PEOPLE OF THE
Appellee,
Present:
QUISUMBING, J.,
Chairperson,
-
versus -
CARPIO,
CARPIO MORALES,
TINGA, and
VELASCO, JR., JJ.
LOIDA R. SORIANO and
MANUELITA L. MIGUEL,
Appellants.
Promulgated:
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Tinga, J.:
On appeal is the Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals promulgated on 26 May 2006 affirming the conviction by the
Regional Trial Court[2]
(RTC) of appellants Loida R. Soriano (Loida) and Manuelita L. Miguel (Lita) for
violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 and
sentencing them to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a P500,000.00
fine each.
Appellants were arrested and charged
following a “buy-bust” operation.
The accusatory portion of the Information
against appellants reads:
On or about April 8, 2003, in Pasig City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, conspiring and confederating together and both of them mutually helping and aiding one another, not being lawfully authorized to sell, possess or otherwise use any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and give away to Police Officer Janet Sabo, a police poseur buyer, one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance weighing nine (9) centigrams (0.09 grams), which was found positive to the test for methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug, in violation of the said law.
Contrary to law.[3]
When
arraigned, appellants pleaded not guilty.
Trial ensued.
The
prosecution presented as witnesses, PO1 Janet Sabo (Sabo), who acted as
poseur-buyer, PO2 Arturo San Andres (San Andres), a back-up operative who
assisted Sabo, and PO1 Aldrin Mariano (Mariano), who transmitted the drug
specimen confiscated from appellants to the Philippine National Police (PNP)
Crime Laboratory. Their testimonies
sought to establish the following facts:
Acting
on a tip from an informant that a certain “Loida,” “Lita” and “Bangkay” were
openly selling drugs in Bukid, Barangay Bambang, Pasig City, Police Inspector
Rodrigo Villaruel formed a buy-bust team on 8 April 2003 composed of Sabo as
poseur-buyer, San Andres, SPO4 Manuel Buenconsejo, PO3 Amillasan Salisa,
Mariano and PO1 Alan Panis. Sabo was
then given two (2) One Hundred Peso bills to be used as buy-bust money. At about P200.00. Sabo then gave Lita the P200.00 marked
money. Lita, in turn, gave the P200.00
to another lady inside the house, later identified as Loida. Loida handed a plastic sachet to Lita. Lita approached Sabo and gave it to the
latter.
Upon inspection of the sachet
containing the suspected shabu, Sabo
sent her pre-arranged signal to the other police officers by combing her hair
with her fingers.[4] San Andres approached and directed Loida to empty
her short pants pocket of its contents. Loida
obliged and handed two
(2) pieces of
P100.00 bills to San Andres. He later
confirmed that the
two bills bearing
the serial numbers
FC144922 and JT449380 respectively
seized from Loida were the same bills previously photocopied and marked with letters J and S
inside the two (2) zeroes of the P100.00 bills.[5] The shabu
was brought by Mariano[6] to
the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination, which yielded a positive result for
methylamphetamine hydrochloride.[7]
In
their defense, appellants denied the charge against them. They commonly narrated that at around
On P500,000.00
fine each. The trial court gave credence
to the prosecution's evidence in accordance with the presumption of regularity
in the performance of official functions accorded to police officers.[10]
Initially,
the appeal was brought before us. Conformably
with People v. Mateo[11]
however, this Court in a Resolution[12]
dated
On
P200.00.[13] It observed that the prosecution evidence presented
a complete picture detailing the transaction of the buy-bust operation – from the initial
contact between Sabo and appellants, to
the offer to purchase shabu by the
poseur-buyer, the payment of the buy-bust money, and the consummation of the
sale by delivery by appellants to Sabo of the shabu.[14]
Appellants
appealed their conviction before this Court, adopting the same arguments in
their Brief before the Court of Appeals.
Appellants
essentially maintain that the prosecution’s evidence failed to prove their
guilt beyond reasonable doubt. They
lament that the trial court failed to give weight to their direct testimonies,
which were clearly more credible than the version of the prosecution.[15]
It is jurisprudential that factual
findings of trial courts especially those which revolve on matters of
credibility of witnesses deserve to be respected when no glaring errors
bordering on a gross misapprehension of the facts, or where no speculative,
arbitrary and unsupported conclusions, can be gleaned from such findings.[16]
The evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are best
undertaken by the trial
court because of its unique opportunity
to
observe the witnesses' deportment,
demeanor, conduct and attitude under grilling examination.[17]
After a painstaking review of the records,
we agree with the trial court’s finding that the guilt of the appellants was
established beyond reasonable doubt.
In every prosecution for illegal sale
of shabu, the following elements must
be sufficiently proved: (1) the identity
of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the
delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[18] Indeed, all these elements were duly
established. Appellants were caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu through a buy-bust operation
conducted by members of the Mayor’s Special Action Team/City Hall Detachment of
Pasig City.
The poseur-buyer, Sabo, positively
testified that the sale took place and appellants were the authors thereof,
thus:
Q: When you reached the house of alias Loida, what happened next?
A: The informant knocked at the door, sir.
Q: After knocking, what happened next, madam witness?
A: One female person came out, sir.
Q: Did you come to know later the identity of this female person who came out?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Who is she?
A: Manuelita Miguel y Leyva, sir.
Q: Would this be the same person whom your informant said to be that one earlier then identified as alias Lita?
x x x x
A: Yes, sir.
Q: If you see this alias Lita, whom you identified as Manuelita Miguel, will you be able to identify her again?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Will you please look inside the court room and tell us if she is here?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Will you please step down from the witness stand and tap her left or right shoulder in order to identify her?
COURT INTERPRETER:
Witness tapped the shoulder of a female person, who, when asked, identified herself as Manuelita Miguel.
Q: When this alias Lita or accused Manuelita Miguel came out after the informant knocked on her door, what else happened?
A: She asked, why and what we needed, sir.
Q: Who did she ask?
A: Our asset, sir.
Q: And what was the reply of your asset, if any?
A: The asset said that, “I have a companion who wanted to score,” sir.
Q: What do you mean by score, madam witness?
A: To buy shabu, sir.
Q: And when your asset said that, “May kasama ako na gustong mag-iskor ng shabu.” Who is this “kasama”?
A: I was the one, sir.
Q: Were you ever introduced as the person interested in buying shabu?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: After you were introduced to said alias Lita, what else happened, if any?
A: I
was asked how much would I want to buy.
So I said, I will buy shabu
worth P200.00. “Panggamit lang,”
sir.
Q: And what happened next?
A: She took my money, sir.
Q: Reference
in the P200.00 pesos that your Chief earlier gave you?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And
after certain Lita took the P200.00 from you, what else happened, if
any?
A: She
talked to another female person to whom she gave the P200.00, sir.
Q: Where was this second lady at the time that you were transacting with alias Lita?
A: The other lady was inside the house, sir.
Q: Were you able to see plainly that this Lita talked with the second lady?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What transpired next, if any?
A: I
saw Lita handed the two (2) P100.00 bills to the other lady. In return, the other lady gave what I believe
was a plastic sachet of shabu to
Lita, sir.
Q: After the second lady handed this alleged shabu to Lita, what happened next?
A: Lita again approached me and gave me the shabu, sir.
Q: After Lita handed to you shabu, what happened next, if any, madam witness?
A: I looked at the sachet, and when I saw that it was the suspected shabu, I sent my companions my pre-arranged signal, sir.[19]
Loida produced the plastic sachet
containing shabu and gave it to Lita,
who in turn, handed it to the poseur-buyer in exchange for P200.00. This transaction was witnessed by San Andres who
acted as back-up. He corroborated Sabo’s
attestation in his own testimony before the Court:
Q: And would you know if Janet Sabo was in fact able to buy shabu from the target person?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: You personally saw the transaction, Mr. Witness?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And what did you do after the transaction, if any, Mr. Witness?
A: After PO1 Sabo sent her pre-arranged signal, that’s when we approached them, sir.
Q: And when you approached them, what particularly did you do?
A: PO1 Janet Sabo personally told me that the buy-bust money went to a certain Loida, sir.
Q: And when you were informed about this by Sabo, what did you do, if any?
A: I immediately went to a certain Loida and requested her to empty her pockets, sir.
Q: And did she comply with your request, Mr. Witness?
A: Yes, sir. She voluntarily opened her pockets and from there, I saw the two pieces of one hundred peso bills, sir.[20]
The result of the laboratory examination
confirmed the presence of methylamphetamine hydrochloride on the white
crystalline substance inside the plastic sachet confiscated from appellants.[21] The report containing the findings of the
forensic chemist, together with the plastic sachet of shabu subject of the sale, was admitted by the parties in the
stipulation of facts.[22] The delivery of the illicit drug to the
poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully
consummated the buy-bust transaction.[23] This was further corroborated by the
presentation of the marked money in evidence.[24]
The defense of appellants is
predicated on bare denial, nothing more.
They claimed that Junjun approached them peddling his pieces of jewelry
when the police officers arrived and arrested them. They were brought to the police station. Lita alleged that she was told to point to a
big-time drug pusher. When she denied
any knowledge thereof, she was charged for violation of Sec. 5 of R.A. No.
9165.
Denial or frame-up, like alibi, has
been viewed by the court with disfavor for it can just as easily be concocted
and is a common and standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of
the Dangerous Drugs Act.[25] The defense of frame-up or denial in drug
cases requires strong and convincing evidence because of the presumption that the
law enforcement agencies acted in the regular
performance of their official duties.[26] Bare denials of appellants cannot prevail
over the positive testimonies of the three police officers.[27] Moreover, there is no evidence of any
improper motive on the part of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust
operation to falsely testify against appellants.
The presumption of innocence accorded
the accused had been overturned by the evidence presented by the prosecution.
Contrary to appellants’ assertion, the prosecution had convincingly proved
beyond reasonable doubt that the crime was committed. The inability of the accused to predicate
their defense on anything other than their words alone ultimately condemns them
to prison, especially in the light of the prosecution’s evidence and witnesses,
which appellants had been incapable of impeaching.
In fine, it has been established by
proof beyond reasonable doubt that appellants sold shabu. Under Sec. 5, Article
II of R.A. No. 9165, the penalty of life imprisonment to death and fine ranging
from P500,000.00 to P1,000,000.00 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. Hence, the
trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, correctly imposed the penalty
of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00.
WHEREFORE, the decision dated P500,000.00 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO T. CARPIO CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice Associate Justice
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO,
JR.
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson,
Second Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1]Penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo, and concurred in by Associate Justices Renato C. Dacudao and Lucas P. Bersamin.
[18]People v. Isnani, G.R. No. 133006, 9 June
2004, 431 SCRA 439, 449, citing People v.
Tan, G.R. No. 129376, May 29, 2002, 382 SCRA 419, 432, citing People v. Zheng Bai Hui, 338 SCRA 420
(2000); People v. Tiu, G.R. No.
142885, 22 October 2003, 414 SCRA 1, 7.
[25]People v. Dulay, G.R. No. 150624, 24
February 2004, 423 SCRA 652, 662-663, citing People v. Barita, 325 SCRA 22, 37 (2000); People v. Vinecario, G.R. No. 141137, 20 January 2004, 420 SCRA 280;
People v. Ahmad, G.R. No. 148048, 15 January 2004, 419
SCRA 677.
[26]People v. Uy, G.R. No. 128046, 7 March
2000, 327 SCRA 335, 350, citing People v.
Dichoso, 223 SCRA 174 (1993); People
v. Constantino, 235 SCRA 384 (1994); People
v. Tranca, 235 SCRA 455 (1994).