Republic of the Philippines

Court of Appeals
Cagayan de Oro City

SPECIAL TWENTY-SECOND DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CA-G.R. CR NO. 01630

Plaintiff-Appellee,
Members:

LLOREN, J., Ch.,

ARELLANO-MORALES &
*
MALLANAO MAMAUAG, JR., JJ.
- versus -

Promulgated:

DIOGENES VEROJA SULPOT A.K.A. APRIL 12, 2019

OJING SULPOT,
Accused-Appellant.

DECISION

LLOREN, J.:

Before this Court is the Appeal filed by appellant Diogenes

Veroja Sulpot a.k.a. Oging Sulpot, assailing the Joint Judgment 1 dated
January 24, 2018 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Tenth (10 th)
Judicial Region, Branch 43, Gingoog City, finding the appellant guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 11 (3) and 12, Article II
* Acting Junior Member per Office Order No. 90-19-RFB dated March 12, 2019
1 Rollo, pp. 70-87, penned by Presiding Judge Mirabeaus A. Undalok
CA-G.R. CR. No. 01630 Page 2 of 13
Decision

of Republic Act No. 91652 (RA No. 9165), in Criminal Case Nos. 2016-
6407 and 2016-6408, respectively. The dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the

Court finds DIOGENES VEROJA SULPOT guilty beyond
reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 2016-6407 for
violation of Section 11 (3), Article II, RA No. 9165 and
sentences him to a penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12)
years and one (1) day to sixteen (16) years and a fine of
Three Hundred thousand pesos (Php300,000.00) and in
Criminal Case No. 2016-6408 also guilty beyond reasonable
doubt for violation of Section 12, Article II, RA No. 9165
and sentences him to a penalty of imprisonment of six (6)
months and one (1) day to four (4) years and a fine of ten
thousand pesos (Php10,00.00).

Xxx

The shabu consisting of three (3) sachets

weighing 0.0877 gram which is a dangerous drug and drug
paraphernalia consisting of thirteen (13) plastic sachets
(Exhibits “W” to “W-12”), two (2) scoops (Exhibit “R” and
“R-1”) and the fragmentation grenade are confiscated in
favor of the government and disposed of in accordance with
the existing laws and regulations.

He shall serve his two (2) sentences at Davao

Penal Colony, Dujali, Davao del Norte. His preventive
detention at BJMP-Gingoog City is fully credited in the
service of his sentence.

SO ORDERED.3

The pertinent facts of the case are as follows:

In the morning of April 26, 2016 and upon the implementation of

Search Warrant No. 77-20164 issued against the appellant in his address at
Purok 5, Barangay 17, Jadol-Mendoza St., Gingoog City, by the personnel of
Gingoog Police Station composing of PSI Ismael Virgil Gundaya (PSI
Gundaya), SPO4 Albert P. Ederango (SPO4 Ederango), SPO4 Ma. Ida Lim

2 AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING REPUBLIC
ACT NO. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING
FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
3 Rollo, pp. 86-87
4 Rollo, Crim. Case No. 2016-6408, pp. 11G-11H
CA-G.R. CR. No. 01630 Page 3 of 13
Decision

Rances (SPO4 Rances), SPO1 Wilfredo Ramoso (SPO1 Ramoso), PO3

Jerome Desabille (PO3 Desabille), PO3 Erick Piloton (PO3 Piloton), PO2
Mervin Abrenica (PO2 Abrenica) and the SWAT of Gingoog City, the
following evidence were seized and confiscated from the appellant:5

Nr. Quantity Marked Descriptions

1 3 pcs. APE-1 to APE-3 Small elongated sachets of Shabu...

2 13 pcs APE-4 to APE-16 Opened elongated, small sachets of Shabu with traces of
crystalline substance believed to be shabu...

xxx

6 2 pcs APE-30 to APE-31 Improvised scope (sic) made from drinking straw... with
traces of white crystalline substance...

xxx

Per Memorandum Requests6 on the drug evidence, signed by Police

Chief Inspector Al Tumangil Cabauatan (PCI Cabauatan) of PNP Gingoog
City to the Provincial Chief of the Misamis Oriental PNP Crime Laboratory
Office, Gingoog City, an examination was conducted by Forensic Chemical
Officer, Police Chief Inspector Joseph Tagadiad Esber (PCI Esber) as
reflected in the Chemistry Report No. D-25-2016 MIS OR:7

SPECIMEN SUBMITTED:

A – One (1) unsealed Marlboro cigarette pack with markings

“APE-A” containing three (3) small heat sealed transparent
sachets each containing white crystalline substance having
the following markings and recorded net weights;

A-1(APE-1)=0.0247 gram A-3(APE-3)=0.0362 gram

A-2(APE-2)=0.0268 gram Total net weight=0.0877 gram

B – Thirteen (13) small unsealed transparent plastic

sachets with markings “APE-4 through APE-16” each
containing traces of white crystalline substance...

5 Records, Crim. Case no. 2016-6408, p.11D

6 Records, Crim. Case no. 2016-6408, p.11C
7 Records, Crim. Case no. 2016-6408, p.11A
CA-G.R. CR. No. 01630 Page 4 of 13
Decision

xxx

D – Two (2) improvised scoops with markings “APE-30

through APE-31” each containing white traces of white
crystalline substance...

FINDINGS:

Qualitative examination conducted on the above-stated

specimen gave the following results;

Specimen A-1 through A-3, B and D = POSITIVE to the tests

for the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a
dangerous drug. xxx

CONCLUSION:

Specimen A-1, through A-3, B and D all contain(s)

Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu), a dangerous drug.
xxx

Based on the above-mentioned result, two Amended Informations8

dated May 12, 2016 was filed against appellant before the RTC, the
accusatory portion states:

Crim. Case No. 2016-6407

That on April 26, 2016, at more or less 5:45 o'clock in

the morning, in Purok 5, Barangay 17, Gingoog City,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, without lawful authority,
did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
possess and under his control, the following:

a) One (1) unsealed Marlboro cigarette pack with

markings “APE-A” containing three (3) small heat sealed
transparent plastic sachets each containing white crystalline
substance having the following markings and recorded net
weights:

A-1(APE-1)=0.0247 gram
A-2(APE-2)=0.0268 gram
A-3(APE-3)=0.0362 gram

8 Records, Crim. Case no. 2016-6408, pp. 19-20, Crim. Case no. 2016-6407, pp. 29-30, filed by City
Prosecutor Constancio F. Collera
CA-G.R. CR. No. 01630 Page 5 of 13
Decision

Total net weight=0.0877 gram

a dangerous drug.

Contrary to and in violation of Section 11, Article II of

Republic Act 9165.

Crim. Case No. 2016-6408

That on April 26, 2016, at more or less 5:45 o'clock in the

morning, in Purok 5, Barangay 17, Gingoog City, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, without lawful authority, did then and
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously possess and under
his control of dangerous drug paraphernalias, (sic) to wit:

xxx

9) Thirteen (13) unsealed transparent plastic sachets with

markings “APE-4" through "APE-16” each containing traces
of white crystalline substance placed inside in (sic) a
rectangular container wrapped with black electrical tape with
markings “APE-B”;

10) Two (2) improvised scoops with markings “APE-30"

through "APE-31” each containing traces of white crystalline
substance placed inside in (sic) tape sealed transparent plastic
cellophane bag;

xxx

fit or intended for smoking/sniffing, consuming,

administering, injecting, ingesting or introducing any
dangerous drug into the body.

Contrary to and in violation of Section 12, Article II of

Republic Act 9165.

Upon arraignment, the appellant, with the assistance of their counsel,

pleaded “Not Guilty” to the charges filed against him.9

Version of the Prosecution

9 Records, Crim. Case no. 2016-6408, p.29, Crim. Case no. 2016-6407, p. 34
CA-G.R. CR. No. 01630 Page 6 of 13
Decision

At 5:45 o'clock in the morning of April 26, 2016, the personnel of the
Gingoog City Police Station implemented Search Warrant No. 77-2016
issued by the RTC against the appellant at Purok 5, Barangay 17, Gingoog
City for violation of RA No. 9165. While outside the house, at the main
door, the personnel of Gingoog Police Station announced and identified
themselves as police officers. The police officers then forced the door open,
went inside the house to the room where the appellant and his wife were
sleeping. Upon informing the appellant of the search warrant against him,
the appellant was restrained by PO3 Pontillas and was placed in the living
room of the house. PO3 Pontillas contacted Barangay Captain Lilibeth G.
Paguia (Paguia) and Delmark Valendez (Valendez) of Hope Radio to
become the witnesses of the search to be conducted. When Paguia and
Valendez arrived, they were requested to frisk the searching police officers,
SPO4 Ederango and PO3 Pontillas, to check for any item which may be
planted during the search. After Paguia and Valendez found nothing on the
police officers, PSI Gundaya read the contents of the search warrant and
translated it in vernacular for the appellant.10

SPO4 Ederango and PO3 Pontillas started their search inside the room
of the appellant having the witnesses with them. In a cabinet inside the
room, SPO4 Ederango found a Marlboro cigarette pack and inside it were
three (3) heat-sealed plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance.
SPO4 Ederango also found thirteen (13) pieces of unsealed transparent
plastic sachets placed inside a canister, two (2) scoops made of drinking
straw, and other drug paraphernalia.11

When the search was concluded, SPO4 Ederango marked the three (3)
sachets containing white crystalline substance with “ APE-1" to "APE-3,”
while the thirteen (13) pieces of unsealed plastic sachets were marked with
“APE-4" to "APE-16”. Also, the two (2) scoops made of drinking straw
were marked by SPO4 Ederango with “APE-30" to "APE-31.” SPO4
Ederango then prepared the Certificate of Inventory12 and the Certification13
of the orderly search. The marking and the inventory were all done in the
presence of the witnesses and the appellant.14 Photographs were also taken
during the marking and inventory.15
10 TSN, PO3 Leo Pontillas, February 28, 2017, pp. 49-59 & 53-5; & TSN, SPO4 Albert P. Ederango, October
24, 2016, p.19
11 Records, Crim. Case no. 2016-6408, p. 10-11; & TSN, SPO4 Albert P. Ederango, Pctober 24, 2016, pp.
18-22
12 Records, Crim. Case no. 2016-6408, p. 11D
13 Records, Crim. Case no. 2016-6408, p.11F
14 Records, Crim. Case no. 2016-6408, p. 10-11 & TSN, PO3 Leo Pontillas, February 28, 2017, p. 52
15 Folder of Exhibits, “K to K-8”
CA-G.R. CR. No. 01630 Page 7 of 13
Decision

The appellant was placed on arrest, informed of his constitutional

rights, and was then brought to the police station. At the police station,
SPO4 Ederango prepared the Return Slip16 of the warrant and the Chain of
Custody Form.17 SPO4 Ederango, who had the custody of the seized items,
brought it to the RTC and submitted it in the afternoon of the same day the
warrant was implemented. After the submission of the evidence, SPO4
Ederango withdrew the seized items from the RTC for examination in the
crime laboratory. SPO4 Ederango delivered the seized items to the crime
laboratory, which was received by PCI Esber. 18 PCI Esber conducted the
examination on the seized items, which yielded a positive result for
methamphetamine hydrochloride on the three (3) sachets marked with
"APE-1" to "APE-3", thirteen (13) unsealed sachets marked with "APE-4"
to "APE-16", and the two scoops marked with "APE-30 to APE-31". After
the examination, PCI Esber turned over the specimen to the PO3 Dagatan,
the evidence custodian of the crime laboratory. When PCI Esber went to the
RTC to testify, he asked PO3 Dagatan for the retrieval of the specimen and
brought it to the RTC for presentation.19

Version of the Defense

Appellant testified that around 4:00 o'clock in the morning of April

26, 2016, he was awakened by a loud banging at his door, and someone
kicked the door causing it to be forcefully opened. People entered the house
and opened the rooms causing his children to cry. Appellant then saw two
men enter his room where he was sleeping with his wife and pointed their
guns and flashlights at them. These men identified themselves as police
officers and ordered appellant to stand up. Appellant hands were then placed
in handcuffs. During that time the appellant was wearing a "sando" and
short pants without any pockets. The policemen searched the cabinet where
the appellant's clothes were placed. The wife of the appellant asked the
policemen if they have the warrant to do a search, which the policemen
confirmed but informed them that the said warrant was with their
companion. The appellant and his wife were brought by the policemen
outside of the room. The appellant was made to sit on a chair in the kitchen
as policemen continued their search in the other room of the house.20

16 Records, Crim. Case no. 2016-6408, p.11E

17 Records, Crim. Case no. 2016-6407, p.20

18 TSN, PO3 Leo Pontillas, February 28, 2017, p. 52; & SPO4 Albert P. Ederango, October 24, 2016, pp. 22-
19 TSN, PCI Joseph T. Esber, September 26, 2016, pp. 3-9
20 TSN, Diogenes Maghanoy, January 9, 2018, pp. 127-130
CA-G.R. CR. No. 01630 Page 8 of 13
Decision

Appellant then saw a tall policeman go back inside his room. When
the said policeman came out of the room, the appellant saw that the
policeman got a Marlboro pack from the left pocket of his fatigue short. The
tall policeman then got an elongated cellophane from the Marlboro pack and
referred it to SPO4 Ederango, who was with the appellant's children, saying,
here is a shabu. Appellant stood up and approached the tall policeman while
telling the latter he saw what he got from his pocket. Appellant also told the
tall policeman not to do it. However, the tall policeman got another
elongated plastic from the cigarette pack and asked the appellant the value
of it in his place. Appellant answered the tall policeman that he did not
know it. On the third time that the tall policeman got something from the
cigarette pack, he called the other policemen. The policemen then gathered
and pictures were taken on the elongated plastics. The elongated plastics
were returned to the cigarette pack and the policemen searched the things
inside his room.21

Appellant was asked by the tall policeman if he knows Glenn Pelenio

and if this Glenn Pelenio had come to his residence. Appellant answered the
policeman that he knows Glenn Pelenio as the latter usually passed by his
house. Further, appellant told the tall policeman that Glenn Pelenio had not
come to his house. The next thing that appellant heard was that a grenade
was found from a cabinet in his house. The appellant and his family were
then brought outside of their house and after a while, more policemen
arrived and also, the barangay captain of the place. Appellant heard one
policeman conducting an inventory and showed to the barangay captain the
items allegedly discovered from his house.22

After the parties rested their case, the RTC rendered the assailed Joint
Judgment23, convicting the appellant of the crimes charged. In ruling for the
conviction of the appellant, the RTC reasoned that there was a proper search
resulting to the seizure and confiscation of the drug evidence, which later on
tested positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu.24

Aggrieved with the joint judgment of the RTC, the appellant filed the
instant appeal, with the following assignment of errors:25

I.

21 TSN, Diogenes Maghanoy, January 9, 2018, pp. 130-132

22 TSN, Diogenes Maghanoy, January 9, 2018, pp. 132-138
23 Rollo, pp. 70-87, penned by Presiding Judge Mirabeaus A. Undalok
24 Rollo, pp. 83
25 Rollo, p. 55
CA-G.R. CR. No. 01630 Page 9 of 13
Decision

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING

THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE
PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO ESTABLISH THE CHAIN
OF CUSTODY OF THE SHABU ALLEGED
CONFISCATED FROM THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT
RESPECTIVELY; AND

II.

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING

THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE
PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE HIS GUILT
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

With the filing of all the parties of their Briefs 26 and there being no
reply brief filed by the appellant per CMIS verification report dated
February 26, 2019, the instant appeal is submitted for decision.

After an assiduous evaluation of the case, this Court finds the

conviction of the appellant proper.

On July 15, 2014, R.A. No. 10640 was approved to amend R.A. No.
9165. Among other modifications, it essentially incorporated the saving
clause contained in the IRR, thus:

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and

control of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and
essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or
laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and
confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items
and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the
person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or
seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected
public official and a representative of the National Prosecution
Service or the media who shall be required to sign the copies
of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, That
the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at
the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest
police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending
officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless
seizures: Provided, finally, That noncompliance of these
requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity
and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly

26 Rollo, pp. 52-67 (Appellants' Brief); pp. 99-117 (Appellee's Brief)

CA-G.R. CR. No. 01630 Page 10 of 13
Decision

preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render

void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items.

The law requires that the said inventory and photography be done in
the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized,
or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses,
namely: an elected public official and a representative of the National
Prosecution Service or the media. The law requires the presence of these
witnesses primarily "to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and
remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of
evidence."27

Considering that the crime was allegedly committed on April 26,

2016, the provisions of Republic Act No. 10640 (R.A. No. 10640) shall
apply.

There are generally four links that must be proved to comply with the
Chain of Custody Rule. "First, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the
illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer;
second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to
the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of
the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and
fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from
the forensic chemist to the court."28

The prosecution was able to establish compliance of the chain of

custody rule. Applying the links, the seizure, marking, inventory and
photographing of the evidence were done not only in the presence of the
appellant but also in the presence of Barangay Captain Paguia and Media
Representative Valendez. The seized and confiscated evidence from the
appellant by SPO4 Ederango was under the sole custody of SPO4 Ederango
from the house of the appellant, to the police station, up to the transmittal of
the evidence to the RTC and upon its withdrawal therein, and to the
submission of the specimen to the crime laboratory. Lastly, PCI Esber
testified that he personally received the specimen submitted, and presented
the same specimen in court.

Appellant, in his aim to discredit the prosecution's case, averred that

nowhere in the testimony of any witnesses of the prosecution does it declare
that computers or laptop were brought during the search. This is because,

27 People vs Cuevas, G. R. No. 238906, November 5, 2018

28 Supra
CA-G.R. CR. No. 01630 Page 11 of 13
Decision

the certificate of inventory was computerized, which made it highly not

probable for the police officer to conduct inventory right outside the house
of the appellant and have the inventory signed by the witnesses.29

This Court cannot take the asseveration of the appellant. While it is

true that an appeal in criminal cases opens the entire case for review and,
thus, it is the duty of the reviewing tribunal to correct, cite, and appreciate
errors in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned, 30
this does not mean that the Court will just reverse the judgment of the RTC
based on a trivial matter.

The elements of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section

11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 are: (a) the accused was in possession of an
item or object identified as a prohibited drug; (b) such possession was not
authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the
said drug, while the elements of Illegal Possession of Equipment,
Instrument, Apparatus and other Paraphernalia for dangerous drugs under
Section 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 are: (1) possession or control by the
accused of any equipment, apparatus or other paraphernalia fit or intended
for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing
any dangerous drug into the body; and (2) such possession is not authorized
by law.

In the case at bar, all the elements of the crimes charged are present.
The records of the case clearly show that upon enforcement of the search
warrant against the appellant in his house, SPO4 Ederango found the drugs
and the drug paraphernalia inside the appellant's room, which the appellant
possessed and had control over with. More importantly, the appellant was
not authorized by law to possess the dangerous drugs, including the drug
paraphernalia.

Since there is no indication that the said RTC overlooked,

misunderstood or misapplied the surrounding facts and circumstances of the
case, the Court finds no reason to deviate from their factual findings as the
trial court was in the best position to assess and determine the credibility of
the witnesses presented by both parties. 31 Lastly, there is no need for
modifying the penalties imposed by the RTC as the same were in
accordance with R.A. No. 9165.32
29 Rollo, p. 65
30 People vs Lumagui, G.R. No. 224293, July 23, 2018
31 People vs Bautista, G.R. No. 191266, June 6, 2011
32 Article II, Section 11 (3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a
fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos
CA-G.R. CR. No. 01630 Page 12 of 13
Decision

ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is DENIED. The Joint Judgment33 dated

January 24, 2018 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Tenth (10 th) Judicial
Region, Branch 43, Gingoog City, finding the appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violating Sections 11 (3) and 12, Article II of Republic
Act No. 916534 (RA No. 9165), in Criminal Case Nos. 2016-6407 and 2016-
6408, respectively are hereby AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED.

ORIGINAL SIGNED
EDGARDO T. LLOREN
Associate Justice

(P400,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of opium, morphine,
heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine
hydrochloride or "shabu", or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy",
PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives,
without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic
requirements; or less than three hundred (300) grams of marijuana.
Section 12.Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous
Drugs. -The penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and
a fine ranging from Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) to Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) shall be
imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess or have under his/her control
any equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking,
consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body:xxx
33 Rollo, pp. 70-87, penned by Presiding Judge Mirabeaus A. Undalok
34 AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING REPUBLIC
ACT NO. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING
FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
CA-G.R. CR. No. 01630 Page 13 of 13
Decision

WE CONCUR:

ORIGINAL SIGNED ORIGINAL SIGNED

EVALYN M. ARELLANO-MORALES FLORENCIO MALLANAO MAMAUAG, JR.
Associate Justice Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is

hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were reached
in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion
of the Court.

ORIGINAL SIGNED
EDGARDO T. LLOREN
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Special Twenty-Second Division