SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 199938. January 28, 2013.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , appellee, vs . CAMALODING LABA y

SAMANODING , appellant.

DECISION

PERLAS-BERNABE , J : p

This is an appeal from the April 7, 2011 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02479 which a rmed in toto the August 29, 2006 Decision 2 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City, Branch 231, convicting appellant Camaloding
Laba y Samanoding (appellant) for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No.
9165 3 and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a ne of
P500,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and costs.
The Facts
On July 18, 2005, at around 10:45 in the morning, appellant arrived at the Manila
Domestic Airport in Pasay City to take his ight bound for Davao City. When he
approached the initial check-in area, Mark Anthony Villocillo (Villocillo), a non-uniformed
personnel (NUP) 4 frisker assigned thereat, 5 physically searched the person of appellant
and suspected that the latter's oversized white rubber shoes, with the identifying mark
"Spicer," 6 seemed to contain what felt like rice. 7 Upon inspection of the rubber shoes,
which Villocillo asked appellant to remove, 8 the former discovered three (3) plastic
sachets containing shabu — two plastic sachets were inside the left shoe while one was
inside the right shoe. 9
When Villocillo extracted the plastic sachets from appellant's shoes, the latter told
Villocillo, "Baka pwedeng pag-usapan ito" while simultaneously handing him a rolled wad of
paper bills. 1 0 Eventually, Villocillo called the attention of his supervisor, SPO2 Nolasco Peji
1 1 (SPO2 Peji), who apprehended appellant and apprised him of his rights. 1 2
Subsequently, appellant was brought to their o ce and investigated by PO2 Edwin
Caimoso, 1 3 who thereafter indorsed appellant, together with the con scated plastic
sachets, to Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) agents who had eventually arrived
at the scene. 1 4 AaEcDS

On the same day, the PDEA, through Police Inspector Peter P. Alvarez, requested 1 5
that a laboratory examination on the three (3) plastic sachets be conducted, which were
accordingly marked as follows:
(a) EXH-A MTV ECC NSP 18/06/05 and signatures — 98.81 grams
(b) EXH-B MTV ECC NSP 18/06/05 and signatures — 96.65 grams

(c) EXH-C MTV ECC NSP 18/06/05 and signatures — 1.17 grams 1 6

The following day, or on June 19, 2005, upon qualitative examination by forensic
chemist Police Senior Inspector Stella Garciano Ebuen (Police Senior Inspector Ebuen) on
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 the con scated sachets, which contained a total of 196.63 grams of white crystalline
substance, the same tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous
drug. 1 7
Consequently, appellant was charged with violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of RA 9165 in an
Information 1 8 which reads:
That on or about the 18th day of June 2005, in Pasay City, Metro-Manila,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, being a departing passenger via Cebu Paci c Airlines ight no. 5J-965
239 bound for Davao, without authority of law, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously transport 196.63 grams of Methylamphetamine
hydrochloride (SHABU) , a dangerous drugs, by concealing it inside his worn
colored white rubber shoes with marking "SPICER."

Contrary to law.

When arraigned on June 27, 2005 with the assistance of counsel, appellant entered
a plea of not guilty to the offense charged. 1 9
In defense, appellant claimed that on the date and time in question, he was at the
Manila Domestic Airport 2 0 for his ight to Davao City. After passing through the metal
detector and while walking towards the ticketing counter to check-in, a police o cer,
whom he later identi ed as SPO2 Peji, 2 1 called his attention and asked him to stay for a
w hile 2 2 because something was allegedly recovered from him. At the same time,
appellant noticed that someone had been arrested, and he heard SPO2 Peji tell that person
to settle the case so that they could just "pass" the "thing" to appellant, which turned out to
be shabu. 2 3
Thereafter, SPO2 Peji and Villocillo brought appellant to an o ce 2 4 where SPO2
Peji forced him to admit ownership of the shabu. 2 5 When appellant refused, SPO2 Peji
suggested the settlement of the case for P100,000.00, an amount which appellant could
not afford. 2 6 Later, he was brought to a PDEA o ce where PDEA agents took his
statement and once again asked him to admit ownership of the con scated shabu. 2 7
Appellant averred that SPO2 Peji confiscated his wallet which contained P1,600.00 in cash,
as well as P2,000.00 found in the pocket of his pants. 2 8 Finally, appellant denied wearing
the white rubber shoes with the label "Spicer" at the time he was arrested. 2 9 ISTCHE

Ruling of the RTC

On August 29, 2006, after trial on the merits, the RTC convicted 3 0 appellant as
charged upon a finding that all the elements for transportation of drugs, i.e., actual physical
possession and control of the prohibited drugs, coupled with the presentation of the
corpus delicti in court, 3 1 have been established by the prosecution. It found the
testimonies of prosecution witnesses Villocillo and SPO2 Peji to be candid, forthright and
reliable. Moreover, as law enforcers, they were presumed to have regularly performed their
official duties.
On the other hand, the RTC refused to give credence to appellant's bare and
unsubstantiated denials, as well as his claim that he was merely framed-up, and his
insistence that the police o cers were extorting money from him. The fallo of the
judgment of conviction reads:
WHEREFORE, on the evidence adduced and the facts and conclusions
drawn therefrom, the accused CAMALODING LABA y SAMANODING is hereby
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 found Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged in the Information
and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and PAY A FINE
OF FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (Php500,000.00) WITHOUT SUBSIDIARY
IMPRISONMENT IN CASE OF INSOLVENCY, AND COSTS.

SO ORDERED. 3 2

Ruling of the CA
On appeal, the CA a rmed 3 3 the RTC Decision in toto, holding that the identity of
the seized substance had been adequately proved and that the chain of custody was
properly established, from the time that it was recovered from the person of the appellant,
tested at the laboratory for a qualitative examination, and its actual presentation in court.
While the CA conceded that the arresting o cers were unable to strictly comply with the
requirements set forth under Sec. 21, Par. (1) of RA 9165 by failing to photograph the
seized items, it nonetheless found that the evidentiary value of the con scated substance
had been preserved. It also did not nd the non-presentation of the forensic chemist as
fatal to the cause of the prosecution.
Issue Before the Court
The core issue to be resolved by the Court is whether the CA and the RTC
committed any reversible error in convicting appellant as charged. SIEHcA

The Court's Ruling

Appellant was convicted of violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of RA 9165, which reads:
Sec. 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery,
Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled
Precursors and Essential Chemicals. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death
and a ne ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten
million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless
authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to
another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including
any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved,
or shall act as a broker in any such transactions. (Emphasis supplied)

In adjudging appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the said offense, the RTC,
as a rmed by the CA, considered the fact that he was caught in agrante delicto in
possession of an extremely large amount of prohibited drugs inside the airport, before
boarding his ight bound for Davao City. The RTC explained 3 4 that Sec. 5, Art. II of RA
9165 penalizes the act of transporting shabu, under which provision appellant must
clearly be convicted.
The Court sustains appellant's conviction.
"Transport" as used under the Dangerous Drugs Act is de ned to mean "to carry or
convey from one place to another." 3 5 The essential element of the charge is the
movement of the dangerous drug from one place to another. 3 6
In this case, appellant was apprehended inside the airport, as he was intending to
board his ight bound for Davao City with a substantial amount or 196.63 grams of
methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu in his possession, concealed in separate
plastic bags inside his oversized Spicer rubber shoes. While it may be argued that
appellant was yet to board the aircraft or travel some distance with the illegal drugs in his
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 possession, it cannot be denied that his presence at the airport at that particular instance
was for the purpose of transporting or moving the dangerous drugs from one place to
another.
Moreover, it may be reasonably inferred from the deliberations of the Congress that
if a person is found to have more than ve (5) grams of shabu in his possession, then his
purpose in carrying them is to dispose, traffic, or sell it, as follows:
REPRESENTATIVE AQUINO (B.).
We agree with the premises, Mr. Speaker. But just for the sake of our
education, in terms of volume, somebody informed this Representation
that one gram of shabu would probably be the same size as a single kernel
of corn. Would that be correct?
REPRESENTATIVE CUENCO.

The technical committee that has been assisting us in carpentering this bill
tells us that a habitual user of, let's say, shabu, one of the dangerous
substances provided for here, a habitual user of shabu, even if we say daily
taker of shabu consumes only 1/5 of a gram, .02 grams a day. So that
means, if he has with him one gram of shabu, that is good for ve days; if
he has ve grams, that is good for 25 days. Now if he is a user, he won't
need more than ve grams to carry with him or her. So the presumption of
the law is that, if he carries with him or her more than ve grams, that is
not for his personal consumption. He is out to tra c the rest of it. 3 7
(Underscoring supplied) TIHCcA

With respect to the chain of custody of the con scated drugs, the Court likewise
nds no reason to disturb the ndings of the CA that the same had been faithfully
observed by the arresting o cers: from the time that the illegal substance was seized
from appellant and properly marked by the arresting o cers, to its laboratory examination
until its presentation in open court for identi cation purposes. 3 8 Considering that the
integrity of the seized substance has been duly preserved, failure to strictly comply with
Sec. 21, Par. (a) 3 9 of RA 9165 requiring the apprehending o cers to physically inventory
and photograph the confiscated items shall not render the evidence inadmissible. 4 0
Neither will the non-presentation in court of Police Senior Inspector Ebuen, the
forensic chemist who conducted the laboratory examination on the con scated
substance, operate to acquit appellant. The matter of presentation of witnesses by the
prosecution is not for the court to decide. It has the discretion as to how to present its
case and it has the right to choose whom it wishes to present as witnesses. 4 1 Besides,
corpus delicti has nothing to do with the testimony of the chemical analyst, and the report
of an o cial forensic chemist regarding a recovered prohibited drug enjoys the
presumption of regularity in its preparation. 4 2 Corollarily, under Sec. 44 4 3 of Rule 130,
Revised Rules of Court, entries in o cial records made in the performance of o cial duty
are prima facie evidence of the facts they state.
WHEREFORE , the Court AFFIRMS the April 7, 2011 Decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02479.
SO ORDERED .
Carpio, Del Castillo and Perez, JJ., concur.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 Brion, J., I concur: per my originally filed opinion.

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 2-13. Penned by Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda, with Associate Justices
Amelita G. Tolentino and Normandie B. Pizarro, concurring.
2.CA rollo, pp. 15-23. Penned by Judge Cesar Z. Ylagan.

3.Otherwise known as The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

4.TSN, February 1, 2006, p. 15; and TSN, February 15, 2006, p. 23.

5.TSN, July 4, 2005, p. 8.

6.TSN, November 23, 2005, p. 5.

7.Id. at 10.
8.Id. at 12.
9.Id. at 9-10.

10.Id. at 14.
11.Also referred to as "Peje" in the records.

12.TSN, November 23, 2005, p. 15; and TSN, February 15, 2006, p. 18.
13.TSN, February 15, 2006, p. 30.

14.Id. at 31.
15.Records, p. 8.
16.Id. at 9.

17.Id.
18.Id. at 1.

19.Id. at 24.
20.TSN, April 5, 2006, p. 9.

21.Id. at 15.
22.Id. at 12.
23.Id. at 12-14.

24.Id. at 16.
25.Id. at 20.

26.Id. at 21.
27.Id. at 22-23.

28.Id. at 24-26.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 29.Id. at 30.

30.CA rollo, pp. 15-23.

31.Id. at 22.
32.Id. at 23.

33.Rollo, pp. 2-13.

34.CA rollo, p. 22.

35.San Juan v. People, G.R. No. 177191, May 30, 2011, 649 SCRA 300, 312, citing People v. Del
Mundo, G.R. No. 138929, October 2, 2001, 366 SCRA 471, 485.
36.San Juan v. People, id.
37.Record of the Deliberations of the House of Representatives, First Regular Session, 12th
Congress (2001), March 11, 2002, pp. 258-260.
38.Rollo, pp. 8-11.
39.Sec. 21. Custody and Disposition of Con scated, Seized, and/or Surrendered
Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and
Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The
PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of
dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so con scated, seized and/or
surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:

  (1)The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall,
immediately after seizure and con scation, physically inventory and photograph the
same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were
con scated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the
media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public o cial who shall be
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof; . . .

40.Imson v. People, G.R. No. 193003, July 13, 2011, 653 SCRA 826, 834.
41.People v. Angkob, G.R. No. 191062, September 19, 2012.
42.People v. Quebral, G.R. No. 185379, November 27, 2009, 606 SCRA 247, 255, citing People v.
Cervantes, G.R. No. 181494, March 17, 2009, 581 SCRA 762, 781, People v. Bandang ,
G.R. No. 151314, June 3, 2004, 430 SCRA 570, 586-587 and Mallillin v. People , G.R. No.
172953, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 619, 631-632.
43.Sec. 44. Entries in o cial records. — Entries in o cial records made in the performance
of his duty by a public o cer of the Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a
duty specially enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com