THIRD DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE
Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - MARILYN
NAQUITA y CIBULO,
Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 180511 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CHICO-NAZARIO, NACHURA, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: July 28, 2008 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
Assailed before Us is the Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01344 dated
On
Crim. Case No.
C-69156
That on or about the 17th
day of September, 2003 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila, Philippines and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without any
authority of law, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell
and deliver to PO1 JOEL C. COSME, who posed as poseur buyer, one (1) heat
sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 2.05 grams, knowing the same to be
a dangerous drug.[5]
Crim.
Case No. C-69157
That on or about the 17th day of September, 2003 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without any authority of law, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in her possession, custody and control two (2) pcs. of transparent plastic sachets containing Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride with a total weight of 3.90 grams, knowing the same to be a dangerous drug.[6]
When
arraigned on
In
the pre-trial conference conducted on
The following witnesses took the
stand for the prosecution: (1) Police Officer 1 (PO1) Joel Cosme[7]
and (2) PO1 Randy Llanderal,[8]
both police officers assigned at the District Anti-Illegal Drugs Special
Operations Group (DAID-SOG), Northern Police District Command, Tanigue St.,
From the collective testimonies of
the witnesses, the version of the prosecution is as follows:
On 17 September 2003, at around 3:00
o’clock in the afternoon, a confidential informant went to the office of the
DAID-SOG, Northern Police District Command in Caloocan City and reported to PO3
Joel Borda that one alias Inday (appellant) was selling shabu at Binangonan, Maypajo, Caloocan City. The information was relayed to Police Chief
Inspector (P/Chief Insp.) Rafael Santiago, Jr. who then instructed PO3 Borda to
organize a team and to conduct surveillance for a possible buy-bust
operation. A buy-bust team was formed
which was composed of PO3 Borda as team leader; PO1 Joel Cosme as the poseur-buyer;
and PO2 Mananghaya, PO2 Amoyo, PO2 Lagmay, PO2 Velasco, PO2 Dela Cruz, PO1
Reyes and PO1 Randy Llanderal as members. The buy-bust money, which consisted of six P500.00
bills,[9]
was given by P/Chief Insp. Santiago to PO1 Cosme who placed his initials[10]
thereon. The serial numbers of the
buy-bust money were then recorded by the desk officer on duty. During the briefing, it was agreed upon that
the pre-arranged signal to be made by the poseur-buyer, signifying that the shabu had been bought from alias Inday,
was the scratching of the left ear.
At around
With the arrest of appellant, the
team immediately returned to their office.
The marked money used and the three plastic sachets allegedly containing
shabu were turned over to PO1 Ariosto
Rana, the investigator of the case. The
plastic sachet[11] sold to
PO1 Cosme was marked “JCC,” while the two plastic sachets[12]
recovered by PO1 Llanderal were marked “RML-1” and “RML-2,” respectively. It was in their office that the police
officers came to know the complete name of appellant.
The white crystalline substance in
the three plastic sachets recovered from appellant were forwarded to the Philippine
National Police Crime Laboratory, Northern Police District Crime Laboratory Office,
Caloocan City, for laboratory examination to determine the presence of any
dangerous drug. The request for
laboratory examination was signed by P/Chief Insp. Rafael Santiago, Jr.[13] Per Physical Sciences Report No. D-1217-03,
the specimens[14] submitted
contain methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
The testimony of Police Inspector
Jesse Abadilla dela
For the defense, Reynaldo Reyes,[17]
Antonio San Pedro,[18]
Maricris Manoles[19] and the
appellant[20] took
the witness stand.
Reynaldo Reyes, barangay kagawad and resident of
Reyes narrated that appellant was
with her daughter and a little girl inside the house. He added that when he asked the policemen if
they had a search warrant to search the house, he was told that the barangay hall knew of the operation. When appellant was arrested, he said the
policemen showed them the shabu
contained in a plastic sachet which weighed more or less half a kilo. Thereafter, the policemen brought the
appellant with them.
Reyes disclosed that he executed a Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay[21]
on
Antonio San Pedro, tricycle driver
and resident of P100.00, a group of
policemen, numbering more or less ten, suddenly entered the gate. Appellant closed the gate and the policemen
entered the house. Some of the policemen
went upstairs while the others held the appellant, forcing her to sit down. Appellant shouted, “BAKIT NINYO AKO HUHULIHIN? BAKIT KAYO NAGSIPASOK SA BAHAY? SINO BA
KAYO?” San Pedro looked inside the
house and saw appellant resisting. When
appellant saw him, appellant asked him to seek assistance from the barangay. He went to the barangay hall at
Mr. San Pedro testified that he
executed a Sinumpaang Salaysay[22]
dated
Next to testify for the defense was
Maricris Manoles,[23] student
and daughter of the appellant. She
testified that on P200,000.00
for the release of appellant.
Maricris executed a sworn statement[25]
dated P72,000.00. The sworn statement, she said, will be used for
cases filed by appellant.
Appellant testified for her
defense. She testified that she was
separated, a businesswoman engaged in buy and sell, and a resident of
Appellant narrated that at around P100.00 vale. After her niece entered the gate, she was
surprised that nine to ten persons entered the gate. It was the first time she saw these persons
who were in civilian clothes and were armed with a long firearm. Appellant tried to prevent them from entering
the house but to no avail. Seeing that
five to six men went upstairs, she told Mr. San Pedro to call barangay officials. She had no idea what the armed men did but
she asked her daughter to go upstairs because her money was in the second
floor. Her daughter informed her that
her cell phone worth P15,000.00, several pieces of jewelry worth P15,000.00,
and cash amounting to P72,000.00 were missing from her room.
Barangay
officials arrived and she asked them to go inside but they were prevented by
these men. It was at this moment that
the armed men introduced themselves as policemen to the barangay officials. After
searching her residence and taking several of her belongings, the policemen
brought her to Larangay Police Station. At
the police station, appellant was informed that she was being charged with
violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165. A certain Gilbert Velasco told her that if
she did not give money, she could not go home.
Another police officer named Toto, she claimed, also talked to her and
relayed the same message. She alleged
that the policemen told her that someone pointed to her as one involved in
drugs. Appellant denied that she was
peddling shabu at
Appellant revealed that she executed
a Sinumpaang Salaysay[26] dated
6 October 2003, and filed cases of robbery, illegal arrest and violation of
Section 29 of Republic Act No. 9165 against the policemen named therein. She added that prior to the incident, she did
not know PO1 Joel Cosme, PO1 Llanderal, and the members of the DAID-SOG.
The testimony of Abdul Mina, member
of the Lupong Tagapamayapa, was
dispensed with after the public prosecutor admitted that said witness would
corroborate the testimony Reynaldo Reyes.[27]
On
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds and so holds that accused MARILYN NAQUITA y CIBULO is GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt [of] Violation of Republic Act No. 9165 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and imposes upon her the following:
1.
In Criminal Case No. C-69156 for
Violation of Section 5, Article II, the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and a fine
of P500,000.00; and
2.
In Criminal Case No. C-69157 for
Violation of Section 11, Article II, the penalty of imprisonment of Twelve (12)
years and One (1) day to Twenty (20) years and a fine of P300,000.00.
The three (3) pieces of heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets each containing 2.05 gram(s) (“JCC”), 1.84 gram(s) (“RML-1”) and 2.05 gram(s) (“RML-2”) of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride are hereby ordered confiscated in favor of the government to be turned over [to] the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for proper disposition.[28]
The trial court convicted appellant
for selling and possessing dangerous drugs on the strength of the testimonies
of PO1 Cosme and PO1 Llanderal as well as the Physical Sciences Report adduced
in evidence by the prosecution. It did
not give weight to appellant’s claims of frame-up and extortion. It further appreciated in favor of the police
officers the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty when
accused admitted that she did not know any of the operatives who took part in
the buy-bust operation and that the policemen had no motive for falsely imputing
to her a serious crime.
On
On
WHEREFORE, in the light of the
foregoing, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The assailed decision is AFFIRMED with the
MODIFICATION that the accused-appellant in Criminal Case No. C-69157 is
sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years
and one (1) day, as minimum, to thirteen (13) years, as maximum, and to pay a
fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00).
Costs against the accused-appellant.[31]
Appellant
filed a Motion for Reconsideration[32]
of the Court of Appeals decision which the appellate court denied in its Resolution
dated
In our Resolution[35]
dated
Appellant tasks this Court with the
following assignment of errors:
1. The Court a quo gravely erred in completely disregarding the defense’ factual version and upholding the presumption of regularity of performance of official duties despite the accused-appellant’s version supported by disinterested witnesses and Barangay officials.
2. The Court a quo gravely erred in finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act 9165 based on the weakness of the defense evidence and not on the strength of prosecution’s evidence.[37]
Appellant assails her conviction
primarily on the ground that the trial court gave more credence to the
testimonies of the police officers who took part in the buy-bust operation than
the testimonies of the defense witnesses.
She claims that the defense witnesses are more credible than the
self-serving allegations of the police officers. She faults the police officers for not naming
the informant who revealed to them that she was a drug peddler. Appellant adds that the trial court should
not have relied mainly on the weakness of the defense; rather, it should have
relied on the strength of the prosecution’s evidence. She maintains that the buy-bust operation
suffers from severe factual and legal infirmity because of lack of a Pre-Operation
and Coordination Report prior to the actual drug operation; and that the police
officers violated Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, because the buy-bust
team failed to conduct a physical inventory of the drugs seized and to
photograph the same in the presence of the people mentioned in said section.
Appellant insists there was no buy-bust
operation conducted at
The issue of whether or not there was
indeed a buy-bust operation primarily boils down to one of credibility. In a prosecution for violation of the
Dangerous Drugs Law, a case becomes a contest of the credibility of witnesses
and their testimonies.[38] When it comes to credibility, the trial
court’s assessment deserves great weight, and is even conclusive and binding,
if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of
weight and influence. The reason is
obvious. Having the full opportunity to
observe directly the witnesses’ deportment and manner of testifying, the trial
court is in a better position than the appellate court to evaluate testimonial
evidence properly.[39] The rule finds an even more stringent
application where the said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals.[40]
After examining the records on hand,
we find no reason to overrule the findings of the trial court as affirmed by
the Court of Appeals.
Appellant insists that the
testimonies of her “independent” witnesses -- Reynaldo Reyes, Antonio San Pedro
and Maricris Manoles -- should be given more weight than the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses.
We do not agree. Maricris Manoles is appellant’s daughter,
while Antonio San Pedro is her friend serving as the tricycle service of her
niece, Angela Naquita. Their testimonies
are necessarily suspect, considering they are appellant’s close relative and
friend.[41] As to Barangay
Kagawad Reynaldo Reyes and Antonio San Pedro, we find them unreliable. Their declarations were not in accord with each
other on the question of whether or not the barangay
officials were allowed inside the house of appellant when the policemen
supposedly violated its sanctity. Reyes
said he and two other barangay
officials were not allowed inside appellant’s house.[42] Said statement was confirmed by appellant[43]
but was contradicted by San Pedro.[44]
Appellant argues that the policemen’s
allegations are sham and false, purposely made to cover up their criminal acts. She adds that they could not even name the
informant who allegedly revealed to them that she was a drug peddler.
The presentation of an informant is
not a requisite in the prosecution of drug cases.[45] The failure of the prosecution to present the
informant does not vitiate its cause as the latter's testimony is not
indispensable to a successful prosecution for drug-pushing, since his testimony
would be merely corroborative of and cumulative with that of the poseur-buyer
who was presented in court and who testified on the facts and circumstances of
the sale and delivery of the prohibited drug.[46] Failure of the prosecution to produce the
informant in court is of no moment, especially when he is not even the best
witness to establish the fact that a buy-bust operation has indeed been
conducted.[47] Informants are usually not presented in court because of the need to hide
their identities and preserve their invaluable services to the police. It is
well-settled that except when the accused vehemently denies selling prohibited
drugs and there are material inconsistencies in the testimonies of the
arresting officers, or there are reasons to believe that the arresting officers
had motives to falsely testify against the accused, or that only the informant
was the poseur-buyer who actually witnessed the entire transaction, the
testimony of the informant may be dispensed with as it will merely be
corroborative of the apprehending officers' eyewitness accounts.[48]
In the case under consideration, none
of the exceptions are present that would make the testimony of the confidential
informant indispensable. As admitted by
appellant, the police officers who testified against her were not known to her
before her arrest. We likewise do not
find material inconsistencies in their testimonies. Further, the informant is a person different
from the poseur-buyer. What we find
vital is appellant’s apprehension while peddling and possessing dangerous drugs
by PO1 Cosme and PO1 Llanderal.
To further cast doubt on the existence
of the buy-bust operation, appellant contends that the alleged buy-bust
operation suffered from severe infirmity, both factual and legal. She argues that not only was there no
Pre-Operation and Coordination Report prior to the actual drug operation as
required in Section 86[49]
of Republic Act No. 9165, Section 21 thereof was also violated by the buy-bust
team when it failed to make a physical inventory of the drugs seized and
confiscated and to take photographs thereof in the presence of persons
mentioned in said section.
Non-compliance with the aforesaid
sections does not mean that no buy-bust operation against appellant ever took
place. The failure of the police
operatives to comply with Section 86 will neither render her arrest illegal nor
the evidence seized from her inadmissible.
In People v. Sta. Maria,[50]
we have ruled on the same issue as follows:
Appellant
would next argue that the evidence against him was obtained in violation of
Sections 21 and 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 because the buy-bust operation was
made without any involvement of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
(PDEA). Prescinding therefrom, he concludes
that the prosecution’s evidence, both testimonial and documentary, was
inadmissible having been procured in violation of his constitutional right
against illegal arrest.
The argument is specious.
x x x x
Cursory
read, the foregoing provision is silent as to the consequences of failure on
the part of the law enforcers to transfer drug-related cases to the PDEA, in
the same way that the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act
No. 9165 is also silent on the matter.
But by no stretch of imagination could this silence be interpreted as a
legislative intent to make an arrest without the participation of PDEA illegal
nor evidence obtained pursuant to such an arrest inadmissible.
It is a well-established rule of
statutory construction that where great inconvenience will result from a
particular construction, or great public interests would be endangered or
sacrificed, or great mischief done, such construction is to be avoided, or the
court ought to presume that such construction was not intended by the makers of
the law, unless required by clear and unequivocal words.
As we see it, Section 86 is explicit only in saying that the PDEA shall be the “lead agency” in the investigations and prosecutions of drug-related cases. Therefore, other law enforcement bodies still possess authority to perform similar functions as the PDEA as long as illegal drugs cases will eventually be transferred to the latter. Additionally, the same provision states that PDEA, serving as the implementing arm of the Dangerous Drugs Board, “shall be responsible for the efficient and effective law enforcement of all the provisions on any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical as provided in the Act.” We find much logic in the Solicitor General’s interpretation that it is only appropriate that drugs cases being handled by other law enforcement authorities be transferred or referred to the PDEA as the “lead agency” in the campaign against the menace of dangerous drugs. Section 86 is more of an administrative provision. By having a centralized law enforcement body, i.e., the PDEA, the Dangerous Drugs Board can enhance the efficacy of the law against dangerous drugs. x x x.
Neither would non-compliance with
Section 21[51] render
an accused’s arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him
inadmissible.[52] What is of utmost importance is the
preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as
the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of
the accused.[53]
In the instant case, the integrity of
the drugs seized from appellant was preserved.
The chain of custody of the drugs subject matter of the case
was shown not to have been broken. After
PO1 Cosme and PO1
Llanderal seized and confiscated the dangerous drugs from appellant,
same were marked and turned over to PO1 Ariosto Rana, the investigator of the case. The plastic sachet sold to PO1 Cosme was
marked “JCC,” while the two plastic sachets recovered by PO1 Llanderal were
marked “RML-1” and “RML-2,” respectively.
As requested by P/Chief Insp. Rafael P. Santiago, Jr., the three plastic
sachets containing white crystalline substance were forwarded to the Philippine
National Police Crime Laboratory, Northern Police District Crime Laboratory
Office,
The elements necessary for the
prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are (1) the identities of the buyer and
the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing
sold and the payment therefor.[54] 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.[55]
All these elements were established in
the instant case. The prosecution
clearly showed that the sale of the drugs actually happened and that the shabu
subject of the sale was brought to and identified in court. The poseur-buyer (PO1 Cosme) positively
identified appellant as the seller of the shabu. Per Physical Sciences Report No. D-1217-03 of
Police Inspector Jesse Abadilla dela P3,000.00, was examined
and found to be methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). Poseur-buyer PO1 Cosme narrated the
transaction with appellant as follows:
Q And how was the operation started?
A I was with the confidential informant
and PO1 Randy Llanderal was just a distance away from us, sir.
Q And how about the other members of the
team?
A They were in the van, sir.
Q Where did you do together with the
informant?
A We proceeded to where Alias Inday was,
sir.
Q Where is this place where she usually
stands?
Q Were you able to arrive in said place?
A Yes, sir.
Q Where was Alias Inday then at that
time?
A She was standing along the street, sir.
x x x x
Q What then did you do after seeing this
Alias Inday standing in the street?
A Together with the confidential
informant, we approached Alias Inday and I was introduced to her, sir.
Q How were you introduced by your
informant to Alias Inday?
A The confidential informant told her
(Inday) that I am looking for a person who is selling shabu, sir.
Q What was the response of Inday?
A She asked me how much I intend to buy,
sir.
Q What was your answer?
A I told her, “KALAHATING BULTO. HALAGANG
TATLONG LIBO.”
Q What then transpired after you told her
your intention to buy?
A I first gave the money to Alias Inday,
sir.
Q And after that?
A Then she took plastic sachets
containing suspected shabu from her pocket
and she gave me one (1) plastic sachet, sir.
Q What did she do with the other plastic
sachets?
A She returned them to her pocket, sir.
Q After that what then did you do?
A After I took hold of the plastic sachet
containing shabu, I examined it then after that I scratched my ear, sir.
Q And then?
A When I noticed that PO1 Randy Llanderal
was already near us, I held Alias Inday, sir.
Q After you introduced yourself as police
officer, what else did you do?
A I took from her the buy-bust money worth
three thousand (P3,000.00) pesos, sir.
Q And were you able to get it?
Court
-
Q From where in relation to the person of
Inday?
A She was still holding the money, your Honor.[56]
Appellant was likewise indicted for
possession of two sachets of shabu respectively
weighing 1.84 grams and 2.06 grams for a total weight of 3.90 grams. In illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the
elements are: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is
identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by
law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.[57] All these elements have been
established. PO1 Llanderal testified:
Q- You started the buy bust operation at
about
Q- What did your team do?
A- Me and PO1 Cosme alighted from the van together with the informant.
Q- Where did you proceed?
A- Po1 Cosme proceeded to the place where Inday was standing together with the informant.
Q- How far were you from them referring to Cosme and the informant?
A- I hid near the parked jeep around five (5) meters away from them.
Q- And then what did you do with the distance of five (5) meters?
A- We were observing them and their actions.
Q- Where were you positioned then in that distance of five (5) meters away?
A- I was inside the passenger jeepney.
Q- Was there anything blocking your sight to the place of Cosme and the informant and also the place of Inday?
A- There was nothing blocking my sight.
Q- What did you observe if any?
A- I saw PO1 Cosme introduced by the asset to Inday and I saw them talking sir.
Q- And then what else did you observe?
A- They were talking and I overheard Inday asking how much, sir.
Q- And what was the reply of PO1 Cosme if you hear it?
A- That I will buy “kalahati”.
Court: How far were you when you overheard the transaction between Cosme and the accused?
A- I was five (5) meters away, sir.
Court: You were only five meters away?
A- Yes, sir.
Court: Why, were you hiding at that time?
A- I was hiding but I can see their transaction, sir.
Court: You mean to say from the place where you were located at that time you can overheard their transaction?
A- Yes, your Honor the buying and handing.
Q- What do you mean you saw the handing of Cosme the extending of money?
A- Yes, your Honor.
Q- Did you see also the accused counting the money she allegedly received?
A- After PO1 Cosme handed the money, alias Inday took the plastic sachet, placed the money in her pocket and she took something from the other side of her pocket.
Court: Of course you did not if there were two, three she just extended to him something?
A- After she took three (3) plastic sachets, one was given to PO1 Joel Cosme and the two (2) remaining sachets, she returned it to her pocket.
Q- After she put back the two (2) plastic sachets to her pocket, what then transpired?
A- Then PO1 Joel Cosme scratched his ear as pre-arranged signal.
Q- After seeing the pre-arranged signal, what did you do?
A- I slowly approached them sir.
Q- What did you do then after approaching them?
A- While I was approaching them, PO1 Cosme identified himself to Alias Inday and Alias Inday was arrested.
Q- How about you, what did you do?
A- And upon seeing PO1 Joel Cosme arresting Alias Inday, I requested Aling Inday to pull out her pocket.
Q- And what is the reaction of Alias Inday when you asked her to unload everything in her pocket?
A- She uttered something that she does not know anything.
Q- And then?
A- I ordered her to “ilabas mong lahat ang nasa iyong bulsa.”
Q- And then?
A- After she pulled out her hand, I saw two (2) plastic sachets as far as I know it contained shabu.
Q- And then what did you do upon seeing plastic sachets taken by her from her pocket which you suspect to be shabu?
A- We informed her that she is being arrested.[58]
Finally, appellant’s allegation that
the police officers were exacting P200,000.00 from her has no
basis. Except for her bare allegations,
unsupported by concrete proof, we cannot give such imputation a second
look.
IN ALL, the evidence for the
prosecution established that appellant was apprehended in flagrante during a buy-bust operation in which she sold a sachet
of shabu to PO1 Cosme, who acted as
poseur-buyer, and was thereafter caught by PO1 Llanderal in possession of two
more sachets of shabu.
In this jurisdiction, the conduct of a
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.[59] Unless there is clear and convincing evidence
that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive or
were not properly performing their duty, their testimonies on the operation
deserve full faith and credit.[60]
In the instant case, appellant
miserably failed to show that the members of the buy-bust team were impelled by
any improper motive or that they did not properly
perform their duty. This being the case,
we uphold the presumption of regularity in the performance of official
duties. The law disputably presumes that
official duty has been regularly performed.[61] The presumption
was not overcome, there being no evidence showing that PO1 Cosme, PO1 Llanderal
and the rest of the team were impelled by improper motive. In fact, appellant admitted that prior to the
incident, she did not know PO1 Cosme, PO1 Llanderal and the rest of the
buy-bust team.
Having been caught in flagrante, appellant’s identity as
seller and possessor of the shabu can
no longer be disputed. Against the
positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, appellant’s plain denial of
the offenses charged, unsubstantiated by any credible and convincing evidence,
must simply fail.[62] Frame-up, like alibi, is generally viewed
with caution by this Court, because it is easy to contrive and difficult to
disprove. Moreover, it is a common and
standard line of defense in prosecutions of violations of the Dangerous Drugs
Act.[63] For this claim to
prosper, the defense must adduce clear and convincing evidence to overcome the
presumption that government officials have performed their duties in a regular
and proper manner.[64]
We now go to the penalties imposed on
appellant for selling and possessing shabu. For selling shabu weighing 2.05 grams, the trial court imposed on appellant the
penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00. Said penalty was affirmed by the Court of
Appeals. As regards appellant’s
possession of 3.90 grams of shabu,
the trial court imposed on him the penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day
to twenty (20) years and a fine of P300,000.00. The Court of Appeals, applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law,[65]
modified the penalty of imprisonment to twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as
minimum, to thirteen (13) years, as maximum.
Under
Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the sale of any dangerous drug,
regardless of its quantity and purity,
is punishable by life imprisonment to death and a fine of P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00.[66]
The statute, in prescribing the range of penalties imposable, does not
concern itself with the amount of dangerous drug sold by an accused.[67] With the effectivity, however, of Republic
Act No. 9346, otherwise known as “An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death
Penalty in the
As regards possession of dangerous
drugs, the same is punished under Section 11, Article
II of Republic Act No. 9165. Paragraph 2,
No. 3 thereof, reads:
(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 x x x.
Having been caught in
possession of 3.90 grams of shabu or methamphetamine hydrochloride, the
afore-quoted paragraph provides for the appropriate penalty. Going over the penalty imposed by the Court
of Appeals, we find it to be within the range provided for by law. We therefore sustain it.
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01344 dated
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIOAssociate Justice |
WE
CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
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
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Amelita G. Tolentino with Associate Justices Portia Alińo-Hormachuelos and Arcangelita Romilla-Lontok, concurring; CA rollo, pp. 129-146.
[2] Records, pp. 138-151.
[3]
[4] Possession of Dangerous Drugs.
[5] Records, p. 1.
[6]
[7] TSN, 14, 15 and 21 January 2004.
[8] TSN,
[9] Exhs. E to J.
[10] Exhs. E-1 to J-1.
[11] Exh. D-4.
[12] Exhs. D-5 and D-6.
[13] Exh. C, Records, p. 70.
[15] Records, p. 44.
[16] TSN,
[17] TSN,
[18] TSN,
[19] TSN,
[20] TSN,
[21] Exh. 4, Records, pp. 125-126.
[22] Exh. 5; Records, pp 127-128.
[23] Also known as Maricris Naquita.
[24] Exhs. 7 to 7-E.
[25] Exh. 6; Records, pp. 129-130.
[26] Exh. 8; Records, pp. 131-132.
[27] TSN,
[28] Records, p. 151.
[29]
[30]
[31] CA rollo, pp. 145-146.
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35] Rollo, p. 23.
[36]
[37] CA rollo, p. 55.
[38] People
v. Evangelista, G.R. No. 175281,
[39] People
v. Escultor, G.R. Nos. 149366-67,
[40] People
v. Arivan, G.R. No. 176065,
[41] People v. Opelińa, 458 Phil. 1001, 1014 (2003).
[42] Records, p. 125.
[43] TSN,
[44] TSN,
[45] People v. Cheng Ho Chua, 364 Phil. 497,
513 (1999).
[46] People
v. Evangelista, supra note 38.
[47] Espano v. Court of Appeals, 351 Phil.
798, 806 (1998).
[48] Dimacuha v. People, G.R. No. 143705,
[49] Erroneously cited by appellant as Section 80.
[50] G.R. No. 171019,
[51] SEC.
21. Custody
and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs,
Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential
Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. – The
PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources
of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized
and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having
initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and
confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of
the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or
seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media
and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall
be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
[52] People
v. Del Monte, G.R. No. 179940,
[53] People
v. Concepcion, G.R. No. 178876,
[54] People v. Adam, 459 Phil. 676, 684 (2003).
[55] People
v. Nicolas, G.R. No. 170234,
[56] TSN,
[57] People v. Khor, 366 Phil. 762, 777 (1999).
[58] TSN,
[59] People
v. Cabugatan, G.R. No. 172019,
[60] People
v. Del Mundo, G.R. No. 169141,
[61] People
v. Garcia, G.R. No. 105805,
[62] People
v. Sy, G.R. No. 171397,
[63] People v. Eugenio, 443 Phil. 411, 419 (2003).
[64] People v. Zheng Bai Hui, 393 Phil. 68, 136 (2000).
[65] Act No. 4103.
[66] 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.
[67] People
v. Quiaoit, Jr., G.R. No. 175222,