L/Epublic of Tbe: I Upreme Qcourt
L/Epublic of Tbe: I Upreme Qcourt
i>upreme QCourt
Jt!lanila
FIRST DIVISION
TIME: · -
Present:
BERSAMIN, C.J.,
-versus - DEL CASTILLO,
JARDELEZA,
GESMUNDO, and
CARANDANG, JJ.
1 Rollo, pp. 3-15; penned by Associate Justice Rafael Antonio M. Santos and concurred in by Associate Justices
Edgardo T. Lloren and Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas.
2 CA rol/o, pp. 24-33; penned by Presiding Judge Dax Gonzaga Xenos.
3
AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS
AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. Approved: June 7, 2002.
Decision 2 G.R. No. 227187
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
When arraigned on July 30, 2010, appellant pleaded not guilty to the
crimes charged against him. The two criminal cases were then tried jointly
by the trial court.
4
Records, Folder, p. I.
5
Id.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 227187
officer. Agent Canada also prepared the Phpl00.00 bill marked money with
initials "JAM". It was also agreed that the lighting of a cigarette by 101
Magdadaro would signal the consummation of the transaction.
The team proceeded to the Panabo City Police Station where they
conducted a final briefing. At around 5: 15 p.m., 101 Magdadaro and S02
Ponferrada, together with the confidential informant, proceeded to the target
area on board a motorcycle.
They then went back to the Panabo Police Station and conducted an
inventory and took photographs of appellant and the seized items in the
presence of witnesses Benigno Gumban, Jr. of the media, elected official
Eduardo Alas, Ian Dionela of the Department of Justice (DOJ), and
appellant's representative, Leonida Sevilla. IOl Magdadaro took custody of
the two packets while the 10 packets were with S02 Ponferrada.
xx xx
SO ORDERED~
6
CA rollo, p. 33.
Decision 5 G.R. No. 227187
Appellant assailed his conviction before the CA, claiming that the
prosecution failed to comply with the requirements of Section 21ofRA9165
which creates serious doubts on the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized drugs.
On July 29, 2016, the CA affirmed the RTC's Decision. The CA found
that the prosecution was able to establish a clear and unbroken chain of
custody of the seized illegal drugs, and upheld the presumption of regularity
in the performance of the duties of the apprehending officers. Thus, it found
no reason to reverse the ruling of the RTC finding appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt. The CA ruled:
SO ORDERED. 7
Our Ruling
7
Rollo, p. 14.
8
People v. SP03 Ara, 623 Phil. 939, 955 (2009).
9
People v. Manalao, 703 Phil. 101, 114 (2013).
10
People v. Del Mundo, G.R. No. 208095, September20, 2017, 840 SCRA 327, 338.
Decision 6 G.R. No. 227187
(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;
Appellant's claim that there was no assurance that the marijuana seized
at the crime scene and those presented/brought to the Police Station were the
same due to the fact that said items were only sealed at the Police Station, and
not at the time of confiscation, is untenable. As aptly held by the CA, the
apprehending officers were able to preserve the integrity of the seized drugs
after complying with the requirements of Section 21ofRA 9165 regarding the
proper custody of the seized drugs and the chain of custody had been duly
established. We agree on the CA's discussion on this matter, to wit:
During trial, the prosecution was able to establish that after arresting
accused-appellant, IOI Julius A. Magdadaro marked the two packs of
marijuana subject of the buy-bust transaction with his signature and his
initials, "JAM". On the other hand, the ten packs of marijuana seized from
accused-appellant were marked by S02 Bryan P. Ponferrada with his
signature and his initials, "BPP". The said items were marked at the scene
of the crime in the presence of accused-appellant. Thereafter, IO I
Magdadaro and S02 Ponferrada brought the seized illegal drugs, along with
accused-appellant, to the Panabo City Police Station where they conducted
the physical inventory and took photographs of the accused-appellant and
the seized items. During this time, the two packs of marijuana subject of
the buy-bust transaction remained in the possession of IO 1 Magdadaro
while the ten packs of marijuana seized from accused-appellant remained
in the possession of S02 Ponferrada.
tw/v
"BIO", as well as her signature and the case control number, on each of~~~~
ten packs of marijuana seized from accused-appellant. The
,,&
Decision 8 G.R. No. 227187
11
Rollo, pp. 12-14.
12
AN ACT PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION OF DEATH PENALTY IN THE PHILIPPINES. Approved:
June 24, 2006.
Decision 9 G.R. No. 227187
SO ORDERED.
~ Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ZA
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, 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 Court's Division.