act, the PDEA shall be the lead agency. The NBI, PNP or any of the task force shall immediately transfer the same to the PDEA: Provided, further, That the NBI, PNP and the Bureau of Customs shall maintain close coordination with the PDEA on all drug related matters.
It is a well-established rule of statutory construction that where great inconvenience will result from a particular construction, or great public interests would be endangered or sacrificed, or great mischief done, such construction is to be avoided, or the court ought to presume that such construction was not intended by the makers of the law, unless required by clear and unequivocal words.
As we see it, Section 86 is explicit only in saying that the PDEA shall be the "lead agency" in the investigations and prosecutions of drug-related cases. Therefore, other law enforcement bodies still possess authority to perform similar functions as the PDEA as long as illegal drugs cases will eventually be transferred to the latter. Additionally, the same provision states that PDEA, serving as the implementing arm of the Dangerous Drugs Board, "shall be responsible for the efficient and effective law enforcement of all the provisions on any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical as provided in the Act." We find much logic in the Solicitor General's interpretation that it is only appropriate that drugs cases being handled by other law enforcement authorities be transferred or referred to the PDEA as the "lead agency" in the campaign against the menace of dangerous drugs. Section 86 is more of an administrative provision x x x[30] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)