Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions

G.R. No. 188850 (People of the Philippines v. Juanito Montes y Cabonilas). - We resolve the appeal, filed by accused Juanito C. Montes (appellant), from the June 26, 2009 decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 02806.^[1]

In a joint decision dated April 27, 2007,^[2] the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 103, Quezon City, convicted the appellant of illegal sale and possession of shabu under Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165,^[3] respectively. The RTC gave full credence to the testimonies of Police Officer (PO)2 Joselito Mendoza and PO2 Noel Magcalayo who conducted the buy-bust operation against the appellant, and rejected the appellant's self-serving defenses of denial and alibi.

For the sale of shabu, the RTC sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00. For the possession of 0.17 gram of shabu, the RTC imposed upon the appellant an indeterminate sentence of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to thirteen (13) years as maximum, and to pay a fine of P300,000.00.

On intermediate appellate review, the CA affirmed in toto  the RTC's ruling. The CA agreed with the RTC in giving weight to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, and held that the arresting officers complied with the proper procedure in the custody and disposition of the seized drugs.

Our Ruling 

We dismiss the appeal and affirm the appellant's guilt.

We find no reason to reverse the RTC's findings, as affirmed by the CA. Similarly, we give full credit to the positive and credible testimonies of the police officers pointing to the appellant as the seller and possessor of the confiscated shabu, and reject the appellant's alibi as his version of the events leading to his arrest failed to coincide with ordinary circumstances. We find incredible the appellant's claim that he was arrested at 10:30 p.m., immediately after buying food items in a certain supermarket, as this establishment is usually already closed for business at that time. In fact, the evidence showed that the time of the appellant's arrest was at 3:00 a.m.;^[4] thus, making the appellant's alibi even more impossible.

Also, we reject the appellant's contention that the police officers failed to comply with the provisions of Section 21, paragraph 1 of R.A. No. 9165,^[5] which provides for the procedure in the custody and disposition of seized drugs. The appellant argued that the drugs were photographed not at the place where he was apprehended, and that no representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), any elected public official, or the appellant's counsel or representative was present at the inventory of the confiscated shabu.

In this case, the CA correctly found that the prosecution had established the unbroken chain of custody over the seized drugs. During cross-examination, PO2 Magcalayo testified that, after the buy-bust operation, they immediately went to the barangay hall of Barangay  Villa, Balara to have the shabu inventoried, photographed and signed in the presence of a barangay official. But due to the  barangay official's refusal to sign the plastic sachet containing the seized drugs, the apprehending team, together with the appellant, proceeded to Police Station 6, Barangay Batasan Hills, Quezon City where PO2 Magcalayo repeated the physical inventory and photographing of the seized drugs in the appellant's presence. Thereafter, a booking sheet order was issued to the appellant. The records further showed that PO2 Magcalayo surrendered the seized drugs, marked with the initials "NM," to investigator PO3 Hector Hernandez, who then requested the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory to examine the confiscated items.^[6]  Forensic Chemist Leonald Jabonilla identified the items forwarded to him by PO3 Hernandez to be the same specimen subjected to laboratory tests and which yielded positive for the presence of shabu.^[7] We find the alleged non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 to be not fatal in this case because the apprehending team properly preserved the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs.^[8] 

We affirm the penalties imposed as they are well within the ranges provided by law. Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 prescribes a penalty of life imprisonment to death^[9] and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00 for the sale of any dangerous drag, regardless of the quantity or purity involved. On the other hand, Section 11, paragraph 3, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 prescribes a penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years, and a fine ranging from P300,000.00 to P400,000.00 for the possession of any dangerous drug with a quantity of less than five (5) grams.cralaw

WHEREFORE, the decision dated June 26, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 02806 is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours, 

(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Penned by Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon, and concurred in by Associate Justices Jose Catral Mendoza (now a member of this Court) and Marlene Gonzales-Sison;  rollo, pp. 2-11.

^[2] Docketed as Criminal Case Nos. Q-05-133340-41; CA rollo, pp. 18-26. 

^[3] Otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002." 

^[4] CA rollo, p. 24. 

^[5] 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. � x x x

(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[.]

^[6] TSN, February 16, 2006, pp. 19-43. 

^[7] As evidenced by Chemistry Report No. D-309-2005; TSN, December 1, 2005, pp. 1-4. 

^[8] In People v. Sanchez (G.R. No. 175832, October 15, 2008, 569 SCRA 194, 211-212), we held that "non-compliance with the strict directive of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution's case; [but these lapses] must be recognized and explained in terms of their justifiable grounds and the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized must be shown to have been preserved." 

^[9] The imposition of the death penalty has been proscribed with the effectivity of R.A. No. 9346, otherwise known as "An Act Prohibiting the imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines."