FIRST DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 222187, March 25, 2019 ]PEOPLE v. SIEGFREDO OBIAS +
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. SIEGFREDO OBIAS, JR., Y ARROYO A.K.A. "BOBOY", ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
PEOPLE v. SIEGFREDO OBIAS +
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. SIEGFREDO OBIAS, JR., Y ARROYO A.K.A. "BOBOY", ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
This is an appeal from the March 9, 2015 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 34933 affirming the September 26, 2011 Judgment[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Naga City, Branch 27, in Criminal Case Nos. RTC 2008-0341 and RTC 2008-0342, finding Siegfredo Obias, Jr. y Arroyo a.k.a. "Boboy" (appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 11 (Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs) and 12 (Illegal Possession of Drug Paraphernalia), Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The prosecution evidence as synthesized by the CA is, as follows -
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
The RTC, in its Judgment of September 26, 2011, convicted the appellant of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs and Illegal Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, viz.:
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
The CA affirmed the RTC's ruling in its March 9, 2015 Decision.
The CA ruled that the conduct of the search was made in accordance with the procedure provided in Section 8 of Rule 126 of the Rules of Court. All the prosecution witnesses attested that appellant personally witnessed the search. It held that being the owner of the cock farm and the rest house, appellant clearly had full control and dominion over the place where the seized items were recovered.
The CA further added that the NBI had adopted lawful means and methods in the implementation of the search warrants and there was faithful observance of the chain of custody requirement under RA 9165.
Ruling of the Court
The Court finds no merit in the appeal.
It is well settled that no arrest, search and seizure can be made without a valid warrant issued by a competent judicial authority. Enshrined in our fundamental law is the rule that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized."[9] As a safeguard from unreasonable searches and seizures, Section 3(2), Article III of the Constitution provides that "any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding." Thus, the Constitution does not prohibit all searches and seizures but only those which are "unreasonable".[10]
However, it must be emphasized that a search warrant validly and lawfully issued by a competent authority does not provide unbridled freedom to the peace officer in the manner of implementing the same. Section 8, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court cautions that:
In his final bid for reversal of his conviction, appellant contends that the search was illegally and irregularly conducted and violative of his constitutional rights. Appellant argues that the members of the raiding team were freely roaming around the house and the surrounding yard, unaccompanied by any of the required witnesses, in violation of the spirit and letter of the law, as enunciated in Quintero v. National Bureau of Investigation,[11] Moreover, he asserts that the search was conducted without his presence since he was forced to stay inside the receiving area.
Appellant's arguments fail to persuade.
Indeed, some members of the raiding team were roaming around the house and its surroundings. However, appellant failed to present any evidence that, in so doing, they were searching for incriminating evidence. The evidence showed that they were patrolling the area in order to secure the same against possible escape of the persons earlier rounded up. It must be noted that the actual search did not commence until after the arrival of Barangay Captain Baldemoro, the media representatives and Assistant City Prosecutor Joveliza P. Soriano.
That said, appellant's averment that the search was not made in his presence has no basis; besides, it cannot prevail and overturn the positive, straightforward and consistent testimonies of the prosecution witnesses that the search was done in the presence of the appellant himself. In fact, appellant himself admitted that he accompanied the search team throughout the conduct of the search. As aptly observed by the CA:
This contention is untenable, self-serving and unsubstantiated.
It remains unrefuted that, at the time of the search, appellant was the owner and possessor of the rest house based on established facts and evidence. As owner of the cock farm and the rest house, appellant clearly had full control and dominion over all the rooms located therein, including the bedroom where the thing seized were located. Possession, under the law, includes not only actual possession, but also constructive possession. Actual possession exists when the drug is in the immediate possession or control of the accused. On the other hand, constructive possession exists when the drug is under the dominion and control of the accused or when he has the right to exercise dominion and control over the place where it [was] found. Exclusive possession or control is not necessary. The accused cannot avoid conviction if his right to exercise control and dominion over the place where the contraband is located is shared with another.[13]
"The finding of illicit drugs and paraphernalia in a house or building owned or occupied by a particular person raises the presumption of knowledge and possession thereof which, standing alone, is sufficient to convict."[14] In the present case, appellant failed to rebut by sufficient evidence that he did not in fact exercise power and control over the place searched and the items seized and that he did not intend to do so. Appellant also failed to adduce evidence that he was authorized by law to possess the same.
Appellant did not make much of an issue the post custody of the seized illegal drugs and paraphernalia, particularly any deviation from the directive outlined in Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165. In fact, the admissibility of the seized items under this section was not contested to by him during trial. This is as it should be since the Court, like the CA, is convinced that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items had been preserved under the chain of custody rule. The mandatory requirement of the presence of representatives from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ) and any elected public official during the physical inventory and photography was complied with as evidenced by their signatures on the Inventory of Seized Property and the video footages taken during the inventory.
The inconsistencies alluded to by appellant particularly the exact time when the sachet of shabu (item MBL-A-30) was found; whether it was the outlying premises or the kitchen that was first searched; and, whether the DOJ and media representatives were already present at the start of the search-refer only to minor details that are even irrelevant to the elements of the crimes. "[T]he rule is that, inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses, when referring only to minor details and collateral matters, do not affect either the substance of their declaration, their veracity or the weight of their testimony."[15] Besides, "witnesses are not expected to remember every single detail of an incident with perfect or total recall."[16]
The elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 are: "(1) possession by the accused of an item or object identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) the possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the free and conscious possession of the drug by the accused. On the other hand, the elements of illegal possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs under Section 12 are: (1) possession or control by the accused of any equipment, apparatus or other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting or introducing any dangerous drug into the body; and (2) such possession is not authorized by law."[17]
As found by the courts below, the evidence for the prosecution showed the presence of all these elements. "[F]indings of fact of the trial court, particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding upon this Court, save only for certain compelling reasons."[18] We find no cogent reason herein not to adopt and affirm the findings and conclusion of the courts below.
Section 12, Article II of RA 9165 provides that the penalty for illegal possession of dangerous drug paraphernalia be imprisonment ranging from six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and a fine ranging from P10,000.00 to P50,000.00. Hence, the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment, ranging from six (6) months and one (1) day, as minimum, to two (2) years, as maximum and a fine of P10,000.00 was correctly imposed by the RTC and affirmed by the CA in Criminal Case No. 2008-0341.
Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 provides that the penalty for illegal possession of dangerous drugs is 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 x x x methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu".
Since appellant was found to have been in illegal possession of 5.921 grams of shabu, appellant should have been meted the penalty of imprisonment ranging from twenty (20) years and one (1) day to life imprisonment and a fine ranging from P400,000.00 to P500,000.00. As such, the penalty of twenty (20) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to thirty (30) years, as maximum, and a fine of P400,000.00, imposed by the trial court and affirmed by the CA, is proper. As expounded by J. Peralta in his Concurring Opinion, "any period in excess of twenty [20] years [and one (1) day] is within the range of the penalty."
WHEREFORE, in light of all the foregoing, we DISMISS the appeal and AFFIRM the March 9, 2015 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 34933.
SO ORDERED.
Bersamin, C. J., Gesmundo, and Carandang, JJ., concur.
Peralta,* J., Please see concurring opinion.
* Designated additional member per Raffle dated October 3, 2018.
[1] Rollo, pp. 2-13; penned by Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Maria Elisa Sempio Diy.
[2] Records, dim. Case No. RTC 2008-0342, pp. 634-648; penned by Judge Leo L. Intia.
[3] Rollo, pp. 6-8.
[4] Records, Crim. Case No. RTC 2008-0341, pp. 2-3.
[5] Total weight after weighing done in open court is 5.921 grams; Minutes of Proceedings on October 24, 2008.
[6] Records, Crim. Case No. RTC 2008-0342, p. 1.
[7] See CA Decision, rollo, p. 8.
[8] Records, Crim. Case No. RTC 2008-0342, pp. 647-648.
[9] Constitution, Article III, Section 2.
[10] Polio v. Chairperson Constantino-David, 675 Phil. 225, 248 (2011).
[11] 245 Phil. 414 (1988).
[12] Rollo, pp. 9-10.
[13] People v. De la Trinidad, 742 Phil. 347, 357-358 (2014).
[14] People v. Logman, 593 Phil. 617, 625-626 (2008).
[15] People v. Fang, 739 Phil. 565, 576 (2014).
[16] People v. Dimaano, 780 Phil. 586, 609 (2016).
[17] Zalameda v. People, 614 Phil. 710, 727 (2009).
[18] People v. Clarite, 682 Phil. 289, 296 (2012).
PERALTA, J.:
I fully concur with the ponencia in dismissing the appeal and affirming the Court of Appeals Decision dated March 9, 2015, finding the accused-appellant Siegfredo Obias, Jr. y Arroyo guilty of violation of Sections 11 and 12 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 for illegal possession of dangerous drugs with a total weight of 6.69 grams, and illegal possession of drug paraphernalia, respectively. I also agree with the ponencia in affirming the penalties imposed for the said offenses: for illegal possession of dangerous drugs - twenty (20) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to thirty (30) years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P400,000.00; and for illegal possession of drug paraphernalia - six (6) months and one (1) day, as minimum, to two (2) years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P10,000.00
However, I will elaborate on the proper application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law where the imposable penalty for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11(2)[1] of R.A. No. 9165 is twenty (20) years and one (1) day to life imprisonment.
The imposable penalty for the offense under Section 11(2), R.A. No. 9165, for which the accused-appellant was convicted, is Twenty (20) years and One (1) day to life imprisonment, a penalty not provided for in the Revised Penal Code (RPC) because R.A. No. 9165 is a malum prohibitum. Hence, the principles of graduation of penalties under Article 61[2] of the RPC, penalties consisting of several periods and computation of penalties under Articles 63[3] and 64[4] of the RPC may not be applicable.
Nevertheless, the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law[5] should still apply if the penalty consists of a range, like in this particular case, as provided for under the second sentence of Section 1 of Act No. 4103, as amended by R.A. No, 4203 and R.A. No. 4225, which is hereto highlighted:
However, by imposing such an indeterminate sentence, the accused, after serving the minimum term of 20 years and 1 day, will not be entitled to be released on parole because he will still serve the maximum term of life imprisonment. Besides, if the penalty of life imprisonment is imposed, the Indeterminate Sentence Law is no longer applicable because Section 2 of Act No. 4103, as amended, expressly provides that it shall not apply to persons convicted of offenses punished with life imprisonment:
It will not be good for the person who may have already been reformed and rehabilitated while serving sentence in a correctional institution and deprived of the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. That is why in Argoncillo v. Court of Appeals,[8] where the penalty for violation of P.D. 704[9] is 20 years to life imprisonment, the Court imposed a penalty of 20 years to 25 years because any period in excess of 20 years is within the range of the penalty. This penalty has a legal basis because under the second sentence of Section 1 of Act No. 4103, as highlighted above, the minimum term (20 years) is not less than the minimum penalty provided for by law, and the maximum term (25 years) is not higher than the maximum penalty of life imprisonment, and the penalty imposed is within the range of the penalty provided for by law. In accordance with the doctrine laid down in Argoncillo v. Court of Appeals and the above-cited provisions of law, the ponencia correctly imposed a minimum term of not less than twenty (20) years and one (1) day, and a maximum term not higher than life imprisonment, like thirty (30) years of imprisonment for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11(2) of R.A. No. 9165.
This will give effect to the very purpose of the Indeterminate Sentence Law because when the penalty of life imprisonment is no longer imposed as a maximum term, then the accused, after serving 20 years or even less, taking into account his good conduct time allowance, may be already released on parole, subject to Section 6 of said law:
Accordingly, for illegal possession of dangerous drugs with a weight of 6.69 grams, the indeterminate sentence of twenty (20) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to thirty (30) years, as maximum, was properly sustained by the ponencia.
[1] 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:
In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the following rules shall be observed in the application thereof:
[6] People v. Ducosin, 59 Phil. 109, 117 (1933), citing Message of the Governor-General, Official Gazette No. 92, Vol. XXXI, August 3, 1933.
[7] Argoncillo v. Court of Appeals, 354 Phil. 324, 341 (1998).
[8] Id.
[9] REVISING AND CONSOLIDATING ALL LAWS AND DECREES AFFECTING FISHING AND FISHERIES, May 16, 1974.
[10] Section 13. Possession of Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social Gatherings or Meetings. — Any person found possessing any dangerous drug during a party, or at a social gathering or meeting, or in the proximate company of at least two (2) persons, shall suffer the maximum penalties provided for in Section 11 of this Act, regardless of the quantity and purity of such dangerous drugs.
The prosecution evidence as synthesized by the CA is, as follows -
From the prosecution's evidence, it is gathered that elements of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Legaspi District Office had conducted surveillance and test buy operations on a certain Boboy Obias who was dealing with shabu, a prohibited drug, at his rest house and cock farm situated at Diamond Street, Villa Grande Homes Subdivision, Concepcion Grande, Naga City. Pursuant thereto, the NBI applied for and secured Search Warrant Nos. 2008-021 and 2008-022 dated 11 September 2008 from Executive Judge Jaime E. Contreras to search the above-described premises and seize any shabu as well as drug paraphernalia such as aluminum foils, water pipes, lighters with fluid, burner with acetone and tanita weighing scale that may be found thereat.Thus, in two Informations filed before the RTC of Naga City, appellant was separately charged with violation of Sections 11 and 12, Article II of RA 9165 by committing the following acts:
At around 9:30 P.M. of 13 September 2008, with assistance from the Philippine National Police (PNP), and the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), NBI agents led by Special Investigator III Felipe Jessie Jimenez, Jr. proceeded to the said address to serve the two (2) Search Warrants against Boboy Obias, the accused-appellant. The team invited Barangay Chairman Elmer Baldemoro and some barangay tanods of Concepcion Grande, media reporters from ABS-CBN Naga City, GMA 7 Network and Weekly Digest, and Assistant City Prosecutors Joveliza P. Soriano and Cyril Manzano. The team first secured the perimeter area and compound subject of the search warrants and thereafter served the same on accused-appellant.
All persons inside the premises were gathered in the receiving area of the rest house, while the search party (consisting of Special Investigator III Felipe Jessie S. Jimenez, Jr., Barangay Chairman [Baldemoro], PDEA agent Christopher Viana, media representatives, ACP Soriano, and other NBI agents) brought along accused-appellant during the conduct of the search. In the course of the search, they found several plastic sachets of white crystalline substance as well as assorted drug paraphernalia in certain portions of the subject premises, viz.: inside a bedroom in the elevated portion, inside a makeshift bedroom located under the house ("sirong"), inside the kitchen, and several particles of white crystalline substance on the grass near the cock shelter. The search was videotaped and photographed by Special Investigator III Edwin E. Romano as well as by the media personnel. Sometime later, after the light switch was located, another search was conducted in the kitchen area where they found hidden under a stove a cigarette pack colored green and the contents thereof were later marked as 'MBL-ITEM A-30' and series.
Thereafter, the seized items were photographed, sealed in plastic, and then marked by Special Investigator IV Manuel Mario B. Lanoza with his initials 'MBL' in the presence of accused-appellant and other members of the search party. Special Investigator III Rowan Victor M. Estrellano prepared the Inventory Sheets of the seized items which were signed by Barangay Chairman Baldemoro, the three (3) media representatives and by ACP Soriano as representative of the Department of Justice. However, accused-appellant refused to sign the said inventory sheets; neither did he acknowledge receipt of a copy of the search warrants against him.
The NBI submitted a return to the issuing court, presenting accused-appellant and the seized items from his rest house and cock farm. The items were then withdrawn for the purpose of chemical examination at the crime laboratory. Upon receipt of the specimens at 10:00 A.M. of 14 September 2008, Forensic Chemist P/Insp. Edsel Villalobos of the PNP Camarines Sur Provincial Crime Laboratory Office examined the submitted specimens and then issued Chemistry Report D-44-2008 certifying that the white crystalline substances proved positive for the dangerous drug methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.[3]
Criminal Case No. RTC 2008-0341Appellant pleaded not guilty when arraigned. He vehemently denied the accusations against him claiming that the shabu and drug paraphernalia were found inside the rooms which were occupied by his two employees, Boyet and Tabor Alejandria, who were cock breeders/trainers. He averred that he just arrived at the rest house when the search party suddenly entered the compound and fired their guns. He disputed that shabu was found inside the kitchen since he and his companions were herded at the receiving area of the house during the search.[7]
x x x x
That on or about September 13, 2008, in the City of Naga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and criminally have in his possession, custody and control the following instruments or paraphernalia, to wit:
which are intended for consuming methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.[4]
Criminal Case No. RTC 2008-0342
x x x x
That on or about September 13, 2008, in the City of Naga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law, did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and criminally have in his possession, custody and control seven (7) pcs. of Heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance found to be Methamphetamine Hydrochloride popularly known as shabu, with the following respective markings and weights: 'MBL ITEM A' - 0.23 grams, 'MBL ITEM A-T-0.43 grams, 'MBL ITEM A-15'-0.52 grams, 'MBL ITEM A-16'-0.82 grams, 'MBL ITEM A-17'-0.02 grams, 'MBL ITEM A-30-A-6-1' -4.58 grams, and 'MBL ITEM A-20'-.04 grams (A-7-1)& 0.05 grams (A-7-2), with a total weight of 6.69 grams,[5] which is a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.[6]
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
The RTC, in its Judgment of September 26, 2011, convicted the appellant of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs and Illegal Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, viz.:
WHEREFORE, considering that the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused in these two cases beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is hereby CONVICTED, and sentenced to:Appellant appealed his conviction to the CA.The subject dangerous drugs and paraphernalia are hereby confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government to be dealt with in accordance with law. The Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency/National Bureau of Investigation are directed to take the necessary steps for the disposal of these items, in accordance with law.
SO ORDERED.[8]
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
The CA affirmed the RTC's ruling in its March 9, 2015 Decision.
The CA ruled that the conduct of the search was made in accordance with the procedure provided in Section 8 of Rule 126 of the Rules of Court. All the prosecution witnesses attested that appellant personally witnessed the search. It held that being the owner of the cock farm and the rest house, appellant clearly had full control and dominion over the place where the seized items were recovered.
The CA further added that the NBI had adopted lawful means and methods in the implementation of the search warrants and there was faithful observance of the chain of custody requirement under RA 9165.
The Court finds no merit in the appeal.
It is well settled that no arrest, search and seizure can be made without a valid warrant issued by a competent judicial authority. Enshrined in our fundamental law is the rule that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized."[9] As a safeguard from unreasonable searches and seizures, Section 3(2), Article III of the Constitution provides that "any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding." Thus, the Constitution does not prohibit all searches and seizures but only those which are "unreasonable".[10]
However, it must be emphasized that a search warrant validly and lawfully issued by a competent authority does not provide unbridled freedom to the peace officer in the manner of implementing the same. Section 8, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court cautions that:
Section. 8. Search of house, room or any other 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.Thus, to be reasonable and valid, the search must be witnessed primarily by the lawful occupant of the place or any member of his family. It is only in their absence, that two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion and who are residents of the place searched, may be witnesses to the search. The order of preference cannot be disregarded, interchanged or intercalated.
In his final bid for reversal of his conviction, appellant contends that the search was illegally and irregularly conducted and violative of his constitutional rights. Appellant argues that the members of the raiding team were freely roaming around the house and the surrounding yard, unaccompanied by any of the required witnesses, in violation of the spirit and letter of the law, as enunciated in Quintero v. National Bureau of Investigation,[11] Moreover, he asserts that the search was conducted without his presence since he was forced to stay inside the receiving area.
Appellant's arguments fail to persuade.
Indeed, some members of the raiding team were roaming around the house and its surroundings. However, appellant failed to present any evidence that, in so doing, they were searching for incriminating evidence. The evidence showed that they were patrolling the area in order to secure the same against possible escape of the persons earlier rounded up. It must be noted that the actual search did not commence until after the arrival of Barangay Captain Baldemoro, the media representatives and Assistant City Prosecutor Joveliza P. Soriano.
That said, appellant's averment that the search was not made in his presence has no basis; besides, it cannot prevail and overturn the positive, straightforward and consistent testimonies of the prosecution witnesses that the search was done in the presence of the appellant himself. In fact, appellant himself admitted that he accompanied the search team throughout the conduct of the search. As aptly observed by the CA:
x x x All the prosecution witnesses have consistently attested that accused-appellant personally witnessed the search considering that he was brought along by the search party as they conducted the search of the rest house and the cock farm. This is, in fact, confirmed implicitly by accused-appellant himself who testified that he 'was forced' to go with the team. More revealing is the fact that his personal presence was proven by the photographs and video footages taken during the search.[12]Next, appellant disclaims ownership of the place searched. He alleged that the seized illegal items were found not in his actual possession but inside the bedroom of the rest house occupied by Boyet and Tabor Alejandria.
This contention is untenable, self-serving and unsubstantiated.
It remains unrefuted that, at the time of the search, appellant was the owner and possessor of the rest house based on established facts and evidence. As owner of the cock farm and the rest house, appellant clearly had full control and dominion over all the rooms located therein, including the bedroom where the thing seized were located. Possession, under the law, includes not only actual possession, but also constructive possession. Actual possession exists when the drug is in the immediate possession or control of the accused. On the other hand, constructive possession exists when the drug is under the dominion and control of the accused or when he has the right to exercise dominion and control over the place where it [was] found. Exclusive possession or control is not necessary. The accused cannot avoid conviction if his right to exercise control and dominion over the place where the contraband is located is shared with another.[13]
"The finding of illicit drugs and paraphernalia in a house or building owned or occupied by a particular person raises the presumption of knowledge and possession thereof which, standing alone, is sufficient to convict."[14] In the present case, appellant failed to rebut by sufficient evidence that he did not in fact exercise power and control over the place searched and the items seized and that he did not intend to do so. Appellant also failed to adduce evidence that he was authorized by law to possess the same.
Appellant did not make much of an issue the post custody of the seized illegal drugs and paraphernalia, particularly any deviation from the directive outlined in Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165. In fact, the admissibility of the seized items under this section was not contested to by him during trial. This is as it should be since the Court, like the CA, is convinced that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items had been preserved under the chain of custody rule. The mandatory requirement of the presence of representatives from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ) and any elected public official during the physical inventory and photography was complied with as evidenced by their signatures on the Inventory of Seized Property and the video footages taken during the inventory.
The inconsistencies alluded to by appellant particularly the exact time when the sachet of shabu (item MBL-A-30) was found; whether it was the outlying premises or the kitchen that was first searched; and, whether the DOJ and media representatives were already present at the start of the search-refer only to minor details that are even irrelevant to the elements of the crimes. "[T]he rule is that, inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses, when referring only to minor details and collateral matters, do not affect either the substance of their declaration, their veracity or the weight of their testimony."[15] Besides, "witnesses are not expected to remember every single detail of an incident with perfect or total recall."[16]
The elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 are: "(1) possession by the accused of an item or object identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) the possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the free and conscious possession of the drug by the accused. On the other hand, the elements of illegal possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs under Section 12 are: (1) possession or control by the accused of any equipment, apparatus or other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting or introducing any dangerous drug into the body; and (2) such possession is not authorized by law."[17]
As found by the courts below, the evidence for the prosecution showed the presence of all these elements. "[F]indings of fact of the trial court, particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding upon this Court, save only for certain compelling reasons."[18] We find no cogent reason herein not to adopt and affirm the findings and conclusion of the courts below.
Section 12, Article II of RA 9165 provides that the penalty for illegal possession of dangerous drug paraphernalia be imprisonment ranging from six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and a fine ranging from P10,000.00 to P50,000.00. Hence, the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment, ranging from six (6) months and one (1) day, as minimum, to two (2) years, as maximum and a fine of P10,000.00 was correctly imposed by the RTC and affirmed by the CA in Criminal Case No. 2008-0341.
Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 provides that the penalty for illegal possession of dangerous drugs is 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 x x x methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu".
Since appellant was found to have been in illegal possession of 5.921 grams of shabu, appellant should have been meted the penalty of imprisonment ranging from twenty (20) years and one (1) day to life imprisonment and a fine ranging from P400,000.00 to P500,000.00. As such, the penalty of twenty (20) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to thirty (30) years, as maximum, and a fine of P400,000.00, imposed by the trial court and affirmed by the CA, is proper. As expounded by J. Peralta in his Concurring Opinion, "any period in excess of twenty [20] years [and one (1) day] is within the range of the penalty."
WHEREFORE, in light of all the foregoing, we DISMISS the appeal and AFFIRM the March 9, 2015 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 34933.
SO ORDERED.
Bersamin, C. J., Gesmundo, and Carandang, JJ., concur.
Peralta,* J., Please see concurring opinion.
* Designated additional member per Raffle dated October 3, 2018.
[1] Rollo, pp. 2-13; penned by Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Maria Elisa Sempio Diy.
[2] Records, dim. Case No. RTC 2008-0342, pp. 634-648; penned by Judge Leo L. Intia.
[3] Rollo, pp. 6-8.
[4] Records, Crim. Case No. RTC 2008-0341, pp. 2-3.
[5] Total weight after weighing done in open court is 5.921 grams; Minutes of Proceedings on October 24, 2008.
[6] Records, Crim. Case No. RTC 2008-0342, p. 1.
[7] See CA Decision, rollo, p. 8.
[8] Records, Crim. Case No. RTC 2008-0342, pp. 647-648.
[9] Constitution, Article III, Section 2.
[10] Polio v. Chairperson Constantino-David, 675 Phil. 225, 248 (2011).
[11] 245 Phil. 414 (1988).
[12] Rollo, pp. 9-10.
[13] People v. De la Trinidad, 742 Phil. 347, 357-358 (2014).
[14] People v. Logman, 593 Phil. 617, 625-626 (2008).
[15] People v. Fang, 739 Phil. 565, 576 (2014).
[16] People v. Dimaano, 780 Phil. 586, 609 (2016).
[17] Zalameda v. People, 614 Phil. 710, 727 (2009).
[18] People v. Clarite, 682 Phil. 289, 296 (2012).
CONCURRING OPINION
PERALTA, J.:
I fully concur with the ponencia in dismissing the appeal and affirming the Court of Appeals Decision dated March 9, 2015, finding the accused-appellant Siegfredo Obias, Jr. y Arroyo guilty of violation of Sections 11 and 12 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 for illegal possession of dangerous drugs with a total weight of 6.69 grams, and illegal possession of drug paraphernalia, respectively. I also agree with the ponencia in affirming the penalties imposed for the said offenses: for illegal possession of dangerous drugs - twenty (20) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to thirty (30) years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P400,000.00; and for illegal possession of drug paraphernalia - six (6) months and one (1) day, as minimum, to two (2) years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P10,000.00
However, I will elaborate on the proper application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law where the imposable penalty for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11(2)[1] of R.A. No. 9165 is twenty (20) years and one (1) day to life imprisonment.
The imposable penalty for the offense under Section 11(2), R.A. No. 9165, for which the accused-appellant was convicted, is Twenty (20) years and One (1) day to life imprisonment, a penalty not provided for in the Revised Penal Code (RPC) because R.A. No. 9165 is a malum prohibitum. Hence, the principles of graduation of penalties under Article 61[2] of the RPC, penalties consisting of several periods and computation of penalties under Articles 63[3] and 64[4] of the RPC may not be applicable.
Nevertheless, the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law[5] should still apply if the penalty consists of a range, like in this particular case, as provided for under the second sentence of Section 1 of Act No. 4103, as amended by R.A. No, 4203 and R.A. No. 4225, which is hereto highlighted:
Section 1. Hereafter, in imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by the Revised Penal Code, or its amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the said Code, and the minimum which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense; and if the offense is punished by any other law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same. (Emphasis added)From the highlighted portion, it is clear that if the imposable penalty consists of a range of twenty (20) years and one.(l) day to life imprisonment, like in this case, the Court should impose a minimum term not less than the minimum of the penalty, which is twenty (20) years and one (1) day, and a maximum term not higher than life imprisonment. Thus, imposing an indeterminate sentence of 20 years and 1 day, as minimum, to life imprisonment, as maximum, would appear to be compliant with the above-quoted provision.
However, by imposing such an indeterminate sentence, the accused, after serving the minimum term of 20 years and 1 day, will not be entitled to be released on parole because he will still serve the maximum term of life imprisonment. Besides, if the penalty of life imprisonment is imposed, the Indeterminate Sentence Law is no longer applicable because Section 2 of Act No. 4103, as amended, expressly provides that it shall not apply to persons convicted of offenses punished with life imprisonment:
Sec. 2. This Act shall not apply to persons convicted of offenses punished with death penalty or life-imprisonment; to those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason; to those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or espionage; to those convicted of piracy; to those who are habitual delinquents; to those who have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence; to those who having been granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive shall have violated the terms thereof; to those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year, not to those already sentenced by final judgment at the time of approval of this Act, except as provided in Section 5 hereof. (Emphasis added)Imposing a maximum term of life imprisonment upon the accused will not be consistent with the objectives of the Indeterminate Sentence Law which is "to uplift and redeem valuable human material, and prevent unnecessary and excessive deprivation of personal liberty and economic usefulness"[6] of the accused since he/she may be exempted from serving the entire sentence, depending upon his/her behavior and his/her physical, mental, and moral record.[7]
It will not be good for the person who may have already been reformed and rehabilitated while serving sentence in a correctional institution and deprived of the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. That is why in Argoncillo v. Court of Appeals,[8] where the penalty for violation of P.D. 704[9] is 20 years to life imprisonment, the Court imposed a penalty of 20 years to 25 years because any period in excess of 20 years is within the range of the penalty. This penalty has a legal basis because under the second sentence of Section 1 of Act No. 4103, as highlighted above, the minimum term (20 years) is not less than the minimum penalty provided for by law, and the maximum term (25 years) is not higher than the maximum penalty of life imprisonment, and the penalty imposed is within the range of the penalty provided for by law. In accordance with the doctrine laid down in Argoncillo v. Court of Appeals and the above-cited provisions of law, the ponencia correctly imposed a minimum term of not less than twenty (20) years and one (1) day, and a maximum term not higher than life imprisonment, like thirty (30) years of imprisonment for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11(2) of R.A. No. 9165.
This will give effect to the very purpose of the Indeterminate Sentence Law because when the penalty of life imprisonment is no longer imposed as a maximum term, then the accused, after serving 20 years or even less, taking into account his good conduct time allowance, may be already released on parole, subject to Section 6 of said law:
Sec. 6. Every prisoner released from confinement on parole by virtue of this Act shall, at such times and in such manner as may be required by the conditions of his parole, as may be designated by the said Board for such purpose, report personally to such government officials or other parole officers hereafter appointed by the Board of Indeterminate Sentence for a period of surveillance equivalent to the remaining portion of the maximum sentence imposed upon him or until final release and discharge by the Board of Indeterminate Sentence as herein provided. The officials so designated shall keep such records and make such reports and perform such other duties hereunder as may be required by said Board. The limits of residence of such paroled prisoner during his parole may be fixed and from time to time changed by the said Board in its discretion. If during the period of surveillance such paroled prisoner shall show himself to be a law-abiding citizen and shall not violate any of the laws of the Philippine Islands, the Board of Indeterminate Sentence may issue a final certificate of release in his favor, which shall entitle him to final release and discharge.It is only when the illegal possession under Section 11, R.A. No. 9165 is committed in the presence of two or more persons or in a social gathering that the maximum penalty of life imprisonment may be imposed pursuant to Section 13,[10] R.A. No. 9165. It is only then that the Indeterminate Sentence Law is no longer applicable.
Accordingly, for illegal possession of dangerous drugs with a weight of 6.69 grams, the indeterminate sentence of twenty (20) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to thirty (30) years, as maximum, was properly sustained by the ponencia.
[1] 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:
x x x x[2] Art. 61. Rules for graduating penalties. — For the purpose of graduating the penalties which, according to the provisions of Articles 50 to 57, inclusive, of this Code, are to be imposed upon persons guilty as principals of any frustrated or attempted felony, or as accomplices or accessories, the following rules shall be observed:
(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; x x x. (Emphasis added)
1. When the penalty prescribed for the felony is single and indivisible, the penalty next lower in degrees shall be that immediately following that indivisible penalty in the respective graduated scale prescribed in Article 71 of this Code.[3] Art. 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. — In all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed.
2. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of two indivisible penalties, or of one or more divisible penalties to be impose to their full extent, the penalty next lower in degree shall be that immediately following the lesser of the penalties prescribed in the respective graduated scale.
3. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of one or two indivisible penalties and the maximum period of another divisible penalty, the penalty next lower in degree shall be composed of the medium and minimum periods of the proper divisible penalty and the maximum periods of the proper divisible penalty and the maximum period of that immediately following in said respective graduated scale.
4. when the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of several periods, corresponding to different divisible penalties, the penalty next lower in degree shall be composed of the period immediately following the minimum prescribed and of the two next following, which shall be taken from the penalty prescribed, if possible; otherwise from the penalty immediately following in the above mentioned respective graduated scale.
5. When the law prescribes a penalty for a crime in some manner not especially provided for in the four preceding rules, the courts, proceeding by analogy, shall impose corresponding penalties upon those guilty as principals of the frustrated felony, or of attempt to commit the same, and upon accomplices and accessories.
In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the following rules shall be observed in the application thereof:
1. When in the commission of the deed there is present only one aggravating circumstance, the greater penalty shall be applied.[4] Art. 64. Rules for the application of penalties which contain three periods. — In cases in which the penalties prescribed by law contain three periods, whether it be a single divisible penalty or composed of three different penalties, each one of which forms a period in accordance with the provisions of Articles 76 and 77, the court shall observe for the application of the penalty the following rules, according to whether there are or are not mitigating or aggravating circumstances:
2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances and there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
3. When the commission of the act is attended by some mitigating circumstances and there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the act, the court shall reasonably allow them to offset one another in consideration of their number and importance, for the purpose of applying the penalty in accordance with the preceding rules, according to the result of such compensation.
1. When there are neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, they shall impose the penalty prescribed by law in its medium period.[5] AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR AN INDETERMINATE SENTENCE AND PAROLE FOR ALL PERSONS CONVICTED OF CERTAIN CRIMES BY THE COURTS OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS; TO CREATE A BOARD OF INDETERMINATE SENTENCE AND TO PROVIDE FUNDS THEREFOR; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. ACT NO. 4103 (As Amended by Act No. 4225 and R.A. No. 4203 [June 19, 1965]
2. When only a mitigating circumstances is present in the commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its minimum period.
3. When an aggravating circumstance is present in the commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its maximum period.
4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall reasonably offset those of one class against the other according to their relative weight.
5. When there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall impose the penalty next lower to that prescribed by law, in the period that it may deem applicable, according to the number and nature of such circumstances.
6. Whatever may be the number and nature of the aggravating circumstances, the courts shall not impose a greater penalty than that prescribed by law, in its maximum period.
7. Within the limits of each period, the court shall determine the extent of the penalty according to the number and nature of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the greater and lesser extent of the evil produced by the crime.
[6] People v. Ducosin, 59 Phil. 109, 117 (1933), citing Message of the Governor-General, Official Gazette No. 92, Vol. XXXI, August 3, 1933.
[7] Argoncillo v. Court of Appeals, 354 Phil. 324, 341 (1998).
[8] Id.
[9] REVISING AND CONSOLIDATING ALL LAWS AND DECREES AFFECTING FISHING AND FISHERIES, May 16, 1974.
[10] Section 13. Possession of Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social Gatherings or Meetings. — Any person found possessing any dangerous drug during a party, or at a social gathering or meeting, or in the proximate company of at least two (2) persons, shall suffer the maximum penalties provided for in Section 11 of this Act, regardless of the quantity and purity of such dangerous drugs.