G.R. No. 247589 - ROBERT PLAN, JR. Y BELONCIO @ "JUN", AND MARK OLIVER ENOLVA Y DICTADO@ "MARK", VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. RESOLUTION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, imposed on him imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months, as maximum. [25] Petitioners moved for reconsideration which was denied in a Resolution [26] dated May 24, 2019. Hence, this appeal seeking that their conviction be overturned. The Court's Ruling The petition is without merit. "At the outset, it must be stressed that in criminal cases, an appeal throws the entire case wide open for review and the reviewing tribunal can correct errors, though unassigned in the appealed judgment, or even reverse the trial court's decision based on grounds other than those that the parties raised as errors. The appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and renders such court competent to examine records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law ." [27] Guided by this consideration, the Court modifies the conviction of both petitioners to violation of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social Gatherings or Meetings, as defined and penalized under Section 13, Article II of RA 9165, as will be explained hereunder. I. To convict an accused for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, the prosecution must establish the necessary elements thereof, to wit: ( 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. [28] Here, the courts a quo correctly ruled that the prosecution was able to establish with moral certainty all the foregoing elements, considering that: ( a ) by virtue of petitioners' arrest for playing cara y cruz , the police officers recovered, among others, two (2) plastic sachets of shabu from their possession; ( b ) petitioners failed to prove that their possession of the seized items was authorized by law; and ( c ) petitioners freely and consciously possessed the same. In this regard, it should be noted that the trial court was in the best position to assess and determine the credibility of the witnesses presented by both parties. [29] Hence, since there is no indication that the said court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case, the Court finds no reason to deviate from its factual findings. Further, the Court notes that the police officers sufficiently complied with the chain of custody rule under Section 21, Article ll of RA9165, as amended by RA 10640. [30] To be sure, in cases for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under RA 9165, it is essential that the identity of the dangerous drug be established with moral certainty, considering that the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime. [31] Failing to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti renders the evidence for the State insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused