G.R. No. 247589 , August 24, 2020
Robert Plan, Jr. y Beloncio @ “Jun”, and Mark Oliver Enolva y Dictado @ “Mark”, Petitioners, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

This case stemmed from two separate Informations charging petitioners with Possession of Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social Gatherings or Meetings under Section 13, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 . On March 31, 2017, police officers were dispatched to conduct Oplan Galugad at a specified address in Quezon City based on information about persons playing cara y cruz where wagers included illegal drugs. Upon arrival, they saw five male persons playing cara y cruz and immediately arrested them for illegal gambling. Arresting officer PO1 Stanley de Guzman frisked petitioners and recovered from each a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. The seized items were marked, inventoried, and photographed at the place of arrest in the presence of Barangay Kagawad Nenita Dordas and media representatives. The seized sachets were later examined and tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. Petitioners denied the charges, claiming they were merely repairing a motorcycle when persons in civilian clothes arrested them and found nothing on their persons.
The Regional Trial Court found petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 13, Article II of RA 9165. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC ruling but with modification, finding petitioners guilty instead of violating Section 11 (Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs) and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law to Enolva. The CA ruled the prosecution failed to establish the necessary element to qualify the possession under Section 13, as it was not shown they intended to use the illegal drugs while playing.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in convicting petitioners only of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11, instead of Possession of Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social Gatherings or Meetings under Section 13, Article II of RA 9165.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the conviction. It held that the prosecution sufficiently established all elements of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs and complied with the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended. The marking, inventory, and photography were conducted in the presence of an elected public official and media representatives, preserving the integrity of the corpus delicti.
However, the Court found the CA erred in not convicting petitioners under Section 13. The law explicitly states that possession is qualified when it occurs: (a) during a party; or (b) at a social gathering or meeting; or (c) in the proximate company of at least two persons. The law does not require that such occasions be intended for using illegal drugs. Since petitioners were found in possession of dangerous drugs while playing cara y cruz in the proximate company of at least two other persons, all elements of Section 13 were present. Therefore, petitioners are guilty of Possession of Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social Gatherings or Meetings and shall suffer the maximum penalties provided for in Section 11 of RA 9165.