Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83404:57578&catid=1587&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 03:59:24+00:00

Document:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DEMOSTHENES BONTUYAN, Accused-Appellant.
Before this Court is an appeal from the Decision1 of the Twentieth Division of the Court of Appeals (CA), Cebu City in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 01112 affirming in toto the Joint Decision2 in Criminal Case Nos. CBU-74092 and CBU-74093 rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 13 of Cebu City. The RTC Joint Decision found Demosthenes Bontuyan (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violations of Sections 11 and 12, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. No. 9165), otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to said charges.5 Pre-trial followed limiting the issues to: (1) whether or not in the implementation of the search warrant, the police officers committed irregularities; and (2) whether or not there were shabu and shabu paraphernalia recovered from his house. Incidentally, the defense admitted the identity of the accused-appellant and the fact of the search but not as to the manner it was conducted.6 Thereafter, a joint trial proceeded.
By virtue of Search Warrant No. 07-05-F issued by the court a quo against accused[-appellant], a team of Police Officers headed by P/Supt. Pablo Labra, with members PO2 [Tahanlangit] designated as the Searcher and SPO1 Petallar as the Recorder, together with some SWAT and CIIB members implemented the said warrant on July 26, 2005, at around 4:55 early dawn at Sitio Dita, Barangay Pulangbato, Cebu City.
With the assistance of PO1 Luardo, one of the deponents for the issuance of the Search Warrant, the team was able to locate the residence of the accused[-appellant]. Upon their arrival, PO2 [Tahanlangit] saw the accused[-appellant] sleeping. He knocked the door calling the accused[-appellant’s] attention; informed him that they have a search warrant; and ordered him to read the same. After reading the warrant, accused requested that his brother, Barangay Councilor Segundo Bontuyan, Jr. [(Councilor Bontuyan)], be summoned to witness the search, which the police officers granted. In less than one (1) minute and being a neighbour of the accused[-appellant], Councilor Bontuyan arrived at the subject house and read the search warrant.
Thenceforth, the searcher PO2 [Tahanlangit], together with SPO1 Petallar, witnesses Councilor Bontuyan and Barangay Tanod [Lucio] Leyson [(Barangay Tanod Leyson)], conducted the search first in the sala where he found no illicit items. They went to the room where he found one (1) tin foil, two (2) used candles, one (1) disposable lighter, (and) one (1) folded long tissue paper found on top of a small wooden stool. When they proceeded to the lower portion of the house, PO2 [Tahanlangit] found a plastic container with a name Centrum. Councilor Bontuyan opened the container and found therein twenty (20) small packs of white crystalline substance believed to be shabu.
PO2 [Tahanlangit] turned over the confiscated items to SPO1 Petallar for proper inventory. The latter, who was designated as the “Recorder” then prepared a Receipt and a Certificate of Good Conduct of the Search which were duly signed by Councilor Bontuyan and Barangay Tanod Leyson. Accused refused to sign them.
The defense presented another version of the story. The corroborative testimonies of accused[-appellant], his brother Councilor Bontuyan and Barangay Tanod Leyson showed that on July 26, 2004 at around 4 o’clock in the morning, accused was sleeping at the house of his deceased parents when somebody woke him up. He turned the lights on and saw some police officers in uniform informing him that they are conducting a raid in his house. Showing no authority to search the house, accused argued that the said search cannot be done. He also requested that his brother be ordered to witness the search, which the police officers acceded.
While accused’s brother was being fetched by one of the implementing officers, he stayed in the living room. Thereafter, they placed a plastic bottle of Pharmaton vitamins in the table.
Just across the house subject of the raid, Segundo Bontuyan, Jr., accused’s brother, was sleeping in their house when he was awakened by police officers who commanded him to go with them to witness the search. When he reached his parents’ house, he saw his brother being handcuffed in the nook of the house.
When Councilor Bontuyan arrived, the police officers commanded him to open the plastic bottle and when he did so, they declared that the small packs inside it were shabu. They then introduced themselves as police officers and informed the accused that they were conducting a raid. The accused got scared but did not resist or attempt to run. He was then brought to the police station.
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Demosthenes Bontuyan GUILTY of Violation of Section 11, Article II, RA 9165 for possession of 7.04 grams of shabu containing [methamphetamine] hydrochloride and sentences him to suffer a penalty of imprisonment of from twenty (20) years and one (1) day to life imprisonment plus fine in the amount of P400,000.00. And for Violation of Sec. 12, Article II, RA 9165 the court sentences him to six (6) months and one (1) day to two (2) years imprisonment plus fine in the amount of P10,000.00.
Whether or not the RTC and the CA erred in finding that the evidence of the prosecution was sufficient to convict accused-appellant for violations of Sections 11 and 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
In resolving the issue, accused-appellant seeks before this Court to delve into the factual matters of the case. However, settled 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.20 Considering that accused-appellant failed to show any arbitrariness, palpable error, or capriciousness on the findings of fact of the trial and appellate courts, these findings deserve great weight and are deemed conclusive and binding. Besides, an assiduous review of the records at hand reveals that the CA did not err in affirming accused-appellant’s conviction.
Certainly, accused-appellant was found to have in his possession 7.04 grams of shabu and some drug paraphernalia. There was nothing in the records showing that he had authority to possess them. And jurisprudence is rich in pronouncing that mere possession of a prohibited drug constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of any satisfactory explanation.23 Worst, accused-appellant likewise failed to present contrary evidence to rebut his possession of the shabu and drug paraphernalia; hence, his guilt was indeed established beyond reasonable doubt.
In the instant case, the prosecution substantiated beyond an iota of doubt the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items as provided for by the rules. Records show that immediately after the seizure of the illegal items recovered inside the house of the accused-appellant, the designated searcher, PO2 [Tahanlangit], turned them over to SPO1 Petallar who thereafter prepared the Receipt of Property Seized and the Certification of Good Conduct Search both duly signed by witnesses Barangay Councilor Bontuyan and Barangay Tanod Leyson. SPO1 Petallar took custody of the seized items and marked them at the police station with SW-DB-1 to 20. The illegal paraphernalia were placed inside a plastic cellophane collectively marked Exhibit “H”.
Admittedly, a testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items.27 Here, there was substantial compliance with the law and the integrity of the seized items from accused-appellant was preserved.
Accused-appellant further insists that the courts relied mainly on the version of the prosecution’s witnesses and placed more weight on the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty instead of the accused’s right to be presumed innocent.
While it is true that 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.30 In this case, the quantum of evidence necessary to prove accused-appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt had been sufficiently met. Accordingly, the prosecution was able to overcome accused-appellant’s constitutional right to be presumed innocent.
Of equal importance is the propriety of the penalties imposed by the trial court against accused-appellant, which we find in accord with the provisions of R.A. No. 9165, the Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISL), and in line with recent jurisprudential pronouncements.
In sum, we find no cogent reason to depart from the decisions of the RTC and the CA. Accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violations of Sections 11 and 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Court of Appeals Decision in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 01112, is AFFIRMED in all respects.
1Rollo, pp. 3-24; Penned by Associate Justice Carmelita Salandanan-Manahan with Associate Justices Ramon Paul L. Hernando and Maria Elisa Sempio Diy, concurring.
2 Records, pp. 135-139; Penned by Presiding Judge Meinrado P. Paredes.
5 Id. at 19; Certificate of Arraignment dated 5 September 2005; RTC Order dated 5 September 2005. Id. at 20.
6 Id. at 51; Pre-trial Order dated 29 August 2007.
7 The prosecution proffered the testimonies of Forensic Chemical Officer Pinky Sayson-Acog of the PNP Crime Laboratory, PO2 Jonas Tahanlangit, and SPO1 Alfredo Petallar; while the defense presented as its witnesses accused-appellant Demosthenes Bontuyan with the testimonies of his brother Councilor Segundo Bontuyan, Jr. and Barangay Tanod Lucio Leyson as corroborating witnesses.
8 Records, pp. 4 and 15; Witness’ family name should be spelled “Tahanlangit” as appearing in his affidavit dated 27 July 2005.
14Rollo, p. 14; CA Decision citing David v. People, G.R. No. 181861, 17 October 2011, 69 SCRA 150, 157.
15 Id. at 15 citing People v. Lorie Villahermosa, G.R. No. 186465, 1 June 2011, 650 SCRA 256, 274 and People v. Velasquez, G.R. No. 177224, 11 April 2012, 669 SCRA 307, 317-318.
16 Id. at 16-17 citing People v. Lorie Villahermosa, G.R. No. 186465, 1 June 2011, 650 SCRA 256, 276.
17 Id. at 16 citing People v. Abedin, G.R. No. 179936, 11 April 2012, 669 SCRA 322, 336 and People v. Miguel, G.R. No. 180505, 29 June 2010, 622 SCRA 210, 220-221.
18 Id. at 21 citing People v. Alivio, G.R. No. 177771, 30 May 2011, 649 SCRA 318, 333-334.
19 Id. at 22 citing David v. People, G.R. No. 181861, 17 October 2011, 659 SCRA 150.
20People v. Quiamanlon, G.R. No. 191198, 26 January 2011, 640 SCRA 697, 706 citing Fuentes v. CA, 335 Phil. 1163, 1167-1168 (1997).
21People v. Bautista, G.R. No. 177320, 22 February 2012, 666 SCRA 518 citing People v. Naquita, G.R. No. 180511, 28 July 2008, 560 SCRA 430, 451.
22Rollo, p. 17; CA Decision citing People v. De Jesus, G.R. No. 191753, 17 September 2012, 680 SCRA 680, 690-691.
23 People v. Quiamanlon, supra note 20 citing Buenaventura v. People, 556 Phil. 331, 345 (2007).
24People v. Le, G.R. No. 188976, 29 June 2010, 622 SCRA 571, 583. See also People v. Domado, G.R. No. 172971, 16 June 2010, 621 SCRA 73, 91-92.
27People v. Castro, G.R. No. 194836, 15 June 2011, 652 SCRA 393, 404-405.
28 564 Phil. 282, 293 (2007).
29People v. Sembrano, G.R. No. 185848, 16 August 2010, 628 SCRA 328, 342 citing People v. Lamado, G.R. No. 185278, 13 March 2009, 581 SCRA 544, 552 and People v. Remerata, G.R. No. 147230, 449 Phil. 813, 822 (2003).
30People v. De Guzman, supra note 28 at 294.

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