Case Summary (G.R. No. 199938)
Factual Background
On July 18, 2005, at approximately 10:45 AM, Villocillo frisked the appellant at the check-in area and felt suspicious material in his oversized white rubber shoes marked “Spicer.” Upon removal, three plastic sachets of suspected shabu—two in the left shoe, one in the right—were recovered. The appellant attempted to negotiate (“Baka pwedeng pag-usapan ito”) by offering cash. SPO2 Peji then formally arrested and read the appellant his rights; PO2 Caimoso conducted an onsite inquiry and handed over the appellant and sachets to arriving PDEA agents.
Laboratory Examination and Chemical Analysis
On July 18, 2005, PDEA requested laboratory testing of the three marked exhibits (weighing 98.81 g, 96.65 g, and 1.17 g). On July 19, 2005, Police Senior Inspector Ebuen performed a qualitative examination, confirming the total 196.63 g white crystalline substance as methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu).
Criminal Information and Plea
The appellant was charged with violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 for unlawfully transporting 196.63 g of shabu by concealing it in his shoes. He pled not guilty on June 27, 2005.
Appellant’s Defense
The appellant claimed entrapment and extortion by SPO2 Peji, alleged that officers planted the shabu, and denied ownership of the shoes. He also asserted that police demanded a ₱100,000 “settlement,” confiscated his cash, and forced a false admission.
Regional Trial Court Decision
On August 29, 2006, the RTC convicted the appellant, finding that:
- He was caught in flagrante delicto with physical possession and control of a large quantity of shabu.
- Testimonies of Villocillo and SPO2 Peji were credible, and officers were presumed to have performed their duties regularly.
- Appellant’s denials were unsupported and self-serving.
Sentence imposed: life imprisonment, ₱500,000 fine (without subsidiary imprisonment), and costs.
Court of Appeals Ruling
On April 7, 2011, the CA affirmed in toto, holding that:
- The identity of the seized substance was satisfactorily established.
- Chain of custody—from seizure, marking, transport, and laboratory examination to court presentation—was properly maintained.
- Failure to photograph and inventory under Section 21(1) of RA 9165 did not prejudice the substance’s integrity.
- Non-presentation of the forensic chemist witness was not fatal, as the chemist’s report enjoys a presumption of regularity.
Issue on Appeal
Whether the RTC and CA committed reversible error in convicting the appellant for transporting shabu.
Statutory Provision on Transportation of Dangerous Drugs
Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 penalizes any unauthorized person who “transports” dangerous drugs with life imprisonment to death, and a fine of ₱500,000 to ₱10,000,000. “Transport” is defined as carrying or conveying a drug from one place to another.
Supreme Court’s Analysis on Transport Element
- The appellant’s presence in the airport, awaiting a flight to Davao City with 196.63 g of shabu, satisfied the movement requirement inherent in “transport.”
- Possession exceeding five grams raises a presumption of intent to traffic, not personal use.
Preservation of Evidence and Chain of Custody
- The Court found no break in the chain of custody: seizure by Villocillo and SPO2 Peji, marking, PDEA custody, laboratory testing, and courtroom presentation.
- Section 21(1) RA 9165’s inventory and photog
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 199938)
Procedural History
- Appeal from the April 7, 2011 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02479
- CA affirmed with finality the August 29, 2006 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 231
- RTC had convicted appellant for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine of ₱500,000 without subsidiary imprisonment, plus costs
- Appellant elevated the case to the Supreme Court via petition for review on certiorari
Facts of the Case
- July 18, 2005, around 10:45 AM, appellant arrived at Manila Domestic Airport, Pasay City, for a flight to Davao City
- Mark Anthony Villocillo, a non-uniformed frisker, physically searched appellant and noted oversized white rubber shoes marked “Spicer”
- Upon request, appellant removed his shoes; Villocillo found three plastic sachets inside (two in left shoe, one in right) containing a rice-like substance
- Appellant offered Villocillo a rolled wad of paper bills, saying “Baka pwedeng pag-usapan ito,” then was turned over to SPO2 Nolasco Peji
- Appellant was apprised of rights, taken to an office, investigated by PO2 Edwin Caimoso, and later indorsed to PDEA agents on the scene
- PDEA, through Inspector Peter P. Alvarez, marked the three sachets as exhibits (weighing 98.81 g, 96.65 g, and 1.17 g) and requested laboratory examination
- June 19, 2005, Police Senior Inspector Stella Garciano Ebuen conducted qualitative examination: the total 196.63 g tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride (“shabu”)
Charge and Plea
- Information filed charging appellant with transporting 196.63 g of methylamphetamine hydrochloride concealed in his shoes, without legal authority
- Arraigned on June 27, 2005; appellant pleaded not guilty with the assistance of counsel
Defense’s Contentions
- Appellant claimed he was singled out after pas