THIRD
DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus
- BOISAN CABUGATAN y MACARAMBON, Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 172019 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CALLEJO, SR., CHICO-NAZARIO, and NACHURA,* JJ. Promulgated: |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
D E C I S I O N
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
For
Review is the Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals dated 28 October 2005 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00174
entitled, “People of the Philippines v.
Boisan Cabugatan y Macarambon,” affirming the Decision[2]
rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 61, in Criminal Cases
No. 20441-R and No. 20442-R, finding appellant guilty of illegal sale and of
illegal possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride more popularly known as “shabu.”
On
The offense involved in Criminal Case
No. 20441-R for violation of Section 5, Article II, of Republic Act No. 9165[3] was
allegedly committed as follows:
That on or about the 8th day of August, 2002
in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused and without any authority of law, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously SELL, DISTRIBUTE and/or
DELIVER a small transparent plastic heat sealed sachet containing white
crystalline substance “Shabu” weighing 0.1 gram for ONE HUNDRED FIFTY PESOS (P150.00),
Philippine Currency to PO3 Benedict Del-ong, a member of the Philippine
National Police who acted as poseur-buyer, knowing fully well that said
methamphetamine hydrochloride (SHABU), is a regulated [drug], in violation of
the aforementioned provision of law.[4]
On the other hand, the Information relative to Criminal Case
No. 20442-R for infringement of Section 11, Article II of the same law[5] reads:
That on or about 8th day of August, 2002 in
the City of Baguio, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have in his/her possession and control one transparent plastic
containing four (4) small transparent plastic sachet containing white
crystalline substance “Shabu” weighing approximately 0.2 gm., marked as “RUA”
“JF”; 0.2 gm marked “RUA” “JF”; 0.1 gm. Marked “RUA” “JF” and 0.1 gm marked
“RUA” “JF”, respectively; a regulated drug, without the corresponding license
or prescription, in violation of the aforecited provision of law.[6]
During his arraignment on
On
1.
Certification of Preliminary test on the five sachets marked as Exh. A
and B as to the findings of the positive result for methamphetamine
hydrochloride.
2.
Chemistry Report No. D-070-2002
3.
Buy-bust money
4.
Request for Drug Test
5.
Booking Sheet and Arrest Report of the accused.[8]
During
the trial of the cases, the prosecution presented the testimonies of PO2
Benedict Del-ong, PO2 Gilbert Bulalit, and PO3 Roy Aguirre who were all members
of the Baguio City Police.
The
prosecution’s version of the facts shows that on
Police
Chief Inspector Garcia immediately formed a team to conduct a buy-bust
operation to apprehend Boisan with PO2 Del-ong as the designated poseur-buyer.[10] Police Chief Inspector Garcia gave PO2
Bulalit one piece of P100.00 bill and a P50.00 bill. PO2 Bulalit proceeded to have the bills
photocopied and authenticated by the City Prosecutor’s Office.[11]
Later in
the afternoon, the team proceeded to Villacor Billiard Hall. PO3 Aguirre and PO2 Bulalit positioned
themselves inside a public utility jeepney parked near the entrance of the
billiard hall. The other member of the
team, PO1 Eugene Raymundo, stood about four to five meters away.[12]
When
they reached the designated place, they were met by a man wearing a black bull
cap and a gray sweatshirt with collar.
This person was identified during the trial to be appellant. After the civilian informant introduced PO2
Del-ong and appellant to each other, the latter asked PO2 Del-ong how much worth
of shabu was he willing to
purchase. PO2 Del-ong replied that he
had only P150.00 with him. After
he handed this sum to appellant, the latter drew from his right front pocket a
small sachet which he gave to PO2 Del-ong.
PO2 Del-ong then examined the content of the sealed plastic sachet. Certain that what appellant gave him was shabu, PO2 Del-ong scratched his head
using his left hand to alert his fellow team members that the sale of shabu was already consummated. Thereupon, the rest of the buy-bust team
rushed towards appellant and informed him that he was being arrested. They likewise advised him of his
constitutional rights.[13]
PO3
Aguirre then frisked appellant and recovered from the latter four small
transparent sachets containing crystalline substance.
Appellant
was thereafter taken to the police station where the buy-bust team prepared the
arrest report, booking sheet, and their joint affidavit. They also made a request for the initial
testing of the evidence they confiscated from appellant. The task of conducting the preliminary test
was performed by PO2 Joseph Filog who issued a certification dated
The purpose of which is to determine
the presence of regulated drug on the above specimen.
That by using the “SIMONS
REAGENT” to the white crystalline substance from the five (5) plastic heat
sachets, gave POSITIVE result of
“DARK BLUE COLOR” which indicates the presence of Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride, an active component of Shabu, a regulated drug.[14]
The sachets of white crystalline substance were also
examined by the Regional Crime Laboratory Office of the Philippine National
Police. This test yielded the following
results:
FINDINGS:
Qualitative examination
conducted on the above-stated specimens (Exhs. “A”, B-1 thru B-4) gave POSITIVE
result to the test for the presence of Methamphetamine hydrochloride (SHABU), a
regulated drug. x x x
CONCLUSION:
Exhs. “A”, B-1 thru B-4
contain Methamphetamine hydrochloride, a regulated drug. x x x.[15]
Appellant was likewise subjected to a drug test which allegedly
showed that he was a shabu user.[16]
Expectedly, accused presented an entirely different version
of what transpired during that afternoon and claimed that the buy-bust never
took place.[17] According to appellant, he is a Maranaw who
earns a living by peddling sunglasses in
The group of PO2 Del-ong allegedly frisked appellant’s
fellow players and was able to recover a single plastic sachet from one of
them. PO2 Del-ong, who was then standing
beside appellant, held the latter’s hand, pointed a gun at his head, and warned
him not to do anything or else he would be shot.[20] PO3 Aguirre then called for a mobile car and
appellant, together with his two companions, was brought to the Station 7 of the
Baguio City Police.[21] In the police station, appellant was handcuffed
to the window rail. After a few hours,
one of the arresting officers came to see him and asked appellant if he could
settle his case by paying a sum of money to the police[22] or
he could just identify others who are engaged in drug trade in
As for the result of his drug test, appellant stated that
he was a drug user while he was still residing in
The prosecution presented PO2 Del-ong as a rebuttal
witness. He stated that while they were
waiting for the mobile patrol car after the appellant’s arrest, a minor boy and
a companion approached appellant and asked if he still had drugs to sell.[26] The buy-bust team then decided to arrest the
two would-be-buyers. As the drug test of
the boy revealed that he was a drug user, he was referred to the Youth and
Women Section of the Baguio City Police Office.
They were, however, compelled to release his companion as his drug test
established that he was not a drug user and because he claimed that he had just
met the minor boy that afternoon.[27]
On
WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered finding the accused
GUILTY as charged on both counts and he is hereby sentenced as follows: a) in
Criminal Case No. 20441-R, to Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of P1,000,000.00,
and b) in Criminal Case No. 20442-R, to a prison term of twelve (12) years and
one (1) day to fifteen (15) years, to pay a fine of P300,000.00, and the
costs.[28]
Appellant seasonably filed a Notice of Appeal elevating the
case to this Court.[29]
As the trial court meted a penalty of life imprisonment,
the case was transferred to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and
disposition pursuant to our ruling in People
v. Mateo.[30]
On
Appellant assigns the following errors:
I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY
ERRED IN GIVING FULL FAITH AND CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION
WITNESSES AND IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT FOR VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 5
AND 11, ARTICLE II OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165.
II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY
ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE
OFFENSES CHARGED.[33]
Appellant claims that the prosecution failed to establish
his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He
faults the trial court for giving “full faith and credence to the [testimonies]
of the prosecution witnesses”[34]
even when he had categorically denied the occurrence of any buy-bust
operation. He also assails his arrest by
the Baguio City Police as it was carried out without a valid warrant.[35] As his arrest was illegal, it follows that
the search conducted by the police upon his person was similarly unlawful.[36]
Appellant’s arguments fail to persuade.
It is a fundamental rule that findings of the trial courts
which are factual in nature and which involve the credibility of witnesses are
accorded respect when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts and
speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings.
The reason for this, being, that the trial court is in a better position to
decide the credibility of witnesses having heard their testimonies and observed
their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[37] The
rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained
by the Court of Appeals as in this case.[38]
Considering, however, that at stake is no less than the
liberty of appellant, we thoroughly examined the entire records of this
case. Unfortunately for appellant, we
failed to identify any error committed by the trial court both in its
appreciation of the evidence presented before it and in the conclusion it
reached.
In the prosecution of offenses involving this provision of
the statute, it is necessary that the following elements be established: (1)
the identity of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the
delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefore.[39] What is material to the prosecution for
illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale
actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.[40]
In this case, all the elements of the crime have been
sufficiently established. The witnesses
for the prosecution were able to prove that the buy-bust operation indeed took
place and the shabu subject of the
sale was brought and duly identified in court.
The poseur-buyer (PO2 Del-ong) positively identified appellant as the
one who sold to him a packet of white crystalline substance[41]
which was later confirmed by two chemical examinations to be shabu.[42]
As recalled by the PO2 Del-ong, the designated
poseur-buyer, the events that led to the apprehension of appellant are as
follows:
Q When the male Civilian Informant went
to your office and gave those informations, what happened next?
A Acting on said information and with
supervision of our Chief of office, Police Chief Inspector Garcia formed our
team to conduct Narcotics buy-bust operation against the suspect, Sir.
Q What was your role in that buy-bust operation?
A Poseur-buyer to be introduced by the
Civilian Informant to the suspect, Sir.
Q Did you use buy-bust money?
A Yes, Sir.
Q How much?
A In the amount of P150.00, Sir.
Q Did you have any xerox copy of that
money authenticated prior to the buy-bust operation?
A Yes, actually when we will conduct the
buy-bust operation, our Chief of office handed to PO2 Bulalit one (1) piece of
one hundred peso bill and one (1) piece of fifty peso bill to be photocopied
and have it authenticated to the City Prosecutor’s Office, Sir.
PROS. VERGARA:
May we know from the defense
if they admit this authenticated copy to be a true and faithful
reproduction/copy of the original?
ATTY. MARAMAT:
We’ll just have to see the original, your Honor.
x x x x
Q Would you be able to identify the authenticated/xerox copy?
A Yes, Sir.
Q Considering that the (sic) you were the
poseur-buyer and the P100.00 peso bill P50.00 bill were handed to you
as buy-bust money, will you please tell the Honorable Court if this
authenticated xerox copy represents the P100.00 peso bill and P50.00
peso bill that were used as buy-bust money?
A Yes, Sir.
PROS. VERGARA:
May we pray that that
document be marked as Exhibit “C,” your Honor.
COURT:
Mark it, please.
PROS. VERGARA:
Q After the P150.00 was
authenticated by Officer Bulalit, what happened next?
A At about
Q About what time was the authentication made?
A Between
Q It was early afternoon of
A Yes, Sir.
Q And before
A Yes, Sir.
Q At about
A Yes, Sir.
x x x x
Q You said that at about
Q Who were with you in proceeding to that place?
A The Civilian Informant, Sir.
Q Who else?
A The rest of the group followed us secretly, Sir.
Q Were you able to reach the place?
A Yes, Sir.
x x x x
Q With that situation after you and the
Civilian Informant arrived at the billiard hall, what happened next?
A Upon arrival at the said place, a male
person wearing a black bull cap and gray sweatshirt with collar approached us
outside the said billiard hall, Sir.
PROS.
VERGARA:
Q What happened after that person
approached you and the Civilian Informant outside of the Villacor billiard
hall?
A The Civilian Informant introduced me to
the suspect as an interested buyer of shabu, Sir.
Q After you were introduced, what happened next?
A The alleged suspect asked me how much will I buy, Sir.
Q What was your response?
A I told him that I have only P150.00 and
handed to him immediately, Sir.
Q After you handed to him the P150.00,
what happened next?
A He got the P150.00 and put it inside of his left front pocket,
Sir.
Q After that what happened next?
A And then he got something from his
right front pocket a small sachet and handed it to me, Sir.
Q After he handed that to you, what did you do?
A I ascertained the content of it and I
found out that the small plastic heat sealed sachet contains white crystalline
substance, shabu, Sir.
Q After you found out that the contents
were suspected shabu, what happened next?
A After the completion of the deal, I
made the pre-arranged signal by scratching my head using my left hand, Sir.
Q After you scratched your head, what happened next?
A The back-up operatives rushed to our
place and informed him of his constitutional rights and the violation, Sir.[43]
These pronouncements were corroborated on their material
points by PO2 Bulalit and PO3 Aguirre whose respective testimonies were just as
straightforward and candid as that of PO2 Del-ong’s.
For his
part, appellant could not offer any viable defense except to claim that he was
a victim of frame-up and extortion by the police officers. However, like alibi, we view the defense of
frame-up with disfavor as it can easily be concocted and is commonly used as a
standard line of defense in most prosecutions arising from illegal sale of
drugs.[44] For the claim of frame-up to prosper, the
defense must present clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption
that the arresting policemen performed their duties in a regular and proper
manner.[45]
Appellant
failed to substantiate his claim that he was an unfortunate prey to a supposed
ploy concocted by the police. By all
indications, he did not know anyone of the members of the buy-bust team which
apprehended him. There was, therefore,
no motive for them to frame him up.
Absent any proof of motive to falsely accuse him of such a grave
offense, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and
the findings of the trial court with respect to the credibility of witnesses
shall prevail over appellant’s bare allegation that he was framed-up.[46] In other words, the categorical and
convincing testimonies of the policemen, backed up by physical evidence, overcome
the unsubstantiated claim of ill-motive by appellant.
In this jurisdiction, the conduct of buy-bust operation is
a common and accepted mode of apprehending those involved in illegal sale of
prohibited or regulated drugs. It has
been proven to be an effective way of unveiling the identities of drug dealers and
of luring them out of obscurity. Thus,
unless the defense could persuade us otherwise, we are inclined to confer full
credit and faith to the testimonies of the members of the buy-bust team as
regards the conduct of their operation.
Appellant’s claim that his warrantless arrest was invalid
is similarly devoid of merit. The rule
is settled that an arrest made after an entrapment does not require a warrant
inasmuch as it is considered a valid warrantless arrest pursuant to Rule 113,
Section 5(a) of the Rules of Court[47] which states:
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.
As the legitimacy of the buy-bust operation is beyond
question, the subsequent warrantless arrest as well as the warrantless search
and seizure was permissible, thus:
This interdiction against warrantless searches and
seizures, however, is not absolute and such warrantless searches and seizures have long been deemed permissible by
jurisprudence in instances of (1)
search of moving vehicles, (2) seizure in plain view, (3) customs searches, (4)
waiver or consented searches, (5) stop and frisk situations (Terry search), and
search incidental to a lawful arrest. The last includes a valid warrantless arrest,
for, while as a rule, an arrest is considered legitimate [if] effected with a
valid warrant of arrest, the Rules of
Court recognize permissible warrantless arrest, to wit: (1) arrest in flagrante delicto, (2) arrest effected in hot pursuit, and (3)
arrest of escaped prisoners.[48] (Emphasis
supplied.)
Having established the guilt of the appellant for the
crimes charged, we shall now proceed to a determination of the appropriate
penalties to be imposed upon him.
The unauthorized sale of shabu carries with it 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).[49] On the other hand, the unauthorized
possession of less than five grams of said substance is penalized with a prison
term of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine of Three
hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) up to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00).[50]
Section 98, Article XIII of Republic Act No. 9165 expressly
provides for the limited application of the provisions of the Revised Penal Code
on said law. This section reads:
SEC. 98. Limited Applicability of the Revised Penal
Code. – Notwithstanding any law, rule or regulation to the contrary, the
provisions of the Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815), as amended, shall not
apply to the provisions of this Act, except in the case of minor
offenders. Where the offender is a
minor, the penalty for acts punishable by life imprisonment to death provided
herein shall be reclusion perpetua to
death.
Under the aforesaid section, the provisions of the Revised Penal
Code shall no longer apply to the provisions of Republic Act No. 9165 except
when the offender is a minor. Thus, Article
63(2) of the Revised Penal Code shall not be used in the determination of the
penalty to be imposed on the accused.
Since Section 98 of the said law contains the word “shall,” the
non-applicability of the Revised Penal Code provisions is mandatory, subject
only to the exception in case the offender is a minor.
With the advent of Republic Act No. 9165, the Courts, in
determining the appropriate minimum and maximum of the penalty to be meted out
to offenders, shall be guided solely by the pertinent part of the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, to wit:
SECTION 1. xxx; and if the offense is punished by any other law, the
court shall sentence the accused to an
indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum
fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term
prescribed by the same.
In the imposition of the proper penalty, the courts, taking
into account the circumstances attendant in the commission of the offense, are
given discretion to impose either life imprisonment or death, and the fine as
provided for by law. In light, however,
of the effectivity of Republic Act No. 9346 entitled, “An Act Prohibiting the
Imposition of Death Penalty in the P1,000,000.00 to be excessive and hereby reduce the same to P500,000.00
considering that the records do not reveal any prior arrest or conviction of
appellant for a drug-related offense.
We likewise affirm the conviction and penalty of imprisonment
of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fifteen (15) years and the fine of P300,000.00
meted out by the trial court with respect to Criminal Case No. 20442-R.
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the Decision dated P500,000.00.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIOAssociate Justice |
WE
CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
Associate
Justice
Associate Justice
On
Leave
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
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.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third 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 were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO S.
PUNO
Chief Justice
* On leave.
[1] Penned by Associate Justice
Eliezer R. de los
[2] Penned by Judge Antonio C. Reyes. Records, Vol. II, pp. 179-187.
[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.
[4] Records, Vol. I, p. 1.
[5] Sec. 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. – x x x.
x x x x
(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, heroine,
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 or marijuana.
[6] Records, Vol. II, p. 1.
[7]
[8]
[9] TSN,
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14] Exhibit “E” for the prosecution; records, Vol. II, p. 27.
[15] Exhibits “G” and “G-2” for the prosecution; id. at 29.
[16] TSN,
[17] TSN,
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26] TSN,
[27]
[28] Records, Vol. II, p. 187.
[29]
[30] G.R. Nos. 147678-87,
[31] Rollo,
pp. 108-116.
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37] People
v. Julian-Fernandez, 423 Phil. 895, 910 (2001).
[38] Teodosio
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124346,
[39] People
v. Lee Hoi Ming, 459 Phil. 187, 193 (2003).
[40] People
v. Padasin, 445 Phil. 448, 461 (2003).
[41] TSN,
[42] Exhibits “E” and “G” for the prosecution; records, Vol. II, pp. 27, 29.
[43] TSN,
[44] Supra note 39 at 195.
[45] Supra note 38 at 204.
[46] People
v. Bongalon, 425 Phil. 96, 116 (2002).
[47] Supra note 38 at 207.
[48] Supra note 37 at 912-913.
[49] Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.
[50] Section 11 (3), id.