G.R. No. 246165 , November 28, 2019
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Joeffrey Macaspac y Llanete and Bryan Marcelo y Pandino, Accused-Appellants.

FACTS

Appellants Joeffrey Macaspac and Bryan Marcelo were charged with violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) for transporting 552 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). The prosecution’s evidence established that on December 13, 2015, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) received a tip from a confidential informant about a drug transaction set to occur at SM Mall of Asia (MOA). An NBI team, led by Special Investigator Joel Otic, conducted a surveillance operation. The team spotted a Hyundai Accent (with plate number AAV 8780) parked at the SM Hypermarket area, occupied by a driver named Dario “Bong Cuenca” and the two appellants. Appellants alighted, claimed a plastic bag containing a “Zest O” box from the package counter, returned to the vehicle, and placed the bag inside. As the vehicle attempted to leave, NBI agents moved to intercept it. The driver, Bong Cuenca, attempted to run over the agents, prompting them to fire shots, injuring all three occupants. Bong Cuenca later died. The NBI team recovered the “Zest O” box from the vehicle’s backseat, which contained a plastic pack of white crystalline substance. An inventory was conducted at the scene in the presence of a media representative and a barangay kagawad, and photographs were taken. The seized item was submitted for laboratory examination, which confirmed it was 552 grams of shabu. Appellants denied the charges, claiming they were at SM MOA to meet Bong Cuenca, a prospective car buyer, and were suddenly accosted by armed men.

ISSUE

Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming appellants’ conviction for illegal transporting of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165?

RULING

No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The core element of illegal transporting is the movement of the dangerous drug from one place to another. The facts established that appellants (1) picked up the box containing shabu from the SM Hypermarket package counter, (2) walked with it to the waiting vehicle, and (3) loaded it into the car. This constituted the act of transporting. The fact that they were intercepted before leaving the SM MOA premises does not negate the crime, as the law does not require the conveyance to be completed over a long distance; the act of moving the drugs suffices. The Court also ruled that the chain of custody over the seized drugs was preserved. The marking, inventory, and photographing were done immediately at the scene by the apprehending officer in the presence of the required witnesses (a media representative and a barangay official). The failure to conduct the inventory in the presence of the appellants was justified as they were brought to the hospital for urgent medical treatment. The integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti were maintained from seizure to presentation in court. The testimony of the team leader, Agent Otic, was based on his personal knowledge as the leader of the operation and was not hearsay. Accordingly, appellants were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).