Title
Plan, Jr. y Beloncio vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 247589
Decision Date
Aug 24, 2020
Petitioners arrested during gambling, found with shabu; convicted under RA 9165 Sec. 13 for possession during social gathering, sentenced to life imprisonment, no parole.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 150694)

Petitioner and Respondent Roles

Petitioners were accused and convicted for possession of dangerous drugs; the People prosecuted under Republic Act No. 9165, as amended. The petitioners challenged the Court of Appeals decisions affirming conviction, arguing unlawful arrest and insufficiency of proof.

Key Dates

Arrest and seizure: March 31, 2017. Informations filed: April 3, 2017. RTC Joint Decision: December 27, 2017. CA Decision: December 12, 2018; CA Resolution denying reconsideration: May 24, 2019. Supreme Court decision: August 24, 2020. (1987 Constitution is the constitutional basis applicable to decisions rendered after 1990.)

Applicable Law and Legal Framework

Primary statute: Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), as amended by RA 10640 (notably Section 21, Article II on chain of custody procedure). Relevant provisions: Section 11 (penalties for illegal possession), Section 13, Article II (possession during parties, social gatherings or meetings, or in proximate company of at least two persons, carrying maximum penalties regardless of quantity/purity). Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) definition of “company of at least two (2) persons.” Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISL) issues addressed by the courts.

Factual Background

Police, acting on information allegedly about gambling with wagers including illegal drugs, conducted Oplan Galugad at the identified address and observed five males playing cara y cruz. Petitioners and others were arrested for illegal gambling (PD 1602). During frisking, the arresting officer recovered from each petitioner a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance and two cellphones. The seized sachets were marked “SDG/RP 3/31/17” and “SDG/ME 3/31/17,” inventoried, photographed at the place of arrest, and subsequently submitted for laboratory examination. Petitioners denied drug possession, asserting they were repairing a motorcycle and were suddenly apprehended.

Laboratory Results and Physical Evidence

Chemistry Report No. D-565-17 (April 1, 2017) established that the contents of the seized sachets tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) in amounts of 6.10 grams and 0.71 gram, respectively. The seized items bore the arresting officer’s markings and were presented during trial, where the arresting officer positively identified them.

Trial Court Proceedings and Ruling

Two separate informations were filed against the petitioners for Possession of Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social Gatherings or Meetings (Section 13, Article II, RA 9165). The Regional Trial Court (Branch 81, Quezon City) in a Joint Decision (Dec. 27, 2017) found petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 13 and sentenced Plan and Enolva to lengthy prison terms and fines (Plan: 20 years and one day, fine P400,000; Enolva: 12 years and one day, fine P300,000). The RTC credited prosecution witnesses, found the corpus delicti proven, and found the security and integrity of police operations and seized items ensured.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals affirmed conviction but modified the legal characterization: it found petitioners guilty of Section 11 (ordinary illegal possession) rather than Section 13, because it concluded the prosecution did not prove the qualifying element that the possession occurred during an occasion intended for using drugs (i.e., a “pot session”); the CA applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law as to Enolva because of the quantity involved, and imposed the corresponding indeterminate sentence range.

Issues on Review Presented to the Supreme Court

Primary issues reviewed: (1) whether the prosecution established the corpus delicti and the elements of illegal possession beyond reasonable doubt; (2) whether the chain of custody was properly observed in accordance with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 as amended by RA 10640; and (3) whether conviction should be for Section 11 or for the higher-category offense under Section 13 (possession during parties/social gatherings or in proximate company of at least two persons), with attendant penalties and parole consequences.

Supreme Court Findings on Elements and Chain of Custody

The Supreme Court affirmed that the prosecution proved the elements of illegal possession: (a) possession of an item identified as a prohibited drug (the marked sachets), (b) possession not authorized by law, and (c) conscious and voluntary possession. The Court found the trial court’s credibility assessments reasonable and declined to overturn them. On chain of custody, the Court held compliance with RA 10640’s amended Section 21: immediate marking, inventory, and photography were performed at the place of arrest in the presence of an elected official and media representatives; the arresting officer retained custody, delivered the items to the laboratory, and the chemical examination was duly made. Accordingly, the Court ruled the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti remained intact.

Supreme Court Interpretation of Section 13, Article II (Proximate Company)

The Supreme Court held that Section 13’s language does not condition its application on a showing that the gathering was intended for using drugs. Section 13 applies if the accused possessed dangerous drugs (a) during a party, (b) at a social gathering or meeting, or (c) in the proximate company o

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms