汤头条

  View printer friendly version

Before the Court is an ordinary Appeal^[1] assailing the Decision^[2] dated October 12, 2021 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 14657, which affirmed in toto the Decision^[3] dated July 7, 2020 of Branch 164, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Pasig City. The assailed Decision finds Edgardo Bernardino y Tamayo a.k.a. "Totong" (Bernardino) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal sale and illegal use of dangerous drugs, respectively defined and penalized under Article II, Sections 5 and 15 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165.

The Facts

This case stemmed from two Informations^[4] filed before the RTC charging Bernardino of the aforementioned crimes. The accusatory portions of the said Informations read:

Criminal Case No. R-PSG-19-01490-CR
(for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs)

On or about June 4, 2019, in Pasig City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, not being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell, deliver and give away to IO1 Randy M. Ruiz, a PDEA poseur-buyer, the following:

1. One (1) transparent plastic-wrapped brick containing 379.54 grams of dried leaves (subsequently marked 'RMR BB-A-1 06-04-19 with signature');
   
   
2. One (1) self-sealing transparent plastic bag containing 24.16 grams of dried leaves (subsequently marked 'RMR BB-A-2 06-04-19 with signature');
   
   
3. One (1) self-sealing transparent plastic bag containing 20.42 grams of dried leaves (subsequently marked 'RMR BB-A-3 06-04-19 with signature');
   
   
4. One (1) self-sealing transparent plastic bag containing 16.78 grams of dried leaves (subsequently marked 'RMR BB-A-4 06-04-19 with signature');
   
   
5. One (1) self-sealing transparent plastic bag containing 27.69 grams of dried leaves (subsequently marked 'RMR BB-A-5 06-04-19 with signature');
   
   
6. One (1) self-sealing transparent plastic bag containing 31.28 grams of dried leaves (subsequently marked 'RMR BB-A-6 06-04-19 with signature');
   
   
7. One (1) self-sealing transparent plastic bag containing 28.35 grams of dried leaves (subsequently marked 'RMR BB-A-7 06-04-19 with signature');
   
   
8. One (1) self-sealing transparent plastic bag containing 49.14 grams of dried leaves (subsequently marked 'RMR BB-A-8 06-04-19 with signature');
   
   
9. One (1) self-scaling transparent plastic bag containing 34-49 grams of dried leaves (subsequently marked 'RMR BB-A-9 06-04-19 with signature');
   
   
10. One (1) self-sealing transparent plastic bag containing 21.52 grams of dried leaves (subsequently marked 'RMR BB-A-10 06-04-19 with signature');
    
    
11. One (1) self-sealing transparent plastic bag containing 27.11 grams of dried leaves (subsequently marked 'RMR BB-A-11 06-04-19 with signature');
    
    
12. One (1) self-sealing transparent plastic bag containing 12.26 grams of dried leaves (subsequently marked 'RMR BB-A-12 06-04-19 with signature'); and
    
    
13. One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic bag containing 5.71 grams of dried leaves (subsequently marked 'RMR BB-A-13 06-04-19 with signature').

with a total weight of 678.45 grams, which were found positive to the tests for the presence of Marijuana, a dangerous drug, in violation of the said Law.

CONTRARY TO LAW.^[5]

Criminal Case No. R-PSG-19-01491-CR
(for Illegal Use of Dangerous Drugs)

On or about 04 June 2019, in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, not being lawfully authorized by law to use any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly use, smoke and ingest into his body the dangerous drug of marijuana and after a confirmatory urine test was found positive for the presence of marijuana and THC metabolite, a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.

CONTRARY TO LAW.^[6]

The prosecution alleged that at 2:00 p.m. of June 3, 2019, the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency Regional Office-National Capital Region Quezon City (PDEA) received a report from a confidential informant that a certain alias "Totong," later on identified as Bernardino, was allegedly peddling marijuana in Barangay Palatiw, Pasig City. Consequently, a buy-bust operation was planned, wherein Intelligence Officer I Randy M. Ruiz (IO I Ruiz) was designated as the poseur buyer. As instructed by Special Investigative Officer III Esmeralda Quijano, IO I Ruiz told the confidential informant to contact Bernardino. While the confidential informant was talking to Bernardino, IO I Ruiz asked for the phone and inquired with Bernardino if the latter can provide him with one kilo of marijuana. IO I Ruiz asked him how much it will cost, to which Bernardino replied that it would cost PHP 25,000.00. Bernardino then told IO I Ruiz to meet him in his house in Villa Sanchez, Bagong Taon, Barangay Palatiw, Pasig City at 4:00 p.m. of June 4, 2019.^[7]

At around 11:20 p.m. of June 4, 2019, a final briefing was conducted with Special Investigator II Sammy P. Concepcion (SI II Concepcion) as the primary back up and the rest of the buy-bust team as secondary back-ups. IO I Ruiz then prepared the marked money, a pre-operational report, a certification of coordination, an authority to operate, and the letter-request for representatives from the media, the National Prosecution Service (NPS), and a barangay elected official. The buy-bust team then proceeded to the Pasig City Police Headquarters for coordination. While in the vehicle, IO I Ruiz instructed the confidential informant to tell Bernardino that they were on their way to his house, for which the latter replied that he already had the orders and was just waiting for them to arrive.^[8]

After proper coordination, the buy-bust team proceeded to the target area. Once there, the confidential informant knocked on the door while calling the name "Totong." After Bernardino opened the door, the confidential informant introduced IO I Ruiz as the buyer of marijuana. Consequently, Bernardino invited the confidential informant and IO I Ruiz inside the house and asked IO I Ruiz for the payment of the one kilo of marijuana. IO I Ruiz then showed Bernardino a brown envelope containing the marked money and told him that he wanted to see the marijuana. Bernardino went out and returned with a paper bag containing marijuana. He handed it to IO I Ruiz who inspected the same. Subsequently, IO I Ruiz handed the marked money to Bernardino, and after, IO I Ruiz called SI II Concepcion through his cellular phone, which was the pre-arranged signal that the drug sale was already consummated. SI II Concepcion and some of the team members entered the house of Bernardino and introduced themselves as PDEA agents. IO I Ruiz then frisked Bernardino and recovered from him the marked money.^[9]

Immediately after, IO I Ruiz conducted the marking, inventory, and photography of the seized items at the place of arrest and in the presence of Bernardino, Barangay Kagawad Ronald Ryan Silva (Kagawad Silva), Hataw D'yaryo ng Bayan media representative Alex Mendoza (Media Representative Mendoza), and the Department of Justice representative Mark Lavine Inocencio (DOJ Representative Inocencio), who all signed the Certificates/Receipts of Inventory Seized/Confiscated Evidence for both drug and non-drug items.^[10]

IO I Ruiz brought the seized items to the police station for proper investigation and documentation. He then delivered the seized items to the crime laboratory, wherein the same were received by Chemist II Cherry P. Maximo (Chemist II Maximo).^[11] Chemist II Maximo then conducted the qualitative examination of the seized items, where it yielded positive for marijuana, a dangerous drug.^[12] After examination, Chemist II Maximo placed the seized items inside a big, self-sealing, transparent bag, marked the same 'PDEA-OD019-257 06/04/19' with her signature, and turned 路it over to the then duty evidence custodian, Majella Munasque, who placed the same into the evidence room. Upon subpoena by the RTC, Chemist II Maximo retrieved the seized items from the then duty evidence custodian, Erwin Obediente, and brought the same to the court for identification.^[13]

In defense, Bernardino denied the charges against him, claiming, instead that, during that time, he was on his way home when three men blocked him and asked him if he knew someone named Mark John Villanueva. When he replied in the negative, he heard one of the men say "Pare, siya na lang." He was then forced to bring the men to his house. Inside his house, one of the men drew a gun, pointed it to his forehead, and ordered him to lie down facing the floor. While he was lying down, he was handcuffed and frisked. Afterwards, the other men arrived carrying a paper bag. Consequently, the other men raised him up and sat him on a chair near the table while the contents of the paper bag were placed on top of the table. Then, Kagawad Silva arrived and signed the documents handed to him. Kagawad Silva allegedly asked him why he was apprehended, for which he answered he did not know. Moments after, someone from the media arrived and took photographs of him and the items. He was then brought to the police station, where he was asked to point to drug pushers. When he answered that he did not know any, he was brought to the police station where his drug test was taken.^[14]

The RTC Ruling

In a Decision^[15] dated July 7, 2020, the RTC convicted Bernardino of the crimes charged, and accordingly, sentenced him to suffer the following penalties: (a) in Criminal Case No. R-PSG-19-01490, the penalty of life imprisonment, and to pay a fine in the amount of PHP 1,000,000.00 with all the accessory penalties under the law; and (b) in Criminal Case No. R-PSG-19-01491, the penalty of six months rehabilitation in a government center.^[16]

In convicting Bernardino of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the RTC held that all the elements of the aforesaid crime was established by the prosecution, and that the chain of custody of the seized items was proven to be unbroken.^[17] As to the illegal use of dangerous drugs, the RTC found that the screening and confirmatory examination conducted on Bernardino's urine gave a positive result for the presence of marijuana, a dangerous drug.^[18] Furthermore, the RTC did not gave credence to Bernardino's defense of denial for being an intrinsically weak defense, which must be buttressed with strong evidence of non-culpability.^[19]

Aggrieved, Bernardino appealed to the CA.

The CA Ruling

In a Decision^[20] dated October 12, 2021, the CA affirmed in toto the RTC ruling. It held that the RTC properly convicted Bernardino of illegal sale of dangerous drugs since it was established that the latter was caught in flagrante delicto selling marijuana to IO I Ruiz during a legitimate buy-bust operation conducted by the PDEA. Consequently, it found that the prosecution was able to establish the chain of custody of the items seized from Bernardino from the moment of seizure until the same were presented to the court for identification. Furthermore, it ruled that Bernardino's conviction of illegal use of dangerous drugs was proper since both the screening and confirmatory tests conducted against him yielded positive for the presence of THC metabolites, a component of marijuana.^[21] Hence, the instant Appeal.

The Issue before the Court

The core issue in this case is whether the CA erred in convicting Bernardino of illegal sale and use of dangerous drugs.

The Court's Ruling

The Appeal is bereft of merit.

The courts a quo properly convicted Bernardino of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs

Article II, Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165 punishes any person who will be caught selling illegal drugs, thus:

SECTION 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. 鈥� The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine 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 of such transactions.

The penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) 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 controlled precursor and essential chemical, or shall act as a broker in such transactions.

If the sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution or transportation of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical transpires within one hundred (100) meters from the school, the maximum penalty shall be imposed in every case.

For drug pushers who use minors or mentally incapacitated individuals as runners, couriers and messengers, or in any other capacity directly connected to the dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemical trade, the maximum penalty shall be imposed in every case.

If the victim of the offense is a minor or a mentally incapacitated individual, or should a dangerous drug and/or a controlled precursor and essential chemical involved in any offense herein provided be the proximate cause of death of a victim thereof, the maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed.

The maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed upon any person who organizes, manages or acts as a "financier" of any of the illegal activities prescribed in this Section.

The penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years of imprisonment and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who acts as a "protector/coddler" of any violator of the provisions under this Section.

Consequently, in order to secure a conviction of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must establish the following: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment.^[22]

As correctly found by the courts a quo, the prosecution was able to establish all the elements of the crime charged as Bernardino was caught in flagrante delicto selling marijuana during a legitimate buy-bust operation conducted by the PDEA.

Notably, however, it remains essential that the identity of the confiscated drugs be established beyond reasonable doubt. To obviate any unnecessary doubts on the identity of the dangerous drugs, the prosecution has to show an unbroken chain of custody over the same. It must be able to account for each link in the chain of custody over the dangerous drug, from the moment of seizure up to its presentation in court as evidence of the corpus delicti.^[23]

In this regard, case law instructs that there are four links in the chain of custody of the purported drugs confiscated from the accused, namely: 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.^[24]

In this case, the Court upholds the courts a quo's findings that there was compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended. Records revealed that the buy-bust operation was conducted on June 4, 2019, or after the effectivity of R.A. No. 10640. As such, it was R.A. No. 10640 that was applicable, which provides that the conduct of the inventory and photography should be witnessed by the accused, a representative from the media or DOJ, and an elected official. Verily, the prosecution was able to establish that after the seizure of the illegal drugs, IO I Ruiz immediately conducted the marking, inventory, and photography of the seized items at the place of the arrest in the presence of Bernardino, Kagawad Silva, media representative Mendoza, and DOJ representative Inocencio. Thereafter, IO I Ruiz brought the seized items to the police station for proper investigation and documentation. He then brought the seized items to the crime laboratory, where it was received by the on-duty chemist, Chemist II Maximo. Chemist II Maximo turned over the seized items to the evidence custodian for safekeeping, and only recovered the same from the latter upon subpoena by the court. Chemist II Maximo then brought the seized items to the RTC for identification.

Bernardino was likewise properly convicted of Illegal Use of Dangerous Drugs

Bernardino was likewise charged with illegal use of dangerous drugs. The pertinent provision of which under Article II, Section 15 of R.A. No. 9165 reads:

SECTION 15. Use of Dangerous Drugs. 鈥� A person apprehended or arrested, who is found to be positive for use of any dangerous drug, after a confirmatory test, shall be imposed a penalty of a minimum of six (6) months rehabilitation in a government center for the first offense, subject to the provisions of Article VIII of this Act. If apprehended using any dangerous drug for the second time, he/she shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years and a fine ranging from Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) to Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00): Provided, That this Section shall not be applicable where the person tested is also found to have in his/her possession such quantity of any dangerous drug provided for under Section 11 of this Act, in which case the provisions stated therein shall apply.

While Section 15 penalizes a person apprehended or arrested for unlawful acts listed under Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and who is found to be positive for use of any dangerous drug, a conviction presupposes the prior conduct of an initial screening test and a subsequent confirmatory test both yielding positive results for illegal drug use.^[25] Sections 36 and 38 of R.A. No. 9165 provides:

SECTION 36. Authorized Drug Testing. 鈥� Authorized drug testing shall be done by any government forensic laboratories or by any of the drug testing laboratories accredited and monitored by the DOH to safeguard the quality of test results. The DOH shall take steps in setting the price of the drug test with DOH accredited drug testing centers to further reduce the cost of such drug test. The drug testing shall employ, among others, two (2) testing method the screening test which will determine the positive result as well as the type of the drug used and the confirmatory test which will confirm a positive screening test. Drug test certificates issued by accredited drug testing centers shall be valid for a one-year period from the date of issue which may be used for other purposes.

. . . .

SECTION 38. Laboratory Examination or Test on Apprehended/Arrested Offenders. 鈥� Subject to Section 15 of this Act, any person apprehended or arrested for violating the provisions of this Act shall be subjected to screening laboratory examination or test within twenty-four (24) hours, if the apprehending or arresting officer has reasonable ground to believe that the person apprehended or arrested, on account of physical signs or symptoms or other visible or outward manifestation, is under the influence of dangerous drugs. If found to be positive, the results of the screening laboratory examination or test shall be challenged within fifteen (15) days after receipt of the result through a confirmatory test conducted in any accredited analytical laboratory equipment with a gas chromatograph/mass spectrometry equipment or some such modern and accepted method, if confirmed the same shall be prima facie evidence that such person has used dangerous drugs, which is without prejudice for the prosecution for other violations of the provision of this Act: Provided, That a positive screening laboratory test must be confirmed for it to be valid in a court of law. (Emphasis supplied)

The phrase "a person apprehended and arrested" was further explained in Dela Cruz v. People,^[26] viz:

"A person apprehended or arrested" cannot literally mean any person apprehended or arrested for any crime. The phrase must be read in context and understood in consonance with R.A. 9165. Section 15 comprehends persons arrested or apprehended for unlawful acts listed under Article II of the law.

Hence, a drug test can be made upon persons who are apprehended or arrested for, among others, the "importation," "sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution and transportation," "manufacture" and "possession" of dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals; possession thereof "during parties, social gatherings or meetings"; being "employees and visitors of a den, dive or resort"; "maintenance of a den, dive or resort"; "illegal chemical diversion of controlled precursors and essential chemicals"; "manufacture or delivery" or "possession" of equipment, instrument, apparatus, and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals; possession of dangerous drugs "during parties, social gatherings or meetings"; "unnecessary" or "unlawful" prescription thereof; "cultivation or culture of plants classified as dangerous drugs or are sources thereof鈥�; and "maintenance and keeping of original records of transactions on dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals." To make the provision applicable to all persons arrested or apprehended for any crime not listed under Article II is tantamount to unduly expanding its meaning. Note that accused appellant here was arrested in the alleged act of extortion.^[27] (Emphasis supplied)

Clearly from the foregoing provisions and the Court's ruling in Dela Cruz that: (a) an initial drug testing and confirmatory drug testing can be made upon persons who are apprehended or arrested for violation of R.A. No. 9165; and (b) a positive result from the confirmatory drug testing shall be prima facie evidence of drug use under Section 15 of R.A. No. 9165, and the same is without prejudice for the prosecution for other violations of the provisions of the same Act.

Section 25 of R.A. No. 9165 provides:

SECTION 25. Qualifying Aggravating Circumstances in the Commission of a Crime by an Offender Under the Influence of Dangerous Drugs. 鈥� Notwithstanding the provisions of any law to the contrary, a positive finding for the use of dangerous drugs shall be a qualifying aggravating circumstance in the commission of a crime by an offender, and the application of the penalty provided for in the Revised Penal Code shall be applicable.

Section 25 of R.A. No. 9165 should be harmonized with Section 38 of the same Act which allowed separate prosecution for violations of Section 15 and the other provisions of the same act. The only exception is found in Section 15, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 where the law explicitly provides that Section 15 is not applicable when a person tested is also found to have in their possession such quantity of any dangerous drugs provided for under Section 11 of the same act, and in which case, the provision under the latter provision shall apply.^[28] Thus, Section 25 of R.A. No. 9165 should be interpreted to be applicable to an accused who committed any crimes or offenses under the influence of illegal drugs other than the violation of any provisions of R.A. No. 9165, i.e. Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs. This interpretation is consistent with the court rulings in People v. Cabiling,^[29] People v. Vastine,^[30] People v. Dulay,^[31] and People v. Taboy,^[32] wherein the Court separately convicted the accused therein of Illegal Sale and Illegal Use of Dangerous Drugs under Sections 5 and 15, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.

In Cabiling, the Court convicted the accused therein of both illegal sale and use of dangerous drugs under Article II, Sections 5 and 15 of R.A. No. 9165, respectively, after the prosecution was able to establish all the elements of the crimes charged. In the said case, the accused was caught selling dangerous drugs after a legitimate buy-bust operation, and the urine samples taken from him after the arrest tested positive for drug use.

Similarly, in Vastine, the Court affirmed Vastine's conviction of both illegal sale of cocaine and use of marijuana since all the elements thereof were sufficiently established by the prosecution, and there was compliance with the chain of custody requirement under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.

In Dulay, the Court affirmed the conviction of the accused therein of illegal sale and illegal use of dangerous drugs under Article II, Sections 5 and 15 of R.A. No. 9165.^[33]

In Taboy, the Court likewise affirmed the conviction of Taboy of illegal sale and illegal use of dangerous drugs under Article II, Sections 5 and 15 of R.A. No. 9165 as the prosecution was able to establish all the elements of the crimes charged and the apprehending officers' compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.^[34]

In this case, the courts a quo properly convicted Bernardino of illegal use of dangerous drugs as it was established that: (a) he was arrested for illegal sale of dangerous drugs; (b) he was subjected to a drug test; and (c) both the screening and confirmatory tests conducted against him yielded positive for the presence of THC metabolites, a component of marijuana.

Given the foregoing, the Court finds no reason to deviate from the findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, as there is no indication that it overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case. In fact, the RTC was in the best position to assess and determine the credibility of the witnesses presented by both parties, and hence, due deference should be accorded to the same.^[35] Hence, Bernardino's conviction of the crimes charged must be sustained.

The Penalty

In light of the affirmance of Bernardino's conviction, the Court now proceeds with the determination of his imposable penalty.

Suffice it to say that Bernardino was properly sentenced to suffer the following penalties: (a) in Criminal Case No. R-PSG-19-01490 for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the penalty of life imprisonment, and to pay a fine in the amount of PHP 1,000,000.00 with all the accessory penalties under the law; and (b) in Criminal Case No. R-PSG-19-01491, the penalty of six months rehabilitation in a government center.^[36]

ACCORDINGLY, the instant Appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated October 12, 2021 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 14657 is AFFIRMED. Accused-appellant Edgardo Bernardino y Tamayo a.k.a. "Totong" is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale and illegal use of dangerous drugs, respectively defined under Article II, Sections 5 and 15 of Republic Act No. 9165. Accordingly, he is sentenced to suffer the following penalties: (a) in Criminal Case No. R-PSG-19-01490-CR for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the penalty of life imprisonment, and to pay a fine in the amount of PHP 1,000,000.00 with all the accessory penalties under the law; and (b) in Criminal Case No. R-PSG-19-01491, the penalty of rehabilitation for six months in a government center.

SO ORDERED.

Lazaro-Javier, M. Lopez, and J. Lopez, JJ., concur.
Leonen, SAJ. (Chairperson), see concurring opinion.

---

^[1] Rollo, pp. 3-4. See Notice of Appeal dated November 2, 2021.

^[2] Id. at 8-30. The Decision dated October 12, 2021 was penned by Associate Justice Elihu A. Yba帽ez and concurred in by Associate Justices Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig and Angelene Mary W. Quimpo-Sale of the Eighth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.

^[3] Id. at 33-49. The July 7, 2020 Decision was penned by Presiding Judge Jennifer Albano Pilar of Branch 164, Regional Trial Court, Pasig City.

^[4] Id. at 9-11.

^[5] Id.

^[6] Id. at 11.

^[7] Id. at 12.

^[8] Id. at 12-13.

^[9] Id.

^[10] Id. at 13.

^[11] Id. at 13-14.

^[12] RTC records, p. 34.

^[13] Id. at 66-67.

^[14] Rollo, p. 42.

^[15] Id. at 33-49.

^[16] Id. at 49.

^[17] Id. at 43-49.

^[18] Id. at 49.

^[19] Id.

^[20] Id. at 8-30.

^[21] Id. at 18-29.

^[22] People v. Tamundi, G.R. No. 255613, December 7, 2022 [Per J. Kho, Jr., Second Division].

^[23] See People v. Alvaro, 823 Phil. 444, 454 (2018), citing People v. Viterbo, 739 Phil. 593 (2014) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division].

^[24] See People v. Que, 824 Phil. 882, 895 (2018) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division], citing People v. Nandi, 639 Phil. 134, 144-145 (2010) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].

^[25] People vs. Lopez, 877 Phil. 302, 326 (2020) [Per J. Caguioa, First Division].

^[26] Dela Cruz v. People, 739 Phil. 578 (2014) [Per J. Sereno, First Division].

^[27] Id. at 585-587.

^[28] See People v. Liquete, G.R. No. 237051, November 10, 2021 [Unsigned Resolution, Second Division].

^[29] G.R. No. 236456, November 24, 2021 [Unsigned Resolution, Second Division].

^[30] 921 Phil. 1100 (2022) [Per J. Zalameda, First Division].

^[31] 700 Phil. 664 (2012) [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, First Division].

^[32] 834 Phil. 72 (2018) [Per J. Del Castillo, First Division].

^[33] People v. Dulay, supra note 31, at 674.

^[34] People v. Taboy, supra note 32, at 87.

^[35] See Peralta v. People, 817 Phil. 554, 563 (2017) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division].

^[36] See Republic Act No. 9165 (2002), art. II, sec. 5 and sec. 15, Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

---

SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION

LEONEN, SAJ.:

Edgardo Bernardino alias "Totong" (Bernardino) was charged with violating Sections 5 and 15 of Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 after selling 678.45 grams of dried marijuana leaves during a buy-bust operation. A confirmatory test done on Bernardino's urine also yielded positive results for marijuana and delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) metabolites.^[1]

Under the strict wording of Republic Act No. 9165, the plant Cannabis sativa L., in all its forms, kinds, and categories, are illegal.^[2] This prohibition does not distinguish between the kind, class, or character of cannabis involved. It is also broad enough to include naturally occurring compounds derived from cannabis called cannabinoids, such as THC, the principal psychoactive compound of cannabis.^[3]

Thus, the ponencia is correct in finding Bernardino guilty of illegal sale and illegal use of dangerous drugs, as the black and white letter of Republic Act No. 9165 prohibits cannabis indiscriminately.

However, the same law also states that there must be a "balance in the national drug control program so that people with legitimate medical needs are not prevented from being treated with adequate amounts of appropriate medications, which include the use of dangerous drugs."^[4]

This provision becomes contentious when applied to cannabis. While cannabis is listed as a Schedule I drug under our laws,^[5] a classification reserved for drugs with "high abuse potential [and] no accepted medical use[,]"^[6] new research suggests a high likelihood that certain cannabinoids from the plant may be used to treat various illnesses.^[7]

The Cannabis sativa L. plant synthesizes more than a hundred cannabinoids, which can be individually extracted. The most prevalent cannabinoids are THC and cannabidiol (CBD). The two differ greatly in the way they produce an effect in the body, as well as their overall effects on brain functions.^[8]

THC is the principal psychoactive compound in cannabis. When introduced to the body, it "trigger[s] a rapid succession of symptoms, starting with numbness and tingling of the extremities, light-headedness, 'floating' feelings, and loss of concentration, followed by euphoria, palpitation, sweating, tremulousness and weakness that lasts several hours."^[9]

As THC can modulate multiple biological pathways, there is conclusive evidence that it can be used for treating multiple sclerosis, as well as managing chronic pain and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.^[10] It also shows promise in the treatment of sleep disorders, seizures, Huntington's disease,^[11] anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder.^[12]

However, medicinal THC use is still highly debatable as it is shown to cause physical and cognitive impairments, such as difficulty in paying attention, mental confusion, loss of sense of time, and trouble in controlling motor functions.^[13] Chronic consumption of large amounts of THC has also been associated with an increase in the incidence of mental health disorders, such as the cannabis use disorder, characterized by "impaired memory processing, decision-making, school/work performance, and social functioning," as well as psychosis and schizophrenia.^[14]

Meanwhile, unlike THC, CBD is not considered psychoactive. It does not affect behavior and is shown to cause only mild and reversible somnolence or sleepiness, decrease in appetite, diarrhea, and fatigue. Even high doses of CBD does not produce THC-like effects. Evidence suggests that CBD mitigates the long-term side effects of THC consumption.^[15] The World Health Organization has also stated that CBD has currently no potential for abuse and dependency, with a good safety profile.^[16]

Like THC, CBD also has analgesic properties, which makes it suitable for pain management, helping people with chronic pain and arthritis. CBD also has anti-seizure properties and may treat epilepsy. CBD is also shown to help with symptoms of mental health disorders and neurological conditions like autism spectrum disorder, Alzheimer's disease, anxiety, depression, and post traumatic stress disorder.^[17] Another potential use of CBD is in detoxification and treatment of drug abuse, specifically alcohol and opioid addiction.^[18]

As CBD has many therapeutic applications without psychoactive side effects, it has since been classified as a novel food, gaining rapid popularity in parts of Europe, United Kingdom, and the United States, where it is sold in the form of oils, capsules, candies, and soft gummies, among others.^[19] Legalization of cannabis for medical and recreational use has also increased in other countries over the past decade as more benefits of the drug emerge through repeated clinical research.^[20]

The characteristics of cannabis allow for a different treatment for each of its derivatives, making it possible to ban some while legalizing other less harmful cannabinoids, such as CBD. In any case, "cannabis" is too broad a term that encompasses even plants not scientifically categorized as marijuana which do not produce psychoactive effects.

Just like how there are different dog breeds, the plant species Cannabis saliva L. has many variations which can be categorized into two groups: hemp and marijuana. The difference between the two is determined by how much of the cannabinoid THC is in the plant. Hemp plants do not contain more than 0.3% THC and are the main source for CBD.^[21] Due to its low THC levels, hemp does not produce the feeling of being "high." Meanwhile, plants that have more than 0.3% concentration of THC are classified as marijuana.^[22]

Hence, not all cannabis plants are considered marijuana. Selective crossbreeding of cannabis has also made it possible to create plants that have almost negligible amounts of THC, going well below 0.3%.^[23]

If the goal of Republic Act No. 9165 is to protect our people against drug abuses without sacrificing legitimate medical needs, then the law could be worded more narrowly to account for the possible medicinal use of cannabis derivatives, such as CBD. The way that the law is currently phrased makes it difficult, if not nearly impossible, to obtain cannabis and cannabis derivatives for research and legitimate medical use.

Notably, a perusal of the treaties attached as annexes to Republic Act No. 9165 shows that while the 1961 United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, as amended by the 1972 Protocol, listed "Cannabis and Cannabis resin and extracts and tinctures of cannabis" as a Schedule I drug,^[24] the 1971 United Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances did not mention cannabis in general as a Schedule I drug鈥攐nly THC.^[25] This bolsters the conclusion that a distinction must be made between the psychoactive and nonpsychoactive derivatives of cannabis, and that not all cannabis derivatives should be declared illegal.

Thus, the sweeping prohibition of cannabis must be reexamined in light of the State's policy in Republic Act No. 9165 to balance its goals of guarding against drug abuse, on one hand, and giving adequate care for those with legitimate medical needs, on the other. This Court is mandated not only to interpret the laws but to deliver justice and safeguard meaningful freedoms. It would be nothing short of an injustice to deny people with illnesses a cure just because of a sweeping generalization.

ACCORDINGLY, I vote to DISMISS the appeal.

---

^[1] Rollo, pp. 9-11.

^[2] Republic Act No. 9165 (2002), sec. 3(v).

^[3] Nephi Stella, THC and CBD: Similarities and differences between siblings, 111 NEURON 302 (2023), available at (last accessed on March 18, 2025).

^[4] Republic Act No. 9165 (2002), sec. 2.

^[5] Republic Act No. 9165 (2002), Annex, List of Drugs Included in Schedule I.

^[6] MICHAEL LOPEZ ET AL., DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION DRUG SCHEDULING (2022) available at .

^[7] Julie Moltke & Chandni Hindocha, Reasons for cannabidiol use: a cross-sectional study of CBD users, focusing on self-perceived stress, anxiety, and sleep problems, 3 JOURNAL OF CANNABIS RESEARCH 5 (2021), available at (last accessed on March 18, 2025).

^[8] Nephi Stella, THC and CBD: Similarities and differences between siblings, 111 NEURON 302 (2023), available at (last accessed on March 18, 2025).

^[9] Id. at 307.

^[10] TERRENCE NG ET AL., TETRAHYDROCANNABINOL (THC) (2023), available at .

^[11] Nephi Stella, THC and CBD: Similarities and differences between siblings, 111 NEURON 302, 310 (2023), available at (last accessed on March 18, 2025).

^[12] THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES OF SCIENCES, ENGINEERING, AND MEDICINE, THE HEALTH EFFECTS OF CANNABIS AND CANNABINOIDS: THE CURRENT STATE OF EVIDENCE AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RESEARCH 123 (2017).

^[13] Nephi Stella, THC and CBD: Similarities and differences between siblings, 111 NEURON 302, 307 (2023), available at  (last accessed on March 18, 2025).

^[14] Id. at 309.

^[15] Id. at 316.

^[16] Julie Moltke & Chandni Hindocha, Reasons for cannabidiol use: a cross-sectional study of CBD users, focusing on self-perceived stress, anxiety, and sleep problems, 3 JOURNAL OF CANNABIS RESEARCH 5 (2021), available at (last accessed on March 18, 2025).

^[17] Id.

^[18] Nephi Stella, THC and CBD: Similarities and differences between siblings, 111 NEURON 302, 315 (2023), available at (last accessed on March 18, 2025).

^[19] Julie Moltke & Chandni Hindocha, Reasons for cannabidiol use: a cross-sectional study of CBD users, focusing on self-perceived stress, anxiety, and sleep problems, 3 JOURNAL OF CANNABIS RESEARCH 5(2021), available at (last accessed on March 18, 2025).

^[20] Kyra N. Farrelly et al., The Impact of Recreational Cannabis Legalization on Cannabis Use and Associated Outcomes: A Systematic Review. 17 SUBSTANCE ABUSE: RESEARCH AND TREATMENT 1 (2023), available at (last accessed on March 18, 2025).

^[21] THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES OF SCIENCES, ENGINEERING, AND MEDICINE, THE HEALTH EFFECTS OF CANNABIS AND CANNABINOIDS: THE CURRENT STATE OF EVIDENCE AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RESEARCH 38, 45 (2017).

^[22] Alexander Acosta & Jose Almirall, Differentiation between hemp-type and marijuana-type cannabis using the Fast Blue BB Colorimetric Test, 26 FORENSIC CHEMISTRY 1 (2021). See US Agricultural Act of 2018.

^[23] Nephi Stella, THC and CBD: Similarities and differences between siblings, 111 NEURON 302, 312 (2023), available at (last accessed on March 18, 2025).

^[24] Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, December 13, 1964, 520 UNTS 151, available at (last accessed on March 18, 2025).

^[25] Republic Act No. 9165 (2002), sec. 3(j). See also Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971, August 16, 1976, 1019 UNTS 175, available at (last accessed on March 18, 2025).