`
FIRST DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - PHILIP DILAO y CASTRO, Accused-Appellant. |
G.R. No. 170359
Present: PUNO, C.J., Chairperson, SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
AZCUNA, and
GARCIA, JJ. Promulgated: July
27, 2007 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O
N
GARCIA, J.:
Under
automatic review is the May 26, 2005 Decision[1]
and September 16, 2005 Resolution[2] of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. C.R.-H.C.
No. 00920, affirming in toto the February 27, 2003 Joint Decision[3] of
the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Caloocan
City, Branch 127, in Criminal Case Nos. C-65963 and C-65964,
finding appellant Philip Dilao y Castro guilty of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article
II of Republic
Act (R.A.) No.
9165, or the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Case
On
That on or about the 19th
day of July 2002, in Caloocan City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without the authority of law,
did then and there wilfully(sic), unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to PO1 ROLANDO DE
OCAMPO who posed as buyer, METHYLAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE (SHABU) weighing 0.06
grams, a dangerous drug, without the corresponding license or prescription
therefor, knowing the same to be such.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
The
other Information,[5] docketed
as Criminal Case No. C-65964, charges accused-appellant with violation of
Section 11, Article II, also of R.A. No. 9165, allegedly committed in the
following manner:
That on or about the 19th
day of July 2002, in Caloocan City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without the authority of law,
did then and there willfully (sic),
unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control
METHAMPHETAMINE (sic) HYDROCHLORIDE (SHABU)
weighing 0.07 grams, knowing the same to be a dangerous drug under the
provisions of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Criminal Case No. C-65964 was originally raffled to Branch
120 of the court, while Criminal Case No. C-65963 to Branch
127 thereof. On arraignment, accused-appellant, assisted by counsel, pleaded “Not Guilty”
to both charges. Thereafter, and on
motion of appellant’s
counsel, the two (2) cases were consolidated and assigned to Branch 127, after which
a joint trial ensued.
Presented
by the prosecution as its evidence were the testimonies of four (4) police
officers belonging to the Drug Enforcement Unit of Caloocan
City Police Station and that of the forensic chemist, plus the marked money and
the plastic sachets of “shabu.”
The Evidence
The
People’s version of the incident is well laid out in the People’s Brief[6] filed by the Office of the Solicitor General, to
wit:
On
July 19, 2002, around nine o’clock in the evening, a police informer called up
the [DEU] Unit, Caloocan City Police Station, and …[spoke] to PO2 Rolando de
Ocampo [who was told] … that an alias
Philip was rampantly selling shabu
along Pangako St., Bagong Barrio,
PO2
de Ocampo relayed the said information to their Chief, Captain Jose Valencia,
who told him to verify the information.
PO2 de Ocampo again spoke to the informer on the phone and asked how
they could entrap appellant. xxx.
PO3
Rodrigo Antonio informed Capt.
PO3
Antonio’s team was met by the informer at a burger machine near the target
area. PO2 de Ocampo was then accompanied
by said informer to appellant.
Meanwhile, the rest of the members of the team positioned themselves in
strategic places nearby.
The
informer pointed to appellant who was standing outside a billiard court along
After
the exchange, PO2 de Ocampo examined first the contents of the plastic sachet
and then gave the pre-arranged signal … to show that the “buy-bust” operation
was completed. Thereafter, he introduced
himself to appellant as a police officer and told him: “Pare, pong ka na,”
meaning he was already caught, while the rest of the team closed in on them.
PO2
de Ocampo recovered the marked money and P200 more in different denominations
from appellant while PO2 Modina recovered another plastic sachet containing a
white crystalline substance. PO2 de
Ocampo asked appellant where he got the P200 but he was not given a reply. He then informed appellant of his
constitutional rights ….
Appellant
was turned over to … PO3 Fernando Moran, together with the seized
articles. In the presence of PO2 de
Ocampo and PO2 Modina, PO3 Moran placed the initials “PCD” on the specimens.
On
even date, Capt.
P/Insp.
Erickson Lualhati Calbocal, forensic chemist of the Philippine National Police,
Crime Laboratory,
For
its part, the defense presented the following: appellant himself and Jose
Bandico.
Denial
and alleged frame-up were appellant’s main exculpating line. In his Brief,[7]
appellant summarized the version of the defense as follows:
xxx. At about
Upon
arrival thereat, his handcuff was removed.
As he planned, he immediately fled but the police officers pursued and
cornered him …. His captors got provoked
and took turns in slapping and mauling him.
He was brought first to the Ospital ng Kalookan where he was supposedly
physically examined [then] taken to the DEU, Caloocan City Police Station. xxx. At the DEU, the police informed him
that he could have been freed if not for the fact that he fooled them (DAHIL
PINAGOD MO KAMI”) hence, he was charged for Violation of Sections 5 and 11 of
the Dangerous Drugs Law. At around
He
denied the charges leveled against him ….
He explained that he first saw PO2 Modina when he was allowed to alight the jeep at Toyota Motors, EDSA and that he saw PO2
De Ocampo only during the inquest. He
admitted that he had no previous quarrel or misunderstanding with the arresting
police officers … who he came to know only when he was arrested.
He
was unable to file any complaint against the concerned police officers for the
physical injuries inflicted on him and for filing fabricated charges against
him as he has been detained since January [July] 19, 2002. (Word in bracket
supplied).
JOSE BANDICO alias “Joker”
substantially corroborated the testimony of appellant
on the ownership
of the billiard hall, the fact of the latter’s arrest on
July 19, 2002 and that
nothing illegal was taken from appellant
when
frisked by the police in
the hall. Alias “Joker” also testified about the accused playing rotation billiard with him since P260.00 bet.
The
Trial Court’s and the CA’s Ruling
In
its joint decision[8] dated
THEREFORE, premises considered and the prosecution having established to a moral certainty the guilt of Accused PHILIP DILAO y CASTRO of the crimes charged, this Court hereby renders judgment as follows:
1.
In Crim. Case No. 65963 for Violations of Sec. 5, Art.
II of RA 9165 this Court, in the absence of any aggravating circumstance,
hereby sentences the aforenamed Accused to LIFE IMPRISONMENT; and to pay the
fine of five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) without any subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency;
2. In Crim. Case No. 65964 for Violation of Sec. 11, Art. II of the same Act, this Court, in the absence of any modifying circumstance, sentences the common Accused to a prison term of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months and to pay the fine of three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00), without any subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
xxx xxx xxx
SO ORDERED.
Therefrom,
appellant came directly to this Court considering the penalty imposed.
Per
Resolution dated
On
WHEREFORE,
the appealed Decision dated
SO ORDERED.
Aggrieved,
appellant sought reconsideration, which the CA denied in its Resolution of
The
case is again with this Court pursuant to the Notice of Appeal filed by appellant with the appellate court which
has forwarded the entire records of the case to this Court.
In
its Resolution of
In
his manifestation[13]
of
1.
The Court a quo
gravely erred in giving weight and credence to the incredible and inconsistent
testimony of the prosecution witnesses, and
2.
The Court a quo
gravely erred in convicting the accused-appellant of the crime charged despite
the fact that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Appellant
assails the
credibility of the prosecution witnesses on the alleged buy-bust operation, particularly
that of PO2 Rolando De Ocampo, contending that there were discrepancies in the
testimony of PO2 De Ocampo, the poseur-buyer, and the affidavits submitted to
the trial court. He maintains being a
victim of a frame-up operation of police operatives who, in fact, recovered nothing
illegal from him. He urges the Court to take judicial notice of the reality
that some law enforcers in drug-related cases, in their quest to secure information
from suspected drug dealers, resort to numerous anomalous practices, such as
planting evidence, physical torture and extortion.
Moving
on, appellant insists that the presumption on regularity in the performance of
an official duty, by itself, could not sustain a conviction, let alone prevail
over the presumption of innocence in his favor. On these broad premises, appellant
thus maintains that the prosecution failed to adduce adequate evidence to prove
his guilt.
The Court’s Ruling
We
AFFIRM.
Right
off, the Court shall address appellant’s lament about the credibility of
witness PO2 De Ocampo. According to appellant, PO2 De Ocampo’s testimony should
have altogether been discredited since he, as poseur-buyer, cannot even remember
(“Hindi ko gaanong matandaan”)[14] the marking he allegedly placed on the P100.00-bill
marked money, albeit he did recall its serial number.
While
indeed PO2 De Ocampo failed to remember early in his direct testimony the
markings placed on the marked money, he readily identified the said markings
during the latter part of the direct examination. We quote from the transcripts
of stenographic notes:
Q.
I am showing to you a photo copy of
a one hundred peso bill with serial number ZX-985203, will you please go over
it and tell the Court its relation to the one which you used as buy bust money
against the accused?
A.
this is it sir.
Q.
Why did you say so?
A.
This is what we entered in the
blotter book sir.
Q.
Will you please go over this photo
copy and tell us if this is your initial appearing immediately after the serial
number ZX-985203 in the lower part corner of this money?
A.
Yes sir. There is.
Q.
Can you explain to us what does
that initial RDO mean?
A.
Refers to my initial Rolando de
Ocampo sir.
Q.
How did that initial indicated
there?
A.
Because every time we conducted buy
bust operation we always put initial sir.
Q. If you recall where did you place that initial RDO in the original copy of that buy bust money?
A.
In our office sir.
Q. When?
A.
At 9:45 p.m.
Q.
Also there’s
(sic) appear on the right side of this buy bust money a figures
A.
We put that when we conducted the
buy bust operation sir.
Q. Who was the one who placed that?
A.
Me sir.
Q. When?
A.
On that very day sir.
Q. Before or after the operation?
A.
Before the operation sir.[15]
Moreover,
the failure of PO2 De Ocampo to recall immediately the markings on the buy-bust
money only shows that he is an uncoached witness. Such momentary lapse in memory does not
detract from the credibility of his testimony as to the essential details of
the incident. As the trial court aptly found, PO2 De Ocampo was candid,
forthright and categorical in his testimony:
xxx . In the first place, this Court has had the untrammeled opportunity to observe the conduct and demeanor of poseur-buyer PO2 DE OCAMPO while testifying on the witness stand and definitely he was noted to testify in a candid, forthright and categorical manner which are the earmarks of a truthful and credible witness.
The
Court accords the highest degree of respect to the findings of the lower court as to
appellant’s guilt of the offenses charged against him, particularly where such findings
are adequately supported by documentary as well as testimonial evidence. The
same respect holds too, as regards the lower courts’ evaluation on the
credibility of the prosecution witnesses. It is a settled policy of this Court,
founded on reason and experience, to sustain the findings of fact of the trial
court in criminal cases, on the rational assumption that it is in a better position
to assess the evidence before it, having had the opportunity to make an honest
determination of the witnesses’ deportment during the trial.[16]
Furthermore,
the well-entrenched rule is that the findings of facts of the trial court, as affirmed
by the appellate court, are conclusive on this Court, absent any evidence that both
courts ignored, misconstrued, or misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances
of substance which, if considered, would warrant a modification or reversal of
the outcome of the case.[17] And
in the instant case, after a careful evaluation of the records, we find no
oversight committed by the trial and appellate courts for us to disregard their
factual findings as to the fact of possession and selling by the appellant of “shabu.”
As
between appellant’s testimony and that of the arresting/entrapping police
officers as to what occurred in the evening of July 19, 2002, this Court finds,
as did the trial court, the accounts of
the latter more credible. For, aside
from the presumption that they – the police operatives – regularly performed
their duties, we note that these operatives, as prosecution witnesses, gave
consistent and straightforward narrations of what transpired on
It
cannot be over-emphasized that a buy-bust operation is a legally
effective and proven procedure, sanctioned by law at that, for apprehending drug peddlers and
distributors. It is often utilized by
law enforcers for the purpose of trapping and capturing lawbreakers in the
execution of their nefarious activities.[18] Credence
of the buy-bust operators cannot be undermined by the mere fact that law
enforcers are perceived to resort to the practice of planting evidence to gain
favor from their superiors. In the absence of proof of motive to falsely impute
a serious crime against an accused, the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duty, as well as the findings of the trial court on the
credibility of witnesses, shall prevail over appellant’s often self-serving and
uncorroborated claim of having been a victim of a frame-up.
It
must be remembered that appellant’s defense of frame-up and denial requires
strong and convincing evidence to support them for the incantation of such
defense is nothing new to the Court.[19] As it were, appellant only offered an unsubstantiated
tale that the police officers asked, in police jargon, a “palit-ulo”[20]
and that he was a victim of a frame-up.
His allegations that the police officers likewise beat him up in their
attempt to extract information from him is belied by the absence of any proof
to that effect. And without so much of
an explanation, appellant did not even present as witness his companion
Socrates Manalad, alias “Sote,” who was allegedly
with him when the apprehension was effected. If the
police officers indeed tried to extort information from appellant by beating
him up, appellant could have filed the proper charges against the erring police
officers. The fact that no administrative
or criminal charges were filed lends cogency to the conclusion that the alleged
frame-up was merely concocted as a defense ploy.
Clearly,
as against the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses that they red-handedly
caught appellant in a buy-bust operation selling “shabu,”
supported by other evidence, such as the two (2) sachets of the prohibited substance seized from him and
the marked money, appellant’s negative testimony must necessarily fail. An affirmative testimony coming from credible
witnesses without motive to perjure is far stronger than a negative testimony.[21] Records
show that appellant and the police officers are strangers to each other. Thus,
there is no reason to suggest that the police officers were ill-motivated in apprehending
appellant. Moreover, there is nothing in the records which shows even an iota
of evidence that the prosecution witnesses merely fabricated their testimonies to
wrongly impute such a serious crime against the accused-appellant.
All
told, in Criminal Case No. C-65963, the
Court is convinced that the prosecution’s evidence more than proved beyond
reasonable doubt all the elements necessary in every prosecution for the
illegal sale of “shabu,” to wit: (1) identity of the buyer and the seller, the
object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the
payment therefor. The delivery of the
contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money successfully
consummated the buy-bust operation between the entrapping police officers and the
appellant. What is material in a
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 the corpus delicti.
Likewise
proven by the same quantum of
evidence is the charge for violation of Section 11, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 (illegal possession of shabu) in Criminal Case No. C-65964, appellant having
knowingly carried with him the plastic sachet of “shabu” without legal
authority at the time he was caught during the buy-bust operation.
Anent
the penalty thus imposed, the RTC, as did the CA, correctly applied the
provisions of Sections 5 and 11 (3) of R.A. No. 9165, which respectively provide:
Section 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 any
dangerous drugs, xxx.
xxx xxx xxx
Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs –
(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 x x x,
methamphetamine hydrochloride or “shabu” x x x. (Emphasis supplied).
Since
the appellant was found guilty of selling “shabu” weighing 0.06 gram, absent
any aggravating or mitigating circumstance, the trial court correctly sentenced
him to life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 in Criminal Case No. C-65963.
Since he was also found guilty of possession of “shabu” weighing 0.07
gram, absent any aggravating or mitigating circumstance and in accordance with
the Indeterminate Sentence Law, he was correctly meted a prison term of twelve
(12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months and a
fine of three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00)
in Criminal Case No. C-65964.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate
Justice
WE
CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief
Justice
|
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate
Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA Associate
Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate
Justice
C
E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section
13, Article VIII of the Constitution, 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] Penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta and concurred in by Associate Justices Ruben T. Reyes and Josefina Guevara-Salonga; rollo, pp. 3-18.
[2]
[3]
[4] CA Rollo, p. 7.
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8] Supra note 3.
[9] Rollo, p. 2 and CA Rollo, pp. 128-129.
[10] G.R. Nos. 147678-87,
[11] Supra note 1.
[12] Supra note 2.
[13] Appellant’s Manifestation in Lieu of
Supplemental Brief dated
[14] TSN,
[15]
[16] People v. Chua, G.R. No. 133789,
[17] Gaviola v. People, G.R. No. 163927, January 27, 2006, 480 SCRA 436 and People
v. Cheng Ho Chua, G.R. No. 127542,
[18] People
v. Uy, G.R. No. 128046,
[19] People v. Uy, G.R. No. 144506,
[20] Appellant alleged that the police wanted him to give them a name and point to them the whereabouts of another drug peddler in exchange for his own freedom and the dropping of charges against him.
[21]