Republic of the
SUPREME COURT
THIRD DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, -
versus - SPO3 SANGKI ARA y MIRASOL, MIKE TALIB y MAMA, and JORDAN MUSA y
BAYAN, Accused-Appellants. |
|
G.R. No. 185011 Present: VELASCO,
JR., NACHURA, PERALTA,
and Promulgated: December
23, 2009 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
VELASCO, JR., J.:
This
is an appeal from the December 13, 2007 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in
CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00025B entitled People
of the Philippines v. SPO3 Sangki Ara y Mirasol, Mike Talib y Mama, Jordan Musa
y Bayan, which affirmed the
Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 9 in Davao City, convicting
accused-appellants of violation of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Facts
Three
Informations charged accused-appellants Sangki Ara, Mike Talib, and Jordan
Musa, as follows:
Criminal Case No. 51,471-2002 against
Ara
That on or about December 20, 2002, in the City of Davao, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law, willfully, unlawfully and consciously traded, transported and delivered 26.6563 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or “shabu,” which is a dangerous drug, with the aggravating circumstance of trading, transporting and delivering said 26.6563 grams of “shabu” within 100 meters from [the] school St. Peter’s College of Toril, Davao City.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[1]
Criminal Case No. 51,472-2002 against
Talib
That on or about December 20, 2002, in the City of Davao, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law, willfully, unlawfully and consciously had in his possession and control one (1) plastic sachet of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or “shabu,” weighing 0.3559 gram, which is a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[2]
Criminal Case No. 51,473-2002 against
Musa
That on or about December 20, 2002, in the City of Davao, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-mentioned accused, without being authorized by law, willfully, unlawfully and consciously had in his possession and control five (5) big plastic sachet[s] of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or “shabu” weighing 14.2936 grams, which is a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]
During
their arraignment, accused-appellants all gave a “not guilty” plea.
Version of the
Prosecution
At the trial, the prosecution
presented the following witnesses: Forensic Chemist Noemi Austero, PO2 Ronald
Lao, SPO1 Bienvenido Furog, PO1 Enrique Ayao, Jr., SPO4 Rodrigo Mallorca, and
PO2 Jacy Jay Francia.
In
the morning of December 20, 2002, a confidential informant (CI) came to the
Heinous Crime Investigation Section (HCIS) of the Davao City Police Department and
reported that three (3) suspected drug pushers had contacted him for a deal
involving six (6) plastic sachets of shabu.
He was instructed to go that same
morning to St. Peter’s College at Toril,
Police
Chief Inspector Fulgencio Pavo, Sr. immediately formed a buy-bust team composed
of SPO3 Reynaldo Capute, SPO4 Mario Galendez, SPO3 Antonio Balolong, SPO2
Arturo Lascaños, SPO2 Jim Tan, SPO1 Rizalino Aquino, SPO1 Bienvenido Furog, PO2
Vivencio Jumawan, Jr., PO2 Ronald Lao, and PO1 Enrique Ayao, Jr., who would act
as poseur-buyer.[5]
The
team proceeded to the school where PO1 Ayao and the CI waited by the gate. At
around 8:45 a.m., an orange Nissan Sentra bearing plate number UGR 510 stopped
in front of them. The two men approached the vehicle and the CI talked briefly with
an old man in the front seat. PO1 Ayao
was then told to get in the back seat as accused-appellant Mike Talib opened
the door. The old man, later identified as accused-appellant SPO3 Ara, asked PO1
Ayao if he had the money and the latter replied in the positive. Ara took out several sachets with crystalline
granules from his pocket and handed them to PO1 Ayao, who thereupon gave the
pre-arranged signal of opening the car door. The driver of the car, later
identified as accused-appellant Jordan Musa, tried to drive away but PO1 Ayao
was able to switch off the car engine in time. The back-up team appeared and SPO1 Furog held
on to Musa while PO2 Lao restrained Talib.
PO1 Ayao then asked Ara to get out of the vehicle.[6]
Recovered
from the group were plastic sachets of white crystalline substance: six (6) big
sachets, weighing 26.6563 grams, from Ara by PO1 Ayao; five (5) big sachets,
weighing 14.2936 grams, from Musa by SPO1 Furog; and a small sachet, weighing
0.3559 gram, from Talib by PO2 Lao.[7]
The three suspects were brought to the HCIS
and the seized items indorsed to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime
Laboratory for examination. Forensic
Chemist Austero, who conducted the examination, found that the confiscated
sachets all tested positive for shabu.[8]
Version of the Defense
The
defense offered the sole testimony of Ara, who said that he had been a member
of the PNP for 32 years, with a spotless record. On December 20, 2002, SPO3 Ara was in
Upon reaching
When they arrived in Toril, Ara
noticed the car to be overheating, so they stopped. Ara did not know that they were near St.
Peter’s College since he was not familiar with the area. Talib alighted from the car and Ara
transferred to the front seat. While Talib was getting into the back seat, PO1
Ayao came out of nowhere, pointed his .45 caliber pistol at Ara even if he was
not doing anything, and ordered him to get off the vehicle. He saw that guns were also pointed at his
companions. As the group were being arrested, he told PO1 Ayao that he was also
a police officer. Ara insisted that he was not holding anything and that the shabu taken from him was planted. He
asserted that the only time he saw shabu
was on television.[11]
The Ruling of the Trial Court
The
RTC pronounced accused-appellants guilty of the crimes charged. In its Decision
dated March 1, 2003, the trial court held that the prosecution was able to
establish the quantum of proof showing the guilt of accused-appellants beyond
reasonable doubt. It further ruled that the “intercept operation” conducted by
the buy-bust team was valid.
The
dispositive portion of the RTC Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premised on the foregoing the Court finds the following:
In Criminal Case No. 51,471-2002, the accused herein SANGKI ARA Y MASOL, Filipino, 55 years old, widower, a resident of Kabuntalan, Cotabato City, is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt, and is CONVICTED of the crime of violation of Sec. 5, 1st paragraph of Republic Act 9165. He is hereby imposed the DEATH PENALTY and FINE of TEN MILLION PESOS (PhP 10,000,000) with all the accessory penalties corresponding thereto, including absolute perpetual disqualification from any public office, in view of the provision of section 28 of RA 9165 quoted above.
Since the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the crime was committed in the area which is only five (5) to six (6) meters away from the school, the provision of section 5 paragraph 3 Article II of RA 9165 was applied in the imposition of the maximum penalty against the herein accused.
In Criminal Case No. 51,472-2002, the accused herein MIKE TALIB y MAMA, Filipino, of legal age, single and a resident of Parang, Cotabato, is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt, and is CONVICTED of the crime of violation of Sec. 11, 3rd paragraph, Article II of Republic Act 9165. He is hereby imposed a penalty of Imprisonment of SIXTEEN (16) YEARS and a fine of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (PhP 300,000) with all the accessory penalties corresponding thereto.
In Criminal Case No. 51,473-2002 the accused herein JORDAN MUSA Y BAYAN, Filipino, 30 years old, married and a resident of Cotabato City, is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt and is CONVICTED of the crime for Violation of Sec. 11, 1st paragraph, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. He is hereby sentenced to suffer a penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and FINE of FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (PhP 400,000) with all the accessory penalties corresponding thereto.
SO ORDERED.[12]
As the death penalty was imposed on Ara, the case went on
automatic review before this Court. Conformably with People v. Mateo,[13] we, however, ordered the transfer of
the case to the CA.
The Ruling of the Appellate Court
Contesting
the RTC Decision, accused-appellants filed separate appeals before the CA.
Talib claimed that it was erroneous for the trial court to have used the
complaining witnesses’ affidavits as basis for ruling that their arrest was
valid. He also cited as erroneous the trial court’s refusal to rule that the
prosecution’s evidence was inadmissible. Lastly, he questioned the failure of the
buy-bust team to follow the requirements of RA 9165 on proper inventory of
seized drugs.
Ara
and Musa filed a joint brief, alleging the following: (1) the trial court erred in denying the
Motion to Suppress and/or exclude illegally obtained evidence; (2) the trial
court erred in denying the Demurrer to Evidence; (3) the trial court failed to
consider that the criminal informations did not allege conspiracy among the
accused; and (4) the trial court erred in ruling that the “intercept operation”
was valid.
The
CA affirmed the trial court’s decision with some modifications on the penalty
imposed. It ruled that a majority of the errors raised in the appeal referred
to technicalities in the conduct of buy-bust operations that did not invalidate
the police officers’ actions. On the
issue of the evidence presented, the CA held that the presumption that police
officers performed their duties in a regular manner was not overturned.
The
appellate court resolved the issue of the validity of the buy-bust operation by
stating that the law requires no specific method of conducting such an
operation. It ruled that to require a warrant of arrest would not accomplish
the goal of apprehending drug pushers in
flagrante delicto. The CA’s Decision emphasized that all the elements
necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs were established.
The
fallo of the December 13, 2007 CA
Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises foregoing, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED and the appealed March 1, 2003 Decision is hereby AFFIRMED subject to the modification insofar as the death penalty imposed upon accused SPO3 Sangki Ara is concerned. Accordingly, his penalty is hereby reduced to life imprisonment pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346.
SO ORDERED.[14]
On December 17, 2008, this Court required the parties to
submit supplemental briefs if they so desired. The parties, save for Musa,
manifested their willingness to forego the filing of additional briefs.
The Issues
Reiterating
the matters raised before the CA, accused-appellants alleged the following:
I
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the arrest of the accused-appellants was valid based on the affidavits of the complaining witnesses
II
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in disregarding the apparent defects and inconsistencies in the affidavits of the complaining witnesses
III
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in refusing to consider the suppression or exclusion of evidence
IV
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not holding that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt
Talib
also raises the following grounds for his acquittal:
I
Whether the arrest of Talib was illegal and the evidence confiscated from him illegally obtained
II
Whether the police officers who conducted the illegal search and arrest also deliberately failed and/or violated the provisions of RA 9165
III
Whether the testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses and their respective affidavits were gravely inconsistent
Ara
and Musa additionally raise the following issues:
I
Whether the trial court erred in denying the Demurrer to Evidence
II
Whether the trial court failed to consider that the criminal informations did not allege conspiracy among the accused
III
Whether the trial court erred in ruling that the “intercept operation” was valid
Accused-appellant
Musa also avers that the CA erred in convicting him since the prosecution
failed to prove the corpus delicti of
the offense charged.
The Ruling of this Court
What
are mainly raised in this appeal are (1) whether the buy-bust conducted was
valid; (2) whether the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of drugs
were sufficiently established; and (3) whether the chain of custody over the shabu was unbroken.
Warrantless Arrest and Seizure Valid
In calling for their acquittal,
accused-appellants decry their arrest without probable cause and the violation
of their constitutional rights. They claim that the buy-bust team had more than
a month to apply for an arrest warrant yet failed to do so.
Owing to the special circumstances
surrounding the drug trade, a buy-bust operation has long been held as a
legitimate method of catching offenders. It is a form of entrapment employed as
an effective way of apprehending a criminal in the act of commission of an
offense.[15] We have
ruled that a buy-bust operation can be carried out after a long period of
planning. The period of planning for such operation cannot be dictated to the
police authorities who are to undertake such operation.[16] It
is unavailing then to argue that the operatives had to first secure a warrant
of arrest given that the objective of the operation was to apprehend the
accused-appellants in flagrante delicto. In
fact, one of the situations covered by a lawful warrantless arrest under
Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court is when a person has committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense in the presence of a
peace officer or private person.
It
is erroneous as well to argue that there was no probable cause to arrest
accused-appellants. Probable cause, in
warrantless searches, must only be based on reasonable ground of suspicion or
belief that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed. There is no hard and fast rule or fixed
formula for determining probable cause, for its determination varies according
to the facts of each case.[17] Probable
cause was provided by information gathered from the CI and from
accused-appellants themselves when they instructed PO1 Ayao to enter their
vehicle and begin the transaction. The illegal sale of shabu inside accused-appellants’ vehicle was afterwards clearly
established. Thus, as we have previously held, the arresting officers were
justified in making the arrests as accused-appellants had just committed a
crime when Ara sold shabu to PO1
Ayao.[18] Talib and Musa were also frisked for
contraband as it may be logically inferred that they were also part of Ara’s
drug activities inside the vehicle. This inference was further strengthened by Musa’s
attempt to drive the vehicle away and elude arrest.
Moreover, the trial court correctly
denied the Motion to Suppress or Exclude Evidence. We need not reiterate that
the evidence was not excluded since the buy-bust operation was shown to be a legitimate
form of entrapment. The pieces of evidence thus seized therein were
admissible. As the appellate court
noted, it was within legal bounds and no anomaly was found in the conduct of
the buy-bust operation. There is, therefore, no basis for the assertion that
the trial court’s order denying said motion was biased and committed with grave
abuse of discretion.
Prosecution Established Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt
For
the successful prosecution of the illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must be established: (1) the identity
of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and
(2) the delivery of the thing sold and its payment. What is material is the proof that the
transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court
of the corpus delicti as evidence.[19] All these requisites were met by the
prosecution.
In
contrast, Ara, the sole defense witness, could only proffer the weak defenses
of denial and alibi. He expressed surprise at having Talib in his car and
claimed he was framed and that the shabu
confiscated from him was planted. According to the trial court, however, Ara’s
lying on the witness stand “was so intense as he tried very hard in vain to win
the Court’s sympathy.”[20]
Given
the prosecution’s evidence, we rule that the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duties has not been overturned. The presumption remains because the defense
failed to present clear and convincing evidence that the police officers did not
properly perform their duty or that they were inspired by an improper motive.[21]
Ara could not explain why his fellow police officers, who did not know him
prior to his arrest, would frame him for such a serious offense.
Validity of Buy-Bust Operation
Likewise questioned by the defense in
the affidavits of the police officers was the allegation that there was a
legitimate buy-bust operation. No marked money was presented to back up the
police officers’ claims. This argument lacks basis, however. There are
requirements that must be complied with in proving the legitimacy of drug
buy-bust operations. Nevertheless, this Court has ruled that presentation of
the marked money used is not such a requirement. In the prosecution for the
sale of dangerous drugs, the absence of marked money does not create a hiatus
in the evidence for the prosecution, as long as the sale of dangerous drugs is
adequately proved and the drug subject of the transaction is presented before
the court.[22]
In the instant case, the police officers’ testimonies adequately established
the illegal sale of shabu. The shabu was then presented before the
trial court. The non-presentation of the
marked money may, thus, be overlooked as a peripheral matter.
Talib further contends that it is incredible
that a shabu transaction would be
carried out in a very open and public place.
Contrary to Talib’s claim, however, judicial experience has shown that
drug transactions have been conducted without much care for an inconspicuous
location.
Thus, we observed in People v. Roldan:
Drug pushing when done on a small level x x x belongs to that class of
crimes that may be committed at anytime and at any place. After the offer to
buy is accepted and the exchange is made, the illegal transaction is completed
in a few minutes. The fact that the parties are in a public place and in the
presence of other people may not always discourage them from pursuing their
illegal trade these factors may even serve to camouflage the same.
Hence, the Court has sustained the conviction of drug pushers caught selling
illegal drugs in a billiard hall, in front of a store, along a street at 1:45
p.m., and in front of a house.[23]
It is also argued as impossible to
believe that even if there was already a deal between the informant and
accused-appellants, it was the apprehending police officer who acted as the
buyer and that he requested to see the shabu
first before showing the money. These claims by Talib are similarly undeserving
of consideration. First, there is no uniform method by which
drug pushers and their buyers operate. Second,
the choice of effective ways to apprehend drug dealers is within the
ambit of police authority. Police officers have the expertise to
determine which specific approaches are necessary to enforce their entrapment
operations.[24] Third, as long as they enjoy credibility as witnesses, the police
officers’ account of how the buy-bust operation transpired is entitled to full
faith and credit. [25] Lastly,
these arguments are merely incidental and do not affect the elements of the
crime which have been, in the instant case, sufficiently established.
Talib also alleges that during his
testimony, SPO1 Furog was not certain as to the reason he was apprehending Musa. Another claim is that SPO1 Furog, when
examined by the prosecutor and two different defense lawyers, allegedly made
relevant inconsistencies in his testimony. The pertinent exchange reads:
Direct Examination of SPO1 Furog:
Prosecutor Weis:
Q What was your basis for stopping [Musa] from letting the car go?
A I made him [stop] the car[.] [W]e [had] to check them first because I think Ayao saw [that] Ara [had] the suspected shabu.
Cross-Examination of SPO1 Furog:
Atty. Estrada
Q When you arrested Musa as you said, it was because he attempted to drive the car away, that was it?
A The most, when SPO3 Sangki Ara told us that he was a PNP member and when we saw the substances from the two of them first.
x x x x
Q You are referring to Musa and Ara?
A Yes sir.[26]
x x x x
Atty. Javines
Q Ayao did not arrest [Ara] inside the vehicle?
A Only I rushed to the vehicle. I don’t know if he directly arrested him when he saw the substance and [got] out of the vehicle but I saw him get out from the vehicle.[27]
The
alleged inconsistencies in SPO1 Furog’s “reason for apprehending Musa” are, however,
insignificant and do not merit much consideration as well. The questioned parts
in the testimony of SPO1 Furog do not dent the totality of evidence against
accused-appellants. To repeat, the elements
of the crime of illegal sale of drugs and illegal possession of drugs were both
sufficiently established. Although SPO1 Furog was not categorical in explaining
his basis for apprehending Musa, the arrest of the latter must be considered as
part of a legitimate buy-bust operation which was consummated. Musa’s arrest
came after the pre-arranged signal was given to the back-up team and this
served as basis for the police officers to apprehend all those in the vehicle,
including Musa.
Denial of Demurrer to Evidence
Although alleged by accused-appellants
Ara and Musa, no reason was given in the appeal as to why the trial court erred
in denying their Demurrer to Evidence. Whatever their basis may be, an action
on a demurrer or on a motion to dismiss rests on the sound exercise of judicial
discretion.[28] In Gutib v. CA,[29] we explained that:
A demurrer to evidence is an objection by one of the parties in an action, to the effect that the evidence which his adversary produced is insufficient in point of law, whether true or not, to make out a case or sustain the issue. The party demurring challenges the sufficiency of the whole evidence to sustain a verdict. The court, in passing upon the sufficiency of the evidence raised in a demurrer, is merely required to ascertain whether there is competent or sufficient evidence to sustain the indictment or to support a verdict of guilt.
Here, the trial court found competent
and sufficient evidence to support a conviction of all three
accused-appellants. We see no reason to overturn the trial court’s finding.
Allegation of Conspiracy in Information Not Necessary
We find no merit in
accused-appellants’ insistence that conspiracy should have been alleged in the
separate Informations indicting them. We agree with the appellate court, which
succinctly stated that conspiracy was not alleged “precisely because they were
charged with different offenses for the distinct acts that each of them
committed. One’s possession of an illegal drug does not need to be conspired by
another who, on his part, also possessed an illegal drug.”[30]
The three separate indictments against Ara, Musa, and Talib do not need to
allege conspiracy, for the act of conspiring and all the elements of the crime
must be set forth in the complaint or information only when conspiracy is
charged as a crime.[31]
Requirements of RA 9165 on Proper Inventory
Musa
contends that since the markings on the seized items were only made at the
police station, there is a great possibility that these were replaced. The
result, he argues, would be a lack of guarantee that what were inventoried and
photographed at the crime laboratory were the same specimens confiscated from
the accused.
As
recently highlighted in People v. Cortez[32] and People v. Lazaro, Jr.,[33] RA 9165 and its subsequent
Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) do not require strict compliance as to
the chain of custody rule. The arrest of an accused will not be invalidated and
the items seized from him rendered inadmissible on the sole ground of
non-compliance with Sec. 21, Article II of RA 9165. We have emphasized that
what is essential 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.”
Briefly stated, non-compliance with
the procedural requirements under RA 9165 and its IRR relative to the custody,
photographing, and drug-testing of the apprehended persons, is not a serious
flaw that can render void the seizures and custody of drugs in a buy-bust
operation.[34]
The
chain of custody in the instant case did not suffer from serious flaws as
accused-appellants argue. The recovery and handling of the seized drugs showed
that, as to Ara, first, PO1 Ayao recovered six plastic sachets of white crystalline
substance from Ara and marked them with both his and Ara’s initials. Second, the sachets were likewise signed
by property custodian PO3 Pelenio. Third, PO1 Ayao signed a Request for
Laboratory Examination then personally delivered the sachets to the PNP Crime
Laboratory for examination. Fourth, SPO4 Mallorca then received the sachets
at the crime laboratory.
As
to Musa, first, SPO1 Furog seized the
sachets from Musa and marked each with his own initials. Second, an Inventory of
Property Seized was then made by SPO4 Galendez. Lastly, SPO1 Furog later submitted a Request for Laboratory
Examination of the five (5) sachets weighing a total of 14.2936 grams to the
PNP Crime Laboratory.
As
to Talib, first, PO2 Lao seized a small sachet from Talib during the buy-bust
operation. Second, PO2 Lao delivered a Request for
Laboratory Examination of one (1) sachet of suspected shabu weighing 0.3559 gram. Third, SPO4 Mallorca also received the items
at the PNP Crime Laboratory.
Forensic
Chemist Noemi Austero’s examination of the sachets confiscated from all
accused-appellants showed that these were positive for shabu. During trial, the seized items were identified in court. The
five (5) sachets taken from Musa were marked Exhibits “A-1” to “A-5,” while the
sachet seized from Talib was marked Exhibit “B.” The six (6) sachets taken from
Ara were marked Exhibits “B1-B6.”
We
are, thus, satisfied that the prosecution was able to preserve the integrity
and evidentiary value of the shabu in
all three criminal cases against accused-appellants.
The
rest of the arguments interposed are evidently without merit and do not warrant
discussion.
Penalties Imposed
Criminal Case No. 51,472-2002 against Talib
The crime of illegal possession of drugs is punishable by Sec. 11 of RA 9165, as follows:
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 x x x methamphetamine hydrochloride x x
x.
Talib
was sentenced to imprisonment of sixteen (16) years and a fine of PhP 300,000.
Criminal Case No. 51,473-2002 against Musa
The
provision Musa was charged of violating provides the following penalty:
(1) Life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), if the quantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride or “shabu” is ten (10) grams or more but less than fifty (50) grams;
Musa
was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of PhP 400,000.
Criminal Case No. 51,471-2002 against Ara
The
crime of illegal sale of shabu is
penalized by Sec. 5, Art. 11 of RA 9165:
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.
The
same section contains the following provision:
If the sale, trading,
administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution or transportation of any
dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical transpires
within one hundred (100) meters from the school, the maximum penalty shall be
imposed in every case.
Since
the sale of shabu was within five (5)
to six (6) meters from St. Peter’s College, the maximum penalty of death should
be imposed on Ara. Pursuant to RA 9346 or “An Act Prohibiting
the Imposition of Death Penalty in the
Ara
was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of PhP 10,000,000. He, however, is
no longer eligible for parole.
What
distinguishes this case from others is that one of the accused-appellants was a
police officer himself who should have known better than to break the law he
was duty-bound to enforce. What is more,
he is charged with the crime of selling illegal drugs, an offense so horrendous
for destroying the lives of its victims and their families that the penalty of
death used to be imposed on its perpetrators.
No one could have been more deserving of such a punishment than someone
who should be enforcing the law but caught pushing drugs instead. As it was, the death penalty was indeed originally
imposed on SPO3 Ara, who had been in the service for more than 30 years.
The
ill effects of the use of illegal drugs are too repulsive and shocking to enumerate. Thus, once the charges of sale and possession
of said drugs are established in cases such as this, any errors or technicalities
raised by the suspects should not be allowed to invalidate the actions of those
involved in curtailing their illegal activities. The punishments given to drug
pushers should serve as deterrent for others not to commit the same offense. No
price seems high enough for drug dealers to pay; it is just unfortunate that
the penalty of death can no longer be imposed because it has been abolished.
As
the penalties meted out to all three accused-appellants are within the range
provided by RA 9165, we affirm the CA’s sentence.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The CA Decision in CA-G.R.
CR-H.C. No. 00025B entitled People of the
Philippines v. SPO3 Sangki Ara y Mirasol, Mike Talib y Mama, Jordan Musa y
Bayan is AFFIRMED with the
modification that accused-appellant Sangki Ara is not eligible for parole.
SO
ORDERED.
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
MARIANO C.
Associate Justice
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.
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
[14] Rollo, p. 32. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr., with Associate Justices Teresita Dy-Liacco Flores and Michael P. Elbinias, concurring.
[18] People v. Lopez, G.R No. 181441, November 14, 2008.
[22] Cruz v. People, supra note 19.
[23] G.R. No. 98398, July 6, 1993, 224 SCRA 536, 548; citing People v. Paco, G.R. No. 76893, February 27, 1989, 170 SCRA 681 (other citations omitted).
[24] People v. Lim, G.R. No. 187503, September 11, 2009.
[25] Unless there is a clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were impelled by any improper motive, or were not properly performing their duties, their testimonies on the operation deserve full faith and credit. Chan v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 147065, March 14, 2008.
[28] Nicolas v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 175930-31, February 11, 2008.
[29] G.R. No. 131209, August 13, 1999, 312 SCRA 365.
[33] G.R. No. 186418, October 16, 2009.