Republic of the
SUPREME COURT
THIRD DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Present:
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,
Chairperson,
- versus - CHICO-NAZARIO,
VELASCO,
JR.,
NACHURA,
and
PERALTA, JJ.
DONATO CAPCO y SABADLAB, Promulgated:
Accused-Appellant.
September
17, 2009
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
VELASCO, JR., J.:
Assailed
before the Court is the Decision dated December 28, 2007 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02213 affirming the February 1, 2006 Decision
in Criminal Case Nos. 03-3233 and 03-3561 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch
64 in Makati City. The RTC found accused-appellant Donato Capco liable for
violation of certain provisions of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 or The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002.
The Facts
The
records show that, in two separate informations filed before the RTC of Makati
City, Capco was charged with violation of Section 5, Art. II of RA 9165 (illegal
sale of dangerous drugs) and Sec. 15, Art. II of the same law (use of dangerous
drugs), respectively, allegedly committed as follows:
Criminal Case No. 03-3233
That on or about the 21st day of August 2003, in the city of Makati, Philippines and a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously without being authorized by law, sell, distribute and transport zero point zero three (0.03) gram of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) which is a dangerous drug in consideration of one hundred (P100.00) pesos.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[1]
Criminal Case No. 03-3561
That on or about the 21st day of August 2003, in the City of Makati Philippines and a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being lawfully authorized to use, administer and take any dangerous drugs, after confirmatory test was found to be positive for the use of Methylamphetamine which is [a] dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[2]
When
arraigned on September 10, 2003 for violation of Sec. 5,[3]
Art. II of RA 9165, Capco, assisted by counsel, entered a not guilty plea. He
pleaded guilty, however, when later arraigned for the other charge of violation
of Sec. 15[4] of
RA 9165 and was, accordingly, sentenced to undergo a six-month rehabilitation,
the execution of which, however, was deferred due to the pendency of Criminal
Case No. 03-3233.
In
the ensuing trial, the prosecution presented as witnesses PO2 Vicente Barrameda
and PO1 Randy Santos. The defense lined up Capco and Ace Bernal as witnesses.
The
CA’s decision under review summarizes the People’s version of the events, as
follows:
At about 8:30 in the evening of
August 21, 2003, operatives from the Makati City Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation
Task Force (AID-SOTF), acting on a confidential informant’s tip, conducted a
buy-bust operation in the vicinity of
On
the other hand, the defense is grounded mainly on denial. To show his
innocence, Capco claimed that when he alighted from a tricycle in front of his
house coming from Guadalupe Market on August 23, 2003, he observed a commotion
and saw four men chasing some people in the basketball court on
Capco’s
story was collaborated by witness Bernal.[6] While Bernal was playing basketball
with his cousins on
In its decision of February 1, 2006, the RTC
found Capco guilty beyond reasonable of the crime (illegal sale of shabu) charged in Criminal Case No.
03-3233. The fallo of the RTC’s decision, which also included a portion
to implement its ruling in Criminal Case 03-3561, reads:
WHEREFORE,
in view of the foregoing, judgment is rendered against the accused DONATO CAPCO
y SABADLAD finding him GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sec. 5,
Art. II, Republic Act No. 9165 and sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment
and to pay a fine of P500,000.00.
As regards the implementation of the judgment which this Court renders in Criminal Case No. 03-3561 for violation of Sec. 15, Art. II, RA 9165 and considering the aforestated sentence for violation of Sec. 5, Art. II, the accused is sentenced to undergo rehabilitation for at least six (6) months in a drug rehabilitation program under the auspices of the Bureau of Correction.
The Branch Clerk of Court is directed to transmit to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) the one (1) piece of plastic sachet of shabu weighing 0.03 gram subject matter of these cases, for said agency’s appropriate disposition.
SO ORDERED.[7]
On appeal, Capco
questioned the RTC’s decision on the ground that it convicted him in spite of
the inadmissibility of the evidence against him and notwithstanding the
prosecution’s failure to present the alleged confidential informant. He, too,
raised, as issues, the prosecution’s failure to establish the prohibited
nature, and the chain of custody, of the seized item.
Unconvinced, the CA, by decision
dated December 28, 2007, affirmed that of the trial court, noting, among other
things, that the informant was not an indispensable witness. Apropos the custodial chain, the CA held that
the non-presentation of the police investigator and the PNP Crime Laboratory
personnel who received the shabu did
not affect the People’s case, as the prosecution witnesses presented
sufficiently proved that the chain of custody of the seized shabu was
never broken.
The decretal portion of the CA’s decision
reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appealed Decision dated February 1, 2006 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 64 in Crim. Cases Nos. 03-3233 and 03-3561 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.[8]
Capco subsequently filed, and the CA gave due course to,
his notice of appeal from the decision
of December 28, 2007.
On August 6, 2008, this Court required the parties to submit
supplemental briefs if they so desired. They manifested, however, their
amenability to submit the case on the basis of the records already on file.
As it was in the CA, Capco now asks the Court
to overturn his conviction on the following issues which may be formulated, as
follows:
1. The CA erred in affirming the appellant’s conviction despite failure of the prosecution to present the alleged informant;
2. The evidence against appellant is inadmissible for having been obtained in violation of Sec. 21 of RA No. 9165; and
3. The
prosecution failed to establish: (1) the item allegedly confiscated was indeed
a prohibited drug and (2) the chain of custody of the specimen.
The Court’s Ruling
We affirm the ruling of the CA.
Non-Presentation of Informant
Capco
argues that the prosecution should have presented the informant or at least
explained to the court’s satisfaction why he was not made to testify. The informant’s non-presentation, so he
claims, is equivalent to suppression of evidence.
There
is a logical and critical rationale behind the accepted practice of leaving out
a confidential informant from the prosecution’s roster of witnesses. As held in
People v. Peñaflorida, Jr.,[9]
the presentation of an informant is not essential for conviction nor is it
indispensable for a successful prosecution because his testimony would merely
be corroborative and cumulative. More importantly, as Peñaflorida, Jr. and other similar drug cases teach, informants are
by and large not presented as witnesses in court as there is a need to conceal
their identity and protect their important service to law enforcement. Living
in the fringes of the underworld, these police assets may well be unwilling to
expose themselves to possible liquidation by drug syndicates and their allies
should their identities be revealed.
Violation of Sec. 21 of RA 9165
Capco next alleges that the buy-bust team
violated Sec. 21(1) of RA 9165, quoted below, on the matter of handling the
contraband after a buy-bust operation:
Sec. 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, x x x as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending 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.
Capco
asserts that, in breach of what the aforequoted provision mandates, the
apprehending police operatives did not, upon his arrest, take his photograph
together with the alleged shabu sold. There was likewise no physical
inventory of the seized item conducted in his presence or before his
representative or counsel, and before representatives from the media and the
Department of Justice as well as an elected public official.
Generally, non-compliance with Sec. 21 will not render an accused’s arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated from the accused inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as they would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[10] As we shall later discuss, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved. We, thus, cannot sustain Capco’s claim of inadmissibility of the drug.
Capco’s
last argument dwells on the prosecution’s non-presentation of the personnel who
touched or had physical possession of the suspected illegal item from the time
it was seized up to the moment it was presented in court, or at least until it
was examined by the forensic chemist. He
claims that this non-presentation casts doubt on the accuracy of the chain of
custody of the object evidence.
We agree with the appellate court’s
conclusion that the prosecution was able to show that the chain of custody was
never broken. A careful review of the records supports this finding.
Following the successful drug transaction
with Capco, PO2 Barrameda marked the
plastic sachet of suspected shabu with
“DSC.”[11] A
letter-request, signed by Police Superintendent Jose Ramon Q. Salido, was then
sent to the PNP Crime Laboratory for an examination of the seized drugs.[12] Forensic Chemist Grace M. Eustaquio later
filed Chemistry Report No. D-1049-03,[13] finding
the white crystalline substance in the plastic sachet marked “DSC” positive for
methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
During trial, PO2 Barrameda[14] identified the same specimen as the shabu their team had seized from Capco
and he had later marked with “DSC.” PO1 Santos corroborated PO2 Barrameda’s testimony
by testifying that the specimen marked “DSC” was indeed the product of their
buy-bust operation against Capco.[15]
In the prosecution for illegal sale
of dangerous drugs, what is material is proof that the transaction or sale
actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the traded
substance––the object evidence which is the core of the corpus delicti.[16] These requirements have been sufficiently
established in the instant case. What is
more, 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. Capco has the burden to show that the evidence was tampered or meddled
with to overcome a presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by
public officers.[17] Capco
failed in this respect.
Another presumption Capco failed to
overcome relates to the prosecution’s witnesses. Decisive in a prosecution for
drug pushing or possession is the testimony of the police officers on what
transpired before, during, and after the accused was caught and how the
evidence was preserved. Their testimonies in open court are considered in line
with the presumption that law enforcement officers have performed their duties
in a regular manner, absent evidence to the contrary. In the absence of proof
of motive to falsely impute a crime as serious as drug pushing against Capco,
the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, as well as
the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, shall prevail
over Capco’s self-serving and uncorroborated denial.[18] This presumption holds true for the police
officers in this case, as Capco could not provide a credible and believable
account on why he was being falsely accused.
In sum, proof beyond reasonable
doubt, as found by the RTC and affirmed by the CA, was established against Capco.
Finding no showing that certain facts of relevance and substance bearing on the
elements of the crime have been overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied,[19] we
affirm these courts’ judgments.
Penalty Imposed
Capco
was charged with violating Sec. 5, Art. II
of RA 9165. For clarity we quote said provision again, which states:
Sec.
5.
We find the penalty of life
imprisonment and a fine of PhP 500,000 in accordance with the penal provisions
of RA 9165.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The CA Decision in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02213 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
Associate Justice
Chairperson
Associate Justice Associate Justice
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
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.
Chairperson
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
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
[1] CA rollo, p. 100.
[2]
[3]
Sec. 5.
The penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) 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 controlled precursor and essential chemical, or shall act as a broker in such transactions.
x x x x
The maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed upon any person who organizes, manages or acts as a “financier” of any of the illegal activities prescribed in this Section.
The penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years of imprisonment and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who acts as a “protector/coddler” of any violator of the provisions under this Section.
[4] Sec. 15. Use of Dangerous Drugs. – A person apprehended or arrested, who is found to be positive for use of any dangerous drug, after a confirmatory test, shall be imposed a penalty of a minimum of six (6) months rehabilitation in a government center for the first offense, subject to the provisions of Article VIII of this Act. If apprehended using any dangerous drug for the second time, he/she shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment x x x: Provided, That this Section shall not be applicable where the person tested is also found to have in his/her possession such quantity of any dangerous drug provided for under Section 11 of this Act, in which case the provisions stated therein shall apply.
[5] CA rollo, p. 17.
[6]
[7]
[8] Rollo, p. 15. Penned by Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Lucenito N. Tagle and Myrna Dimaranan Vidal.
[9] G.R. No. 175604, April 10, 2008, 551 SCRA 111, 121.
[16] People v.