Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=82542:56388&catid=1577&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 04:53:53+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 189840, December 11, 2013 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAY MONTEVIRGEN Y OZARAGA, Accused-Appellant.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAY MONTEVIRGEN Y OZARAGA, Accused-Appellant.
That on or about the 19th day of July 2005, in the City of Makati, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above- named accused, without being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell distribute and transport, weighing zero point zero four (0.04) gram of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu), which is a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.
That on or about the 19th day of July 2005, in the City of Makati, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above- named accused, not lawfully authorized to possess or otherwise use any dangerous drug and without the corresponding license or prescription, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, direct custody and control weighing zero point zero four (0.04) gram and zero point ten (0.10) gram or [a] total weight of zero point fourteen (0.14) gram of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu), which is a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.
During arraignment, appellant pleaded “not guilty” in the two cases. After the pre-trial conference, a joint trial on the merits ensued.
The next day, July 19, 2005, the buy-bust team returned to Malvar Street and found appellant talking to three men. After these men departed, PO3 Ruiz, accompanied by the confidential informant, approached appellant. The confidential informant introduced PO3 Ruiz to appellant and told him that PO3 Ruiz wanted to buy shabu. Appellant asked PO3 Ruiz how much he wanted to buy and he replied, P200.00. Appellant pulled out from his pocket three plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance and told PO3 Ruiz to choose one. He complied and gave the marked money to appellant as payment. Appellant pocketed the remaining plastic sachets together with the marked money. PO3 Ruiz then took off his cap – the pre-arranged signal that the transaction had been consummated. The other buy-bust team members then rushed to the scene to assist PO3 Ruiz in apprehending appellant. The two other plastic sachets and marked money were recovered from appellant after PO3 Ruiz ordered him to empty his pockets. PO3 Ruiz then marked the plastic sachets – “EMR” for the one appellant sold to him and “EMR-1” and “EMR-2”8 for the other two sachets confiscated from appellant.
Let the dangerous drug subject matter of these cases be disposed of in the manner provided for by law.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The December 18, 2007 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of the City of Makati, Branch 65 is hereby AFFIRMED.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROPER CUSTODY OF SEIZED DANGEROUS DRUGS UNDER R.A. NO. 9165.
In his joint discussion of these errors, appellant contends that the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation failed to observe the proper procedure in the custody and control of the seized drug by not marking the confiscated specimens in the manner mandated by law. He claims that the arresting team did not immediately conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the presence of his representative or counsel, representative from media, Department of Justice, and any elected public officials pursuant to Section 21 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165. He also argues that the Certificate of Coordination has no weight in evidence and cannot be used to prove the legitimacy of the buy-bust operation since it was issued for the failed entrapment operation the previous day, July 18, 2005.
Appellee, through the Office of the Solicitor General argues that the prosecution sufficiently established all the elements of illegal sale and possession of shabu against appellant. It asserts that the integrity and evidentiary value of the shabu seized from appellant were properly preserved by the arresting team.
Elements for the Prosecution of Illegal Sale and Possession of Shabu.
All the elements in the prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs were also established. First, the two plastic sachets containing shabu subject of the case for the illegal possession of drugs were found in appellant’s pocket after a search on his person was made following his arrest in flagrante delicto for the illegal sale of shabu. It must be remembered that a person lawfully arrested may be searched for anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a warrant.20 Second, appellant did not adduce evidence showing his legal authority to possess the shabu. Third, appellant’s act of allowing the poseur-buyer to choose one from among the three sachets and putting back into his pocket the two sachets of shabu not chosen clearly shows that he freely and consciously possessed the illegal drugs. Hence, appellant was correctly charged and convicted for illegal possession of shabu.
Appellant’s defense of denial cannot prevail against the positive testimony of prosecution witnesses. There is also no imputation by appellant of any evil motives on the part of the buy-bust team to falsely testify against him. Their testimonies and actuations therefore enjoy the presumption of regularity.
Failure to Physically Inventory and Photograph the Shabu After Seizure and Confiscation is Not Fatal.
(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; 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 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.
Here, the absence of evidence that the buy-bust team made an inventory and took photographs of the drugs seized from appellant was not fatal since the prosecution was able to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the shabu. PO3 Ruiz, the poseur-buyer and apprehending officer, marked the seized items in front of appellant, the barangay captain and other members of the buy-bust team, immediately after the consummation of the drug transaction. He then delivered the seized items to the duty investigator, who in turn sent the same to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination on the same day. During trial, PO3 Ruiz was able to identify the said markings and explain how they were made.
Clearly, there was no hiatus or confusion in the confiscation, handling, custody and examination of the shabu. The illegal drugs that were confiscated from appellant, taken to the police headquarters, subjected to qualitative examination at the crime laboratory, and finally introduced in evidence against appellant were the same illegal drugs that were confiscated from him when he was caught in flagrante delicto selling and possessing the same.
Under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the penalty for the unauthorized sale of shabu, regardless of its quantity and purity, is life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10 million. Since the penalty imposed by the RTC and affirmed by the CA is within the prescribed range, we affirm the lower courts’ imposition of life imprisonment as well as the payment of fine of P500,000.00.
On the other hand, Section 11(3), Article II of the same law provides that illegal possession of less than five grams of shabu is penalized with imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years plus a fine ranging from P300,000.00 to P400,000.00.
Appellant was found guilty of selling one sachet containing 0.04 gram of shabu and of possessing two other sachets of the same substance with a total weight of 0.14 gram. Hence, applying the above provisions, the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to twenty (20) years as maximum and the payment of fine of P300,000.00 imposed by the RTC and affirmed by the CA are also proper.
* Per Special Order No. 1627 dated December 6, 2013.
1People v. Guiara, G.R. No. 186497, September 17, 2009, 600 SCRA 310, 329.
2 CA rollo, pp. 99-124; penned by Associate Justice Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos and concurred in by Associate Justices Arcangelita M. Romilla Lontok and Myrna Dimaranan Vidal.
3 Records, pp. 105-112; penned by Presiding Judge Edgardo M. Caldona.
7 TSN, July 4, 2006, pp. 4-8.
9 Id. at 13-14; Exhibits “K” to “K-2,” “L” to “L-2” and “M” to “M-2,” Formal Offer of Evidence, id. at 66-70.
10 TSN, June 19, 2007, pp. 3-5.
11 TSN, December 11, 2007, pp. 3-5.
14 CA rollo, pp. 99-124.
17People v. Dilao, 555 Phil. 394, 409 (2007).
18People v. Sembrano, G.R. No. 185848, August 16, 2010, 628 SCRA 328, 342-343.
19People v. Legaspi, G.R. No. 173485, November 23, 2011, 661 SCRA 171, 185.
20 RULES OF COURT, Rule 126, Section 13.
21People v. Manalao, G.R. No. 187496, February 6, 2013, 690 SCRA 106, 119.
22People v. Adrid, G.R. No. 201845, March 6, 2013, 692 SCRA 683, 696.
23 Id., quoting People v. Roa, G.R. No. 186134, May 6, 2010, 620 SCRA 359, 369-370.

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