THIRD
DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE
Plaintiff-appellee, - versus
- GRACE Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 184957 Present: QUISUMBING,*
J., CARPIO,
Chairperson, CHICO-NAZARIO, PERALTA,
and ABAD,** JJ. Promulgated: October 27, 2009 |
x - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D
E C I S I O N
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
For Review
under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court is the Decision[1]
dated 30 June 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02127, entitled
People of the Philippines v. Grace
Ventura y Natividad affirming the Decision[2]
rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 78, Malolos, Bulacan, dated
20 January 2006 in Criminal
Case No. 3244-M-2003, convicting Grace Ventura y Natividad (accused-appellant) of
violation of Section 5, in relation to Section 26, Article II of Republic Act No.
9165.[3] Accused-appellant was meted the penalty of
life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00.
In
an Information dated
The undersigned Asst. Provincial Prosecutor accuses Grace Ventura y Natividad and Danilo Ventura y Laloza @ Danny of Violation of Sec. 5, in relation to Sec. 26, Art. II of R.A. 9165, otherwise known as the “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,” committed as follows:
That on or about the 10th day of August 2003, in the City of Malolos, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law and legal justification, in conspiracy with each other, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, trade, deliver, give away, dispatch in transit and transport dangerous drug consisting of one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet of Methylamphetamine hydrochloride weighing 0.124 gram.[4]
During
arraignment, both accused entered “NOT GUILTY” pleas. Trial on the merits
ensued.
The
prosecution presented as witnesses Police Officer (PO) 2 Lorenzo Sarmiento (Sarmiento)
and PO3 Leonardo Magsakay (Magsakay). Accused-appellant
Grace Ventura and Bernard Ventura were witnesses for the defense.
PO2
Sarmiento, 37 years old, married, police officer and a resident of Sagrada
Familia, Hagonoy, Bulacan, and PO3 Magsakay, 40 years old, married, police
officer, and a resident of Sikatuna St., San Gabriel, Malolos, Bulacan,
testified to receiving information from concerned citizens of Sto.
On
P100.00 bills and one P50.00
bill. A police asset was also designated
as poseur-buyer. Both the buy-bust
operation and serial numbers of the bills to be used as buy-bust money were
recorded in the police blotter. Prior to
proceeding with the operation, the buy-bust team coordinated with the
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) and was assigned a control number for
the operation, with its pre-operational sheet signed by Hashim Maung of PDEA.
After
being briefed on the operation, the buy-bust team proceeded to the target site.
While the members of the team positioned
themselves at the alley leading towards the house of accused-appellant, the
police asset went directly to the gate of Danilo and accused-appellant. The gate was approximately ten meters away
from them.
From
where they were standing, the police officers saw the police asset knocking at
the gate. Thereupon, Danilo stepped out.
The police asset handed the marked money
to Danilo. Danilo closed the gate and went
inside the house. Moments later, Grace (accused-appellant)
went out and handed something to the police asset. Indicating the sale was consummated, the
police asset then executed his pre-arranged signal by touching his hair with
his right hand. The police officers rushed
towards the gate but accused-appellant noticed them and closed the gate. PO2 Sarmiento pushed open the gate. As PO2 Sarmiento was entering the compound, he
saw a man holding a “gulok.” It turned out that the man holding the “gulok” or bolo was one of Danilo’s sons,
Vergel Ventura, who attempted to hack PO2 Sarmiento. PO2 Sarmiento informed him
that he was a police officer, but Vergel still tried to hack him with the bolo
causing him to seek cover outside the gate while parrying the attack. PO3 Magsakay drew his gun and poked it at
Vergel, who ran inside the house. PO2
Sarmiento entered the gate and arrested Danilo, while PO2 Magsakay arrested
accused-appellant. PO1 Silla arrested
Vergel. After frisking Danilo, PO2
Sarmiento recovered from him the marked money used for the buy-bust operation. The police asset handed to PO2 Sarmiento the shabu he bought from accused-appellant. The Venturas were apprised of their rights and
informed of the offense committed. Thereafter, the suspects were brought to the
police station for further investigation.
The
testimony of forensic chemist Nellson Cruz Sta. Maria was dispensed with due to
the admission of the defense as to the existence and due execution of the
Request for Laboratory Examination, Chemistry Report No. D-606-2003, and the
specimens subject of the examination.
The laboratory examination conducted
by Police Inspector (P/Insp.) and Forensic Chemical Officer Nellson Cruz Sta.
Maria on the confiscated specimen yielded the following results:
SPECIMEN SUBMITTED:
A- One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with markings “LCS BB” containing 0.124 gram of white crystalline substance.
PURPOSE OF THE LABORATORY EXAMINATION:
To determine the presence of dangerous drug. x x x.
FINDINGS:
Qualitative examination conducted on the above-stated specimen gave POSITIVE result to the test for the presence of Methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. x x x.
CONCLUSION:
Specimen A contains Methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.[5]
The defense denied all material
allegations of the prosecution. Grace
On
cross-examination, accused-appellant testified that she was with her father at
their house in Sabitan at the time of arrest. She denied that her brother Vergel was at
their house at the time, but admitted there was a pending direct assault case
against him, for interfering in her and her father’s arrest. Accused-appellant admitted that it was only at
the time of their arrest that she came to know of the police officers who
arrested them, and that she and her father had no personal quarrel with the
policemen. Accused-appellant maintained that
the drugs allegedly taken from her possession were only planted by the police
officers. She admitted to not filing any
charges against them for the planting of evidence.
On
redirect, accused-appellant reiterated her testimony on direct examination that
she was merely taken by the police authorities so she could show them her
brother’s house. She again stated that
it was Bening, her brother, who had a misunderstanding with a certain Badong
for the latter’s failure to remit the boundary for the tricycle he was driving.
Bernard Ventura, alias “Bening,” 31
years old, married, a tricycle driver, and a resident of Sumapang Matanda,
Malolos, Bulacan, testified that he was the brother of accused-appellant. On
On
According full faith and credence to
the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the trial court found
accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No.
3244-M-2003 for violation of Section 5 in relation to Section 26, Article II of
Republic Act No. 9165, and sentencing her with the penalty of life imprisonment
and a fine of P500,000.00.[6]
Via a Notice
of Appeal,[7]
accused-appellant sought to appeal the RTC ruling with the Court of Appeals.
The case was docketed by the appellate court as CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02127.
The Court of Appeals gave more weight
to the prosecution’s claim that the entrapment operation in fact took place and
denied the appeal. Concurring in the factual findings of the trial court, the
appellate court resolved the appeal in this wise:
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed Decision of
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 78 of Malolos, Bulacan dated P500,000.00 is hereby AFFIRMED.[8]
Electing to seek a final recourse
before this Court, accused-appellant filed her Notice of Appeal[9] on
Accused-appellant filed a
supplemental brief while the prosecution adopted its appellee’s brief earlier
submitted to the Court of Appeals.
Accused-appellant seeks her
acquittal, praying for the reversal of the judgment of conviction in the illegal
drugs case. The defense claims that the
appellate court committed serious error in (a) finding the existence of an
unbroken chain in the custody of the shabu
subject of the buy-bust operation as well as its evidentiary value; and (b)
ruling that non-compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 is not
fatal.
At the heart of the defense argument
is that the defense failed to account for the chain of custody of the evidence.
The petition lacks merit.
The presumption of innocence[10]
of an accused in criminal cases is a most fundamental constitutional right that
must be upheld at all times. Applying the foregoing principle, it has been
established that the burden of proof is a duty borne by the prosecution.[11] Ei
incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat, i.e., “He who asserts, not he
who denies, must prove.” With this in
mind, conviction of an accused must stand on the weight and strength of the
evidence of the prosecution and cannot rest on the weakness of the defense.[12]
The straightforward testimonies of
the principal witnesses for the prosecution established that at around 3
o’clock in the afternoon of 10 August 2003, a group of police officers composed
of PO2 Sarmiento, PO3 Magsakay, Silla, and an asset, acting as poseur-buyer,
went to the house of Danilo and accused-appellant Grace Ventura. The team was to conduct a buy-bust operation on
instruction of the chief of police. Upon
reaching the area, PO2 Sarmiento and PO3 Magsakay positioned themselves near
the gate of accused-appellant. While
they were stationed in their respective places, the police asset went to
accused-appellant’s gate. He knocked
thereon. They then saw Danilo opening
the gate and stepping out. The asset
handed the marked money to Danilo, who then went inside and closed the gate. A few minutes later, accused-appellant opened
the gate and handed a plastic sachet containing shabu to the police asset.
They then saw the police asset
execute the pre-arranged signal by scratching his head, indicating that the
sale had been consummated. The police
officers then ran towards them, but accused-appellant managed to close the gate.
PO2 Sarmiento pushed open the gate, but
he was met by Vergel, the brother of accused-appellant, who was armed with a
bolo and about to hack him. Attempting
to parry the attacks on him, PO2 Sarmiento went out of the gate and closed it. PO3 Magsakay drew his firearm and pointed it
at accused-appellant’s brother, who ran towards the direction of the house, but
was accosted by PO1 Silla. PO3 Magsakay
arrested accused-appellant inside the house, while PO2 Sarmiento arrested
Danilo.
Danilo
was frisked upon being arrested at his house and the marked money, consisting
of three P100.00 bills and one P50.00 bill, was recovered from
him.[13] Immediately after the buy-bust operation, the
police asset turned over the plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance
to PO3 Magsakay at the crime scene.[14]
PO3
Magsakay and PO2 Sarmiento thereafter took accused-appellant Grace, Danilo,
Vergel, and the recovered evidence, i.e.,
marked money[15] and one
plastic sachet[16]
containing white crystalline substance, to the police station for further
investigation. At the police station,
PO2 Sarmiento marked the confiscated plastic sachet with “LCS BB,”
corresponding to the initials of his name, Lorenzo Cruz Sarmiento, and the word
“buy-bust.”[17] After
the sachet was marked with “LCS BB,” a request for laboratory examination was
prepared by Chief of Police and Police Superintendent Salvador I. Santos.[18] The sachet and request for laboratory
examination were thereafter brought to the Bulacan Provincial Crime Laboratory
Office of the Philippine National Police by PO3 Magsakay. The sachet was turned over by PO3 Magsakay to
PO1 Boluran of the Bulacan Provincial Crime Laboratory Office.[19] At the crime laboratory, Forensic Chemical
Officer and Police Inspector Nellson Cruz Sta. Maria conducted laboratory
examination on the 0.124 grams of white crystalline substance found inside the
plastic sachet. Per Chemistry Report No. D-506-2003, the tests performed on the
specimen yielded positive results for methylamphetamine hydrochloride.[20]
It is clear from the foregoing that the
identity of the seized item was duly preserved and established by the
prosecution. There is no doubt that the
sachet with the markings “LCS BB” and submitted for laboratory examination,
found to be positive for shabu, was
the same one sold to the poseur-buyer during the buy-bust operation.
In prosecutions involving the illegal
sale of drugs, what is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually
took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited or
regulated drug as evidence.[21] For conviction of the crime of illegal sale of
prohibited or regulated drugs, the following elements must concur: (1) the identities of the buyer and the
seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing
sold and the payment for it.[22] The testimonial and documentary pieces of evidence
adduced by the prosecution in support of its case against accused-appellant
establish the presence of these elements.
The two police officers, PO2 Sarmiento
and PO3 Magsakay, positively identified Danilo and Grace Ventura as the same
persons from whom their asset purchased the plastic sachet of shabu. As correctly found by the trial court, the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses narrated the events leading towards
the conclusion that accused-appellant conspired with deceased Danilo in selling
the methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu,
thus:
The act of accused Danilo in taking the marked money from the asset and the act of Grace in handing the plastic sachet of shabu to the asset unmistakably shows that they were in concert and both share a common interest in selling the illegal substance. x x x.[23]
There was no
need to present the poseur-buyer, since PO2 Sarmiento and PO3 Magsakay witnessed
the whole transaction, where the marked money was exchanged for one sachet of shabu. The poseur-buyer was clearly visible from
where PO2 Sarmiento and PO3 Magsakay were standing. In fact, the testimony of a lone prosecution
witness, as long as it is positive and clear and not arising from an improper
motive to impute a serious offense to the accused, deserves full credit. Non-presentation of the informer, where his
testimony would be merely corroborative or cumulative, is not fatal to the
prosecution's case.[24]
Moreover, the
testimonies of the two police operatives are aptly supported by the documentary
evidence presented by the prosecution, to wit: (a) Request for Laboratory
Examination;[25] (b)
Chemistry Report No. D-606-2003;[26]
(c) photocopy of the marked money consisting of three P100.00 bills and
one P50.00 bill;[27] (d)
the confiscated sachet containing shabu,
with markings “LCS BB”; and (e) the pre-operation report.[28]
Accused-appellant’s twin defenses of denial
and frame-up must fail.
Mere denial and allegations of
frame-up have been invariably viewed by the courts with disfavor, for these
defenses are easily concocted.[29] These are common and standard defenses in
prosecutions involving violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law. In a long line of cases, we have ruled that
the testimonies of police officers involved in a buy-bust operation deserve
full faith and credit, given the presumption that they have performed their
duties regularly.[30] This presumption can be overturned if clear
and convincing evidence is presented to prove either of two things: (1) that
they were not properly performing their duty, or (2) that they were inspired by
an improper motive.[31] Otherwise, the police officers’ testimonies on
the operation deserve full faith and credit.[32]
Accused-appellant failed to adduce
evidence to substantiate her claim of irregularity in the performance of duty on
the part of the police officers. This bare allegation of irregularity in the
performance of duty remained self-serving and bereft of any supporting
evidence.[33] Neither was any ill motive imputed on the part
of the police officers, thus failing to buttress the defense’s claim of
frame-up. Against the positive
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, accused-appellant’s plain denial of
the offenses charged, unsubstantiated by any credible and convincing evidence,
must simply fail.[34]
This Court realizes the disastrous consequences on the enforcement of law and
order, not to mention the well being of society, if the courts accept in every
instance this form of defense, which can be so easily fabricated. It is precisely for this reason that the legal
presumption that official duty has been regularly performed exists. If she were truly aggrieved, it is quite
surprising why accused-appellant did not even attempt to file a criminal or an administrative
complaint, e.g., for planting drugs,
against the arresting officers. Such
inaction runs counter to the normal human conduct and behavior of one who feels
truly aggrieved by the act complained of.[35] The totality of the evidence points to the
fact of the sale of the prohibited drug, with the prosecution witnesses clearly
identifying accused-appellant as the offender.
Accused-appellant asserts that the
police officers failed to account for the chain of custody of the seized item
alleged to be shabu.
Contrary to accused-appellant’s
claim, there is no broken chain in the custody of the seized item, found to be shabu, from the time the police asset
turned it over to PO3 Magsakay, to the time it was turned over to the investigating
officer, and up to the time it was brought to the forensic chemist at the PNP
Crime Laboratory for laboratory examination.
The procedure for the custody and
disposition of confiscated, seized and/or surrendered dangerous drugs, among
others, is provided under Section 21, paragraph 1 of Article II of Republic Act
No. 9165, as follows:
(1) The apprehending officer/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.
Section 21(a), Article II of the
Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165, which implements
said provision, stipulates:
(a) The apprehending officer/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: x x x Provided, further that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.
Under the same proviso, non-compliance with the stipulated
procedure, under justifiable grounds, shall not render void and invalid such
seizures of and custody over said items, for as long as the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending officers.
Clearly, the
purpose of the procedure outlined in the implementing rules is centered on the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized items. The testimony
of PO2 Sarmiento outlines the chain of custody of the confiscated item, i.e., sachet of shabu:
Q. And you said that the shabu, plastic sachet was recovered from whom?
A. The police asset immediately handed to me.
Q. What did you do with the plastic sachet that was handed by your police asset to you?
A. At the station, I placed markings, prepared the request for laboratory examination.
Q. What marking did you place on the plastic sachet?
A. BB with initial LCS.
Q. What do you mean by BB?
A. Buybust.
Q. LCS?
A. My initial.
Q. If this plastic sachet will be shown to you, will you be able to identify the same?
A. Yes, sir. This is the shabu we bought from them.
Q. We move that the plastic sachet identified by the witness be marked as Exh. B.
COURT
Mark it.
FISCAL
You said you requested for an examination of the plastic sachet of shabu, can you tell us what was the result of the examination?
A. I have read from the result it was positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride.
Q. I am showing you the request and the result, tell us if these are the same documents you are referring to?
A. This is the request for laboratory examination.
Q. We move that the request for laboratory examination be marked as Exh. F and the findings or result as Exh. G.
COURT
Mark them.[36]
Corroborating
the statements of PO2 Sarmiento, PO3 Magsakay testified to what was done to the
recovered sachet alleged to be containing shabu:
Q. What about Grace Ventura and Danilo Ventura, what happened to them?
A. I arrested Grace Ventura and PO2 Sarmiento arrested Danilo Ventura.
Q. What happened when they were arrested?
A. PO2 Sarmiento recovered the marked money from Danilo Ventura.
Q. Was that all that were recovered from these 2 subjects?
A. The police asset gave the specimen and the bolo.
Q. What else?
A. No more.
Q. When the persons of the accused were restrained and all the evidences were gathered, what finally did you do?
A. We informed them that they violated Sec. 5 of R.A. 9165 for selling of illegal drugs and we also informed them of their constitutional rights.
Q. After that what did you do with them?
A. Grace Ventura, Danilo Ventura and Vergel Ventura were brought to the police station for further investigation.
Q. What did you do with the specimen?
A. We prepared a request for laboratory examination and the request for drug test.
Q. Before you prepared those requests, what did you do with those documents in order to distinguish it to the other shabu that were recovered from the operation?
A. We placed the marking.
Q. And the marking that you placed?
A. The initial of PO2 Sarmiento.
Q. Which happened to be in what letters?
A. LCS.
Q. And later did you come to know the findings of the forensic chemist of the crime laboratory?
A. Positive for shabu and positive for drug test.
x x x x
Q. You claimed also that you recovered one sachet of shabu as a result of the operation. Attached to the record is a plastic sachet containing of (sic) what appears to be white crystalline substance, what relation has this to the one that you claimed as the shabu sold to your group?
A. This is the same.
PROS. MEDRANO:
It was already marked as Exh. “E”. We pray that the marking placed therein be submarked as “E-1.”
COURT:
Mark them.
PROS. MEDRANO:
Q. You made mention of a request made by your unit to the PNP Crime Laboratory. I’m showing to you such document please confirm to us if this is the same document that you made mention of?
A. Yes, sir. This is the one. It was previously marked as Exh. “F.” We pray that the stamp mark RECEIVED of the PNP Crime Laboratory be submarked as “F-1.”[37]
All
documentary, testimonial, and object pieces of evidence, including the markings
on the plastic sachet containing the shabu,
prove that the substance tested by the forensic chemist, whose laboratory tests
were well-documented, was the same as that taken from accused-appellant. The foregoing evidence established and
preserved the identity of the confiscated shabu.
Moreover, the integrity of the evidence
is presumed to be preserved, unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will,
or proof that the evidence has been tampered with.[38] Accused-appellant, in this case, bears the
burden to make some showing that the evidence was tampered or meddled with, to
overcome a presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public
officers and a presumption that they properly discharged their duties.
In the case at bar, the evidence
clearly shows that accused-appellant was involved in the buy-bust
operation. Having been caught in flagrante delicto, accused-appellant’s
participation cannot be doubted.
Following the provisions of Section 5
in relation to Section 26 of Article II, Republic Act No. 9165, the illegal sale
of prohibited or regulated drugs is penalized with life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00
to P10,000,000.00. The statute,
in prescribing the range of penalties imposable, does not concern itself with
the amount of dangerous drug sold by an accused.
Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165
stipulates:
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.
Section 26 of the same Act provides:
Section 26. Attempt or Conspiracy. – Any attempt or conspiracy to commit the following unlawful acts shall be penalized by the same penalty prescribed for the commission of the same as provided under this Act:
(a) Importation of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical;
(b)
(c) Maintenance of a den, dive or resort where any dangerous drug is used in any form;
(d) Manufacture of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical; and
(e) Cultivation or culture of plants which are sources of dangerous drugs.
Applying the foregoing provisions of
Republic Act No. 9165, the penalty imposed by the RTC, as affirmed by the Court
of Appeals, is proper.
There being no mitigating or
aggravating circumstances attending accused-appellant’s violation of the law,
the penalty to be imposed is life imprisonment. Considering that the weight of the shabu confiscated from accused-appellant
is 0.124 gram, the amount of P500,000.00 imposed by the court a quo, being in accordance with
law and upheld by the appellate court, is
similarly sustained by this Court.
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the Court of Appeals Decision dated 30 June 2008 in CA-G.R.
CR-HC No. 02127, affirming the Decision promulgated by the Regional Trial Court
of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 78, in Criminal Case No. 3244-M-2003, finding
accused-appellant Grace Ventura y Natividad guilty beyond reasonable doubt of selling
0.124 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a prohibited drug, in violation of Section 5 in relation to
Section 26, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, and imposing upon her the
penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00),
is hereby AFFIRMED.
In the service of her sentence,
accused-appellant Grace Ventura y Natividad, who is a detention prisoner, shall
be credited with the entire period during which she has undergone preventive
imprisonment.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate
Justice |
WE
CONCUR:
Associate Justice
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO
Associate Justice Chairperson |
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate Justice
|
|
|
|
|
ROBERTO A. ABAD 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.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
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
* Per Special Order No. 755, dated
** Per Special Order No. 753, dated
[1] Penned
by Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang with Associate Justices Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos
and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, concurring; rollo,
pp. 2-17.
[2] Penned
by Judge Gregorio S. Sampaga; records, pp.
236-245.
[3] Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
[4] Records,
p. 2.
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8] Rollo, pp. 16-17.
[9]
[10] 1987
Philippine Constitution, Article III, Section 14(2).
[11] People v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 172116,
[12] People v. Corpuz, 459 Phil. 100, 112
(2003).
[13] TSN,
[14] TSN,
[15] Exhibits
A-D; Records, p. 37.
[16] TSN,
[17] TSN,
[18] Records,
p. 25.
[19]
[20]
[21] Ching v. People, G.R. No. 177237, 17
October 2008, 569 SCRA 711, 724; People
v. Dilao, G.R. No. 170359, 27 July 2007, 528 SCRA 427, 442.
[22] People v. Capalad, G.R. No. 184174, 7
April 2009, citing People v. Naquita, G.R. No. 180511, 28 July 2008, 560 SCRA
430, 451.
[23] Records,
p. 244.
[24] People v. Abelita, G.R. No. 96318,
[25] Records,
p. 25.
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29] People v.
[30] People v. Mateo, G.R. No. 179478,
[31] People v. Valencia, 439 Phil. 561, 568 (2002),
citing People v. Medenilla, 407 Phil.
461, 474 (2001); People v. Lee, 407
Phil. 251, 260 (2001); People v. Mustappa,
404 Phil. 888, 898 (2001).
[33] People v. Dumlao, G.R. No. 181599,
[34] People v. Capalad, G.R. No. 184174,
[35] People v. Ahmad, 464 Phil. 848, 870 (2004).
[36] TSN,
[37] TSN,
[38] People v. Agulay, G.R. No. 181747,