Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81119:gr-192050-2013&catid=1566&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 08:35:35+00:00

Document:
NELSON VALLENO y LUCITO, Petitioner, v.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
Upon arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty. Trial ensued.
Five police officers, two barangay officials and one forensic chemist testified for the prosecution.
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt for illegal possession of methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug, defined and penalized under Sec. 11(1)(1), Art. II of R.A. 9165, otherwise known as The Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002, and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of Four Hundred Thousand pesos (P400,000.00).
In convicting petitioner, the trial court lent credence to the straightforward testimonies of the police officers over the mere denial of the accused. The trial court ruled that the chain of custody over the illegal drugs seized was properly established.
Petitioner filed his supplemental brief and harped on the inconsistencies of the testimonies of prosecution witnesses.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE PROSECUTION WAS NOT ABLE TO DISCHARGE ITS BURDEN OF PROVING BY PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THAT PETITIONER HAS COMMITTED THE CRIME OF VIOLATION OF SECTION 11, ARTICLE II OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN INTERPRETING THAT THE REQUIREMENTS PROVIDED FOR UNDER SECTION 21 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165 ARE NOT MANDATORY AND THAT NON-COMPLIANCE THEREOF IS NOT FATAL TO THE CAUSE OF THE PROSECUTION.
The primordial issue here, as in any criminal case, is whether the guilt of the accused has been established beyond reasonable doubt.
It is hornbook doctrine that the 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.25 After an exhaustive review of the records of this case, we see no sufficient reason for resort to the exception to the rule.
Q Where did you start searching the house?
A We started at the cabinet.
Q Where is that cabinet located?
A Inside his house in front of the dining table.
Q While you were starting to search the cabinet, do you know where your companions were at that time?
A The house of the accused was just a small house, so we were just back to back with each other.
Q While you were searching the cabinet, at what particular part of the cabinet did you start?
A I started at the lower portion of the cabinet.
Q What did you find at the lower portion of the cabinet?
Leading, it is presumed that something was found.
Q What happened when you started to look at the lower portion of the cabinet?
A I saw different kitchen utensils.
Q After searching the lower portion of the cabinet, what happened next?
A I took a chair which I could use in order to see the top portion of the cabinet.
Q What happened after you took a chair?
A I stood at the chair and I saw a natel bag colored black with red stripe on it.
Q After finding that black bag, what happened next?
A I gave the bag to PO3 Villano.
Q When you handed over the bag to Villano, where were you at that time?
A I was still standing by the chair and looking for other things.
Q After giving the bag to Villano, what happened?
A I went down from the chair and told our team leader to check the bag.
Q Did your team leader accede to your request?
Q What happened after checking the bag?
Q Why, according to you, you proceeded to search the premises of the accused. Now, what happened to your search?
A We were able to recover inside his house the nine (9) pieces transparent plastic sachets containing shabu and several pieces of "PP Bags: which we believed they used in repacking of the shabu, and a weighing scale. And others I cannot recall, sir.
Q Now, we will go to the specifics. You said that there was actually nine (9) pieces sachets of shabu recovered from the place, who actually recovered these items?
A PO2 (sic) Edrano and PO1 Valenzuela, sir.
A I was only informed that they recovered shabu inside the black bag, sir.
Q When you were informed that these items, these shabu were recovered by Edrano and Valenzuela?
Q What was your distance from them?
A More or less one (1) arm length, sir.
Q By the way, tell us, how were you able to, because according to you, you heard, in what manner this information reached you during the conduct of the search?
A I heard from them that they saw plastic sachets containing shabu, sir.
Q Meaning to say, they uttered words?
A Yes, sir. They uttered words.
Q When you heard them uttered that words, what exactly the words?
Q Upon hearing this matter, what was your reaction?
A I was surprised, sir. But I already expected that we will be able to recover shabu because that is the subject of our search warrant, sir.
Q When for the first time did you see the bag?
A It was placed on top of the cabinet and it was placed on the table, sir.
Q Who was responsible for the placing of this item from the cabinet down to the table?
A PO2 (sic) Edrano and PO1 Valenzuela, including the two (2) barangay officials, sir.
Q So, if that bag will be shown to you, will you be able to identify it?
Q Did you see any bag that was recovered?
Q And were you able to find out what were the contents of that bag?
A Yes, your honor, when it was scrutinized in my presence, I saw the other plastic sachets containing the shabu itself.
Q When the contents were put out from this bag, were you present?
Q And what were those contents?
Although the shabu was not found by the searching team on petitioners person, it was found inside a bag which was hidden on top of a cabinet in the house of petitioner. Thus, petitioner is deemed in possession thereof. Petitioner was not lawfully authorized to possess the same. It can also be inferred that petitioner was privy to the existence of the shabu. Mere possession of a regulated drug per se constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused absent a satisfactory explanation of such possession the onus probandi is shifted to the accused, to explain the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi. With the burden of evidence shifted to the petitioner, it was his duty to explain his innocence about the regulated drug seized from his possession.29 This, petitioner failed to do.
The petitioners proposition that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt is anchored on his claim that the prosecution failed to prove and establish the chain of custody of the subject prohibited drugs allegedly seized from his house.
Petitioner highlights the following acts of non-compliance with the aforementioned rule: 1) there was failure to present the alleged photographs of the seized substance in court; 2) there were no representatives from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ) during the conduct of the inventory of the seized items; 3) there was a major contradiction from among prosecution witnesses on who actually brought the seized items to the PNP Crime Laboratory; and 4) the manner of conducting the physical inventory of the alleged drugs taken from petitioners house appeared to be irregular as the seized items were allowed to be handled by persons not authorized to do so.
In People v. Concepcion,32 this Court ruled that the failure to submit in evidence the required physical inventory of the seized drugs and the photograph, as well as the absence of a member of media or the DOJ, pursuant to Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 is not fatal and will not render an accuseds arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible.
In the instant case, the chain of custody of the seized illegal drugs was not broken. The prosecution established that PO3 Edrano recovered the white plastic sachets, later on confirmed positive for traces of shabu. PO3 Edrano handed them over to PO3 Villano, who made markings on the seized items and prepared an inventory of the same while inside petitioners house. It was also shown that PO3 Villano brought the seized illegal drugs to the police station where he himself prepared the inventory. While he presented the same to a certain PO3 Molina, it was still PO3 Villano and SPO4 Fabiano who first brought the seized illegal drugs to the court, who in turn ordered him to bring it to the PNP Crime Laboratory. In the letter request addressed to the forensic chemist, it was PO3 Villano who signed as the requesting party. Clearly therefore, the recovery and handling of the seized illegal drugs were more than satisfactorily established in this case.
Finally, there was nothing irregular in the conduct of search of petitioners house. There were variations in the witnesses testimonies as to whether petitioner was inside the house during the search. One witness testified that petitioner was coming in and out of the house during the search while the other witnesses claimed that petitioner was waiting just outside the house. Assuming that petitioner was indeed outside the house, it does not taint the regularity of the search. Section 8, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court allows the absence of the lawful occupant provided that two witnesses are present.
Section 8. Search of house, room, or premises to be made in presence of two witnesses. No search of a house, room, or any other premises shall be made except in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family or in the absence of the latter, two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed 29 October 2009 Decision and the 13 April 2010 Resolution of the Court or Appeals in CA-GR. CR-H.C. No. 03433 are hereby AFFIRMED.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Vicente S.E. Veloso with Associate Justices Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Marlene Gonzales-Sison, concurring, Rollo, pp. 35-50.
2 Presided by Judge E. Contreras. Id. at 53-60.
3 For uniformity purpose, the accused Nelson Valleno y Lucito shall be referred to as petitioner considering that the appeal was filed in the form of a petition for review.
5 TSN, 27 June 2005, pp. 4-6.
6 TSN, 15 August 2006, pp. 7-8.
8 TSN, 27 June 2005, p. 10.
9 TSN, 15 August 2006, p. 13.
10 TSN, 27 April 2006, pp. 10-12; TSN, 26 June 2006, pp. 11-16; TSN, 27 June 2005, pp. 13-15.
11 TSN, 27 June 2005, p. 19, 25; TSN, 26 June 2006, pp. 17-18.
13 TSN, 27 June 2005, p. 26.
14 TSN, 1 April 2005, p. 8.
15 TSN, 29 January 2007, pp. 6-7.
16 TSN, 9 November 2004, p. 10.
18 TSN, 1 October 2007, p. 12.
25 Asiatico v. People, G.R. No. 195005, 12 September 2011, 657 SCRA 443, 450; People v. Castro, G.R. No. 194836, 15 June 2011, 652 SCRA 393, 407 citing Fuentes v. Court of Appeals, G. R . N o . 109849, 26 February 1997, 268 SCRA 703, 708-709; People v. Belo, G.R. No. 187075, 5 July 2010, 623 SCRA 527, 535-536.
26 Fajardo v. People, G.R. No. 185460, 25 July 2012; People v. Sabadlab, G.R. No. 186392, 18 January 2012; David v. People, G.R. No. 181861, 17 October 2011, 659 SCRA 150, 157.
27 TSN, 27 April 2006, pp. 10-12.
28 TSN, 27 June 2005, pp. 12-16.
29 People v. Noque, G.R. No. 175319, 15 January 2010, 610 SCRA 195, 206 citing People v. Tee, 443Phil. 521, 551 (2003).
30 People v. Alcuizar, G.R. No. 189980, 6 April 2011, 647 SCRA 431, 437.
31 People v. Almodiel, G.R. No. 200951, 5 September 2012.
32 G.R. No. 178876, 27 June 2008, 556 SCRA 421.
33 People v. Lazaro, Jr., G.R. No. 186418, 16 October 2009, 604 SCRA 250, 274-275.
34 People v. Sobangee, G.R. No. 186120, 31 January 2011, 641 SCRA 164, 172-173.
35 People v. Duque, G.R. No. 184606, 5 September 2012.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.