In a ruling with significant implications for drug enforcement in the Philippines, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Edgardo Bernardino for both illegal sale and use of dangerous drugs, as defined under Republic Act No. 9165. The Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, finding that the prosecution successfully established the elements of both crimes beyond reasonable doubt. The ruling reinforces the strict enforcement of anti-drug laws while also prompting a deeper consideration of the potential medical applications of certain cannabis derivatives. This sets a precedent for future cases involving drug-related offenses and highlights the importance of stringent adherence to chain of custody protocols for seized items.
Caught in the Act: Can One Be Convicted for Both Selling and Using Illegal Drugs?
The case began with a confidential informant tipping off the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) about Edgardo Bernardino, also known as “Totong,” who was allegedly selling marijuana in Pasig City. This led to a buy-bust operation where an undercover agent, IO I Randy M. Ruiz, arranged to purchase one kilo of marijuana from Bernardino for PHP 25,000. The transaction took place at Bernardino’s residence, where he handed over the drugs to IO I Ruiz. After the exchange, other PDEA agents entered the house, identified themselves, and arrested Bernardino. A subsequent search revealed the marked money used in the buy-bust operation. Following his arrest, Bernardino underwent drug testing, which confirmed the presence of marijuana in his system.
Bernardino was subsequently charged with violating Sections 5 (illegal sale of dangerous drugs) and 15 (illegal use of dangerous drugs) of Republic Act No. 9165. At trial, Bernardino denied the charges, claiming that he was coerced and framed by the arresting officers. He alleged that he was on his way home when he was accosted by men who forced him to lead them to his house, where they planted the drugs. However, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) found his defense to be weak and convicted him on both counts. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision, leading Bernardino to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court, in its analysis, focused on whether the CA erred in affirming Bernardino’s convictions. For illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Article II, Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165, the Court emphasized the need for the prosecution to prove the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration, as well as the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. The law states:
SECTION 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. — 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 Court agreed with the lower courts that all elements of the crime were met, as Bernardino was caught in flagrante delicto selling marijuana to the poseur-buyer. Critical to the conviction was the establishment of an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs. This ensures the integrity and identity of the evidence from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court. The chain of custody involves four critical links: (1) seizure and marking, (2) turnover to the investigating officer, (3) turnover to the forensic chemist, and (4) submission to the court. The Court determined that these links were properly established in this case.
Regarding the charge of illegal use of dangerous drugs under Article II, Section 15 of R.A. No. 9165, the Court referenced the law:
SECTION 15. Use of Dangerous Drugs. — 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.
To secure a conviction, the prosecution must present both an initial screening test and a subsequent confirmatory test, both yielding positive results for illegal drug use. Citing Dela Cruz v. People, the Court clarified that the phrase “a person apprehended or arrested” refers specifically to individuals arrested for unlawful acts listed under Article II of R.A. No. 9165. In Bernardino’s case, both the screening and confirmatory tests confirmed the presence of THC metabolites, a component of marijuana, in his system. This evidence, combined with his arrest for illegal sale, justified his conviction for illegal drug use.
The Court also addressed the apparent tension between Sections 15 and 25 of R.A. No. 9165. Section 25 states that a positive finding for drug use shall be a qualifying aggravating circumstance in the commission of a crime. However, the Court clarified that Section 25 applies to crimes or offenses committed under the influence of illegal drugs other than violations of R.A. No. 9165 itself. This interpretation aligns with previous rulings, such as People v. Cabiling, People v. Vastine, People v. Dulay, and People v. Taboy, where the Court upheld separate convictions for illegal sale and illegal use of dangerous drugs.
One justice issued a separate concurring opinion, underscoring the need to reexamine the sweeping prohibition of cannabis in light of the State’s policy to balance drug control with legitimate medical needs. The opinion highlighted the varying effects and potential medical benefits of different cannabis derivatives, particularly cannabidiol (CBD), which lacks psychoactive effects. It was argued that a more nuanced approach, distinguishing between psychoactive and non-psychoactive derivatives, could better serve the interests of justice and public health. While the concurring opinion acknowledged the correctness of the ruling under the current law, it advocated for legislative reform to allow for the medical use of cannabis derivatives like CBD.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court found no reason to overturn the lower courts’ decisions, emphasizing the RTC’s superior position to assess witness credibility. As such, Bernardino’s conviction and the penalties imposed were affirmed: life imprisonment and a fine of PHP 1,000,000.00 for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, and six months of rehabilitation in a government center for illegal use of dangerous drugs.
FAQs
| What was the key issue in this case? | The key issue was whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Edgardo Bernardino’s conviction for both illegal sale and illegal use of dangerous drugs. |
| What is the significance of the “chain of custody” in drug cases? | The chain of custody ensures the integrity and identity of drug evidence from seizure to presentation in court, preventing contamination or substitution. |
| What are the penalties for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under R.A. 9165? | The penalties range from life imprisonment to death, and a fine ranging from PHP 500,000.00 to PHP 10,000,000.00, depending on the quantity and type of drug. |
| What are the requirements for a conviction of illegal use of dangerous drugs? | A conviction requires both an initial screening test and a confirmatory test yielding positive results for illegal drug use. |
| Can a person be convicted of both illegal sale and illegal use of dangerous drugs? | Yes, the Supreme Court has affirmed convictions for both offenses in several cases, including this one, provided the elements of each crime are proven. |
| What is the difference between THC and CBD? | THC is the psychoactive compound in cannabis that produces a “high,” while CBD is non-psychoactive and has potential therapeutic benefits. |
| Does R.A. 9165 distinguish between different types of cannabis? | No, R.A. 9165 currently prohibits cannabis indiscriminately, without distinguishing between types or derivatives. |
| What did the concurring opinion suggest about the medical use of cannabis? | The concurring opinion suggested a need to reexamine the sweeping prohibition of cannabis to allow for the medical use of certain derivatives like CBD. |
| Who has the burden of proof in a criminal case? | In a criminal case, the prosecution has the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| What is the role of the Regional Trial Court in assessing evidence? | The Regional Trial Court is in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses and weigh the evidence presented by both parties. |
This case reinforces the strict enforcement of anti-drug laws in the Philippines and the importance of adhering to proper procedures in drug-related arrests and prosecutions. While the ruling reaffirms existing legal principles, the concurring opinion suggests a growing recognition of the potential medical benefits of certain cannabis derivatives, potentially paving the way for future legislative reforms.
For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.
Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. EDGARDO BERNARDINO Y TAMAYO, G.R. No. 265434, March 03, 2025