THE
PEOPLE OF THE
|
G.R. No. 171088
Present: *YNARES-SANTIAGO, **CARPIO-MORALES, Acting Chairperson, BRION, ABAD, JJ. Promulgated: October 2, 2009 |
x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
|
|
D
E C I S I O N
|
|
|
|
|
|
BRION, J.: |
|
|
|
|
This is an appeal from the decision
of the Court of Appeals (CA)[1] finding Leonard L. Bernardino (accused-appellant) guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu, penalized under Sections 15 and
16, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425 (R.A.
No. 6425), as amended[2]
(The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972). The
CA decision fully affirmed the judgments of conviction on the two charges rendered
by the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 56,
In Criminal Case No. 96-530, the
accused-appellant was accused of illegal possession of shabu under Section 16, Article III of R.A. No. 6425 under an Information
that states:
That on or about the 29th day of September, 1996, in the City of Angeles, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and under his control SHABU (Methamphetamine Hydrochloride) weighing approximately 215 grams, which (sic) is a regulated drug, without any authority whatsoever.
ALL CONTRARY TO THE LAW.[4]
In Criminal Case No. 96-533, the
accused-appellant, together with one Nestor C. Nemis, was charged with the illegal
sale of shabu, penalized under
Section 15, Article III of R.A. No. 6425, as follows:
That on or about the 29th day of September, 1996, in the City of Angeles, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually aiding and abetting one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and/or deliver one transparent plastic sachet of SHABU (methamphetamine Hydrochloride weighing approximately 5 grams to poseur-buyer without any authority whatsoever.
ALL CONTRARY TO THE LAW.
The accused-appellant alone stood
trial as his co-accused Nestor C. Nemis, after entering a plea of not guilty, jumped
bail. The accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges.[5] The two criminal cases were subsequently consolidated
and jointly tried.
THE ANTECEDENTS
At the trial, the prosecution and the
defense presented conflicting versions of the antecedent events. The prosecution’s
evidence, documentary[6]
and testimonial,[7] showed that
the accused-appellant was arrested in a buy-bust operation by the police. The
defense’s evidence, through documentary evidence[8]
and the testimonies of the accused-appellant and Salvador Bernardino (
The Prosecution’s Version
SPO2 Daniel C. Cadiz[9] (SPO2 Cadiz), one of the prosecution
witnesses, is an investigator and
intelligence operative of the Regional Operations Group based at P3,000.00
worth of shabu (equivalent to five
[5] grams)[10] that
the asset arranged with a certain Onat.
SPO2 Cadiz immediately relayed the
information to Chief Inspector Igmedio Cruz, Jr. who organized a buy-bust team.
SPO2 Cadiz testified that the subject of the buy-bust operation would be a man
riding a green Isuzu pick-up and that he (SPO2 Cadiz) was designated to act as the
poseur buyer. After a briefing, he
and the rest of the buy-bust team,[11]
together with two (2) civilian assets, proceeded to P3,000.00
marked money. The driver identified himself. At that point, the rest of the
buy-bust team converged on the pick-up; he saw that the accused-appellant was
accompanied in the pick-up by another man later identified as Nestor Nemis.
Like the accused-appellant, Nestor Nemis himself was arrested by the other
members of the buy-bust team. Both the
accused-appellant and Nestor Nemis were subjected to a body search and the
vehicle itself was searched.
In addition to the suspected shabu sold at the buy-bust and the P3,000.00
marked money recovered from the accused-appellant, SPO2 Cadiz’ body search of
the accused-appellant yielded the following items: (a) a white plastic bag
containing other two plastic bag search containing a suspected methamphetamine
hydrochloride known (shabu) weighing approximately 200 grams contained
in a white big size plastic bag labeled Uniwide Sales; (b) three plastic bags
each containing a quantity of suspected shabu with an approximate
weight of fifteen grams; and (c) money in the amount of P2,400.00.
The search of the glove compartment
of the pick-up yielded a partly burned aluminum foil with residue, a small
quantity of suspected shabu, and
three improvised tooters.
The arresting team forthwith took the
accused-appellant and Nestor Nemis to Camp Olivas while SPO2 Cadiz personally
took the confiscated items to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory
for examination.
SPO2 Cadiz identified in court the
marked money (marked with the initials “D.G.”) and the confiscated shabu through the markings which he made
in red ink (his own intitials “DCC”) on the Uniwide Sales plastic bag (Exhibit “E” with submarkings).[12]
Likewise, he identified the tooter and
aluminum foil (Exhibit “F” with submarkings) as the items seized from the
accused-appellant, which he marked in black ink with his initials, “DCC”;[13]
he marked the plastic bag containing the tooter and aluminum foil with his
signature and name.[14]
SPO2 Cadiz also testified that he marked the three (3) small transparent plastic sachets (Exhibits “G” to “G-3”)
and the plastic bag (Exhibit “H”) taken
from the accused-appellant with his name written in red ink and initials in
black ink.[15] He
testified that he made these markings immediately after the buy-bust operation
when he arrived at the Regional Special Operation Office at around
SPO4 Daniel M. Guillermo (SPO4
Guillermo)[20] is a
member of the Regional Special Operation Group of P3,000.00
as buy-bust money by his superiors; he marked these with “x” and his initials,
and thereafter gave the sum to SPO2 Cadiz, the designated poseur buyer.
He
further testified that at around
Daisy Babor[21] (Babor) is a forensic chemist at the PNP
Crime Laboratory,
Babor further testified that she
immediately conducted an examination of the submitted specimens; the tests she conducted
yielded positive results for shabu.[24] The
results of her examination are contained in the Initial Report dated
At her direct examination, Babor confirmed the
specimens she examined and identified them as the same specimens SPO2 Cadiz
turned over for examination.[26]
The Version of the Defense
The accused-appellant[27]
raised the defenses of denial and
frame-up. He claimed that he and Nestor Nemis were used as sacrificial
lambs in exchange for the freedom of one Aling Rosie who is reputed to be the
queen of shabu in
Because
of his arrest and maltreatment, the accused-appellant filed an administrative
complaint before the Ombudsman against the police officers who arrested him. The
accused-appellant further claimed that unidentified persons approached him who
offered to drop the criminal charges if he would drop his charges before the
Ombudsman.
The defense also presented
On
WHEREFORE,
in view of the foregoing considerations, judgment is hereby rendered as
follows:
1. In Crim. Case No. 96-530, the
Court finds the accused Leonardo L. Bernardino @ Onat guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of Violation of Section 16, Article III of Republic Act
6425, as amended and said accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of
Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of P 20,000.00 and to pay the costs.
x x x
2. In Crim. Case No. 96-533, finding
the accused Leonard L. Bernardino @ Onat guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Violation of Section 15, Article III of Republic Act 6425, as amended,
said accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Two (2)years, Four
(4) months and one (1) day of prision
correccional, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correctional, as maximum and to
pay one-half (1/2) of the costs.
x x x
For
lack of evidence to hold accused Nestor A. Nemis criminally liable for the
crime charged, said accused is hereby acquitted with cost de oficio.
SO
ORDERED.[30]
Pursuant to People v. Mateo,[31]
we transferred the case, initially appealed to us, to the CA. On P1 Million. The CA affirmed the RTC’s
ruling in Criminal Case No. 96-533.[32]
THE ISSUE
The sole issue raised in
this appeal is one of credibility – whether the lower courts committed a
reversible error in giving greater weight to the testimonies of the police
officers whose acts, according to the accused-appellant, were unfairly presumed
to be regular. The accused-appellant also contends that the lower courts erred
in disbelieving his version of the events and in disregarding his complaint
before the Ombudsman against the police officers for the frame-up they
contrived.
For our consideration is the question: is the
prosecution’s evidence sufficient to sustain the accused-appellant’s conviction
for the crimes charged?
THE COURT’S RULING
Although
the only issue raised in this appeal relates to the credibility of the
prosecution witnesses, we are driven to reexamine and
modify the decisions of the RTC and CA after going over the records of this
case, the transcript of stenographic notes, and the exhibits before us. We
undertake this in-depth review pursuant to our authority, in appeals of
criminal cases, to open up the whole case for review. We find, after this
review, that both courts failed to consider the crucial fact that the
accused-appellant was charged with and was convicted of two (2) crimes that,
although commonly relating to dangerous drugs, are nevertheless separate and
distinct from one another, particularly in terms of their elements and requisites.
Credibility of the Prosecution
Witnesses
The records show that in finding the accused-appellant liable for the
crimes charged, both the RTC and CA believed the testimonies of SPO2 Cadiz,
SPO4 Guillermo and forensic chemist Babor showing that the accused-appellant was arrested in a
legitimate entrapment operation where he was caught in the act of selling P3,000.00
worth of shabu (about 5 grams), and
where he was also found in the possession of 211.23 grams of shabu and drug paraphernalia.
In
believing the prosecution’s version of events, the RTC pointed to the lack of
evidence showing any ulterior motive or ill-will on the part of these
prosecution witnesses that would impel them to falsely testify against the
accused-appellant.[33] Likewise,
the RTC found their testimonies credible, trustworthy and reliable under the
presumption that these police officers have regularly performed their official
duties.[34]
On appeal, the CA disregarded the attacks on the prosecution witnesses’
credibility and ruled that the inconsistencies and discrepancies the
accused-appellant pointed out refer to trivial and inconsequential matters that do not pertain to the act constitutive of the offense charge.[35]
The CA also ruled that drug transaction conducted in the middle of the road is
not unusual, and took note that the sale of prohibited drugs to complete
strangers, openly and in public places, has become a common occurrence.[36]
Our
own independent assessment of the records gives us no reason to disturb the
findings on the manner of, and grounds leading to, the accused-appellant’s
arrest. We find the testimonies of SPO2
Cadiz and SPO4 Guillermo to be consistent with one another; they sufficiently and
clearly show how the accused-appellant committed the crimes charged. We likewise find no sufficient
evidence establishing any improper motive on their part to falsely impute the
charges against the accused-appellant. On the contrary, the accusation by the
accused-appellant that he and Nemis were used as sacrificial lambs to allow the
real drug offender to escape is unsupported by any evidence other than his
self-serving testimony. We also doubt the veracity of this claim considering that
the prosecution witnesses and the accused-appellant did not know each other prior
to the buy-bust operation.[37] We
do not find it likely that a person of sound disposition would willingly
falsely testify against a stranger and suffer the inconvenience and the rigors
of a criminal trial and the risk of exposing himself to possible criminal
prosecution for giving false testimony.
Both SPO4
Guillermo and SPO2 Cadiz were fully aware of the serious consequences of the
drug charges against the accused-appellant, yet they consistently identified
the accused-appellant as the person they arrested for illegal sale and illegal possession
of shabu in a buy-bust operation.[38]
They stood firm in their testimonies notwithstanding the administrative
complaint filed against them by the accused-appellant before the Ombudsman for
maltreatment, illegal detention and frame-up. Incidentally, the records show
that the Ombudsman dismissed the administrative complaint against them. [39]
Aside
from the lack of improper motive, the prosecution’s version of events is
corroborated by the prosecution’s documentary and real evidence.
First, the marked money that was given
to the accused-appellant during the buy-bust sale was presented during the
trial as evidence. This marked money -- consisting of three (3) pieces of P1,000.00
-- bore the mark “x” with the letters D.G.” identified by SPO4 Guillermo as the
markings he made in what was used as marked money in the buy-bust operation.[40]
SPO4 Guillermo testified that the letters “D.G.” stood for his initials.[41]
He testified, too, that this marked money was recovered from the
accused-appellant immediately after the buy-bust took place.[42]
SPO2 Cadiz testified that after the buy-bust, he recovered the marked money
from the accused-appellant who was holding it in his left hand.[43]
Second, SPO2 Cadiz testified
that their pre-operation briefing duly informed them that the subject of the
buy-bust operation would be a man riding
the green Isuzu pick-up.[44]
Both SPO2 Cadiz and SPO4 Guillermo testified that the accused-appellant arrived
at the designated area driving a green Isuzu pick-up and from there sold shabu to their female asset. The
accused-appellant duly admitted driving a vehicle of the same make, model and
color at the time of his arrest on
Lastly, a Confiscation Receipt,[45] made part of the records,
was signed by the
accuse-appellant where he acknowledged that the following items were confiscated
from him by the police at
(a) one (1) plastic bag labeled Uniwide Sales containing another two (2) transparent plastic bags with suspected shabu with the approximate weight of 201.04 grams;
(b) one (1) transparent plastic sachet containing suspected shabu weighing about 5 grams in weight;
(c) three (3) transparent plastic sachet with suspected shabu weighing about 15 grams;
(d) P3,000.00
marked money;
(e) P2,400.00;
(f) three (3) pieces of improvised tooter; and
(g) I[z]usu pick-up.
We have
consistently held, on the issue of credibility, that we give the
highest respect to the trial court’s evaluation of the testimonies of witnesses;
the trial court is in a better position than this Court to assess the
credibility of witnesses since it has direct access to and observes the
demeanor of these witnesses and their manner of testifying.[46] Thus,
the appellate courts will generally not disturb the
findings of the trial court unless the latter has plainly overlooked facts
of substance and value that, if considered, would affect the results of the
case.[47] We
find no compelling reason to deviate from this general rule in passing upon the prosecution’s version of events. In
fact, and as we indicated above, our own reading of the evidence on
record shows that it amply supports the RTC and CA factual findings.
The Defenses of Denial and Frame-up
Against the hard pieces of the
prosecution evidence pointing to the accused-appellant’s guilt, the latter
could only raise the defenses of denial and frame-up and cite the discrepancies
and the incredibility of the testimonies of SPO2 Cadiz and SPO4 Guillermo. He
claimed that these infirmities cast doubt on the testimonies’ evidentiary value
and, conversely, strengthen his own version of events.
The defenses of denial and frame-up are weak defenses that are viewed by the Court with
disfavor because “they can easily be feigned and
fabricated.”[48] In People v. Uy,[49] the Court explicitly expounded
on this view, as follows:
We are not unaware that in some instances law enforcers
resort to the practice of planting evidence to extract information or even to
harass civilians. However, like alibi,
frame-up is a defense that has been invariably viewed by the Court with
disfavor as it can easily be concocted [and] hence commonly used as a standard line
of defense in most prosecutions arising from violations of the Dangerous Drugs
Act. We realize the disastrous
consequences on the enforcement of law and order, not to mention the well being
of society, if the courts x x x accept in every instance this form of defense
which can be so easily fabricated. x x x
The present case is no exception to
what we have said above, as the accused-appellant failed to adduce clear and
convincing evidence against the positive, consistent and categorical prosecution
evidence pointing to his guilt of the crimes charged.
In this respect, the discrepancies the
accused-appellant points out, namely: whether both witnesses spoke to the
female asset prior to the buy-bust operation; whether the female asset knew the
full name of the accused-appellant; and whether the police kept a dossier on
the accused-appellant, all refer to
events which occurred prior to the
buy-bust operation. They are extraneous matters with no direct bearing on
the evidence establishing the elements of the crimes charged. The
inconsistencies, if any, refer to minor matters that enhance, rather
than destroy, the veracity of the witnesses’ testimonies; they serve to remove
any suspicion that these testimonies were contrived or rehearsed.[50] More importantly, these
discrepancies did not contest the categorical and consistent testimonies of
SPO2 Cadiz and SPO4 Guillermo and the other prosecution evidence on the
elements of the crimes charged.
Additionally, we reject the
accused-appellant’s argument that the lack of prior surveillance or test-buys
affected the integrity of the buy-bust operation. Although test-buys for dangerous
drugs provide assurance of the reliability of an informer’s tip, they are not
conditions sine qua non; their
absence does not affect the validity of a buy-bust operation and of the
credibility of police officers participating on the basis of an informer’s tip.
SPO4 Guillermo and SPO2 Cadiz duly justified both the lack of prior
surveillance and of an existing file on the accused-appellant, when they stood
by the trustworthiness and reliability of their asset whom they tried and
tested in previous operations;[51]
their familiarity with the female asset led the police to dispense with the
need for a prior surveillance or for test-buys.
We also reject the
accused-appellant’s argument on the alleged impossibility of the sale of shabu in a busy street between two
strangers who used two vehicles that were side by side each other. In the first
place, the records show that the transaction happened inside a subdivision and
not in a busy street. Even granting that
the place of the buy-bust was a busy street (which fact was not established),
the sale took place at night (at
The records further show that the
drug transaction was not conducted between two strangers. The accused-appellant
did not dispute knowing the female asset and admitted that he had previously gone
to the female asset’s place.
At any rate, we agree with the CA’s
observation that there was nothing unusual in drug transactions between
strangers. Previous cases relating to dangerous drug violations, in fact, support
this observation. A
case in point would be our ruling in People v. Chua[54]
where we said:
xxx the law does not prescribe as an element of
the crime that the vendor and vendee be familiar with each other. What matters
in a drug related case is not the existing familiarity between the seller and
the buyer, but their agreement and the acts constituting the same and delivery
of the prohibited drugs...
x x x
… [D]rug pushers do not confine their trade to
known customers; complete strangers are
accommodated provided they have the money to pay. Moreover, why a dealer would
trust a buyer, which is to say the motive behind a drug deal, is not an
essential element of drug-related offense.
A
Partial Modification of the Conclusion in the
RTC
and CA decisions is justified under the
circumstances
We mentioned earlier that certain
conclusions in convicting the accused-appellant were not supported by the lower
courts’ factual findings. We refer specifically to the lower courts’ failure to consider that the accused-appellant was charged with and
convicted of two district crimes that the prosecution had to prove separately
in terms of their respective elements.
Criminal Case No. 96-533 for selling shabu
In a successful
prosecution for illegal
sale of shabu, the concurrence of the
following elements must be present: (a) the identity of the buyer and the
seller, the object, and consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold
and the payment therefor.[55]
What is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place,
coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti or the very drugs the accused
sold.[56]
Case law teaches that a common issue
in drug cases involving buy-busts is the identity of the drugs allegedly sold: are
these the very same drugs presented in court? Case law also teaches that this
issue is commonly resolved by a scrutiny of the chain of custody of the recovered
drugs. In this case, while each and
every link in the chain of custody of the shabu
recovered from the accused-appellant was established through the
testimonial evidence of SPO2 Cadiz and forensic chemist Babor showing the
movements of the shabu from the time
of seizure, its marking at the police station, and its submission for
laboratory examination until its presentation in court, we find that the
prosecution failed to specifically identify the shabu that was actually sold at the buy-bust as among the shabu that were presented in court.
As shown by the evidence,
the prosecution theorized that the accused-appellant was arrested by virtue of
a legitimate entrapment operation where he was caught red-handed selling P3,000.00
worth of shabu or about five
(5) grams of shabu. In proving the sale, SPO2 Cadiz testified:
Q This motor
vehicle that arrived, what type of motor vehicle is this?
A When it was
nearing to our position, the female asset told me that the subject motor
vehicle was approaching and I hid myself at the back and then the motor vehicle
halted very near our car and made some sort of conversation or pleasantries.
Q Who are
these?
A The man and
our asset. When I heard the utterance, the statement mentioned by our asset “Sige,
[t]hank you,” that is the prearranged signal to mean that the marked money of P
3,000.00 previously given to the asset was already handed over to this man who
was later identified as Leonardo Bernardino and that the stuff was already in
the possession of our asset.
Q Upon hearing
this signal which you said, what did you do after that?
A I
immediately got off the vehicle with a draw handgun and arrested the driver who
was already holding the P 3,000.00 marked money on his left hand.[57]
He further
testified:
Pros. Santos (to the witness)
Q Mr. Witness,
in the last hearing of this case when you were called to testify on
direct-examination, you mentioned that you will be able to identify the shabu
that you confiscated in the possession of Leonard Bernardino, and also the
other stuff which you confiscated from Leonard Bernardino and Nemis at the
compartment of the vehicle, is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q Could you
tell us why would you be able to identify those?
A I place my
marking, sir, my name and initials, sit.
Q In all those
specimens?
A Yes, sir.
Q Showing to
you some specimen already identified in the last hearing by SPO[4] Daniel
Guillermo as Exhibits E-E-1 to E-2, Exhibits F,F-1, F-2 and F-3, Exhibits G,
G-1, G-2 to G-3, could you go over these exhibits and inform the Court if these
are the same shabu which you confiscated in the possession of the
accused in these cases and point to the marking that you made which you
testified a while ago that you put on these?
A Yes, sir,
these are the same items.[58]
x x x
PROS.
Q You also identified this plastic bag which you said you confiscated from the accused, could you point to us if it is the same shabu you confiscated, will you point to us the marking?
A My marking SPO2 Cadiz, sir, with my initials above the name in red ink.
PROS.
May we request, your Honor, that it be marked in evidence as Exhibit H and the markings made by the witness on the same be marked as Exhibit H-1.[59]
This testimony, however, failed to disclose and identify the shabu sold as distinguished from those found in the accused-appellant’s possession. SPO2 Cadiz identified on the witness stand Exhibits E, F and G (with their corresponding submarkings) and Exhibit H as the items confiscated from the accused-appellant.[60] However, in contrast with the prosecution’s declarations in the Formal Offer of Evidence,[61] Exhibit H was not categorically identified by SPO2 Cadiz as the shabu bought and sold at the buy-bust. Unlike the shabu in Exhibits E and G that SPO2 Cadiz clearly identified as the shabu taken from the accused-appellant’s possession, SPO2 Cadiz’ testimony with respect to the shabu marked as Exhibit H merely identified it as the plastic bag that was confiscated from the accused.[62]
This testimony should be read in
relation with his earlier testimony that he only saw the accused-appellant
holding the P3,000.00 marked money at the time of his arrest, not the shabu that was sold. Also, SPO2 Cadiz
previously testified that he only arrested the accused-appellant after the
pre-arranged signal was given by the confidential informant; he only heard and
did not actually see the sale. He failed to state that he seized the actual shabu sold and to identify the person from
whom the shabu sold was recovered. We cannot
overlook this evidentiary gap as it involves the identification of the shabu allegedly sold, as distinguished from the shabu found in the accused-appellant’s possession.
The lack of segregation between these
pieces of evidence for the two different crimes charged
is also very evident from an examination of the markings in the plastic sachets
of shabu seized from the
accused-appellant and the identification of the examined specimens in the
Initial Laboratory Report and Chemistry Report No. D-604-96. Nowhere is
the shabu sold specifically singled
out as the specimen for the crime of illegal sale of shabu. Thus, while forensic
chemist Babor duly identified and gave the results of the examinations she
made, her testimony merely referred to the specimens submitted by SPO2 Cadiz[63]
and could not have separately referred to the shabu illegally possessed
and that illegally sold. From this
perspective, no clear specific link exists between the examined specimen and
the shabu allegedly sold at the buy-bust except by inference – an
exercise that cannot be done in the absence of specific testimony identifying
the shabu sold. This evidentiary situation effectively
translates to the absence of proof of corpus
delicti, and cannot but lead us to conclude that no valid conviction
for the crime of illegal sale of shabu can result.
Criminal Case No. 96-530 for illegal
possession of shabu
In a prosecution for illegal
possession of shabu, the following
elements must be satisfactorily established: (a) the accused is found in
possession of a regulated drug; (b) the person is not authorized by law or by
duly constituted authorities; and (c) the accused has knowledge that the said
drug is a regulated drug.[64] We find that all the elements of this crime were
duly proven.
The records show that the
accused-appellant was found in actual possession of 211.23 grams of shabu after a warrantless search in an
arrest in flagrante delicto. As testified to by SPO2 Cadiz, the plastic
sachets of shabu were found in the
accused-appellant’s possession in the following manner:
Q When you
subjected Onat to body search, what happened then?
Witness
A I discovered
a white plastic bag containing other two plastic bags each containing a
suspected methamphetamine hydrochloride known as shabu weighing
approximately 200 grams contained in a white big size plastic bag labelled
Uniwide Sales from his camouflage pant[s] left lower portion pocket.
x x x
Q When you
discovered another shabu on the body of Bernardino, what did you do
then?
A I found
another three plastic bags each containing a quantity of suspected shabu
with an approximate weight of fifteen grams from his camouflage pant[s] left
side pocket x x x
Q What about
your other companions, what were they doing there?
A SPO4 Guillermo
after searching the person of Nestor Nemis, he opened the glo[v]e compartment
and found a partly burned aluminum foil with residue, a small quantity of
suspected shabu and three improvised tooter in the front compartment of
the Isuzu Pick-up.[65]
x x x
Q You also identified this plastic bag which you said you confiscated from the accused, could you point to us if it is the same shabu you confiscated, will you point to us the marking?
A My marking SPO2 Cadiz, sir, with my initials above the name in red ink.
PROS.
May we request, your Honor, that it be marked in evidence as Exhibit H and the markings made by the witness on the same be marked as Exhibit H-1.[66]
Actual possession exists when the drug is in the immediate physical
possession or control of the accused. In this case, the drugs were found inside
his clothing.[67] No
evidence was ever adduced showing that the accused-appellant had authority to
possess these regulated drugs.
Lastly, the surrounding circumstances
indicate the accused-appellant’s knowledge of the drugs in his possession. Knowledge, being an internal act, may be
presumed from the failure of the accused to explain why the drug was in a place
over which the accused exercised dominion and control.[68] In
this case, such explanation was glaringly lacking. The only explanation offered
– police frame-up – is, as discussed, a discredited one. Hence, knowing
possession of the shabu by the
accused-appellant is presumed under the circumstances.
In sum, we find no reversible error
committed by the RTC and CA in convicting the accused-appellant of illegal
possession of drugs. Section 16, Article III of R.A. No. 6425 as amended by
Section 16 of R.A. No. 7659, in relation
to Section 20 of R.A. No. 7659, imposes the penalty of reclusion perpetua
to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos against any person
caught in possession of 200 grams of shabu
or more.[69] This
penalty finds full application in the present case since the accused-appellant
was found in illegal possession of 211.23 grams of shabu. In the absence of any aggravating or mitigating
circumstances, the CA correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua conformably with Article 63 of the
Revised Penal Code. The fine of P1
Million Pesos imposed is also in accordance with the law.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision
dated
1.
In Criminal Case No. 96-530, accused-appellant Leonard L. Bernardino alias Onat is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of illegal possession of shabu
in violation of Section 16, Article III of R.A. No. 6425, as amended. He
is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua and to pay fine in the amount of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00).
2.
In Criminal Case No. 96-533, the accused-appellant is hereby ACQUITTED for illegal sale of shabu penalized under Section 15,
Article III of R.A. No. 6425 on the ground of reasonable doubt.
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONCHITA CARPIO-MORALES
Associate Justice
Acting
Chairperson
|
|
|
|
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice |
MARIANO C.
Associate Justice |
|
|
|
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
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.
CONCHITA
CARPIO-MORALES
Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief
Justice
* Designated
additional Member of the Second Division per Special Order No. 691 dated
** Designated
Acting Chairperson of the Second Division per Special Order No. 690 dated
[1] Dated September 30, 2005; rollo, pp. 3-17, penned by Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang with Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Associate Justice Monina Arevalo-Zeñarosa, concurring in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 00240.
[2] R.A. No. 7659.
[3]
Dated
[4]
[5] Orders
dated
[6]
Consisting of: (1) Money bills in the amounts of P3,000.00 and P2,400.00
(Exhibits A to A-20); (2) Initial Laboratory Examination Report (Exhibits B and
B-1); (3) Chemistry Report No. D-604-96 (Exhibits C to C-2); (4) Joint
Affidavit of Arrest (Exhibits D to D-3); (5) the shabu seized from the accused-appellant with the corresponding
markings (Exhibits E to E-2, G-G-3 and H to H-4); (6) the tooter and aluminum
foil with corresponding markings (Exhibits F to F-8); (7) Sketch prepared by
SPO2 Cadiz (Exhibits I and I-1); (8) Pictures depicting Nestor Nemis (Exhibits
J to J-2); (9) Request for Laboratory Examination dated Spetember 30, 1996
(Exhibit K); and (10) Formal Offer of Evidence; Exhibits, pp. 1-6.
[7] They are: (1) SPO2 Danilo C. Cadiz; (2) SPO4 Daniel
M. Guillermo; and (3) Forensic Chemist Daisy Babor.
[8] Among others: 1) Photograph of the house (Exhibit 1 with submarkings); (2) Sketch prepared by SPO2 Cadiz (Exhibit 2 with submarkings); (3) Complaint lodged before the Office of the Ombudsman (Exhibit 3); (4) Order of the RTC appearing on page 19 of the expediente (Exhibit 4); (5) Motion for the Release of the Bond of the panel used in picking up the aircon unit and photographs thereof (Exhibit 5 with submarkings); and (6) Judicial Affidavit of Atty. Rodolfo D. Mapile (Exhibit 6) .
[9] Direct
Examination; TSN,
[10] TSN,
[11] They are: SPO4 Daniel M. Guillermo, SPO1 Ronnie F. Sagum, SPO1 Antonio Bonaobra, and SPO1 Patrick Palisoc.
[12] TSN,
[13] TSN,
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18] Ibid.
[19]
[20] Direct
Examination; TSN,
[21] TSN,
[22]
[23] Ibid.
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27] Direct
Examination, TSN,
[28]
[29] TSN,
[30] Records, pp. 261-262.
[31] G.R.
Nos. 147678-87,
[32] Rollo, p. 17.
[33] CA Rollo, p. 28.
[34]
[35] Rollo, p. 11.
[36]
[37] TSN,
[38] TSN,
[39] TSN,
[40] TSN,
[41] Ibid.
[42] TSN,
[43] TSN,
[44]
[45] Dated
[46] People v.
[47] People
v. Flores, G.R. No. 123599,
[48] People
v. Ganenas, G.R. No. 141400,
[49] G.R.
No.129019,
[50] Ambait v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 164909,
[51] TSN,
[52] TSN,
[53]
[54] G.R.
No. 133789,
[55] People
v. Uy, G.R. No. 128046,
[56] People v. Garcia, supra.
[57] TSN,
[58] TSN,
[59]
[60]
[61] Exhibits, p. 4. The Formal Offer of Evidence shows that Exhibit H was offered to prove the existence of shabu the was subject of the buy-bust conducted by the NARCOM Officials against the accused-appellant and Nestor Nemis on September 29, 1996 subject of Criminal Case No. 96-533.
[62] Supra note 61, p. 8.
[63] TSN,
[64] People
v. Nuñez, G.R. No. 177148,
[65] TSN,
[66] TSN,
[67] People
v. Tira, G.R. No. 139615,
[68]
[69] SEC. 16. Possession or Use of Regulated Drugs. - The
penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five
hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person
who shall possess or use any regulated drug without the corresponding license
or prescription, subject to the provisions of Section 20 hereof. x x x
SEC. 20.
Application of Penalties, Confiscation and Forfeiture of the Proceeds or
Instruments of the Crime. - The
penalties for offenses under Sections 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 of Article II and
Sections 14, 14-A, 15 and 16 of Article III of this Act shall be applied if the
dangerous drugs involved are in any of the following quantities:
x x x
3. 200 grams or more of shabu or
methylamphetamine hydrochloride;
x x x
Otherwise,
if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalty
shall range from prision correccional to reclusion perpetua
depending upon the quantity.