PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROMMEL VENTURA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Ventura

The Case

This is People of the Philippines versus Rommel Ventura, a criminal appeal from a conviction for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11 of Article II of Republic Act Number 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The accused was caught on a cable post at night, arrested for attempted cable pilferage, and then frisked, yielding a tiny sachet of shabu weighing zero point zero one eight two gram. The case matters because it gathers in one decision the rules every reviewee must know: the three elements of illegal possession, the doctrine that possession itself is prima facie evidence of knowledge, the validity of a search incident to a lawful warrantless arrest, the treatment of a defective inventory under Section 21, and the correct indeterminate penalty for small quantities of shabu.

Procedural History

An Information dated October 6, 2011 charged the accused before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 13, Laoag City. With the assistance of counsel de oficio, he pleaded not guilty on October 26, 2011. After pre-trial and trial, the Regional Trial Court rendered its Decision dated May 17, 2013, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty of twelve years and one day to fourteen years, plus a fine of 300,000 pesos. The accused appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning as errors the finding of guilt, the failure to declare his apprehension illegal, and the failure to establish the chain of custody. The appeal was denied and the trial court's decision affirmed.

Facts

At around 11:30 in the evening of October 4, 2011, a police patrol in Laoag City received a radio message about cable pilferage in Barangay 43, Cavit. Arriving at the scene, the officers saw the accused on top of a cable post, cutting a wire with a saw. He slid down and jumped off. The officers alighted, drew their guns, declared their authority, and the accused surrendered. He was informed of his constitutional rights and arrested for attempting to steal a cable wire.

In the course of the arrest, the police frisked him and recovered from his right front pocket a blue coin purse containing one plastic sachet of white crystalline substance, later shown to be shabu. They also found a caliber twenty-two revolver with five live rounds at his waist. The confiscating officer marked the sachet by piercing a small hole with a ballpen and kept it in his possession until they reached the police station.

At the station, the sachet was turned over to the evidence custodian, who marked it with the initials L C P S, R V and his signature, and an inventory and photograph were taken in the presence of the accused. The sachet was delivered to the crime laboratory, examined by the forensic chemist, found positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, sealed and labeled, and eventually submitted to the court. The accused's defense was bare denial and frame-up, which the trial court rejected.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court correctly found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11 of Article II of Republic Act Number 9165.
• Whether or not the accused is estopped from assailing the regularity of his warrantless arrest, and whether the search that yielded the shabu was valid.
• Whether or not the prosecution established the indispensable chain of custody of the seized drug despite non-compliance with the inventory requirements of Section 21.

Applicable Provisions

Section 11 of Article II of Republic Act Number 9165, as quoted in the decision, provides:

Under Section 11 (3), Article II of RA No. 9165, the illegal possession of less than five (5) grams of shabu carries with it the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from P300,000.00 to P400,000.00.

This fixes the range from which the trial court drew the penalty of twelve years and one day to fourteen years and a fine of 300,000 pesos.

Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as quoted, provides:

Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law provides that when the offense is punished by a law other than the Revised Penal Code, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by the law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same.

This governs the form of the penalty imposed, since the offense is punished by a special law.

Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, as discussed, provides:

To be sure, he was caught in the act of attempting to cut and steal a cable wire and that gave the policemen the right to arrest him pursuant to Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.

This is the source of the lawful warrantless arrest that in turn validated the search incident to it.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that all three elements of illegal possession were proven with moral certainty: that the accused possessed the prohibited drug, that the possession was not authorized by law, and that he freely and consciously possessed it. The Court quoted its own rule:

In People of the Philippines vs. Tee, the Supreme Court held that the possession of a prohibited drug per se constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused absent a satisfactory explanation of such possession.

Since the accused offered no license and no satisfactory explanation, the presumption stood.

On the second issue, the Court held that the accused was estopped from assailing his arrest because he raised no objection before arraignment. In any event, the arrest was lawful, having been made in flagrante delicto, and a lawful arrest carries with it the right to search the person arrested for anything that may have been used or may constitute proof in the commission of an offense, without a warrant.

On the third issue, the Court held that non-compliance with Section 21 is not necessarily fatal. What matters is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item. The Court traced an unbroken chain from the confiscating officer, to the evidence custodian, to the crime laboratory, to the court, with every marking intact. The absence of media and Department of Justice representatives at the inventory was excused because it was late at night, and the inventory was made in the presence of the accused.

Doctrine

• Illegal possession of dangerous drugs requires proof of three elements: possession of the prohibited drug, absence of legal authority to possess it, and the free and conscious character of the possession.
• Possession of a prohibited drug per se is prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi, which the accused must rebut with a satisfactory explanation.
• A warrantless arrest in flagrante delicto is lawful, and the search incident to it is a recognized exception to the proscription against warrantless searches and seizures.
• An accused who fails to object to the irregularity of his arrest before arraignment is estopped from raising it later.
• Substantial compliance with Section 21 suffices where the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug are preserved; the chain of custody need not be perfect.
• Denial and frame-up are easily concocted defenses that must be supported by clear and convincing evidence, and the failure to file any complaint against the arresting officers belies the claim.

Disposition

The appeal was denied and the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 13, Laoag City was affirmed in full, sustaining the conviction and the penalty of twelve years and one day to fourteen years, plus a fine of 300,000 pesos.

Remember This

Memorize this line: possession of a prohibited drug per se is prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi, and the accused must explain it away. Examiners use this case to test the elements of illegal possession, the search incident to a lawful warrantless arrest, and substantial compliance with the chain of custody rule.