Republic of
the
SUPREME COURT
THIRD DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, -
versus - LEONARDO RUSIANA y BROQUEL, Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 186139 Present: CARPIO, J.,
Chairperson, CARPIO MORALES,* VELASCO, JR., PERALTA, and Promulgated: October 5, 2009 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
VELASCO, JR., J.:
This
is an appeal from the Decision dated December 28, 2007 of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02347, which affirmed the March 31, 2006 Decision in
Criminal Case No. 02-0678 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 275 in Las
Piñas City. The RTC convicted
accused-appellant Leonardo Rusiana of violation of Section 5, Article II of
Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 or the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
An
Information was filed against accused-appellant, alias “Unad,” as follows:
That on or about the 12th day of August 2002, in the City of Las Piñas, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell, deliver, give away to another, distribute or transport 0.04 gram of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[1]
Upon his arraignment,
accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the offense charged.
The Prosecution’s Version of Facts
During
trial, the prosecution presented PO2 Jerome Mendoza and PO2 Wilson Paule as
witnesses. It dispensed with the testimony of Forensic Chemist Abraham Tecson when
it was stipulated that he would testify in accordance with Exhibits “C,” “D,”
“G,” “H,” and “H-1,” qualified by the fact that he had no personal knowledge as
to where and from whom the subject drugs were recovered.[2]
PO2 Rufino Dalagdagan’s testimony was likewise dispensed with, since the Investigation
Report (Exhibit “B”) was admitted by the parties during the pre-trial.
PO2
Mendoza testified that at about 9:00 in the evening on August 12, 2002, he was
at his office with fellow officers Tuldanes, Castor, Paule, and Dantes. Someone arrived and informed PO2 Paule of a
certain Unad’s illegal drug activities. PO2 Paule reported the information to Police
Inspector Raquion. The resulting buy-bust team created was composed of Police
Inspector Dantes, PO2s Tuldanes, Paule, Castor, Dolleton, and
The
team proceeded to Manukan in Las Piñas past 9:00 p.m. PO2 Paule and the
informant went to Unad’s house. The
informant called Unad, who met with them outside. PO2 Paule exchanged the marked PhP 100 bill
with suspected shabu from Unad. PO2 Paule then introduced himself as a police
officer, which made Unad try to resist. He
was caught by PO2 Paule while running back to his house and was frisked. The marked money and another six (6) plastic
sachets were found on his person. Two other
men were found in his house, one of whom threw a sachet. The man was likewise arrested. Back at the
office, all six sachets were marked by the investigator on duty, PO2 Dalagdagan,
with the initials “LBR” and numbered from 1 to 6.[3]
PO2
Paule, who acted as poseur-buyer, corroborated PO2 Mendoza’s testimony. He
testified that he was the one who cornered Unad when he tried to resist and recovered
the plastic sachets and buy-bust money from him.[4]
Version of the Defense
The
defense witnesses comprised accused-appellant, Susan Camposano, Aileen Badoy,
and Celso Ramirez.
According
to accused-appellant, he was home on the night of the supposed buy-bust
operation against him. He was tending the store and watching television with
his three children when Police Officers Paule, Mendoza, and Dalagdagan
introduced themselves. They poked their guns and told him they were searching
for shabu. He was familiar with the
three police officers as he had previously been detained on a carnapping charge
that was eventually dismissed. He denied
that the three were able to buy shabu
from him.[5]
Camposano,
accused-appellant’s mother-in-law, testified that she was likewise home on the
night of the alleged buy-bust operation. At one point during the evening, she
followed her grandchildren, who were delivering food to accused-appellant’s
house. While there, she saw two persons named “Susie” and “Padre” as well as
four police officers. She then witnessed accused-appellant being held and
beaten. Two of the officers also broke down the door to the bedroom and stole
the VHS player and some hats on the wall. The officers instructed her to leave and
later handcuffed accused-appellant along with “Susie” and “Padre.”
Badoy,
Camposano’s 15-year old grandchild, and Ramirez, accused-appellant’s stepson,
corroborated Camposano’s testimony.
After
trial, the RTC decided against accused-appellant. The dispositive portion of its
Decision reads:
WHEREFORE,
judgment is rendered finding Leonardo Rusiana y Broquel @ Unad GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of Violation of Sec. 5, Art. II. of R.A. 9165 and hereby
sentenced to suffer the penalty of Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00
and to pay the cost.
SO ORDERED.[6]
In
his appeal before the CA, accused-appellant claimed that the trial court erred
in giving credence to the evidence of the prosecution. He averred that the
prosecution was not able to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Ruling of the CA
The appellate court affirmed the
challenged decision of the RTC. The CA
agreed with the RTC that the elements in the crime of illegal sale of drugs
were adequately proved. It gave no merit
to accused-appellant’s argument that the chain of custody over the evidence was
broken. It likewise found the defense of
frame-up lacking in merit, as accused-appellant was not able to show convincing
evidence that the police officers involved in the buy-bust did not perform
their duties in a regular and proper manner, or that they were harboring ill
motives against him. The dispositive
portion reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the March 31, 2006 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas, in Criminal Case No. 02-0678, is hereby AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Section 13(c), Rule 124 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure as amended by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC dated September 28, 2004, which became effective on October 15, 2004, this judgment of the Court of Appeals may be appealed to the Supreme Court by notice of appeal filed with the Clerk of Court of the Court of Appeals.
SO ORDERED.[7]
On
January 16, 2008, accused-appellant filed his Notice of Appeal of the CA
Decision.
On
March 11, 2009, this Court required the parties to submit supplemental briefs
if they so desired.
On
May 18, 2009, the People, represented by the Solicitor General, manifested that
it was no longer filing a supplemental brief.
On
June 3, 2009, accused-appellant filed his Supplemental Brief[8]
raising an additional assignment of error.
Issues
I
WHETHER THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION WHICH FAILED TO OVERTURN THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE IN FAVOR OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
II
WHETHER THE COURT A
QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED
NOTWITHSTANDING THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT.
This Court’s Ruling
In calling for an acquittal, the defense claims that there were gaps in the chain of
custody of the shabu allegedly seized
from accused-appellant, raising doubts as to the ownership of the shabu. It asserts that the non-presentation of PO2
Dalagdagan as prosecution witness resulted in the identity of the prohibited
drug being insufficiently established. Citing
PO2 Paule and Mendoza’s testimonies, the defense claims that since the
apprehending officers were not the ones who placed the markings on the shabu immediately after its seizure, there
is doubt as to whether this was the one presented during trial. The prosecution also allegedly relied on its
self-serving statements in establishing the link between accused-appellant and
the shabu that was recovered. Since the frame-up of accused-appellant is,
according to the defense, a probability, the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official functions could not overthrow the presumption of
innocence to which accused-appellant is entitled.
The
appeal is, thus, centered on the contention that the integrity of the subject shabu was not ensured and its identity
was not established with moral certainty.
Sufficiency of Evidence
Jurisprudence dictates that
conviction can be had in a prosecution for illegal sale of regulated or
prohibited drugs if the following elements are present: (1) the identity of the
buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery
of the thing sold and the payment for it.
What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took
place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti of the crime.[9] We hold that these elements have been
satisfied by the prosecution’s evidence.
Trial
courts are our eyes. They have the distinct advantage of observing the demeanor
and conduct of witnesses during trial. Absent any showing that certain facts of
relevance and substance bearing on the elements of the crime have been
overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied by a trial court, we must defer to
its findings.[10] As found by the trial court and affirmed by
the CA, the police officers who testified gave a straightforward narration of
the buy-bust operation. We see no circumstance contradicting this finding.
Chain of Custody Requirement
In
People v. Cortez,[11]
this Court held that although ideally the prosecution should offer a perfect
chain of custody in the handling of evidence, “substantial compliance with the
legal requirements on the handling of the seized item” is sufficient. Behind
this is an acknowledgment that the chain of custody rule is difficult to comply
with. Hence, exceptions must be recognized, as indeed the Implementing Rules
and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 does.[12] On
its own, a non-compliance with Sec. 21 of RA 9165 will not invalidate an
accused’s arrest or a seizure made in drug cases. What should be of importance is “the
preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as
the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of
the accused.”[13]
For
reference, we reproduce the testimony of PO2 Paule here:
Q What I am asking you is what did you do with the items that [Unad] handed to you after you have arrested him?
A I turned [it over] to our Duty Investigator PO2 Rufino Dalagdagan.
Q How about the buy-bust money and the other plastic sachets that you confiscated from him, what did you do with those items?
A I turned it over to PO2 Rufino Dalagdagan, sir.
Q Now, what did PO2 Rufino Dalagdagan do with the buy-bust money and the shabu that was sold to you by [Unad] after receiving it from you?
A PO2 Rufino Dalagdagan put markings on it, sir.
Q What mark did PO2 Dalagdagan do on the item subject of the buy bust operation?
A He put markings of LBR 12 August 2000.
Q Now, do you know of the real name of alias [Unad]?
A Yes, sir.
Q What is the full name of alias [Unad]?
A Leonardo B. Rusiana, sir.[14]
x x x x
Q Now, the shabu that was sold to you by Leonardo B. Rusiana, if you will again see it will you be able to identify it?
A Yes, sir.
Q I am showing to you a x x x white mailing envelope marked as Exhibit “H” for the prosecution. Kindly retrieve the items inside that white mailing envelope and pick out [from] the contents thereof, the plastic sachet which according to you was handed to you by Leonardo B. Rusiana during the buy-bust operation[.]
A Yes, sir, this is the one.
Court Interpreter
And the witness is referring to Exhibit “H-1.”[15]
As
gleaned from PO2 Paule’s testimony, the chain of custody over the shabu was
preserved. It was established by the prosecution, as follows: (1) plastic
sachets were seized by PO2 Paule from accused-appellant; (2) PO2 Paule turned
the items over to PO2 Dalagdagan, who marked each item with the initials “LBR”;
(3) a Request for Laboratory Examination was then made by Police Senior
Inspector Vicente V. Raquion; and (4) the items were examined by Forensic
Chemist Abraham Tecson, and his findings documented in Chemistry Report No.
D-432-02 showed that the specimens tested positive for shabu. These links in the
chain are undisputed; the integrity of the seized drugs remains intact.
The
presentation of PO2 Dalagdagan to establish the identity of the drugs seized is
no longer necessary, as it was even stipulated during pre-trial that the
existence of the Investigation Report (Exhibit “B”) which he prepared was
admitted by accused-appellant.[16] During trial, it was also stipulated by the
parties that PO2 Dalagdagan’s testimony would be in accordance with said
Investigation Report.[17] While the presentation of the testimonies of
all those who handled the illegal drugs would be ideal, one of the custodians
or links in the chain was not presented by agreement of the parties in the case
at bar. The prosecution cannot be
faulted for its presentation of evidence as it was willing to present PO2
Dalagdagan. People v. Rivera[18] is
particularly instructive in this respect:
The non-presentation as witnesses of other persons such as the other police officers forming a buy-bust team is not a crucial point against the prosecution since the matter of presentation of witnesses by the prosecution is not for the court to decide. It is the prosecution which has the discretion as to how to present its case and it has the right to choose whom it wishes to present as witnesses. Moreover, the testimony of a single prosecution witness, if credible and positive and satisfies the court as to the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, is enough to sustain a conviction.
As
jurisprudence has shown, what is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items,[19] a
requisite present in the instant case.
The documentary and testimonial evidence, taken together, presented a
clear buy-bust operation and satisfied the requisites for a prosecution of
illegal sale of drugs.
In
giving credence to the prosecution’s presentation of the unbroken chain of
custody of the illegal drugs, we adhere to the rule that unless there is clear
and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by
any improper or ill motive to falsely charge accused-appellant of a serious
offense, or were not properly performing their duty, their testimonies on the
operation deserve full faith and credit.[20] It must be noted that no complaints were filed
against the police officers for their alleged frame-up of accused-appellant. But instead, the defense presented
self-serving evidence from accused-appellant’s close relatives. To our mind, then, the presumption of
regularity in the performance of duties by the police officers must be upheld
and accused-appellant’s conviction affirmed.
Pecuniary Liability
RA
9165 provides that the unauthorized sale of shabu
carries with it the penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging
from PhP 500,000 to PhP 10 million. The
trial court, thus, correctly sentenced accused-appellant to life imprisonment
and fined him PhP 500,000.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The CA Decision in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02347
finding Leonardo Rusiana y Broquel guilty of illegal sale of drugs is AFFIRMED.
SO
ORDERED.
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES 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
[7] Rollo, p. 9. Penned by Associate Justice Vicente Q. Roxas and concurred in by Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao and Ramon R. Garcia.
[10] See People v. Darisan, G.R. No. 176151, January 30, 2009; citing People v. Nicolas, G.R. No. 170234, February 8, 2007, 515 SCRA 187, 204.
[12] SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment.—The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(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; Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and 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 x x x.
[13] Cortez, supra note 11; citing People v. Naquita, G.R. No. 180511, July 28, 2008, 560 SCRA 430, 448.