PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EDMUND BULAUITAN Y MAUAYAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
DICDICAN, J.:
The antecedent facts, as culled from the records, are as follows:
Police Inspector Kevin Bulayungan filed an application for issuance of a search warrant after he received an information that there were prohibited drugs inside the residence of the accused-appellant Edmund Bulauitan in Solana, Cagayan. Executive Judge Vilma T. Pauig thereupon issued a search warrant and the Chief of Police of the Solana Philippine National Police (PNP) assigned SPO2 Lito Baccay and PO3 Elizalde Tagal to join the Regional Special Operations Group (RSOG), headed by Inspector Kevin Bulayungan, in implementing the search warrant. The team then went to the house of barangay chairman Jane Busilan and the latter assigned Kagawads Jerry Soliva and Herald de Polonia to join as search witnesses.
Thus, on October 3, 2003, the search team went to the house of the accused-appellant. When they arrived, they were met by the accused-appellant’s two children and housekeeper. They were informed that the accused-appellant was not at home as he was in Tuguegarao City. The team explained to the children and the housekeeper the reason for their presence. They were then allowed inside the house of accused-appellant and they proceeded to the latter’s room. SPO2 Lito Baccay commenced the search and, after a few minutes of opening a plastic shelf, he discovered three (3) heat-sealed plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance suspected to be shabu. The items were shown to the children and the housekeeper and were photographed. The three (3) heat-sealed plastic sachets were given by SPO2 Lito Baccay to the team leader, Inspector Kevin Bulayungan. After inspecting the sachets, Inspector Kevin Bulayungan gave them to PO3 Elizalde Tagal who wrapped the confiscated items with a piece of paper to be brought to the Solana PNP Station. The accused-appellant thereafter arrived and was immediately placed under arrest. He was shown the search warrant but he refused to receive the same.
Senior Inspector Myrna Madriaga Tulauan, forensic chemist, later confirmed that the three sachets found in the house of the accused-appellant contained methamphetamine hydrochloride. The first sachet contained 0.08 grams, the second sachet contained 0.10 grams and the third sachet contained 0.04 grams.
An Information, dated November 7, 2003, was eventually filed against the accused-appellant, charging him with violation of Article II, Section 11 (3) of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The accusatory portion thereof reads as follows:
“That on or about October 3, 2003, in the Municipality of Solana, Province of Cagayan and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, EDMUND BULAUITAN Y MAUAYAN, without authority, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and under his control and custody three (03) pieces of heat sealed plastic sachet containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug commonly known as shabu which he kept inside his residence/dwelling at Centro Northeast, Solana, Cagayan weighing 0.22 grams which dangerous drug was confiscated by elements of the PNP Solana, Cagayan, which conducted a search at the residence/dwelling of the accused by virtue of Search Warrant No. 21 issued by Executive Judge, Honorable VILMA T. PAUIG of RTC Branch II, Tuguegarao City, Cagayan which resulted to the confiscation of the above-mentioned dangerous drug as the accused while in possession thereof do not have the necessary permit and/or authority.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”[3]
When arraigned[4], the accused-appellant, assisted by his counsel Atty. Rolando Acacio, pleaded not guilty. Trial on the merits then ensued after the pre-trial of the case was through.
The accused-appellant proffered the defense of denial. He denied owning and knowing the presence of the dangerous drugs which were discovered in his house by the policemen. He recounted that, in the early morning of October 3, 2003, he and his wife left home to go to Tuguegarao City to tend to their meat shop there. Eventually, he received a call from their daughter, informing them of the presence of the policemen in their house. Thus, the accused-appellant went home. Upon reaching the gate of his house, he was met by the policemen and he was arrested by them. He was informed that shabu was recovered from his house. He further testified that he knows Joseph Juan, the person who executed an affidavit in support of the application for issuance of the search warrant that was issued against him and that Joseph Juan wanted to get even with him because the accused-appellant’s wife testified against Joseph Juan in a theft case.
In the assailed Decision, dated September 20, 2013, the trial court convicted the accused-appellant of violation of R.A. No. 9165. The dispositive portion of the decision reads as follows:
“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused EDUARDO BULAUITAN y MAUAYAN GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs defined and penalized by R.A. 9165 and is hereby sentenced to suffer a penalty of TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE DAY of prision mayor to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS, TWO (2) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of reclusion temporal and to pay a fine of PHP 300,000.00.
The confiscated methamphetamine hydrochloride is hereby ordered destroyed in accordance with the rules and law on the matter.
SO ORDERED.”[5]
Not satisfied with the foregoing decision, the accused-appellant interposed the instant appeal before this Court raising the following errors that were purportedly committed by the trial court, to wit:
I.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF POSSESSION OF ILLEGAL DRUGS DESPITE THE INADMISIBILITY OF THE EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM HAVING BEEN OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS RELATIVE TO THE CONDUCT OF THE SEARCH DONE IN HIS ABSENCE.
II.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED- APPELLANT HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROSECUTION’S FAILURE TO PRESERVE AND PROVE THE INTEGRITY AND EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF THE SEIZED ITEMS.[6]
In sum, the primordial issue raised by the accused-appellant is whether or not the evidence adduced against him in the trial court is sufficient to sustain his conviction for violation of R.A. 9165.
The accused-appellant contends that it was established that he was not present in his house at the time when the search therein was conducted on October 3, 2003. The accused-appellant’s daughter, Maria Edmalyn Bulauitan, was allegedly not able to witness any of the circumstances of the search being conducted as she was talking with him on the phone, fifty meters away, in another house while the search was ongoing. The search was also purportedly made without the presence of barangay councilmen.
The accused-appellant likewise claims that the integrity of the items confiscated from his house is doubtful. Hence, the accused-appellant argues that the initials of SPO2 Lito Baccay were not written on the seized items. Instead, the items bore the initials “ET” which pertain to PO3 Elizalde Tagal. The accused-appellant also asserts that the drugs were not inventoried and photographed in his presence as required by R.A. No. 9165. The number of sachets mentioned by the prosecution’s witnesses also differed, thus all the more allegedly affecting the authenticity of the evidence of the prosecution.
After a careful and thorough review of the facts, together with the laws and jurisprudence applicable to this case, we sustain the accused-appellant’s conviction.
Illegal possession of shabu is penalized under Section 11 of Article II of RA 9165 which, in part, provides:
“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
“Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be graduated as follows:
x x x
“(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 ‘ecstacy,’ 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.”
For a prosecution for illegal possession of a dangerous drug to prosper, it must be shown that (a) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug; (b) such possession is not authorized by law; and (c) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug.[7]
All the elements for the crime as charged are present in the case. The prosecution witnesses testified and proved that the policemen, by virtue of a search warrant, discovered in the house of the accused-appellant three heat-sealed plastic sachets containing shabu, a dangerous drug, for which the accused-appellant does not have the necessary permit nor authority to possess. Verily, on April 24, 2007, PSI Kevin Bulayungan testified on direct examination as follows:
“Q: And by the way, what was the result of that search that was conducted in the house of the accused Edmund Bulauitan on October 3, 2003?
“A: We recovered three (3) pieces of heat sealed plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance, sir.”[8]
The accused-appellant however questions the evidentiary value of the seized items.
We find that the prosecution was able to prove the unbroken chain of custody of the items seized. PO3 Elizalde Tagal, who testified on August 1, 2006, and PSI Kevin Bulayungan, who testified on April 24, 2007, both narrated that it was SPO2 Lito Baccay who discovered the sachets of shabu and they were turned over to PSI Kevin Bulayungan, who then gave them to PO3 Elizalde Tagal for markings. The sachets were then marked with the initials “ET”.
The accused-appellant contends that, since it was SPO2 Baccay who initially found the sachets, the latter’s initials (“LB”) should have been written on the sachets and not PO3 Tagal’s initials (“ET”).
Clearly, such questions on markings will not exonerate the accused-appellant. During PO3 Elizalde Tagal’s testimony on direct examination in the court a quo, it was categorically pointed out that the policemen were all together when the sachets were discovered. Bolstering the fact of unbroken chain of custody, PO3 Tagal testified as follows:
“Q: Who discovered these three (3) heat-sealed plastic sachets, Mr. Witness?
“A: SPO2 Lito Baccay, Ma’am.
“Q: And how far were you from him when he opened the plastic shelf and discovered three (3) plastic sachets with suspected shabu?
“A: More or less two (2) to three (3) meters, Ma’am.[9]
xxx xxx
“Q: After these plastic sachets were recovered, what happened next?
“A: The searcher gave it to our team leader, Ma’am.
“Q: When you said the searcher gave it to your team leader the plastic sachets that were discovered, who is this team leader that you are referring to?
“A: Police Inspector Kevin Bulayungan, Ma’am.
“Q: And how far were you when you saw this searcher turn over to Police Inspector Kevin Bulayungan these plastic sachets recovered?
“A: More or less one (1) meter, Ma’am.
“Q: After your team leader received these plastic sachets, what did you do if any?
“A: He turned it over to me, Ma’am.”[10]
Meanwhile, on cross-examination, PSI Kevin Bulayungan further testified as follows:
“Q: Do you know what PO2 Elizalde P. Tagal did with the seized items after the recording of the same?
“PROS. AQUINO: We maintain the same objection, your Honor.
“COURT: If he knows.
“A: It was turned over to the Regional Crime Laboratory for proper testing.[11]
On October 28, 2005, Police Senior Inspector Mayra Madriaga Tulauan confirmed having received the seized subject sachets as follows:
“Q: By the way, will you please describe the physical appearance of the specimen when your office received it for examination?
“A: The three (3) heat-sealed plastic sachets with markings A, B, and C and also each with signatures and markings were placed in a self-sealed transparent plastic bag with ET markings, ma’am.[12]
xxx xxx
“Q: When did you conduct the laboratory examination?
“A: Immediately after I received the specimen, ma’am.[13]
xxx xxx
“Q: When did you complete your laboratory examination?
“A: On that same day October 3, 2003, ma’am.[14]
xxx xxx“Q: After you have completed with your laboratory examination of the specimen, what did you do with the items?
“A: I placed it in an evidence bag and gave it to our evidence custodian.”[15]
“Chain of Custody” means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs from the time of their seizure, receipt by the forensic laboratory, safekeeping and presentation in court as evidence. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody was made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition thereof.[16]
Certainly, an unbroken chain of custody is present in the case at bar, as the credibility of the prosecution witnesses was not destroyed by the accused-appellant. The issue of credibility is to be resolved primarily by the trial court because it is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. Thus, its findings on the matter of the credibility of witnesses are entitled to the highest respect and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of any showing that it overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight or substance which would have affected the result of the case.[17] In cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary. It must be emphasized that their testimonies in open court are considered in line with the presumption that law enforcement officers have performed their duties in a regular manner.[18]
In the same vein, therefore, we give credence to the testimony of the police officers when they narrated that the search was made with the presence of the barangay officials as opposed to the accused-appellant’s contention that the barangay officials were not present. In particular, PSI Kevin Bulayungan testified on April 24, 2007 as follows:
“Q: By the way Mr. Witness, aside from your team, were there other persons present when you conducted the search in the house of the accused Mr. Bulauitan by virtue of Search Warrant No. 21?
“A: Yes sir.
“Q: Who were they?
“A: Barangay officials of the barangay where Mr. Bulauitan resides, sir.”[19]
Interestingly, it was the accused-appellant who was not present during the search. Hence, he may not allege that the barangay officials were not in his house when the search warrant against him was being implemented as he has no direct and personal knowledge thereof. As the accused-appellant was not in his house, he is not competent to assert that Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was not complied with. The said provision of law thus reads:
“Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. – The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(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.”
The above provision is implemented by Section 21 (a) of Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165, thus:
“(a) 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: Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.” (Emphasis supplied.)
As can be gleaned from the language of Section 21 of the Implementing Rules, it is clear that the failure of the law enforcers to comply strictly with it is not fatal[20]. Non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items[21].
The procedural rule laid down in Section 21 of RA 9165 is not an iron-clad rule. Minor deviations from the said rule do not automatically exonerate the accused-appellant. It does not render accused-appellant’s arrest illegal nor the evidence adduced against him inadmissible[22]. What is essential is “the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused”[23].
In the case at bench, an astute perusal of the record would show that there was substantial compliance with the law and, as already discussed, the integrity of the drugs seized from the house of the accused-appellant was preserved.
The accused-appellant further questions the legality of the search made in his house by stating that, since he was not present thereat when the search was conducted, the police authorities violated R.A. No. 9165. Again, the accused-appellant’s contention has no basis. R.A. No. 9165 and its Implementing Rules do not require the presence of the owner while the search is ongoing, when such search is being made pursuant to a validly issued search warrant. On this point, it will do well to note that Section 8 of Rule 126 of the Rules of Court requires that, when a search of a house is being conducted by the proper authorities, the presence of any member of the occupant’s family or two witnesses of sufficient discretion residing in the same locality, is required. Thus:
“Section 8. Search of house, room, or premise to be made in presence of two witnesses. — No search of a house, room, or any other premise 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.”
Verily, the presence of the accused-appellant’s two children, his housekeeper and the barangay officials during the search fully complied with the provision of the Rules and solidified the legality of the search that was conducted in the house of the accused-appellant, which search successfully resulted in the confiscation of dangerous drugs.
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED and the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Ybañez, and Paredes, JJ., concur.
[1] Appellant’s Brief, Rollo, pp. 41-58
[2] Rollo, pp. 35-37
[3] Records, page 1
[4] Records, page 63
[5] Rollo, page 66
[6] Rollo, page 44
[7] David vs People, G.R. No. 181861, October 17, 2011
[8]TSN, April 24, 2007, page 9
[9] TSN, August 1, 2006, page 20
[10] TSN, August 1, 2006, page 24
[11] TSN, April 24, 2007, pp. 35-36
[12] TSN, October 28, 2005, page 9
[13] TSN, October 28, 2005, page 11
[14] TSN, October 28, 2005, page 17
[15] TSN, October 28, 2005, page 19
[16] See Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board regulation No. 1, Series of 2002
[17] People vs. Jumamoy, G.R. No. 101584, April 7, 1993
[18] David vs People, supra
[19] TSN, April 24, 2007, pp. 8-9
[20] People v. Pagkalinawan, G.R. No. 184805, March 3, 2010.
[21] People v. Cerdon,G.R. No. 201111, August 6, 2014.
[22] People v. Naquita, G.R. No. 180511, July 28, 2008.
[23] Id.