Professional Documents
Culture Documents
People Vs Martinez Et Al
People Vs Martinez Et Al
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, Present:
CARPIO, J.,Chairperson,
NACHURA,
- versus - PERALTA,
ABAD, and
MENDOZA, JJ.
ARNOLD MARTINEZ Y
GONZALES Y CUNANAN,
Accused-Appellants.
Promulgated:
DECISION
MENDOZA, J.:
The Facts
1[1] Rollo, pp. 2-14. Penned by Associate Justice Sixto C. Marella, Jr. with Associate Justice
Magdangal M. De Leon and Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, concurring.
3[3] Id. at 1.
As the police officers entered the gate of the house, they saw accused Orlando
Doria (Doria) coming out of the side door and immediately arrested him. Inside the
house, they saw accused Gonzales, Arnold Martinez (A. Martinez), Edgar Dizon
(Dizon), and Rezin Martinez (R. Martinez) in a room. The four were surprised by
the presence of the police. In front of them were open plastic sachets (containing
shabu residue), pieces of rolled used aluminum foil and pieces of used aluminum
foil.
The accused were arrested and brought to the police precinct. The items found
in the room were seized and turned over to the Pangasinan Provincial Police Crime
Laboratory Officer, P/Insp. Maranion. The latter conducted a laboratory examination
on the seized items and all 115 plastic sachets, 11 pieces of rolled used aluminum
foil, and 27 of the 49 pieces of used aluminum foil tested positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride. The accused were subjected to a drug test and,
except for Doria, they were found to be positive for methamphetamine
hydrochloride.
On February 13, 2008, the RTC rendered its decision, the dispositve portion
of which reads:
The subject items are hereby forfeited in favor of the government and
to be disposed of in accordance with the law.
SO ORDERED.4[4]
The CA ruled that there was sufficient evidence to support the findings of the
RTC as to the constructive possession of the dangerous drugs by the accused. It
further held that although the procedure regarding the custody and disposition of
evidence prescribed by Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was not strictly complied with,
the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence were nonetheless safeguarded.
The CA was of the view that the presumption of regularity in the performance of
official duty was not sufficiently controverted by the accused.
Not in conformity, the accused now interposes this appeal before this Court
praying for the reversal of the subject decision, presenting the following
Assignment of Errors
2. The lower court erred in not seeing through the antics of the
police to plant the shabu paraphernalia to justify the arrest of
the accused-appellants without warrant;
3. The lower court erred in not finding that the corpus delicti has
not been sufficiently established;
After an assiduous assessment of the evidentiary records, the Court finds that
the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused. The principal reasons are 1]
that the evidence against the accused are inadmissible; and 2] that granting the same
to be admissible, the chain of custody has not been duly established.
Indeed, the accused is estopped from assailing the legality of his arrest if he
fails to raise such issue before arraignment.5[5] However, this waiver is limited only
to the arrest. The legality of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court over
the person of the accused. A waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not carry
with it a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized during the illegal
warrantless arrest.6[6]
7[7] C.F. Sharp & Co., Inc. v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 431 Phil 11, 22 (2002).
9[9] San Luis v. Rojas, G.R. No. 159127, March 3, 2008, 547 SCRA 345, 357-358.
10[10] People v. Siton, G.R. No. 169364, September 18, 2009, 600 SCRA 476, 493.
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing
the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
This case would appear to fall under either a warrantless search incidental to
a lawful arrest or a plain view search, both of which require a lawful arrest in order
to be considered valid exceptions to the constitutional guarantee. Rule 113 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides for the circumstances under which a
warrantless arrest is lawful. Thus:
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the person
arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police
station or jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance with section 7 of
Rule 112.
A review of the facts reveal that the arrest of the accused was illegal and the
subject items were confiscated as an incident thereof. According to the testimony of
PO1 Azardon and his Joint Affidavit13[13] with PO1 Dela Cruz, they proceeded to,
and entered, the house of accused Gonzales based solely on the report of a concerned
citizen that a pot session was going on in said house, to wit:
Q: When you went to the place of Rafael Gonzales, of course you were
not armed with a search warrant, correct?
A: None, sir.
Q: When this informant told you that he was told that there was [an]
ongoing pot session in the house of Rafael Gonzales, was this report
to you placed in the police blotter before you proceeded to the house
of Rafael Gonzales?
Q: In other words, you did not even bother to get the personal data or
identity of the person who told you that he was allegedly informed
that there was an ongoing pot session in the house of Rafael
Gonzales?
A: What I know is that he is a jeepney driver of a downtown jeepney but
he does not want to be identified because he was afraid, sir.
Q: And likewise, he did not inform you who told him that there was an
ongoing pot session in the house of Rafael Gonzales?
A: No more, sir.
Q: But upon receiving such report from that jeepney driver you
immediately formed a group and went to the place of Rafael
Gonzales?
A: Yes, sir.
xxx
Q: When you were at the open gate of the premises of Rafael Gonzales,
you could not see what is happening inside the house of Rafael
Gonzales?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: You did not also see the alleged paraphernalia as well as the plastic
sachet of shabu on the table while you were outside the premises of
the property of Rafael Gonzales?
xxx
Q: Before they entered the premises they could not see the
paraphernalia?
COURT: Answer.
A: Of course because they were inside the room, how could we see them,
sir.
Q: But still you entered the premises, only because a certain person
who told you that he was informed by another person that there was
an ongoing pot session going on inside the house of Rafael
Gonzales?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And that is the only reason why you barged in inside the house of
Rafael Gonzales and you arrested the persons you saw?
A: Yes, sir.14[14]
Paragraph (c) of Rule 113 is clearly inapplicable to this case. Paragraphs (a)
and (b), on the other hand, may be applicable and both require probable cause to be
present in order for a warrantless arrest to be valid. Probable cause has been held to
signify a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently
strong in themselves to warrant a cautious mans belief that the person accused is
guilty of the offense with which he is charged.15[15]
Although this Court has ruled in several dangerous drugs cases16[16] that
tipped information is sufficient probable cause to effect a warrantless search,17[17]
such rulings cannot be applied in the case at bench because said cases involve either
a buy-bust operation or drugs in transit, basically, circumstances other than the sole
tip of an informer as basis for the arrest. None of these drug cases involve police
officers entering a house without warrant to effect arrest and seizure based solely on
an informers tip. The case of People v. Bolasa18[18] is informative on this matter.
16[16] Id., People v. Valdez, 363 Phil. 481 (1999); People v. Montilla, 349 Phil. 640 (1998).
17[17] Id.
Neither can it be said that the objects were seized in plain view. First,
there was no valid intrusion. As already discussed, accused-appellants were
illegally arrested. Second, the evidence, i.e., the tea bags later on found to
contain marijuana, was not inadvertently discovered. The police officers
intentionally peeped first through the window before they saw and
ascertained the activities of accused-appellants inside the room. In like
manner, the search cannot be categorized as a search of a moving vehicle, a
consented warrantless search, a customs search, or a stop and frisk; it
cannot even fall under exigent and emergency circumstances, for the
evidence at hand is bereft of any such showing.
It has been held that personal knowledge of facts in arrests without warrant
must be based upon probable cause, which means an actual belief or reasonable
grounds of suspicion. The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when the suspicion,
that the person to be arrested is probably guilty of committing an offense, is based
on actual facts, that is, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves
to create the probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested. 20[20]
Q: Mr. Witness, you claimed that the reason for apprehending all the
accused was based on a tip-off by an informant?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: You mean to say that it was not the informant himself to whom the
information originated but from somebody else?
A: That was what he told me, sir.
Q: Because of that you proceeded to where the alleged pot session was
going on? [No Answer]
xxx
Q: Mr. Witness, did your informant named [sic] those included in the
alleged pot session?
A: No, sir.
Q: That was, because your informant dont [sic] know physically what
was really happening there?
A: He was told by another person that there was an ongoing pot session
there, sir.21[21] [Emphasis supplied]
As has been noted previously by this Court, some lawmen, prosecutors and
judges have glossed over illegal searches and seizures in cases where law enforcers
are able to present the alleged evidence of the crime, regardless of the methods by
which they were obtained. This attitude tramples on constitutionally-guaranteed
rights in the name of law enforcement. It is ironic that such enforcement of the law
fosters the breakdown of our system of justice and the eventual denigration of
society. While this Court appreciates and encourages the efforts of law enforcers to
uphold the law and to preserve the peace and security of society, we nevertheless
admonish them to act with deliberate care and within the parameters set by the
Constitution and the law.24[24]
Chain of Custody
The accused contend that the identity of the seized drug was not established
with moral certainty as the chain of custody appears to be questionable, the
authorities having failed to comply with Sections 21 and 86 of R.A. No. 9165, and
Dangerous Drug Board (DDB) Resolution No. 03, Series of 1979, as amended by
Board Regulation No. 2, Series of 1990. They argue that there was no prior
coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), no inventory
of the confiscated items conducted at the crime scene, no photograph of the items
taken, no compliance with the rule requiring the accused to sign the inventory and
to give them copies thereof, and no showing of how the items were handled from the
time of confiscation up to the time of submission to the crime laboratory for testing.
Therefore, the corpus delicti was not proven, thereby producing reasonable doubt as
to their guilt. Thus, they assert that the presumption of innocence in their favor was
not overcome by the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty.
25[25] People v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 177777, December 4, 2009, 607 SCRA 377, 390-391.
R.A. No. 9165, an additional element of the crime is (iv) the possession of the
dangerous drug must have occurred during a party, or at a social gathering or
meeting, or in the proximate company of at least two (2) persons.
The existence of the drug is the very corpus delicti of the crime of illegal
possession of dangerous drugs and, thus, a condition sine qua non for conviction. In
order to establish the existence of the drug, its chain of custody must be sufficiently
established. The chain of custody requirement is essential to ensure that doubts
regarding the identity of the evidence are removed through the monitoring and
tracking of the movements of the seized drugs from the accused, to the police, to the
forensic chemist, and finally to the court.26[26] Malillin v. People was the first in a
growing number of cases to explain the importance of chain of custody in dangerous
drugs cases, to wit:
26[26] People v. Garcia, G.R. No. 173480, February 25, 2009, 580 SCRA 259, 274.
27[27] G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 619, 632-633.
Section 1(b) of DDB Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002,28[28] defines chain
of custody as follows:
Paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, provides for safeguards
for the protection of the identity and integrity of dangerous drugs seized, to wit:
(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.
28[28] Guidelines on the Custody and Disposition of Seized Dangerous Drugs, Controlled
Precursors and Essential Chemicals, and Laboratory Equipment.
People v. Habana thoroughly discusses the proper procedure for the custody
of seized or confiscated items in dangerous drugs cases in order to ensure their
identity and integrity, as follows:
Usually, the police officer who seizes the suspected substance turns
it over to a supervising officer, who would then send it by courier to the
police crime laboratory for testing. Since it is unavoidable that possession
of the substance changes hand a number of times, it is imperative for the
officer who seized the substance from the suspect to place his marking on
its plastic container and seal the same, preferably with adhesive tape that
cannot be removed without leaving a tear on the plastic container. At the
trial, the officer can then identify the seized substance and the procedure he
observed to preserve its integrity until it reaches the crime laboratory.
If the sealing of the seized substance has not been made, the
prosecution would have to present every police officer, messenger,
laboratory technician, and storage personnel, the entire chain of custody,
no matter how briefly ones possession has been. Each of them has to testify
that the substance, although unsealed, has not been tampered with or
substituted while in his care.29[29]
Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No.
9165 further elaborates, and provides for, the possibility of non-compliance with the
prescribed procedure:
b) Eight used (8) disposable lighters ( two (2) pcs colored orange, two (2)
pcs colored yellow, one (1) pc colored green & one (1) pc colored white ).
At the police station, the case, the accused, and the above-mentioned items
were indorsed to Duty Investigator Senior Police Officer 1 Pedro Urbano, Jr. (SPO1
Urbano) for proper disposition.31[31] A letter-request for laboratory examination
was prepared by Police Superintendent Edgar Orduna Basbag for the following
items:
a) Pieces of used empty small plastic sachets with suspected shabu residues
marked DC&A-1.
b) Pieces of used rolled and cut aluminum foil with suspected shabu
residues marked DC&A-2.
c) Pieces of used cut aluminum foil with suspected shabu residues marked
DC&A-3.32[32]
[Emphases supplied]
SPECIMENS SUBMITTED:
A A1 to A115 One Hundred fifteen (115) open transparent plastic sachet with
tag each containing suspected shabu residue without markings.
B B1 to B11 Eleven (11) rolled used aluminum foil with tag each containing
suspected shabu residue without markings.
C C1 to C49 Forty-nine (49) used aluminum foil with tag each containing
suspected shabu residue without markings.33[33]
[Emphases supplied]
Three days after the subject items were seized, or on September 5, 2006, a
Confiscation Receipt was issued by PO1 Azardon and PO1 Dela Cruz, which reads:
CONFISCATION RECEIPT
Seizing Officer:
(sgd.) (sgd.)
PO1 Bernard B Azardon PO1 Alejandro Dela Cruz
Affiant Affiant
Remarks:
Refused to Signed
Refused to Signed
Refused to Signed
Refused to Signed
Refused to Signed34[34]
[Emphases supplied]
The 115 open transparent plastic sachets, 11 pieces of rolled used aluminum
foil, and 27 (of the 49) pieces of used aluminum foil, all containing shabu residue,
as identified in the Final Chemistry Report, were presented in court and marked as
Exhibits H and series, I and series, and J and series, respectively. Said items were
identified by PO1 Azardon and P/Insp. Maranion at the witness stand.35[35]
35[35] TSN, February 9, 2007, p. 6; and TSN, January 22, 2007, pp. 10-12.
The CA ruled that the integrity and evidentiary value of the subject items were
properly preserved as there was sufficient evidence to prove that the items seized
from the accused were the same ones forwarded to the crime laboratory for
examination, as shown in the Confiscation Receipt and the letter-request for
laboratory examination.
First, the apprehending team failed to comply with Section 21 of R.A. No.
9165. After seizure and confiscation of the subject items, no physical inventory was
conducted in the presence of the accused, or their representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official. Thus, no
inventory was prepared, signed, and provided to the accused in the manner required
by law. PO1 Azardon, in his testimony,36[36] admitted that no photographs were
taken. The only discernable reason proffered by him for the failure to comply with
the prescribed procedure was that the situation happened so suddenly. Thus:
Q: But upon receiving such report from that jeepney driver you
immediately formed a group and went to the place of Rafael
Gonzales?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Such that you did not even inform the PDEA before you barged in
that place of Rafael Gonzales?
A: It was so suddenly, [sic] sir.
The Court does not find such to be a justifiable ground to excuse non-
compliance. The suddenness of the situation cannot justify non-compliance with the
requirements. The police officers were not prevented from preparing an inventory
and taking photographs. In fact, Section 21(a) of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 provides
specifically that in case of warrantless seizures, the inventory and photographs shall
be done at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending
officer/team. Whatever effect the suddenness of the situation may have had should
have dissipated by the time they reached the police station, as the suspects had
already been arrested and the items seized. Moreover, it has been held that in case
of warrantless seizures nothing prevents the apprehending officer from immediately
conducting the physical inventory and photography of the items at their place of
seizure, as it is more in keeping with the laws intent to preserve their integrity and
evidentiary value.38[38]
This Court has repeatedly reversed conviction in drug cases for failure to
comply with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, resulting in the failure to properly
preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. Some cases are
38[38] People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 175832, October 15, 2008, 569 SCRA 194, 218.
People v. Garcia,39[39] People v. Dela Cruz,40[40] People v. Dela Cruz,41[41]
People v. Santos, Jr.,42[42] People v. Nazareno,43[43] People v. Orteza,44[44]
Zarraga v. People,45[45] and People v. Kimura.46[46]
Second, the subject items were not properly marked. The case of People v.
Sanchez is instructive on the requirement of marking, to wit:
What Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rule do not
expressly specify is the matter of "marking" of the seized items in
warrantless seizures to ensure that the evidence seized upon apprehension
is the same evidence subjected to inventory and photography when these
activities are undertaken at the police station rather than at the place of
arrest. Consistency with the "chain of custody" rule requires that the
"marking" of the seized items - to truly ensure that they are the same items
that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence - should
be done (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator (2) immediately upon
confiscation. This step initiates the process of protecting innocent persons
from dubious and concocted searches, and of protecting as well the
apprehending officers from harassment suits based on planting of evidence
under Section 29 and on allegations of robbery or theft.
40[40] G.R. No. 177222, October 29, 2008, 570 SCRA 273.
42[42] G.R. No. 175593, October 17, 2007, 536 SCRA 489.
43[43] G.R. No. 174771, September 11, 2007, 532 SCRA 630.
44[44] G.R. No. 173051, July 31, 2007, 528 SCRA 750.
45[45] G.R. No. 162064, March 14, 2006, 484 SCRA 639.
Nowhere in the testimony of PO1 Azardon or in his Joint Affidavit with PO1
Dela Cruz does it appear that the subject items were at all marked. It was only in the
letter-request for laboratory examination that the subject items were indicated to
have been marked with DC&A-1, DC&A-2 and DC&A-3. There is no showing,
however, as to who made those markings and when they were made. Moreover,
those purported markings were never mentioned when the subject items were
identified by the prosecution witnesses when they took the stand.
The markings appear to pertain to a group of items, that is, empty plastic
sachets, rolled and cut aluminium foil, and cut aluminium foil, but do not specifically
pertain to any individual item in each group. Furthermore, it was only in the
Chemistry Report48[48] that the precise number of each type of item was indicated
and enumerated. The Court notes that in all documents prior to said report, the
subject items were never accurately quantified but only described as pieces,49[49]
This Court has acquitted the accused for the failure and irregularity in the
marking of seized items in dangerous drugs cases, such as Zarraga v. People,53[53]
People v. Kimura,54[54] and People v. Laxa.55[55]
Third, the Confiscation Receipt relied upon by the prosecution and the courts
below gives rise to more uncertainty. Instead of being prepared on the day of the
seizure of the items, it was prepared only three days after. More important, the
receipt did not even indicate exactly what items were confiscated and their quantity.
These are basic information that a confiscation receipt should provide. The only
Fifth, P/Insp. Maranion appears to be the last person in the chain of custody.
No witness testified on how the subject items were kept after they were tested prior
to their presentation in court. This Court has highlighted similar shortcomings in
56[56] TSN, February 9, 2007, p. 7; TSN, February 23, 2007, pp. 6-7.
More irregularities further darken the cloud as to the guilt of the accused.
Contrary to PO1 Azardons testimony62[62] that they were tipped off by a concerned
citizen while at the police station, the Letter63[63] to the Executive Director of the
DDB states that the apprehending officers were tipped off while conducting
monitoring/surveillance. Said letter also indicates, as does the Confiscation Receipt,
that the arrest and seizure occurred on September 4, 2006, and not September 2,
2006, as alleged in the Information. It was also mentioned in the aforementioned
Certification of the Dagupan Police and Joint Affidavit of the police officers that a
glass tube suspected to contain shabu residue was also confiscated from the accused.
Interestingly, no glass tube was submitted for laboratory examination.
In sum, numerous lapses and irregularities in the chain of custody belie the
prosecutions position that the integrity and evidentiary value of the subject items
were properly preserved. The two documents specifically relied on by the CA, the
58[58] G.R. No. 181494, March 17, 2009, 581 SCRA 762.
Regarding the lack of prior coordination with the PDEA provided in Section
86 of R.A. No. 9165, in People v. Sta. Maria,65[65] this Court held that said section
was silent as to the consequences of such failure, and said silence could not 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. Section 86 is
explicit only in saying that the PDEA shall be the lead agency in the investigation
and prosecution 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.
Let it be stressed that non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 does
not affect the admissibility of the evidence but only its weight.66[66] Thus, had the
64[64] People v. Cacao, G.R. No. 180870, January 22, 2010, 610 SCRA 636, 651.
65[65] G.R. No. 171019, February 23, 2007, 516 SCRA 621, 631-632.
66[66] People v. Del Monte, G.R. No. 179940, April 23, 2008, 552 SCRA 627, 637.
subject items in this case been admissible, their evidentiary merit and probative
value would be insufficient to warrant conviction.
It may be true that where no ill motive can be attributed to the police officers,
the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty should prevail.
However, such presumption obtains only when there is no deviation from the regular
performance of duty.67[67] Where the official act in question is irregular on its face,
the presumption of regularity cannot stand.
In this case, the official acts of the law enforcers were clearly shown and
proven to be irregular. When challenged by the evidence of a flawed chain of
custody, the presumption of regularity cannot prevail over the presumption of
innocence of the accused.68[68]
This Court once again takes note of the growing number of acquittals for
dangerous drugs cases due to the failure of law enforcers to observe the proper arrest,
67[67] People v. Obmiranis, G.R. No. 181492, December 16, 2008, 574 SCRA 140, 156-157.
It is recognized that strict compliance with the legal prescriptions of R.A. No.
9165 may not always be possible. Thus, as earlier stated, non-compliance therewith
is not necessarily fatal. However, the lapses in procedure must be recognized,
addressed 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.70[70]
69[69] People v. Cervantes, G.R. No. 181494, March 17, 2009, 581 SCRA 762, 784-785, citing People v. Garcia, G.R.
No. 173480, February 25, 2009, 580 SCRA 259, 277-278.
71[71] Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging
from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any
person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug in the following quantities, regardless of the
degree of purity thereof:
(1) 10 grams or more of opium;
(8) 10 grams or more of other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to,
methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDA) or "ecstasy", paramethoxyamphetamine (PMA),
trimethoxyamphetamine (TMA), lysergic acid diethylamine (LSD), gamma hydroxyamphetamine (GHB), and
those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic
value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements, as determined and promulgated
by the Board in accordance to Section 93, Article XI of this Act.
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be graduated as follows:
(1) Life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five hundred
thousand pesos (P500,000.00), if the quantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu" is ten (10)
grams or more but less than fifty (50) grams;
(2) Imprisonment of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four
hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), if the quantities of
dangerous drugs are five (5) grams or more but less than ten (10) grams of opium, morphine, heroin,
cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride
or "shabu", or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy", PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB,
and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any
therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or three hundred
(300) grams or more but less than five hundred (500) grams of marijuana; and
(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three
hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), if the quantities of
dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride,
marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu", or other dangerous
drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy", PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed
or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity
possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or less than three hundred (300) grams of marijuana.
Drugs) of R.A. No. 9165, with regard to the charges that are filed by law enforcers.
This Court notes the practice of law enforcers of filing charges under Sec. 11 in cases
where the presence of dangerous drugs as basis for possession is only and solely in
the form of residue, being subsumed under the last paragraph of Sec. 11. Although
not incorrect, it would be more in keeping with the intent of the law to file charges
under Sec. 15 instead in order to rehabilitate first time offenders of drug use, provided
that there is a positive confirmatory test result as required under Sec. 15. The
minimum penalty under the last paragraph of Sec. 11 for the possession of residue is
imprisonment of twelve years and one day, while the penalty under Sec. 15 for first
time offenders of drug use is a minimum of six months rehabilitation in a government
center. To file charges under Sec. 11 on the basis of residue alone would frustrate the
objective of the law to rehabilitate drug users and provide them with an opportunity
to recover for a second chance at life.
In the case at bench, the presence of dangerous drugs was only in the form of
residue on the drug paraphernalia, and the accused were found positive for use of
dangerous drugs. Granting that the arrest was legal, the evidence obtained
admissible, and the chain of custody intact, the law enforcers should have filed
charges under Sec. 15, R.A. No. 9165 or for use of dangerous drugs and, if there was
no residue at all, they should have been charged under Sec. 1473[73] (Possession of
72[72] Section 15. Use of Dangerous Drugs. A person apprehended or arrested, who is found to be positive for use
of any dangerous drug, after a confirmatory test, shall be imposed a penalty of a minimum of six (6) months
rehabilitation in a government center for the first offense, subject to the provisions of Article VIII of this Act. If
apprehended using any dangerous drug for the second time, he/she shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging
from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years and a fine ranging from Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) to
Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00): Provided, That this Section shall not be applicable where the person
tested is also found to have in his/her possession such quantity of any dangerous drug provided for under Section 11
of this Act, in which case the provisions stated therein shall apply.
73[73] Section 14. Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs
During Parties, Social Gatherings or Meetings. - The maximum penalty provided for in Section 12 of this Act shall
be imposed upon any person, who shall possess or have under his/her control any equipment, instrument, apparatus
Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs
During Parties, Social Gatherings or Meetings). Sec. 14 provides that the maximum
penalty under Sec. 1274[74] (Possession of Possession of Equipment, Instrument,
Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs) shall be imposed on any
person who shall possess any equipment, instrument, apparatus and other
paraphernalia for dangerous drugs. Under Sec. 12, the maximum penalty is
imprisonment of four years and a fine of P50,000.00. In fact, under the same section,
the possession of such equipment, apparatus or other paraphernalia is prima facie
evidence that the possessor has used a dangerous drug and shall be presumed to have
violated Sec. 15.
In order to effectively fulfill the intent of the law to rehabilitate drug users,
this Court thus calls on law enforcers and prosecutors in dangerous drugs cases to
exercise proper discretion in filing charges when the presence of dangerous drugs is
only and solely in the form of residue and the confirmatory test required under Sec.
15 is positive for use of dangerous drugs. In such cases, to afford the accused a
chance to be rehabilitated, the filing of charges for or involving possession of
and other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing
any dangerous drug into the body, during parties, social gatherings or meetings, or in the proximate company of at
least two (2) persons.
74[74] Section 12. Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs.
- The penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and a fine ranging from
Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) to Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless
authorized by law, shall possess or have under his/her control any equipment, instrument, apparatus and other
paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing any
dangerous drug into the body: Provided, That in the case of medical practitioners and various professionals who are
required to carry such equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia in the practice of their profession, the
Board shall prescribe the necessary implementing guidelines thereof.
The possession of such equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia fit or intended for any of the
purposes enumerated in the preceding paragraph shall be prima facie evidence that the possessor has smoked,
consumed, administered to himself/herself, injected, ingested or used a dangerous drug and shall be presumed to
have violated Section 15 of this Act.
dangerous drugs should only be done when another separate quantity of dangerous
drugs, other than mere residue, is found in the possession of the accused as provided
for in Sec. 15.
The Regional Trial Court, Branch 41, Dagupan City, is directed to turn over
the seized items to the Dangerous Drugs Board for destruction in accordance with
law.
SO ORDERED.
JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts
Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division
Chairpersons Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had
been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion
of the Courts Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice