PEOPLE OF THE
Appellee,
Present:
Quisumbing,*
- versus - Ynares-Santiago, J. (Chairperson),
Austria-Martinez,
Chico-Nazario, and
Reyes, JJ.
SALVADOR
DUMLAO y AGLIAM,
alias
“PANDORA”, Promulgated:
Appellant.
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
This
is an appeal from the September 17, 2007 Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 02392, which affirmed the January 12,
2004 Decision[2] of the
Regional Trial Court of Urdaneta City, Branch 46, finding appellant Salvador
Dumlao guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of
Republic Act 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 and
sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of
P500,000.00 and the costs.
On
That on or about
CONTRARY to Republic Act 9165,
otherwise known as “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.”
Appellant
pleaded “not guilty” when arraigned.
During pre-trial conference, the
parties stipulated on the identity of appellant and his lack of authority to
possess or sell shabu; that the sachet containing some substance that was
recovered from appellant was brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory and was found
to be methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.[4]
Trial
on the merits thereafter ensued.
The
facts as found by the trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals are as
follows:
The evidences of the prosecution and
the defense are in harmony as to the fact that on
The prosecution claims that the
Asingan Police Station, after a previous surveillance confirming the illegal
activities of the accused of selling shabu, planned and carried out a buy-bust
operation on
On the other hand, the accused who
was the lone defense witness, claims that in the afternoon of
The
trial court found the prosecution’s version more credible and accordingly found
appellant guilty as charged. The
dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE,
the Court finds herein accused SALVADOR DUMLAO Y AGLIAM alias “Pandora” GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165
(Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drug) and hereby imposes penalty of life
imprisonment. The accused is likewise ordered to pay a fine of P500,000.00 and
the costs.
SO ORDERED.[6]
Appellant
filed an appeal alleging that the trial court erred in giving credence to the
testimony of the arresting officers; and that the pre-operation orders and post
operation reports regarding the buy-bust operation should have been presented in
order to prove that the operation was validly conducted.
Moreover,
appellant argued that the prosecution failed to show that the qualitative
examination of the specimen allegedly recovered from him was done and completed;
that if the testimony of police officer Natividad that he gave the marked money
to appellant during the entrapment operation is to be believed, then the police
officers could not have presented the same in court during trial as it was with
the appellant; and that Natividad was unsure whether he gave the money to
appellant before or after receiving the plastic sachet.
On
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the appeal is hereby DENIED and the assailed Decision
dated
SO ORDERED.[7]
The
appellate court held that the testimonies of the police officers involved in a
buy-bust operation deserve full faith and credit, given the presumption that
they have performed their duties regularly; that the non-presentation of the
pre-operation orders and post-operation results cannot exculpate appellant from
criminal liability because the same do not affect the legality of the buy-bust
operation; that the finding of Forensic Chemist Bessara that the substance
recovered from appellant was “shabu” has not been overcome by convincing
evidence and enjoys the presumption of regularity; and that the alleged
inconsistencies in Natividad’s testimony refer to minor details which did not affect
the substance of the testimony.
Hence
the instant petition.
On
The
petition lacks merit.
The
pertinent portion of Sec. 5, Art. II of Republic Act 9165 provides:
SEC.
5.
x x x x
In the instant case, appellant is
charged with selling “shabu,” which is a dangerous drug. Section 3(ii), Art. I of Republic Act 9165
defines “selling” as “any act of giving away any dangerous drug and/or
controlled precursor and essential chemical whether for money or any other
consideration.”
To sustain a conviction under this
provision, the prosecution needs to establish sufficiently the identity of the
buyer, seller, object and consideration; and, the delivery of the thing sold
and the payment thereof. What is material is proof that the transaction or sale
actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the substance
seized as evidence.[8] The commission of the offense of illegal sale
of dangerous drugs requires merely the consummation of the selling transaction,
which happens the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller.[9] Settled is the rule that as long as the
police officer went through the operation as a buyer and his offer was accepted
by appellant and the dangerous drugs delivered to the former, the crime is
considered consummated by the delivery of the goods.[10]
In the instant case, the prosecution positively
identified appellant as the seller of the substance which was found to be
methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. Appellant sold the drug to the police officer
who acted as buyer for a sum of P200.00.
The heat-sealed transparent plastic
sachet containing white crystalline substance presented before the trial court
as Exhibit “B” was positively identified by PO1 Natividad as the shabu sold and
delivered to him by appellant. The same heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet
of white crystalline yielded positive for shabu as shown by Chemistry Report
No. D-303-2002 dated
Appellant’s defense of denial is
unavailing. He was caught in flagrante
delicto in a legitimate entrapment operation and was positively identified by
the police officers who conducted the operation. Mere denial cannot prevail over the positive
testimony of a witness; it is a self-serving negative evidence which cannot be
accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses
who testify on affirmative matters. As between the categorical testimony that
rings of truth on one hand, and a bare denial on the other, the former is
generally held to prevail.[11]
As to the alleged inconsistencies in
the testimony of PO1 Natividad, the same refer to minor and trivial matters which
serve to strengthen, rather than destroy, the credibility of a witness.[12]
Moreover, the non-presentation of pre-operation
orders and post operation report is not fatal to the cause of the prosecution,
because they are not indispensable in a buy-bust operation. What determines if
there was, indeed, a sale of dangerous drugs is proof of the concurrence of all
the elements of the offense; to wit: (1) the identity of the buyer and the
seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold
and the payment therefor, which the prosecution has satisfactorily established.
The prosecution satisfactorily proved
the illegal sale of dangerous drugs and presented in court evidence of corpus
delicti.[13]
In cases involving violations of
Dangerous Drugs Act, credence should be given to the narration of the incident
by the prosecution witnesses especially when they are police officers who are
presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there be
evidence to the contrary. Moreover, in the absence of proof of motive to falsely
impute such a serious crime against the appellant, 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 petitioner’s
self-serving and uncorroborated denial.[14]
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
The September 17, 2007 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR
No. 02392, affirming the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Urdaneta City,
Branch 46, finding appellant Salvador Dumlao guilty of violation of Section 5,
Article II of Republic Act 9165, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of
life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00 and costs, is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISU
Associate Justice
MA. ALICIA
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ MINITA V.
CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate
Justice Associate Justice
RUBEN T. REYES
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
*
In lieu of Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura.
[1] Rollo, pp. 4-12; penned by Associate
Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe and concurred in by Associate Justices Portia
Aliño-Hormachuelos and Lucas P. Bersamin.
[2] CA
rollo, pp. 84-92; penned by Judge
Tita Rodriguez-Villarin.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7] Rollo, p. 11.
[8] People v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 172116,
[9] People v. Bandang, G.R. No. 151314,
[10]
[11] People v. Torres, G.R. No. 170837,
[12] Lapuz v. People, G.R. No. 150050,
[13] People v. Nicolas, G.R. No. 170234,
[14] Dimacuha v. People, G.R. No. 143705,