Luy y Ganuelas vs. People

Illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 is established by (1) possession of an item or object identified as a prohibited drug, (2) absence of legal authorization, and (3) free and conscious possession; a denial or uncorroborated explanation does not overcome the positive testimony of possession. An accused's immediate admission of possession following arrest in flagrante delicto is admissible against her under Rule 130, Section 26, and renders a chain-of-custody objection inconsequential. The penalty must be an indeterminate sentence under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and subsidiary imprisonment cannot be imposed where the principal penalty is higher than prision correccional under Article 39 of the Revised Penal Code.

Yolanda Luy y Ganuelas was the wife of Nestor, a detainee at the BJMP in Olongapo City. Visitors to the jail compound were subject to routine security inspection by jail guards. The charge against her was for violation of Section 11, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165, which penalizes unauthorized possession of dangerous drugs. The case also implicated the Indeterminate Sentence Law and Article 39 of the Revised Penal Code on subsidiary imprisonment.

On October 25, 2004, Yolanda Luy y Ganuelas went to the BJMP in Olongapo City to visit her husband, Nestor, a detainee. The prosecution presented the lone testimony of Jail Officer 3 Myrose Joaquin. According to Joaquin, she was on duty as female guard at the gate and conducted a routine search of petitioner's effects for possible contrabands. Her attention was drawn to a strawberry juice placed in a white container full of cracked ice. When asked what was unusual about the juice, Joaquin said petitioner could make the juice inside if she wanted to. To quell her suspicion, Joaquin asked petitioner to transfer the juice to another container, but petitioner refused. Joaquin insisted, and they went to the guardhouse and transferred the juice into a bowl. As the ice scattered, the illegal drugs were revealed. Petitioner allegedly pleaded not to report the matter to the jail warden, but Joaquin ignored her plea. After bringing petitioner to the jail warden, they brought the confiscated items to the laboratory for examination. The examination revealed that the confiscated items were positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. Joaquin identified petitioner in court and the confiscated items, and claimed they could be identified as the same items seized because of the markings she placed thereon. On cross-examination, Joaquin explained that the heat-sealed plastic sachets were wrapped with a plastic and two (2)-peso coin. She admitted that she placed petitioner on a close watch because even prior to the incident, petitioner would bring with her ready-made juice, making Joaquin think petitioner was peddling illegal drugs inside the prison. Joaquin claimed she never had a misunderstanding with petitioner prior to the incident.

Petitioner, for her part, claimed that on the same date she was at the BJMP to visit her husband, Nestor. As she was about to go inside the compound, a certain Melda called her and requested that she give the juice to her husband, a certain Bong, also a prisoner at the BJMP. Petitioner initially declined and advised Melda to go personally so she could talk to her husband. Melda, however, was supposedly in a hurry as she still had to fetch her child. Melda allegedly also had no identification at that time. Because of Melda's insistence, petitioner acceded to her request and got Melda's plastic box containing a Tupperware and a juice container. When asked who could corroborate this story, petitioner claimed that nobody saw Melda hand the juice container to her as she had no companion at that time. Petitioner further stated that after receiving Melda's items, she already went inside the compound and passed through the routine security inspection. When Joaquin transferred the juice into a bowl, she saw a plastic that contained two coins. Thereafter, Joaquin brought her to the office of the BJMP. After a while, she was detained. On cross-examination, petitioner admitted that her husband was convicted of a drug-related case and that she herself was once detained before. She did not know the full name of Melda or her husband but had seen them in the past inside the jail. She also admitted that there can be no dispute that the drugs were found in her possession but maintained that the same came from Melda.

The RTC, after trial, and the CA, on appeal, rejected petitioner's denial and explanation. The courts gave credence to Joaquin's positive testimony that the shabu was recovered from petitioner during the routine search at the gate of the jail compound. The RTC and the CA found that petitioner had been caught in actual possession of the shabu and credited Joaquin's testimony over petitioner's self-serving denial and uncorroborated claim that the drugs came from Melda.

• Chain of Custody: Petitioner argued that the CA erred in affirming her conviction despite the prosecution's failure to show that JO3 Myrose Joaquin faithfully complied with the chain-of-custody requirement under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. She maintained that the packets of shabu presented in court were not shown to be the same substances recovered from her, that JO3 Joaquin did not mention who received the substances at the crime laboratory, and that no inventory or photographs were made at the point of arrest.
• Denial and Explanation: Petitioner denied that the shabu belonged to her and claimed that a certain Melda had asked her to bring the jar of strawberry juice inside the jail for Melda's husband, Bong, because Melda had no identification and was in a hurry to fetch her child.

• Chain of Custody: Whether the CA erred in affirming the conviction despite the prosecution's alleged failure to comply with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, such that the shabu presented in court was not shown to be the same substance recovered from petitioner.
• Elements of Illegal Possession: Whether all essential elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 were established beyond reasonable doubt.
• Penalty: Whether the lower courts erred in imposing a straight penalty of 12 years and one day and subsidiary imprisonment, instead of an indeterminate sentence and without subsidiary imprisonment under the Indeterminate Sentence Law and Article 39 of the Revised Penal Code.

• Chain of Custody: No. The petitioner's immediate admission of possession following her arrest in flagrante delicto bound her under Rule 130, Section 26, rendering her chain-of-custody objection irrelevant and inconsequential.
• Elements of Illegal Possession: Yes. The prosecution established possession of a prohibited drug, lack of authorization, and free and conscious possession; petitioner was caught in flagrante delicto during the routine jail inspection.
• Penalty: Yes, in part. The straight penalty violated the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and subsidiary imprisonment was invalid under Article 39 of the Revised Penal Code because the principal penalty exceeded prision correccional; the correct penalty is an indeterminate sentence of 12 years and one day, as minimum, to 14 years, as maximum, and a fine of ₱300,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment.

• Chain of Custody: The Court began by affirming the respect owed to the trial court's factual findings, calibration of testimonies, and credibility assessments, which are binding on appellate tribunals absent overlooked facts that could affect the outcome. It found no valid reason to disturb the RTC and CA findings. On the chain-of-custody issue, the petitioner's immediate admission of possession following her arrest in flagrante delicto was held to bind her. Under Rule 130, Section 26 of the Rules of Court, the act, declaration, or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him. Because her admission was admissible against her, her insistence that the State failed to prove the chain of custody was irrelevant and inconsequential.
• Elements of Illegal Possession: The Court reiterated that a successful prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165 requires: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object identified as a prohibited drug; (2) her possession is not authorized by law; and (3) she freely and consciously possessed the drug. The petitioner, whose husband Nestor was a detainee in the Olongapo City jail, was caught in actual illegal possession of the shabu as she entered the jail gate on October 25, 2004. JO3 Joaquin, the designated searcher of female visitors, conducted the search in the presence of other jail guards. She noticed the round white plastic jar labeled Tang Orange filled with cracked ice and strawberry juice and insisted that petitioner transfer the juice to another container, but petitioner resisted. Joaquin and a fellow jail guard brought the jar inside the guardhouse with petitioner and emptied its contents into a bowl. Upon removing the cracked ice, they discovered a plastic material containing two P1 coins. Petitioner pleaded with them not to report the discovery to the jail warden, but Joaquin ignored her. The guards immediately brought her before the warden along with the plastic material and its contents. Opening the plastic material in petitioner's presence, they found six heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets with suspected shabu inside. She was thus arrested in flagrante delicto. At the time of confiscation, Joaquin marked the sachets with her initials "MCJ/AO." The request for laboratory examination was prepared by P./Chief Insp. Miguel Gallardo Corpus, and the request and substances were delivered to the laboratory by PO1 CM. Ballon. The PNP Crime Laboratory Service issued Chemistry Report No. D-0181-2004 through P./Sr. Insp. Arlyn M. Dascie, Forensic Chemist, attesting to the presence of methylamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu. The petitioner denied that the shabu belonged to her, claiming that a certain Melda had asked her to bring the jar of strawberry juice inside the jail for her husband, Bong, because Melda had no identification and was in a hurry to fetch her child. The RTC and CA rejected this denial and explanation, and the Court also rejected them. Denial is easily fabricated and common among those arrested for illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Under Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165, mere possession of dangerous drugs was enough to render the possessor guilty. The denial, being self-serving and negative, did not prevail over Joaquin's positive declarations; to be credited, denial must be substantiated by strong and convincing evidence. Petitioner could have presented Melda to corroborate her story but did not. Her word alone was insufficient because she had been caught in actual possession during the routine search. All essential elements were established: she was caught in voluntary possession of the shabu, she presented no evidence of authorization to possess it, and her animus possidendi was established beyond reasonable doubt in view of the absence of a credible explanation for the possession.
• Penalty: The Court found the CA's affirmance of the RTC penalty erroneous for two reasons. First, the penalty of imprisonment imposed was a straight penalty, contrary to Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Section 11(3) of R.A. No. 9165 prescribes for less than five grams of shabu the penalty of imprisonment of 12 years and one day to 20 years and a fine ranging from ₱300,000.00 to ₱400,000.00. Under Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, for an offense punished by a law other than the Revised Penal Code, the court shall impose an indeterminate sentence whose maximum term shall not exceed the maximum fixed by law and whose minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same. Neither the offense nor the imposable penalty was expressly exempt from the coverage of the Indeterminate Sentence Law under Section 2, so the imposition of an indeterminate sentence was mandatory. The minimum and maximum periods serve to prevent unnecessary and excessive deprivation of liberty and to enhance the economic usefulness of the accused, as explained in Bacar vs. Judge de Guzman, Jr. The correct indeterminate sentence is 12 years and one day, as minimum, to 14 years, as maximum. Second, the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment in case of inability to pay the fine was invalid and unenforceable. Subsidiary imprisonment is based on Article 39 of the Revised Penal Code, which is supplementary to special laws like R.A. No. 9165 unless the latter provides otherwise. Article 39(3) provides that when the principal penalty imposed is higher than prision correccional, no subsidiary imprisonment shall be imposed. Because petitioner's principal penalty was higher than prision correccional, subsidiary imprisonment could not be imposed. The fine of ₱300,000.00 remained, but without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

• Elements of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 — The offense requires: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object identified as a prohibited drug; (2) the possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. The Court applied the elements to petitioner, who was caught with six sachets of shabu during a routine jail inspection and offered no evidence of authorization or credible explanation for possession.
• Admissions of a Party under Rule 130, Section 26 — The act, declaration, or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him. The Court applied this rule to petitioner's immediate admission of possession following her arrest in flagrante delicto, holding that the admission bound her and rendered her chain-of-custody objection irrelevant and inconsequential.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law — For offenses punished by a special law, the court must impose an indeterminate sentence whose maximum term does not exceed the maximum fixed by law and whose minimum is not less than the minimum prescribed by the same law. The law is mandatory unless the offense or penalty falls under the exemptions in Section 2. The Court applied it to correct the straight penalty imposed on petitioner and fixed the indeterminate sentence at 12 years and one day, as minimum, to 14 years, as maximum.
• Subsidiary Imprisonment under Article 39, Revised Penal Code — Subsidiary imprisonment is a subsidiary personal liability for a fine, but Article 39(3) prohibits its imposition when the principal penalty is higher than prision correccional. The Court applied this rule to invalidate the subsidiary imprisonment imposed by the RTC because petitioner's principal penalty exceeded prision correccional.
• Denial as a Defense — Denial, being self-serving and negative, cannot prevail over positive testimony and must be substantiated by strong and convincing evidence. The Court applied this rule in rejecting petitioner's denial and uncorroborated claim that the drugs came from Melda.
• Respect for Trial Court Findings on Credibility — Factual findings of the trial court, its calibration of testimonies, and its assessment of witness credibility are accorded great respect and are binding on appellate tribunals absent overlooked facts that could affect the outcome. The Court applied this rule in declining to disturb the RTC and CA findings.

• "The petitioner, whose husband, Nestor, was a detainee in the Olongapo City jail, was caught in the actual illegal possession of the shabu involved herein as she was entering the gate of the jail compound by JO3 Joaquin, the female guard, during the latter's routine inspection of her person and personal belongings on October 25, 2004." — This passage states the factual basis for the finding of in flagrante delicto possession, which supported the conviction for illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
• "In our view, however, her immediate admission of the possession of the shabu following her arrest in flagranti delicto bound her for, under the rules on evidence, the act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact was admissible against her." — This is the Court's ratio on the chain-of-custody issue, holding that petitioner's admission made her objection to the chain of custody irrelevant and inconsequential.
• "The requirement of imposing an indeterminate sentence in all criminal offenses whether punishable by the RPC or by special laws, with definite minimum and maximum terms, as the Court deems proper within the legal range of the penalty specified by the law must, therefore, be deemed mandatory." — This passage states the mandatory character of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, which the Court applied to correct the straight penalty imposed by the lower courts.
• "When the principal imposed is higher than prision correccional, no subsidiary imprisonment shall be imposed upon the culprit." — This is the controlling rule under Article 39(3) of the Revised Penal Code that the Court applied to invalidate the subsidiary imprisonment imposed on petitioner.

• People vs. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 182348, November 20, 2008, 571 SCRA 469, 474-475 — Cited for the essential elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II, R.A. No. 9165.
• Bacar vs. Judge de Guzman, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-96-1349, April 18, 1997, 271 SCRA 328, 339-340 — Cited for the objective of the minimum and maximum periods of the indeterminate sentence and for the mandatory character of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
• Argoncillo vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118806, July 10, 1998, 292 SCRA 313, 331 — Cited with Bacar and People vs. Lee, Jr. to support the mandatory imposition of an indeterminate sentence.
• People vs. Lee, Jr., No. L-66859, September 12, 1984, 132 SCRA 66, 67 — Cited for the same proposition on the mandatory indeterminate sentence.
• Portuguez vs. People, G.R. No. 194499, January 14, 2015, 746 SCRA 114, 125 — Cited for the rule that denial, to be credited, must be substantiated by strong and convincing evidence.
• People vs. Bontuyan, G.R. No. 206912, September 10, 2014, 735 SCRA 49, 61 — Cited in relation to animus possidendi in crimes of mere possession.
• Gulmatico vs. People, G.R. No. 146296, October 15, 2007, 536 SCRA 82, 95 — Cited for the respect accorded to trial court factual findings and credibility assessments.

• Section 11, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 — Defines and penalizes illegal possession of dangerous drugs; Section 11(3) prescribes for less than five grams of shabu the penalty of 12 years and one day to 20 years and a fine of ₱300,000.00 to ₱400,000.00. Applied because petitioner possessed approximately 2.60 grams of shabu.
• Section 21, Republic Act No. 9165 — Chain-of-custody requirement invoked by petitioner; the Court held her admission of possession made the alleged noncompliance inconsequential.
• Section 1, Indeterminate Sentence Law (as amended by Act No. 4225) — Requires an indeterminate sentence for offenses punished by a special law, with maximum not exceeding the maximum fixed by law and minimum not less than the minimum prescribed. Applied to correct the straight penalty.
• Section 2, Indeterminate Sentence Law — Lists offenses exempt from the law; the Court found the offense and penalty not exempt, making the indeterminate sentence mandatory.
• Article 39, Revised Penal Code — Governs subsidiary penalty; paragraph 3 prohibits subsidiary imprisonment when the principal penalty is higher than prision correccional. Applied to invalidate the subsidiary imprisonment imposed by the RTC.
• Article 10, Revised Penal Code — Makes the Revised Penal Code supplementary to special laws unless the latter provides otherwise. Applied to allow Article 39 to supplement R.A. No. 9165.
• Rule 130, Section 26, Rules of Court — Provides that the act, declaration, or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him. Applied to petitioner's admission of possession.

Leonardo-De Castro (Acting Chairperson), Perlas-Bernabe, and Caguioa, JJ., concur. Sereno, C.J., was on leave.