THIRD
DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus – ALFREDO LAZARO, JR. a.k.a JUN LAZARO y AQUINO, Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R.
No. 186418 Present: CARPIO MORALES,*
J., CHICO-NAZARIO, Acting Chairperson,
NACHURA, LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO,** and ABAD,***
JJ. Promulgated: October
16, 2009 |
x - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - -x
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
For
review is the Decision[1]
dated 18 July 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02258 which
affirmed with modification the Decision[2]
dated 27 April 2006 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 61, Baguio City,
in Criminal Cases No. 23227-R, No. 23228-R and No. 23229-R, finding accused-appellant Alfredo Lazaro, Jr. a.k.a Jun Lazaro y Aquino guilty of
illegal sale, possession and use of methamphetamine
hydrochloride, popularly known as shabu,
under Sections 5, 11, and 15, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise
known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The
facts gathered from the records are as follows:
On
Criminal Case No. 23227-R
The undersigned
accuses ALFREDO LAZARO, JR. a.k.a JUN LAZARO y AQUINO for VIOLATION OF SECTION
5, ARTICLE II OF REPUBLIC ACT 9165 otherwise known as the COMPREHENSIVE
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, committed as follows:
That on June 15,
2004, in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, x x x, and without authority of law,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, distribute
and/or deliver One (1) small heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride known as Shabu
in the amount of P3,000.00 [should be P300], weighing 0.05 gram to
Poseur Buyer SPO1 Dennis G. Indunan, knowing fully well that said
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride known as Shabu
is a dangerous drug, in violation of the aforementioned provision of law.[3]
Criminal Case No. 23229-R
The undersigned
accuses JUN LAZARO y AQUINO for VIOLATION OF SECTION 11, ARTICLE II OF REPUBLIC
ACT 9165 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
committed as follows:
That on June 15,
2004, in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused x x x, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and control One (1) small
heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride
known as Shabu weighing 0.04 gram, a
dangerous drug, without the corresponding license or prescription in violation
of the aforecited provision of law.[4]
On
Criminal Case No. 23228-R
The undersigned
accuses JUN LAZARO for VIOLATION OF SECTION 15 [ARTICLE II] OF REPUBLIC ACT
9165 [otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002],
committed as follows:
That on or about
the 15th day of June, 2004, in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously use Dangerous Drugs
particularly Methamphetamine per the result of a Qualitative Examination
conducted on the urine sample taken from him, in violation of the aforecited
provision of law.[5]
Subsequently,
these cases were consolidated. When
arraigned on
The
prosecution presented as witnesses Police Senior Inspector Hordan T. Pacatiw,
Senior Police Officer (SPO) 1 Dennis G. Indunan, SPO1 Emerson A. Lingbawan and
PO3 Paulino A. Lubos, all of whom are members of the Philippine National Police
and were assigned at the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group, Anti-Illegal
Drugs Team unit,
On
P100.00) bills to be utilized as buy-bust money. SPO1 Indunan marked the monies with “DG-06-15-04.”
Thereafter, the team coordinated the planned buy-bust operation with the
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA).
At
around P300.00) worth of shabu. Appellant knocked at the door of a room in the balcony and
called a certain “Bong.” Bong is
appellant’s brother whose full name is Ferdinand Bong Lazaro. A man opened the door and handed a green box
to appellant. Appellant opened the green box, took a plastic sachet from it,
handed the plastic sachet to SPO1 Indunan, and demanded payment from the
latter. After examining the contents of the plastic sachet and believing that
the same contained shabu, SPO1
Indunan gave the three marked one hundred peso bills to appellant. At this juncture, SPO1 Indunan removed his
sunglasses and placed it in his pocket as pre-arranged signal to the other
members of the team.
The
other members of the team rushed to the crime scene and identified themselves
as police officers. Appellant tried to
resist arrest but he was subdued by the team. Inspector Pacatiw then apprised appellant of
his constitutional rights. Afterwards, SPO1
Indunan frisked and recovered from appellant the buy-bust money and the green
box which contained another plastic sachet with white substance. SPO1 Indunan marked with “DG-06-15-04” the
plastic sachet containing white substance sold to him by appellant, as well as
the plastic sachet with white substance found inside the green box.
Meanwhile,
Inspector Pacatiw knocked at the door of a room on the balcony and called on Bong
to open the door but to no avail. Inspector
Pacatiw and some members of the team then forcibly opened the door. Although the
team found no one inside the room, they, however, subsequently saw a man, whom
they believed to be Bong, running down the basement of the house and exiting
through its back door. The man then
disappeared.
Thereafter,
the team discovered and seized at the third floor of the house several drug paraphernalias.
The team made a written inventory on
said paraphernalias, as well as the plastic sachet sold by appellant to SPO1
Indunan and the plastic sachet recovered in appellant’s possession, in the
presence of representatives from media, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the
barangay. Said representatives signed the inventory
document on the seized items. Inspector
Pacatiw took custody of the said seized items.
The
team immediately brought appellant, as well as the items seized, to the office
of the CIDG,
The
prosecution also adduced documentary and object evidence to buttress the
testimonies of its witnesses, to wit: (1) joint affidavit of the arresting
officers signed by Inspector Pacatiw, SPO1 Lingbawan and PO3 Lubos (Exhibit A);[8]
(2) affidavit of the poseur-buyer signed by SPO1 Indunan (Exhibit B);[9]
(3) booking sheet and arrest report for appellant (Exhibit C);[10]
(4) request to conduct laboratory examination on the two plastic sachets
recovered from appellant which was signed by Superintendent Bolabola;[11]
(5) request for drug test on appellant signed by Superintendent Bolabola
(Exhibit D);[12] (6)
request for physical examination on appellant signed by Superintendent Bolabola
(Exhibit E);[13] (7)
medico-legal certificate signed by Dr. Daileg (Exhibit E-1);[14]
(8) chemistry report on the drug test of appellant signed by Forensic Analyst
Albon (Exhibit H);[15]
(9) chemistry report on the content of plastic sachet sold by appellant to SPO1
Indunan and the content of the plastic
sachet recovered from possession of appellant signed by Forensic Analyst Albon
(Exhibit I);[16] (10) inquest
disposition issued by the Office of the City Prosecutor, Baguio City (Exhibit
J);[17] (11)
written inventory on the items seized from appellant signed by representatives
from the media, DOJ and barangay
(Exhibit M);[18] (12)
coordination sheet with the PDEA (Exhibit N);[19]
(13) receipt of the items seized from appellant signed by the members of the
buy-bust team (Exhibit O);[20]
(14) two plastic sachet containing shabu
sold by and recovered from the possession of appellant (Exhibit K);[21]
and (15) buy-bust money confiscated from appellant (Exhibit L).[22]
For
its part, the defense proffered the testimonies of appellant and his father,
namely Alfredo Lazaro, Sr. to refute the foregoing accusations. Appellant denied
any liability and claimed he was framed.
Appellant
testified that on P200,000.00, and told him to contact Bong so that
the latter may help him settle his case.
While
appellant and Jade were being held at CIDG office,
Appellant
denied having sold to SPO1 Indunan one plastic sachet containing 0.05 gram of shabu on
Alfredo
Lazaro, Sr., appellant’s father, testified that on
The
defense also submitted a written undertaking of Jade and a receipt of custody
signed by Salazar in support of its contentions.[25]
After
trial, the RTC rendered a Decision convicting appellant in all of the criminal
cases. In Criminal Case No. 23227-R, appellant was found guilty of
violating Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 (illegal sale of shabu) and was sentenced to life
imprisonment. He was also ordered to pay
a fine of P500,000.00. On the
other hand, in Criminal Case No. 23228-R,
appellant was found guilty of violating Section 15 of Republic Act No. 9165 (illegal
use of shabu) and was penalized with six
months drug rehabilitation in a government center. With respect to Criminal Case No. 23229-R, appellant was found guilty of
violating Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 (illegal possession of shabu) and was meted an imprisonment of
twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum, to fifteen (15) years, as
maximum. He was further ordered to pay a
fine of P300,000.00.
Appellant
appealed to the Court of Appeals. On
Appellant
filed a Notice of Appeal on
In
his Brief[27] and
Supplemental Brief,[28]
appellant assigned the following errors:
I.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING
THAT THE GUILT OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE CRIME CHARGED HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT;
II.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING
CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSESS WHILE TOTALLY
DISREGARDING THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE DEFENSE;
III.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISREGARDING
THE PROSECUTION’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE PROCEDURES LAID DOWN IN RA 9165.[29]
In
the main, appellant argues that the prosecution failed to establish his guilt
for illegal sale and possession of shabu.
To
secure a conviction for illegal sale
of shabu, the following essential 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 the payment thereof. In
prosecutions for illegal sale of shabu, 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.[30]
In the case at bar, the prosecution was able to establish, through
testimonial, documentary and object evidence, the said elements.
SPO1
Indunan, the poseur-buyer, testified that appellant sold to him shabu
during a legitimate buy-bust operation.[31] Per chemistry report of Forensic Analyst
Albon, the substance, weighing 0.05 gram, which was bought by SPO1 Indunan from
appellant for P300.00, was examined and found to be methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. SPO1 Indunan narrated
the transaction with appellant as follows:
Q What happened next when you were
already at the residence of the accused?
A When we were near the house, we saw a
man standing at the balcony, Sir.
Q How many storeys is the house of the
accused?
A About three (3), Sir.
Q Where is the balcony where the man was
standing?
A At the third floor, Sir.
Q What happened next?
A The Informant told me to wait first and
he would go ahead and talk to Jun, Sir.
Q What happened next?
A After talking, the Informant signaled
me to go near them, sir.
x x x x
Q What happened next?
A The Informant signaled me to go near
them, Sir.
x x x x
Q What happened next?
A I was introduced to Jun as user and
buyer of shabu, Sir.
Q Were you introduced by name?
A No, Sir.
Q What happened next?
A The Informant excused himself, Sir.
Q And them?
A We talked with Jun and asked me how
much will I buy, Sir.
Q In what language or dialect?
A Tagalog, Sir.
Q How?
A “Magkano
bang bibilhin mo” and I said “tatlong
daan lang,” Sir.
Q What happened next?
A He knocked at the door and called out
for “Bong.” Sir.
Q What happened next?
A Bong opened the door and handed Jun
something a green box, Sir.
Q How did you know that it was Bong?
A That is what I heard, Sir.
Q Were you able to see the face of Bong
during that time?
A Yes, Sir.
Q After Bong had opened the door, what
happened next? All this time you were
beside Jun?
A Yes, Sir.
Q What happened next after the green box
was handed to Jun?
A The person told Jun “eto na yong box,” Sir.
Q What happened next?
A And Jun opened the box and brought out
one (1) plastic sachet and handed it to me and demanded for the payment, Sir.
Q How?
A He said “akina yong bayad,” Sir.
Q After he handed to you that sachet and
asked for the payment what did you say also?
A I first examined the content and after
believing that it was shabu, I handed
the marked money, Sir.
x x x x
Q After that what happened next?
A After handling him the money, I gave
the pre-arranged signal, Sir.
Q What was your pre-arranged signal?
A By removing my sunglasses and placing
it in my pocket, Sir.
Q After you have made the signal what
happened next?
A My back-up team rushed to where I am
(sic), Sir.
x x x x
PROS. CATRAL:
Q The subject of your operation you
already know him initially as Jun, did you eventually come to know his full
name?
A Yes, Sir.
Q What is his full name?
A Jun Aquino Lazaro, Sir.
Q If Jun Aquino Lazaro is in the
courtroom would you be able to identify him?
A Yes, Sir.
INTERPRETER:
Witness pointed to a male person who
gave his name as Jun Lazaro.[32]
Inspector
Pacatiw, SPO1 Lingbawan and PO3 Lubos corroborated the aforesaid testimony of
SPO1 Indunan on relevant points.
The
prosecution adduced as its documentary and object evidence the transparent
plastic sachet of shabu sold by appellant to SPO1 Indunan during the
buy-bust operation, the chemistry report of Forensic Analyst Albon confirming
that the plastic sachet sold by appellant to SPO1 Indunan contained 0.05 gram
of shabu, and the marked money used during the buy-bust operation.
Parenthetically,
in illegal possession of dangerous
drugs, such as shabu, the elements
are: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified
to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3)
the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.[33] All these elements have been established. SPO1 Indunan testified that after appellant
sold to him shabu, he (SPO1 Indunan)
and the members of the buy-bust team arrested appellant. He then frisked appellant and recovered from
the latter a green box which contained plastic sachet with white granules. The chemistry report of Forensic Analyst Albon
confirms that such plastic sachet found inside the green box contains 0.04 gram
of shabu. The relevant portion of the testimony of SPO1
Indunan is as follows:
Q What happened next?
A After we controlled Jun we brought him
to our office, Sir.
Q Immediately?
A Yes, Sir.
Q He was not searched at the area of
operation?
A He was searched, Sir.
Q Who searched him?
A I, Sir.
Q What was the result of your search?
A I was able to find the marked money,
Sir.
Q Aside from the money what else did you
recover from the person?
A The content of the box there is still
one (1) sachet, Sir.
Q If this sachet which you recovered from
the accused will be shown to you again will you be able to identify it?
A Yes, Sir.
Q How sure are you that you would be able
to identify it?
A I placed my initials, Sir.
Q I am showing to you another sachet,
please tell us if this is the same sachet that you said that was confiscated?
A Yes, Sir.
Q Please point to your initial?
A Yes, Sir.
Q When did you place that?
A After the arrest of the accused, Sir.
PROS. CATRAL:
The other sachet may we pray that
this be marked as Exhibit “K-1”, your Honor.
COURT:
Mark it please.[34]
The
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses regarding appellant’s illegal sale and
possession of shabu are consistent
with the documentary and object evidence submitted by the prosecution.
The RTC and the Court of Appeals found the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses to be credible. Both courts also found no ill
motive on their part to testify against appellant.
The
rule is that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses
are entitled to great respect because trial courts have the advantage of
observing the demeanor of the witnesses as they testify. This is more true if such findings were
affirmed by the appellate court. When the trial court’s findings have
been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally binding upon
this Court.[35]
To
rebut the overwhelming evidence for the prosecution, appellant interposed the
defense of denial and frame-up.
Appellant denied he sold shabu to SPO1 Indunan and he possessed a
green box containing shabu during the
buy-bust operation. He claimed that said
green box was seized from Jade and that the arresting officers tried to extort
money from him in exchange for his freedom.
The
defenses of denial and frame-up have been invariably viewed by this Court with
disfavor for it can easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense
ploy in prosecutions for violation of Dangerous Drugs Act. In order to prosper, the defenses of denial
and frame-up must be proved with strong and convincing evidence.[36] In the cases before us, appellant failed to
present sufficient evidence in support of his claims. Aside from his self-serving assertions, no
plausible proof was presented to bolster his allegations.
It
is true that appellant submitted a written undertaking of Jade and a receipt of
custody signed by alleged Abra MTC Judge Salazar in support of his contentions
that the green box was seized from Jade and that he was framed. Nonetheless, there was nothing in said
documents which proved his defenses. In
the said undertaking, Jade merely declares (1) that on 15 June 2004, at about
2:30 p.m., she was apprehended in the house of appellant by the officers of the
CIDG, Baguio City, for alleged violation of Republic Act No. 9165; (2) that she
was informed of her constitutional rights by the CIDG officers; (3) that she
was humanely treated by the CIDG officers during her investigation and that
none of her personal property was taken or damaged by said officers; (4) that
she had no complaint whatsoever against the CIDG officers; and (5) that she promised
to appear if called upon in the investigation regarding said incident. On the
other hand, the receipt of custody signed by Salazar merely states (1) that she
received in good health the living person of Jade from the custody of CIDG,
Baguio City; and (2) that she promised to present Jade for investigation as
regards the incident if required by the proper authorities. Indeed, the above-cited documents merely
describe the circumstances and conditions of Jade during and after the
incident. There was no reference at all
to appellant’s claim that the green box was seized from Jade and that he was
framed.[37]
Further, it should be noted that appellant has not filed a single
complaint for frame-up or extortion against the buy-bust team. This inaction clearly betrays appellant’s
claim of frame-up.
Appellant
imputes ill motive on the part of the buy-bust team by asseverating that he had
a previous quarrel with PO3 Lubos and that he knows some members of the
buy-bust team. Withal, this allegation
is uncorroborated and unsubstantiated. Hence,
the imputation of improper motive should be negated. When the police
officers involved in the buy-bust operation have no motive to testify against
the accused, the courts shall uphold the presumption that they have performed
their duties regularly.[38]
Moreover,
motive is not essential for conviction for a crime when there is no doubt as to
the identity of the culprit, and that lack of motive for committing the crime
does not preclude conviction for such crime when the crime and participation of
the accused are definitely proved.[39]
In the instant cases, SPO1 Indunan positively identified appellant as the one
who sold to him shabu during the
buy-bust operation. He also testified that he recovered shabu from appellant’s possession during said incident.
The
defense presented appellant’s father, Alfredo Lazaro, Sr. to corroborate
appellant’s version of the incident. Initially, it must be emphasized that the testimony of Alfredo
Lazaro, Sr. should be received with caution he being the father of appellant.[40]
Alfredo Lazaro, Sr. testified that upon
opening the door of his room, he saw PO3 Lubos and some policemen beating
appellant. He uttered “apay dayta?” (Why is that?), left the
scene, and went back to his room. There
was no testimony at all from him that he tried to restrain PO3 Lubos and the
policemen from mauling appellant, or that he immediately called or sought the
help of barangay officials or higher
authorities. His court statement hardly
inspires belief as it would be highly unnatural for a father not to react
defensively or sought help if his child is being maltreated in his presence. In addition, the physical examination report
on appellant states that no injuries were observed on appellant’s body
immediately after his arrest. His
testimony, therefore, deserves scant consideration.
Given
the foregoing circumstances, the positive and credible testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses prevail over the defenses of denial and frame-up of
appellant.
Appellant
tried to cast doubt on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses based on
the following reasons: (1) there was inconsistency in the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses as to what language was used in apprising appellant of
his constitutional rights; (2) the informant was not presented as witness
during the trial; and (3) there was no buy-bust operation because appellant was
merely instigated by the informant to sell shabu
to SPOI Indunan.[41]
For
a discrepancy or inconsistency in the testimony of a witness to serve as basis
for acquittal, it must refer to the significant facts vital to the guilt or
innocence of the accused for the crime charged. An inconsistency which has nothing to do with
the elements of the crime cannot be a ground for the acquittal of the accused.[42]
The
inconsistency cited by appellant refers to trivial matter and is clearly beyond
the elements of illegal sale of shabu
because it does not pertain to the actual buy-bust itself – that crucial moment
when appellant was caught selling shabu.
Such inconsistency is also irrelevant to
the elements of illegal possession of shabu.
Besides, the inconsistency even bolsters
the credibility of the prosecution witnesses as it erased any suspicion of a
rehearsed testimony.[43]
Anent
the failure of the prosecution to present the testimony of the informant, it is
well-settled that the testimony of an informant in drug-pushing cases is not
essential for conviction and may be dispensed if the poseur-buyer testified on
the same.[44]
As
to the claim of instigation, where the police or its agent lures the accused
into committing the offense in order to prosecute him and which is deemed
contrary to public policy and considered an absolutory cause,[45] there
is nothing in the records which clearly and convincingly shows that appellant
was instigated by the informant to sell shabu
to SPO1 Indunan. What is apparent therein is that the informant merely introduced
SPO1 Indunan to appellant as a user and buyer of shabu and that the informant
did not in any way allure or persuade appellant to sell shabu to SPO1 Indunan.[46] Also,
after such introduction, it was appellant who hastily asked SPO1 Indunan how
much worth of shabu the latter would
want to buy.[47] This obviously manifests that the idea to sell
shabu originated from appellant without
any instigation from SPO1 Indunan or the informant. Indeed, what have transpired in the instant
case was a legitimate buy-bust operation and not instigation. A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment
which in recent years has been accepted as a valid means of arresting violators
of the Dangerous Drugs Law. It is
commonly employed by police officers as an effective way of apprehending law
offenders in the act of committing a crime.
In a buy-bust operation, the idea to commit a crime originates from the
offender, without anybody inducing or prodding him to commit the offense.
Appellant
further posits that the prosecution did not strictly comply with the procedures
laid down in Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 because: (1) although
the written inventory of the seized items bore signatures of representatives
from the DOJ, the media, and the barangay,
only the representative from the media was named; (2) no pictures of the seized
items were taken; (3) Forensic Analyst Albon did not testify with regard to her
chemistry report on the subject drugs; (4) there were gaps in the chain of
custody of the subject drugs because the officer who received the request for
laboratory examination of the same did not testify, and the custodian of the
subject drugs from the time they were examined up to their presentation in
trial was not identified; and (5) the prosecution failed to show the condition
of the subject drugs and the precautions taken in preserving their condition.[48]
It
should be noted that appellant raised the buy-bust team’s alleged
non-compliance with Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 for the first
time on appeal. This, he cannot do. It is too late in the day for him to do so. In People v. Sta. Maria[49]
in which the very same issue was raised, we held:
The law excuses
non-compliance under justifiable grounds. However, whatever justifiable grounds
may excuse the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation in this case
from complying with Section 21 will remain unknown, because appellant did not
question during trial the safekeeping of the items seized from him. Indeed, the
police officers’ alleged violations of Sections 21 and 86 of
Republic Act No. 9165 were not raised before the trial court but were
instead raised for the first time on appeal. In no instance did appellant least
intimate at the trial court that there were lapses in the safekeeping of seized
items that affected their integrity and evidentiary value. Objection to
evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desires
the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of
objection. Without such objection, he cannot raise the question for the first
time on appeal.” (Emphases supplied.)
Moreover,
we have held in several cases[50]
that non-compliance with Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 is not
fatal and will not render an accused’s arrest illegal or the items
seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost 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.[51] In the present case, the integrity of the
drugs seized from appellant was preserved. The chain of custody of the drugs subject
matter of the instant case was shown not to have been broken.
Records
revealed that after SPO1 Indunan confiscated two transparent plastic sachets
containing shabu from appellant, he marked
each of the two sachets of shabu with
“DG-06-15-04” and turned them over to Superintendent Bolabola, who, in turn,
handed them to Inspector Pacatiw who brought the same to PO1 Guingahan of CIDG
office,
When
the prosecution presented the two sachets of shabu each marked with “DG-06-15-04,” SPO1 Indunan positively
identified them as the very same sachets he bought and recovered from appellant
in the buy-bust operation. The two
plastic sachets containing 0.05 and 0.04 gram of shabu, respectively, each had the marking
“DG-06-15-04” as attested by Forensic Analyst Albon in her chemistry
report. The existence, due execution,
and genuineness of the said chemistry report, as well as the qualifications of
Forensic Analyst Albon were admitted by the defense.[53] Further, SPO1 Indunan categorically declared
during the trial that he put “DG-06-15-04”
marking on each of the two transparent plastic sachets of shabu
recovered from appellant. Clearly, the
identity of the drugs recovered from appellant has been duly preserved and
established by the prosecution.
The
fact that Forensic Analyst Albon and the persons who had possession or custody
of the subject drugs were not presented as witnesses to corroborate SPO1
Indunan’s testimony is of no moment. The
prosecution dispensed with the testimony of Forensic Analyst Albon because the
defense had already agreed in the substance of her testimony to be given during
trial, to wit: (1) that she examined the subject drugs; (2) that she found them
to be positive for shabu; and (3)
that she prepared and issued a chemistry report pertaining to the subject
drugs.
Further,
not all people who came into contact with the seized drugs are required to
testify in court. There is nothing in
Republic Act No. 9165 or in any rule implementing the same that imposes such a
requirement. As long as the chain of
custody of the seized drug was clearly established not to have been broken and
that the prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drugs seized, it is
not indispensable that each and every person who came into possession of the
drugs should take the witness stand.[54] In People v. Zeng Hua Dian,[55]
we ruled:
After a thorough
review of the records of this case, we find that the chain of custody of the
seized substance was not broken and that the prosecution did not fail to
identify properly the drugs seized in this case. The non-presentation as
witnesses of other persons such as SPO1 Grafia, the evidence custodian, and PO3
Alamia, the officer on duty, is not a crucial point against the prosecution.
The matter of presentation of witnesses by the prosecution is not for the court
to decide. The prosecution has the discretion as to how to present its case and
it has the right to choose whom it wishes to present as witnesses.
Since
appellant’s violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165
were duly established by the prosecution’s evidence, we shall now ascertain the
penalties imposable on him.
Under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act
No. 9165, the unauthorized sale of shabu, regardless of its quantity and
purity, carries with it the penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine
ranging from Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten Million
Pesos (P10,000,000.00).
Pursuant,
however, to the enactment of Republic Act No. 9346 entitled, “An Act
Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the P500,000.00 on appellant in
Criminal Case No. 23227-R.
Section
11(3), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 provides that illegal possession of
less than five grams of shabu is
penalized with imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one day to twenty (20)
years, plus a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00)
to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00).
Appellant
was charged with and found to be guilty of illegal possession of 0.04 gram of shabu in Criminal Case No. 23229-R. Hence, the RTC and the Court of Appeals aptly
sentenced appellant to imprisonment of 12 years and one day, as minimum, to 15
years, as maximum, and fined him P300,000.00, since said penalties are
within the range of penalties prescribed by the aforequoted provision.
WHEREFORE,
the Decision dated
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIOAssociate
Justice Acting
Chairperson |
WE
CONCUR:
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate
Justice
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA TERESITA J.
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice 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.
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson,
Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Acting 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.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Acting Chief Justice
* Per
Special Order No. 744, dated
** Associate Justice Teresita J.
Leonardo-De Castro was designated to sit as additional member replacing
Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta per Raffle dated
*** Per
Special Order No. 753, dated
[1] Penned
by Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid with Associate Justices Fernanda
Lampas-Peralta and Teresita Dy-Liacco Flores concurring; rollo, pp. 2-23.
[2] Penned
by Judge Antonio C. Reyes; records (Crim. Case No. 23229-R), pp. 293-304.
[3] Records (Crim. Case No. 23227-R), p. 1.
[4] Records (Crim. Case No. 23229-R), p. 1.
[5] Records (Crim. Case No. 23228-R), p. 1.
[6] Records
(Crim. Case No. 23229-R), p. 25.
[7] TSN,
23 November 2004, 4 April 2005, 5 April 2005, 26 April 2005, 30 May 2005, 1
June 2005, 13 September 2005 and 14 September 2005.
[8] Records
(Crim. Case No. 23229-R), pp. 6-7.
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23] TSN,
15 and 16 November 2005.
[24] TSN,
[25] Records
(Crim. Case No. 23229-R), p. 193.
[26] CA
rollo, p. 146.
[27]
[28] Rollo, pp. 35-39.
[29] CA
rollo, p. 61.
[30] People
v. Naquita, G.R. No. 180511, 28 July 2008, 560 SCRA 430, 449; People v.
Del Monte, G.R. No. 179940, 23
April 2008, 552 SCRA 627, 637-638; People v. Santiago, G.R. No. 175326, 28 November 2007, 539 SCRA 198, 212.
[31] TSN,
[32] TSN,
[33] People v. Naquita, supra note 30; People
v.
[34] TSN,
[35] People
v. Naquita, supra note 30 at 444; People v.
[36]
[37] Records (Crim. Case No. 23229-R), p. 193.
[38] People
v. Soriano, G.R. No. 173795, 3 April 2007, 520 SCRA 458, 468-469; People
v. Nicolas, G.R. No. 170234, 8
February 2007, 515 SCRA 187, 204; People v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 172116,
30 October 2006, 506 SCRA 280, 288.
[39] People v. Quillosa, G.R. No. 115687,
[40] People v. Suarez, G.R. No. 153573-76, 15
April 2005, 456 SCRA 333, 349; People v.
Cortez, G.R. No. 131924, 26 December 2000, 348 SCRA 663, 669; People v. San Pascual, G.R. No. 137746,
15 October 2002, 391 SCRA 49, 63; People
v. Legaspi, G.R. No. 117802, 27 April 2000, 331 SCRA 95, 114.
[41] CA
rollo, pp. 63-68.
[42] People v.
[43]
[44] People v. Naquita; supra note 30; People v.
[45] People v. Boco, 368 Phil. 341, 367
(1999).
[46] TSN,
[47]
[48] CA
rollo, pp. 51-60.
[49] G.R.
No. 171019,
[50] People
v. Agulay, G.R. No. 181747, 26, 566 SCRA 571-595; People v. Naquita,
supra note 30; People v. Concepcion, supra note 35; People v. Del
Monte, supra note 30.
[51]
[52]
[53] Records
(Crim. Case No. 23229-R), p. 62.
[54] People v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 184804,
[55] G.R.
No. 145348,