People vs. Arenas

Where an Information charges illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11 of RA No. 9165 but fails to allege the quantity seized, the court must impose the minimum graduated penalty corresponding to the lowest quantity tier, because the quantity of dangerous drugs is determinative of the penalty, and the accused's right to be informed of the accusation cannot be satisfied by relying solely on prosecution evidence not alleged in the Information.

Accused-appellant Mercelita Arenas y Bonzo, also known as "Merly," was a resident of Sual, Pangasinan, targeted by local police for suspected illegal drug-selling activities. The Sual Police Station, through Police Senior Inspector Leo S. Llamas, had been conducting surveillance on appellant's alleged drug trade since July 2010. The prosecution of drug offenses under RA No. 9165 requires strict compliance with chain-of-custody procedures prescribed by Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, which implements the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

Sometime in July 2010, Police Senior Inspector Leo S. Llamas, Chief of Police of the Sual Police Station in Sual, Pangasinan, began conducting surveillance on the alleged illegal drug-selling activities of accused-appellant Mercelita Arenas y Bonzo, also known as "Merly." On August 6, 2010, at 6:00 p.m., PSI Llamas called an emergency conference with PO3 Benedict Julius B. Rimando, PO2 Alex Aficial, Jr., SPO2 Gulen, PO1 Catherine Viray, and SPO1 Editha Castro, instructing them to conduct a buy-bust operation against appellant. The operation was to take place in front of Las Brisas Subdivision along the National Highway in Poblacion, Sual, Pangasinan. During the briefing, appellant was described as a woman about four to five feet tall, between forty-five and fifty years old. PO3 Rimando was designated as poseur-buyer and given two ₱1,000 bills as marked money, which were photocopied and entered into the police blotter. PO2 Aficial had earlier coordinated the operation with the PDEA.

At 6:30 p.m., the team walked approximately 150 meters to the designated area. PO3 Rimando and PO2 Aficial positioned themselves beside the highway near the subdivision while other team members took strategic positions. After about five minutes, appellant approached PO3 Rimando, who told her in Ilocano that he was instructed to pick up the items and asked whether she had them. Appellant answered affirmatively. PO3 Rimando handed her the two marked ₱1,000 bills, and appellant gave him two small plastic sachets containing a white crystalline substance. PO3 Rimando then signaled PO2 Aficial, who was two meters away, to approach. They introduced themselves as police officers, and PO3 Rimando conducted a body search on appellant, recovering the marked money and an additional small plastic sachet she was holding in her left hand.

Appellant was brought to the Sual Police Station, where PO3 Rimando marked the two sachets from the sale with "BJB-1" and "BJB-2" and the sachet recovered from her possession with "BJB-3." He prepared and signed a confiscation receipt in the presence of a barangay kagawad, a DOJ prosecutor, and an ABS-CBN reporter, all of whom affixed their signatures, as did appellant. PO1 Viray took photographs of the seized items, marked money, and the signing of the receipt. PO3 Rimando then personally brought the seized items and a request for laboratory examination to the PNP Crime Laboratory in Lingayen, Pangasinan. Forensic chemist PSI Myrna Malojo personally received the items, examined them, and found them positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride with weights of 0.08 grams, 0.07 grams, and 0.05 grams, respectively. PSI Malojo sealed the items, placed her own markings, and turned them over to the evidence custodian. Both PSI Malojo and PO3 Rimando later identified the items in court as the same ones seized from appellant.

Appellant denied the charges, testifying that on the morning of August 6, 2010, she was grilling barbecue with a certain Mina at a video bar. Mina's boyfriend, PSI Llamas, arrived and spoke with Mina, after which Mina asked appellant to deliver a letter to a certain Renee who owed her money. Upon meeting Renee, appellant handed over the letter and received a sealed envelope in return, which she brought back to Mina. When appellant insisted on going home to cook dinner, PSI Llamas allegedly placed his arm around her neck, called someone on his cellphone, and a police car arrived and brought her to the station, where she was forced to say something about shabu and later detained. PSI Llamas denied knowing Mina or going to the videoke bar, stating he only met appellant at the police station and was not the one who arrested her. In sur-rebuttal, appellant claimed she had known PSI Llamas for about three weeks prior to her arrest and insisted he was the one who arrested her.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: Appellant argued that the RTC gravely erred in giving weight and credence to the conflicting testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
• Validity of the Buy-Bust Operation: Appellant maintained that the RTC erred in holding that there was a legitimate buy-bust operation.
• Failure to Prove Elements and Chain of Custody: Appellant argued that the RTC erred in convicting her despite the prosecution's failure to prove the elements of the alleged sale of shabu and the chain of custody and integrity of the allegedly seized items.
• Duplicitous Information: Appellant contended that the RTC erred in convicting her under an Information charging two offenses in violation of Section 13, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court.
• Possession Absorbed in Sale: Appellant claimed she could not be convicted of illegal possession because such possession is absorbed in the charge of illegal sale.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: Whether the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are sufficient to discredit the prosecution's case.
• Validity of the Buy-Bust Operation: Whether a legitimate buy-bust operation was conducted and the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs were established.
• Chain of Custody: Whether the prosecution adequately established the chain of custody and integrity of the seized items.
• Duplicitous Information: Whether appellant can be convicted of two offenses charged in a single Information despite the failure to object before trial.
• Possession Absorbed in Sale: Whether illegal possession of dangerous drugs is absorbed in the charge of illegal sale such that separate conviction for possession is improper.
• Proper Penalty for Illegal Possession: Whether the penalty for illegal possession was correctly imposed given the Information's failure to allege the quantity of shabu possessed.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: No. The alleged inconsistencies referred to minor, collateral matters that did not relate to the elements of the crimes charged and were sufficiently explained during trial.
• Validity of the Buy-Bust Operation: Yes. All elements of illegal sale were established: the identities of buyer and seller, the object, the consideration, delivery, and payment, with the corpus delicti presented in court.
• Chain of Custody: Yes. Every link from seizure to court presentation was established through the testimony of PO3 Rimando, PSI Malojo, and the documentary evidence.
• Duplicitous Information: Yes. Although the Information charged two offenses in violation of Section 13, Rule 110, appellant's failure to file a motion to quash before pleading constituted a waiver under Section 3, Rule 120, allowing conviction of as many offenses as charged and proved.
• Possession Absorbed in Sale: No. Separate conviction for illegal possession was proper because the additional sachet recovered from appellant was not the subject of the sale and was probably intended for future dealings or use.
• Proper Penalty for Illegal Possession: Modified. Because the Information did not allege the quantity of shabu possessed, the minimum graduated penalty under Section 11 of RA No. 9165 had to be imposed, resulting in an indeterminate sentence of twelve years and one day to fourteen years and eight months.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: The inconsistencies cited by appellant pertained to the composition of the buy-bust team, the identity and description of appellant, and the markings on the seized items. The CA, quoting with approval, explained that PO2 Viray's testimony that she was at the office during the operation did not exclude her from the team, as she was designated official photographer and performed that role at the station. PO2 Aficial's testimony about being with PO3 Rimando was consistent with PO3 Rimando's account. The source of the description of appellant was trivial, as the description matched appellant regardless. The discrepancy in markings ("NJN-2" versus "BJB-2") was a typographical error attributable to the stenographer, since the letters "B" and "N" are adjacent on the keyboard, and both the confiscation receipt and laboratory request showed "BJB-2." The date error on the confiscation receipt was explained by PO3 Rimando as an inadvertent mistake, corroborated by Kagawad Gulen's testimony that he witnessed the receipt's preparation on August 6, 2010. These matters being collateral, they did not undermine the credibility of the poseur-buyer's positive identification of appellant.

• Validity of the Buy-Bust Operation: The elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs are: (1) the identities of the buyer and seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. PO3 Rimando positively identified appellant as the person who sold him two sachets of shabu in exchange for ₱2,000 marked money. Appellant's delivery of the shabu and receipt of the marked money consummated the transaction. Appellant's reliance on People vs. Ong was misplaced because in that case the poseur-buyer was not privy to the sale transaction, whereas here PSI Llamas designated PO3 Rimando as his representative, and appellant was informed beforehand that PO3 Rimando would be the person she was to deal with. The seized shabu and marked money were presented in court as the corpus delicti.

• Chain of Custody: Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002 defines chain of custody as the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs from the time of seizure to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court. PO3 Rimando seized the three sachets, maintained custody from the scene to the police station 150 meters away, and marked them "BJB-1," "BJB-2," and "BJB-3." He prepared the confiscation receipt in the presence of a barangay kagawad, a DOJ prosecutor, and an ABS-CBN reporter. He personally brought the items and the laboratory request to the PNP Crime Laboratory, where PSI Malojo personally received them. After examination, PSI Malojo sealed the items, placed her own markings, and turned them over to the evidence custodian. Both PSI Malojo and PO3 Rimando identified the items in court as the same ones seized from appellant, completing the chain.

• Duplicitous Information: Section 13, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that a complaint or information must charge only one offense, except when the law prescribes a single punishment for various offenses. However, Section 3, Rule 120 states that when two or more offenses are charged in a single information and the accused fails to object before trial, the court may convict the accused of as many as are charged and proved. Appellant's failure to file a motion to quash the Information on the ground that it charged more than one offense constituted a waiver of that objection under Section 9, Rule 117, permitting conviction for both offenses.

• Possession Absorbed in Sale: The prevailing doctrine, as held in People vs. Lacerna, is that possession of dangerous drugs is absorbed in the sale thereof, except where the seller is further apprehended in possession of another quantity not covered by or included in the sale and probably intended for future dealings or use. Here, PO3 Rimando recovered from appellant's possession an additional sachet of shabu that was not the subject of the illegal sale, justifying a separate conviction for illegal possession.

• Proper Penalty for Illegal Possession: Section 11, Article II of RA No. 9165 graduates the penalty for illegal possession according to the quantity of dangerous drugs. The Information did not allege the quantity of shabu found in appellant's possession. Because the quantity is determinative of the penalty, the Court could not rely on the quantity established by prosecution evidence without violating appellant's right to be informed of the accusation against her. By analogy to theft cases where the penalty is graduated according to the value of the property stolen and the prosecution fails to establish the amount, the Court imposed the minimum penalty corresponding to illegal possession of less than five grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride: imprisonment of twelve years and one day to twenty years and a fine ranging from ₱300,000 to ₱400,000. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum period was set at twelve years and one day and the maximum at fourteen years and eight months.

• Elements of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs — The prosecution must prove: (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for the thing. What is material is proof that the transaction actually took place, coupled with presentation in court of the corpus delicti. Applied here, PO3 Rimando's testimony established all elements through his direct participation as poseur-buyer.

• Elements of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs — The essential requisites are: (1) the accused was in possession of the dangerous drug, (2) such possession is not authorized by law, and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the dangerous drug. The fact of possession must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, typically through the testimony of the police officer who actually recovered the drugs. Applied here, PO3 Rimando testified to recovering an additional sachet from appellant's left hand, corroborated by PO2 Aficial.

• Possession Absorbed in Sale; Exception — Possession of dangerous drugs is absorbed in the sale thereof, except where the seller is apprehended in possession of another quantity not covered by or included in the sale and probably intended for future dealings or use. Applied here, the additional sachet recovered from appellant was not part of the sale, warranting separate conviction for illegal possession.

• Waiver of Objection to Duplicitous Information — Under Section 3, Rule 120, when two or more offenses are charged in a single information and the accused fails to object before trial, the court may convict the accused of as many offenses as are charged and proved. Failure to file a motion to quash on the ground that more than one offense is charged constitutes a waiver under Section 9, Rule 117. Applied here, appellant did not move to quash, so conviction for both offenses was proper.

• Chain of Custody — Under Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, chain of custody means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction, including the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody, the date and time of transfer, and the final disposition. Applied here, each link was established through the testimonies of PO3 Rimando and PSI Malojo and the documentary evidence.

• Quantity as Determinative of Penalty; Failure to Allege Quantity in Information — Where the penalty for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11 of RA No. 9165 is graduated according to quantity, and the Information fails to allege the quantity seized, the court must impose the minimum graduated penalty to protect the accused's right to be informed of the accusation. By analogy to theft cases where value determines the penalty and the prosecution fails to establish value, the minimum penalty is imposed.

• "We cannot just rely on the quantity established by the prosecution, which the RTC did in imposing the penalty, without violating appellant's right to be informed of the accusation against her." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi for modifying the penalty for illegal possession: the quantity of drugs being determinative of the graduated penalty, its omission from the Information requires imposition of the minimum penalty to safeguard the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.

• "The prevailing doctrine is that possession of marijuana is absorbed in the sale thereof, except where the seller is further apprehended in possession of another quantity of the prohibited drugs not covered by or included in the sale and which are probably intended for some future dealings or use by the seller." — This quotation states the canonical formulation of the exception to the doctrine that possession is absorbed in sale, justifying separate conviction for illegal possession when an additional quantity beyond the sale is recovered.

• "Chain of Custody means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction." — This is the regulatory definition of chain of custody adopted by the Court, frequently cited in subsequent drug cases as the standard for evaluating the integrity of seized evidence.

• People vs. Ong, 476 Phil. 513 (2004) — Distinguished. In Ong, the poseur-buyer was not privy to the sale transaction between the confidential informant and the appellant. The Court distinguished the present case because PO3 Rimando was designated as PSI Llamas's representative and appellant was informed beforehand that PO3 Rimando was the person she would deal with.

• People vs. Lacerna, 344 Phil. 100 (1997) — Followed. Established the doctrine that possession of dangerous drugs is absorbed in the sale thereof, except where the seller is apprehended in possession of another quantity not covered by the sale. Applied to justify separate conviction for illegal possession of the additional sachet.

• People vs. Bautista, 682 Phil. 487 (2012) — Followed. Cited for the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs and the requirement that the corpus delicti be presented in court.

• Miclat, Jr. vs. People, 672 Phil. 191 (2011) — Followed. Cited for the essential requisites of illegal possession of dangerous drugs.

• People vs. Chingh, 611 Phil. 208 (2011) — Followed. Cited for the rule under Section 3, Rule 120 allowing conviction of multiple offenses charged in a single information when the accused fails to object before trial.

• People vs. Anabe, 644 Phil. 261 (2010) and Viray vs. People, 720 Phil. 841 (2013) — Followed by analogy. Cited for the principle in theft cases that when the prosecution fails to establish the value of property taken, the court may impose the minimum penalty, applied by analogy to the failure to allege drug quantity in the Information.

• Section 5, Article II, RA No. 9165 — Penalizes the sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution, and transportation of dangerous drugs with life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from ₱500,000 to ₱10,000,000. Applied to convict appellant of illegal sale of shabu, with the penalty of life imprisonment and ₱500,000 fine imposed.

• Section 11, Article II, RA No. 9165 — Penalizes possession of dangerous drugs with graduated penalties depending on quantity. For less than five grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride, the penalty is imprisonment of twelve years and one day to twenty years and a fine ranging from ₱300,000 to ₱400,000. Applied to convict appellant of illegal possession, with the minimum graduated penalty imposed due to the Information's failure to allege quantity.

• Section 13, Rule 110, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Provides that a complaint or information must charge only one offense, except when the law prescribes a single punishment for various offenses. Found to have been violated by the duplicitous Information, but the objection was waived.

• Section 3, Rule 120, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Provides that when two or more offenses are charged in a single complaint or information and the accused fails to object before trial, the court may convict the accused of as many as are charged and proved. Applied to uphold conviction for both illegal sale and illegal possession.

• Section 3, Rule 117, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Enumerates grounds for a motion to quash, including that more than one offense is charged. Relevant because appellant's failure to invoke this ground constituted a waiver.

• Section 9, Rule 117, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Provides that failure of the accused to assert any ground for a motion to quash before pleading is deemed a waiver of objections based on specified grounds. Applied to conclude that appellant waived the objection to the duplicitous Information.

• Section 1(b), Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002 — Defines chain of custody as the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs from seizure to presentation in court. Applied as the standard for evaluating whether the integrity of the seized items was preserved.

Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Del Castillo, Perez, and Reyes, JJ., concurred.