|
PEOPLE OF THE Appellee, - versus
- ROBERTO
T. GARCIA,
Appellant. |
G.R. No. 172975 Present: QUISUMBING, J.,
Chairperson, CARPIO, CARPIO MORALES, TINGA, and VELASCO, JR., JJ. Promulgated: |
|
|
|
x-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
- - - - - - - - - - -x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
On appeal
is the Court of Appeals Decision[1]
of April 24, 2006 affirming the September 23, 2004 Judgment[2]
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 140, finding Roberto
T. Garcia (appellant), along with his girlfriend,
then a minor,
Melissa B. Cruz (Melissa), guilty
beyond
reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 5[3]
and 11,[4]
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165), otherwise known as the
“Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.”
The accusatory portion of the Information
filed against appellant and Melissa for violation of Section 5, RA 9165,
which was docketed as Criminal Case No. 02-2323, reads:
That on or about the 17th day of August, 2002, in the City of
Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously without being authorized by law, sell, distribute
and transport zero point zero nine (0.09) gram of Methylamphetamine
Hydrochloride (shabu) which is a dangerous drug in violation of the above-cited
law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[5]
The accusatory portion of the Information
against appellant for violation of Section 11, Article II, RA 9165,
which was docketed as Criminal Case No. 02-2324, provides:
That on or about the 17th day of August, 2002, in the City of
Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being lawfully authorized to
possess or otherwise use any dangerous drug and without the corresponding
license or prescription, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have in his possession, direct custody and control zero point
thirteen (0.13) gram of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) which is a
dangerous drug in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[6]
The accusatory portion of the
separate Information against Melissa for violation of Section 11,
Article II, RA 9165, which was docketed as Criminal Case No. 02-2325,
reads:
That on or about the 17th day of August,
2002, in the City of Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines, a place within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being
lawfully authorized to possess or otherwise use any dangerous drug and without
the corresponding license or prescription, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously have in her possession, direct custody and control zero point
zero six (0.06) gram, zero point zero six (0.06) gram and zero point zero nine
(0.09) gram of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) which is a dangerous
drug in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[7]
The
following is the version of the prosecution:
On
The DEU of the Makati Police immediately
formed a team to conduct a buy-bust operation. The team was composed of SPO2
Wilmer Antonio (SPO2 Antonio) as team leader, and SPO1 Antonio Fulleros, PO2
Virgilio Acosta, PO2 Vicente Barrameda (PO2 Barrameda) and PO2 Rodrigo Igno (PO2
Igno) as members.[10]
The
team, together with the informant, immediately proceeded to the target area
which they reached at around P100 worth of the drug, he simultaneously
handing to appellant a P100 bill marked with “LMA,”[11] acronym
for Leandro Mendoza Abel, Chief of the DEU.
As soon as appellant received the P100
bill, he secured from Melissa a small plastic sachet containing white granules
which he handed over to PO2 Barrameda.[12]
PO2 Barrameda at once lighted his
cigarette as a pre-arranged signal for the team members to arrest appellant and
Melissa. PO2 Igno immediately approached
the group, introduced himself as a policeman, and apprehended Melissa from whom
he confiscated a small tin box which, when opened, yielded three (3) plastic
sachets containing suspected shabu.[13]
He gave the items to team leader SPO2 Antonio who marked the tin box with
“MBC-4” and the three sachets with “MBC-1,” “MBC-2,” and “MBC-3”
in front of appellant and Melissa.[14]
PO2
Barrameda thereupon arrested appellant after introducing himself as a police
officer and apprising him and Melissa of their constitutional rights. The team recovered the marked P100 bill,
together with another plastic sachet, from appellant’s pocket.[15] Team
leader SPO2 Antonio immediately marked the plastic sachet taken from
appellant’s pocket with “RTG-1” and the plastic sachet sold to poseur-buyer PO2
Barrameda with “RTG.”[16]
The
team thereafter brought appellant and Melissa to the police station for
investigation. SPO2 Antonio turned over
the marked money and the five (5) plastic sachets to investigator PO2 Leo
Gabrang who prepared an investigation report as well as a request for
laboratory examination of the contents of the sachets.
The contents of the sachets which
were subjected to qualitative examination by Police Inspector Lourdeliza
Gural-Cejes, Forensic Chemist of the Eastern Police District, were positive for
shabu.[17]
At
the witness stand, appellant gave the following version:
At around ten o’clock in the evening
of August 16, 2002, he was engaged in a drinking spree inside the house of his
friend Manny Buncab (Buncab) which is adjacent to his mother’s at 11-J,
When Buncab went out to urinate,
three persons entered the house, asked the name of appellant and told him to
raise his hands.[19] The three frisked him from whom they recovered
a knife. And they recovered from Melissa
a cellphone and wallet.[20]
They were then brought to the DEU office where they were informed that they
were arrested for violation of Sections 5 and 11 of RA 9165.
While in the DEU office, appellant
saw for the first time a marked P100 bill and plastic sachets of shabu
which were taken out from a drawer of the table of PO2 Igno.[21]
The police officers then asked him to settle the case for the amount of Forty
Thousand (P40,000) Pesos, but he failed to produce the same.[22]
His co-accused Melissa, who likewise took
the witness stand, corroborated appellant’s version of their arrest and the confiscation of their personal
belongings, as well as appellant’s claim about seeing the marked P100
bill being taken from a policeman’s table.[23]
Melissa
added that on appellant’s
arrest, she insisted to go with him to the DEU office to ensure that he would
not be hurt by the policemen.[24]
Melissa likewise corroborated appellant’s
claim that they were asked to settle the case by producing some amount of
money.
Finally, Melissa claimed that despite
her information that she has an uncle who is a police officer, she was also
indicted because “nayayabangan daw sila sakin.”
Buncab,
another witness for the defense, narrated as follows: At around
Branch
140 of the RTC of Makati City, by Judgment[28] of
WHEREFORE, finding the accused ROBERTO GARCIA @ BOBBY
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 5 of Art. II of R.A.
9165, in Criminal Case No. 02-2323 judgment is hereby rendered sentencing
ROBERTO GARCIA to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00.
Further
finding the accused ROBERTO GARCIA Y TALOSIG @ BOBBY in Criminal Case No.
02-2324 in Violation of Section 11 Art. II of R.A. 9165 judgment is hereby
rendered sentencing ROBERTO GARCIA to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of
12 years and 1 day to twenty years of reclusion temporal and a fine of P300,000.00.
Finding
the accused MELISSA CRUZ Y BACARRO @ ISA guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
Violation of Section 5 of Art. II of R.A. 9165, in Criminal Case No. 02-2323
being a minor, who was 16 years old at the time of the commission of the
offense, she is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of minority thus
reducing the penalty to 1 degree lower than that imposed by law. Accused is
therefore sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of 12 years and 1
day to 20 years of reclusion temporal and to pay a fine of P300,000.00.
Further
finding Accused MELLISA CRUZ BACARRO @ ISA guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
Violation of Section 11 Art. II of R.A. 9165 in Criminal Case No. 02-2325,
being a minor, who was 16 years old at the
time of the commission of the offense, she is entitled to the
mitigating circumstance of minority thus reducing the penalty to 1
degree
lower than that imposed by law. Accused is therefore sentenced to suffer the
penalty of imprisonment of 6 years and 1 day to 12 years of prision mayor
and to pay a fine of P300,000.00.
However,
pursuant to Art. 192 of P.D. 603,
judgment is hereby suspended and said minor [Melissa Cruz Bacarro @ ISA]
is committed to the Department of Social Welfare, or any training
institution operated by the government, or duly licensed agencies or any other
responsible person, until she shall have reached twenty-one years of age or,
for a shorter period as the court may deem proper, after considering the
reports and recommendations of the Department of Social Welfare or agency or
responsible individual under whose care she has been committed.
Cost
against the accused.
SO
ORDERED.[29] (Emphasis
in the original; underscoring supplied)
By
Manifestation[30] filed
on
Only
appellant thus appealed the trial court’s judgment to the Court of Appeals
which, as priorly stated, affirmed the same by Decision of
Hence,
appellant’s present appeal.
Appellant,
by Manifestation[32] dated
In
his Appellant’s Brief filed before the appellate court, appellant faulted the
trial court in not finding that he was illegally arrested.[33]
He insisted that none of the circumstances justifying a warrantless arrest
under Section 5 of Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure[34]
was present. He faulted too the trial
court in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offenses charged,[35] given,
so he claimed, the incredible testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.[36]
The
appeal fails.
Appellant
was caught in flagrante delicto – in the act of selling a sachet containing
substances which turned out to be positive for shabu to poseur-buyer PO2
Barrameda. And as soon as he was arrested,
he was frisked by the arresting officers in the course of which a sachet also
containing substances which too turned out to be positive for shabu was
found in his pocket.
Section 5(a) of Rule 113 of the
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that a peace officer or a private
person may, without a warrant, arrest a person when, in his presence, the
person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting
to commit an offense. Having committed
the crime of selling shabu in the
presence of the buy-bust operation team, and having been found to be in
possession of another sachet of shabu immediately
thereafter, appellant’s arrest without warrant is, unquestionably, justified.
For
a successful prosecution of a charge for illegal sale of a prohibited drug, the
following elements must concur: (1) the
identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the
consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[37]
What is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place,
coupled with the presentation in court of the object evidence.[38] Such requirements are present in this case.
The
illegal sale of shabu is established by the clear testimony of PO2
Barrameda who acted as the poseur-buyer in the standard police buy-bust
operation.
PO2
Barrameda’s testimony was corroborated on material points by PO2 Igno who was
just 10 to 15 meters away from the locus
criminis.
That
the informant was not presented by the prosecution does not prejudice the State’s
case as all the elements of illegal sale and possession of shabu by
appellant were satisfactorily proved by testimonial, documentary and object
evidence. At best, the testimony of the
informant would only have been corroborative of the testimonies of PO2
Barrameda and PO2 Igno. It is not
indispensable. People v. Uy[39]
explains:
The failure to present the informer did not diminish
the integrity of the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution. Informers
are almost always never presented in court because of the need to preserve
their invaluable service to the police. Their testimony or identity may be
dispensed with since his or her narration would be merely corroborative,
as in this case, when the poseur-buyer himself testified on the sale of the
illegal drug. (Underscoring supplied)
Appellant
did not even ascribe any motive for the possible fabrication of charges against
him by the police whom he admittedly met for the first time at the time of his arrest.[40] The absence of any improper motive strongly tends
to sustain the conclusion that none existed to falsely charge appellant. The presumption that the police officers performed
their duties regularly and that they acted within the bounds of their authority[41] is
thus worthy of full faith and credit.
This
Court is, of course, aware that in some cases law enforcers resort to the
practice of planting evidence in order to, inter
alia, harass. But the defense of
frame-up in drug cases requires strong and convincing evidence because of the
presumption stated in the immediately preceding paragraph.
Besides,
the defense of denial or frame-up, like alibi, is viewed 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.[42]
Appellant’s
questioning of the lack of prior surveillance by the police officers before the
conduct of the buy-bust operation to thus render the operation invalid
fails. There is no requirement that a
surveillance should first be conducted before a buy-bust operation, especially
where the operatives are accompanied to the scene by their informant,[43] or
where the police officers have reasonable ground to believe that the informer
and the information given are reliable and that a crime is indeed being
perpetrated.[44] The buy-bust operation is formed by the police
officers precisely to test the veracity of the tip and to apprehend the perpetrator,
if he in fact commits the offense, before he further endangers society.
As
for the evidence for the defense, the testimonies of its witnesses are even
conflicting and/or failing the test of credibility.
Thus, during his cross-examination, appellant
claimed that before going to the house of Buncab, he and Melissa met at the
billiard hall and proceeded to the house of his (appellant’s) mother; and thereafter,
they were invited to the house of Buncab to have a drink.[45] Melissa, on cross-examination, however, testified
that she alone went to the house of Buncab where she met appellant.[46]
Appellant asserted that he and Buncab
had been friends for a year already. When
asked what Buncab does for a living, however, he replied that he knew nothing about
it.[47]
Melissa testified that she talked
with appellant through cellphone while he was in the house of Buncab.[48] She, however, claimed that when appellant was
arrested in the house of Buncab, only a knife was taken from him. When
asked what happened to the cellphone of appellant, she claimed that it was lost
─ how and when, she did not elaborate.[49]
What better confirmation, however, of
the incredible version of the defense than appellant’s co-accused Melissa
withdrawing her motion for reconsideration of the trial court’s decision.
WHEREFORE, the Court of Appeals
Decision of
Costs against appellant.
SO
ORDERED.
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A.
QUISUMBING
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest
that the conclusions in the above Decision were 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
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to
Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s
Attestation, I certify 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] Rollo, pp. 2-13. Penned by Associate Justice Sesinando Villon and concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo Cruz and Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente.
[2] Records, pp. 192-199. Penned by Judge Leticia P. Morales.
[3] SEC. 5. 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.
[4] SEC. 11. Possession of
Dangerous Drugs. - 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 possess any dangerous drug in the following
quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof:
(1) 10 grams or more of opium;
(2) 10 grams or more of morphine;
(3) 10 grams or more of heroin;
(4) 10 grams or more of cocaine or cocaine
hydrochloride;
(5) 50 grams or more of methamphetamine
hydrochloride or "shabu";
(6) 10 grams or more of marijuana resin or
marijuana resin oil;
(7) 500 grams or more of marijuana; and
(8) 10
grams or more of other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to,
methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) or "ecstasy",
paramethoxyamphetamine (PMA), trimethoxyamphetamine (TMA), lysergic acid
diethylamine (LSD), gamma hydroxyamphetamine (GHB), and those similarly
designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any
therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic
requirements, as determined and promulgated by the Board in accordance to
Section 93, Article XI of this Act.
Otherwise,
if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties
shall be graduated as follows:
(1)
Life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00)
to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), if the quantity of
methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu" is ten (10) grams or more
but less than fifty (50) grams;
(2)
Imprisonment of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to life imprisonment and a
fine ranging from Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five
hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous
drugs are five (5) grams or more but less than ten (10) grams of opium,
morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or
marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu", or
other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy",
PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and
their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity
possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or three hundred (300) grams
or more but less than five (hundred) 500) grams of marijuana; and
(3) Imprisonment
of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging
from Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand
pesos (P400,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less
than five (5) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine
hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine
hydrochloride or "shabu," or other dangerous drugs such as, but
not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy", PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those
similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without
having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond
therapeutic requirements; or less than three hundred (300) grams of marijuana.
(Emphasis supplied)
[5] Records, p. 2.
[6]
[7]
[8] TSN,
[9] TSN,
[10] TSN,
[11] Records, p. 14.
[12] TSN,
[13] TSN,
[14] TSN,
[15] TSN,
[16]
[17] Records, p. 13.
[18] TSN,
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22] Ibid.
[23] TSN,
[24]
[25] TSN,
[26]
[27]
[28] Records, pp. 192-199.
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32] Rollo, pp. 20-21.
[33] CA rollo, p. 41.
[34] SEC. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. – A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance with section 7 of Rule 112.
[35] Rollo, p. 47.
[36]
[37] People v. Macabalang, G.R.
No. 168694,
[38] People of the
[39] G.R. No. 128046, March 7, 2000, 327 SCRA 335, 351-352; vide also People v. Ganenas, G.R. No. 141400, September 6, 2001, 364 SCRA 582, 590.
[40] TSN,
[41] People v. Hindoy, G.R. No. 132662, May 10, 2001, 357 SCRA 692, 700; vide also People v. Uy, G.R. No. 128046, March 7, 2000, 327 SCRA 335, 349; People v. Magno, G.R. No. 126049, Sept. 25, 1998, 296 SCRA 443, 450.
[42] People v. Uy,
G.R. No. 128046,
[43] People v. Ganenas, G.R. No.
141400, September 6, 2001, 364 SCRA 582, 590; People v. Alao, G.R. No. 126516,
[44] People v. Macabalang, G.R.
No. 168694,
[45] TSN,
[46] TSN,
[47] TSN,
[48] TSN,
[49] Ibid.