SECOND DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Appellee, - versus - |
G.R. No.
173483 Present: QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson, CARPIO MORALES, TINGA, VELASCO, JR., and BRION, JJ. |
|
MERLIE* DUMANGAY y SALE, Appellant. |
Promulgated: September
23, 2008 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
DECISION
QUISUMBING, J.:
For review is the Decision[1] dated P500,000 in Criminal
Case No. 02-3568, and imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to
twenty (20) years and to pay the fine of P300,000 in Criminal Case No. 02-3569; and pay
the cost of suit.
The
Informations[4] both dated
Criminal Case No. 02-3568
x x x
x
That on or about the 29th day of November
2002, in the City of Makati Philippines and 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 one (0.01) gram of [Methamphetamine]
hydrochloride (shabu) which is a dangerous drug in
consideration of two hundred (Php 200.00) pesos.
CONTRARY
TO LAW.
x x x
x
Criminal Case No. 02-3569
x x x
x
That on or about the 29th day of November
2002, in the City of Makati Philippines and a place
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not
being lawfully authorized to possess any dangerous drug and without the
corresponding license or prescription, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously have in [her] possession zero point zero two (0.02) gram of [Methamphetamine]
hydrochloride of a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
x x x
x
Upon arraignment on
The prosecution presented
only one witness, a member of the Makati Anti-Drug
Abuse Council (MADAC), Francisco Barbosa. He testified as follows:
At
Thereafter,
Del Prado, DEU operative PO1 Jaime Laura, and other MADAC members proceeded to
the place where Merlie was reportedly selling shabu. They found Merlie in front of her
house at 5649 Don Pedro corner Enriquez St., Barangay
Poblacion, Makati City; and
with the informant, Barbosa approached Merlie. The informant introduced Barbosa
as a buyer of shabu, while the other
members of the team watched from strategic positions. Merlie then asked Barbosa
how much he would buy. Barbosa said, “dalawang
daang piso lang,” then handed Merlie the
two 100-peso marked money. In exchange,
Merlie gave him a small plastic sachet of a white crystalline substance. After Barbosa pretended to examine it, he gave the pre-arranged
signal to the other members of the team and they arrested Merlie.
Barbosa found the marked money and two more plastic
sachets containing white crystalline substance in Merlie’s
possession and informed Merlie the cause of her
arrest and apprised her of her constitutional rights.[6]
Thereafter, Merlie was brought to the DEU of the Makati
City Police Station. The three plastic
sachets were sent to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory for
examination. The laboratory report
confirmed that the sachets contained methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
Each sachet weighed 0.01 gram.[7]
The testimony of the
Forensic Chemist who examined the substance and prepared the report was
dispensed with, considering the parties had stipulated that the report was duly
accomplished after the substance examined by the crime laboratory yielded positive
of methamphetamine hydrochloride.[8]
The defense presented
Merlie as its sole witness. Merlie denied the allegations of the
prosecution. She testified that at the
time of the alleged buy-bust operation, she was already sleeping at home with
her daughter when a man awakened her.
She said that there were two men who searched the house. According to her, although no illegal item
was found, she was still forced to board a vehicle and was taken to the Sta.
Cruz Barangay Hall.
There, a certain Minyang had taken her to a
comfort room and told her to strip, but nothing illegal was found on her
person. She also said that no uniformed
policemen accompanied the arresting team and that Barbosa
was not among the men who arrested her. She did not file any complaint against
the people who arrested her because she had no relative to help her.[9]
On
The dispositive portion of
the trial court’s decision reads:
WHEREFORE, it appearing that the guilt of the
accused MERL[I]E DUMANGAY y SALE was proven beyond reasonable doubt for
violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. 9165, as principal, with no
mitigating or aggravating circumstances, accused is hereby sentenced:
1. In Criminal
Case No. 02-3568, to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00;
2. In Criminal
Case No. 02-3569, to suffer imprisonment for a term of twelve [12] years and one
[1] day to twenty [20] years and to pay a fine of P300,000.00; and
3. To pay the
costs.
Let the three [3] plastic
sachets each containing zero point zero one [0.01] gram of [Methamphetamine]
Hydrochloride be turned over to the PDEA for proper disposition.
SO ORDERED.[10]
Merlie
appealed. In view of our ruling in People
v. Mateo,[11] this
case was referred to the Court of Appeals.[12]
Upon review, the Court of
Appeals concluded in the Decision dated
The appellant and the
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) opted not to file their supplemental
briefs. But, we find on record their
briefs filed with this Court before the case was transferred to the Court of
Appeals. Appellant raised in her brief a
single issue:
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE
ACCUSED FOR VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 5 AND 11, ARTICLE II OF RA 9165 DESPITE THE
PROSECUTION’S FAILURE TO PROVE HER GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.[13]
Simply stated, the issue
in this case is whether appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
violating Rep. Act No. 9165.
Appellant challenges the testimony of Barbosa
and claims that it was incredible and inconsistent in regard to her
identity. She avers that since there was
no surveillance conducted before the buy-bust operation and the informant was
not present at the time, there was no certainty as to the “Merlie” who was
selling the prohibited drugs, named by the informant.[14] According to
appellant, although the testimony of Barbosa
presented the elements of the crime that would convince the trial court, it
should be taken with caution, since, Barbosa, as a
MADAC agent, could make it appear that there was entrapment when there was
none.[15] She further
argues that the reason for her conviction shall not be the weakness of her
defense but the strength of the evidence of the prosecution.[16]
For
the State, the OSG maintains that the prosecution had proved the elements of
the crime charged: (1) the presence of the appellant at the scene of the crime;
(2) the act of selling one plastic sachet of shabu; and (3) the recovery of two plastic sachets of shabu at the time of the
entrapment. It also argues that the
credibility of Barbosa, whose testimony established
the elements of the crime, was never impeached by the defense.[17] The OSG
avers that Barbosa positively identified appellant as
the seller of shabu, and such
positive identification prevails over her feeble defense that she was sleeping
at their house when the entrapment took place.[18] Moreover,
the OSG maintains that the trial court imposed the proper penalty for the crime
charged.[19]
The pertinent provisions
of Article II of Rep. Act No. 9165 provide:
SEC. 5. Sale, Trading,
Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of
Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals.—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 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.
x x x x
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:
x x
x x
(5) 50 grams or
more of methamphetamine hydrochloride or “shabu”;
x x
x x
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the
foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be graduated as follows:
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 ….
methamphetamine hydrochloride….
x x x x
We
are convinced that appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
The elements of illegal sale of shabu are: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object
and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is
material is the proof that the transaction or sale transpired, coupled with the
presentation in court of the corpus delicti. Corpus delicti is
the body or substance of the crime, and establishes the fact that a crime has
been actually committed. It has two
elements, namely: (1) proof of the occurrence of a certain event; and (2) some
person’s criminal responsibility for the act.[20]
The straightforward testimony of Barbosa,
the poseur-buyer, clearly established that an illegal sale of shabu actually took place and that
appellant was the seller, thus:
FISCAL
Q: Mr. Witness, how did you come to know the accused in this
particular case, Merlie Dumangay?
A: Through our informant.
Q: And when did that informant go to your office?
A:
Q: [A]nd what was the
information given to your office by the informant?
A: That [a] certain Merlie was engaged in
selling prohibited drugs.
Q: And after receiving such information Mr.
Witness, do you recall if your office did [anything] to the information?
A: Yes sir.
Q: What Mr. Witness?
A: Our office called up … the DEU,
Q: Do you know the reason Mr. [W]itness why your office has to call up the DEU office?
A: [Y]es sir.
Q: For what particular purpose Mr. Witness? Why
is there a need to call DEU Mr. Witness?
A: [S]o that we can participate in our operation sir.
Q: And what participation did the [DEU] office
make in connection with the buy bust operation?
A: He [led] our operation sir.
Q: After the coordination has been made with the
[DEU], what happened next?
A: We conducted a briefing sir.
x x
x x
Q: After the briefing was conducted Mr. Witness do you recall if ever
a buy bust operation was conducted?
A: There was sir.
Q: Against whom was the
buy bust operation Mr. Witness?
A: I could not recall sir.
Q: Do you know if [a] buy bust operation was in
fact conducted on
A: Yes sir, there was.
Q: Do you recall if somebody was arrested as a
result of the buy bust operation Mr. Witness?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Who is that particular person?
A: Merlie Dumangay sir.
Q: Where is that Merlie
Dumangay now? Will you kindly point her out?
INTERPRETER:
Witness pointing to a woman inside the
courtroom [who], when asked, identified herself as Merlie
Dumangay.
FISCAL
Q: In connection with the arrest, which you have
conducted against the person of Merlie Dumangay, do
you recall if you ever executed a Pinagsanib na Salaysay
ng Pag-aresto?
A: Yes sir.
Q: If that Pinagsanib na Salaysay
ng Pag-aresto will be shown
to you, will you be able to identify the same?
A: Yes sir.
Q: I am showing to you Mr. Witness this Pinagsanib na
Salaysay ng pag-aresto consisting of two pages. Will you kindly go over this document and
tell us if that is the same Pinagsanib na Salaysay
ng Pag-aresto which you
said you executed?
A: Yes sir.
x x x x
FISCAL
Q: Have you read the contents of this Pinagsanib na
Salaysay ng Pag-aresto written in Tagalog?
A: Yes sir.
Q: [D]o you affirm and confirm as to the
truthfulness of the allegations
contained in this Pinagsanib na Salaysay
ng Pag-aresto?
A: Yes sir.
FISCAL
For purposes of expediency your Honor and to save the material time of the Honorable
Court, we would like to stipulate with the defense that the allegations
contained in this Pinagsanib na
Salaysay ng Pag-aresto will form part of his direct testimony your
Honor.
ATTY. QUIAMBAO:
We agree your Honor.[21] (Emphasis supplied.)
Barbosa,
PO1 Jaime Laura, MADAC members Romeo Lazaro and
Marvin Cruz, in the sworn Pinagsanib
na Salaysay
ng Pag-aresto,[22] recounted
the details of the buy-bust operation.
They stated therein that acting on confidential information, a team
composed of MADAC and DEU agents proceeded to the place where Merlie was
allegedly selling shabu. The informant made the introductions and the
transaction took place. Barbosa handed the marked money to Merlie while the latter
handed him one plastic sachet of shabu. Thereafter, Merlie was immediately arrested
and upon her arrest, Barbosa found two plastic
sachets in her right hand.
The laboratory examination
of the crystalline substance confiscated from Merlie and forwarded to the Philippine
National Police Crime Laboratory yielded positive of methamphetamine
hydrochloride.
In short, the prosecution
clearly and positively established that Merlie agreed to sell shabu to the poseur-buyer and that the
sale was consummated. Moreover, Barbosa identified the three plastic sachets of shabu and the marked money in court.[23]
We disagree with
appellant’s contention that inconsistencies in Barbosa’s
testimony are adequate to demolish the credibility of Barbosa.
The inconsistencies alluded to by the appellant in the testimony of Barbosa are inconsequential and minor to adversely affect
his credibility.[24] The
inconsistencies do not detract from the fact that Barbosa
positively identified her in open court.[25] What is essential is that the prosecution witness
positively identified the appellant as the one who sold the shabu to the poseur-buyer. There is also
nothing on record that sufficiently casts doubt on the credibility of the
prosecution witness.[26] More so, the
lack of prior surveillance does not cast doubt on Barbosa’s
credibility. We have held that a prior
surveillance is not necessary especially where the police operatives are
accompanied by their informant during entrapment, as in this case.[27] Contrary to
appellant’s contention, the informant was present during the entrapment.[28]
Note that a buy-bust operation
is a form of entrapment legally employed by peace officers as an effective way
of apprehending drug dealers in the act of committing an offense. Such police
operation has judicial sanction as long as it is carried out with due regard to
constitutional and legal safeguards.[29] The delivery
of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the
marked money successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction between the
entrapping officers and the accused.
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 testimony on the operation deserves faith and
credit.[30]
In light of the clear and convincing evidence of the
prosecution, we find no reason to deviate from the findings of the trial court
and the appellate court. More so,
appellant failed to present evidence that Barbosa and
the other members of the team had any ill motive to falsely accuse her of a
serious crime. Absent any proof of such
motive, 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 self-serving and uncorroborated defenses.[31]
Lastly, considering that the
buy-bust operation in this case is legitimate, the subsequent warrantless arrest and the warrantless
search and seizure are equally valid. In
People v. Julian-Fernandez,[32] we held that the interdiction against warrantless searches and seizures is not absolute and such warrantless searches and seizures have long been deemed
permissible by jurisprudence in instances such as the search incidental to a
lawful arrest. This 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 an arrest in flagrante delicto as a permissible warrantless
arrest.[33] In this
case, we find that the appellant, having failed to controvert the evidence that
the other two plastic sachets of shabu were found
in her possession, is also guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession
of shabu.
In sum, we find no reversible error in the decisions
of the trial court and the appellate court in holding appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the offenses charged.
WHEREFORE, the
Decision dated
No pronouncement
as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
WE CONCUR:
|
CONCHITA CARPIO
MORALES Associate Justice |
|
|
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J.
VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
|
ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice |
|
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest 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.
|
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice Chairperson |
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
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 |
* “Merle” in some parts of the records.
[1] CA rollo, pp. 105-113. Penned by Associate Justice Arturo G. Tayag, with Associate Justices Jose L. Sabio, Jr. and Jose C. Mendoza concurring.
[2]
[3] An
Act Instituting the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, Repealing
Republic Act No. 6425, Otherwise Known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as
Amended, Providing Funds Therefor, and for Other
Purposes. Also known as the
“Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002.” Approved on
[4] Records, pp. 2 and 4.
[5] TSN,
[6]
[7] Records, p. 56.
[8] TSN,
[9] TSN,
[10] CA rollo, p. 15.
[11] G.R. Nos. 147678-87,
[12] Rollo, p. 2.
[13] CA rollo, p. 32.
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20] People v. Del Mundo, G.R. No. 169141, December 6, 2006, 510 SCRA 554, 562, citing People v. Isnani, G.R. No. 133006, June 9, 2004, 431 SCRA 439, 449 and People v. Monte, G.R. No. 144317, August 5, 2003, 408 SCRA 305, 309-310.
[21] TSN,
[22] Records, p. 53.
[23] TSN,
[24] See
People v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 143805,
[25] TSN,
[26] People v. Gonzales, supra at 698.
[27]
[28] TSN,
[29] People v. Chua,
G.R. No. 133789,
[30] People v.
[31] People v. Isnani, supra note 20 at 455.
[32] 423 Phil. 895, 912 (2001).
[33] People v. Julian-Fernandez, id. at 912-913.