GILBERT ZALAMEDA,
Petitioner, -
versus - PEOPLE
OF THE Respondent. |
G.R. No. 183656
Present: QUISUMBING, J.,Chairperson, CARPIO-MORALES, BRION,
ABAD, JJ. Promulgated: September 4,
2009 |
|
|||
x
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
|
|||||
|
|
||||
|
D E C I S I O N
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
BRION,
J.: |
|
|||
We review in this
petition for review on certiorari the
decision[1]
and resolution[2] of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R.
CR No. 30061 that affirmed the
The prosecution charged
the petitioner before the RTC with violation of Section 11, Article II
of R.A. No. 9165 under the following Information:
Criminal
Case No. 03-3559
That on or about
the 14th day of September, 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 possess any dangerous drug and
without the corresponding license or prescription, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously possess one (1) heat sealed transparent
plastic sachet containing zero point zero three (0.03) gram of
Methylampethamine Hydrochloride (shabu), which is a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[6]
The petitioner and
Villaflor were likewise charged before the same court with violation of
Section 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
The Information for this charge reads:
Criminal Case No. 03-3560
That on or about
the 14th day of September 2003, in the City of Makati, Philippines
and a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping and aiding one another,
not being lawfully authorized to carry
dangerous paraphernalia, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have in their possession two (2) aluminum foil strips and three (3)
unsealed transparent sachets with traces of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride,
three (3) other pieces of aluminum foils strips, one (1) stainless scissor and
one (1) disposable lighter which are instruments, apparatuses or paraphernalia
fit or intended for ingesting or introducing any dangerous drug into the body.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[7]
The
petitioner and Villaflor pleaded not guilty to
the charges.[8]
During pre-trial, the prosecution and the defense stipulated on the following:
PRE-TRIAL ORDER
x
x x
1.
That
these cases were investigated by PO1 Alex Inopia;
2.
That
after the investigation of PO1 Alex Inopia, he prepared the Final Investigation
Report;
3.
That
the Drug Enforcement Unit through SPO4 Arsenio Mangulabnan made a Request for
Laboratory Examination;
4.
That
the PNP Crime Laboratory through Police Inspector Karen Palacios conducted an
examination on the specimen submitted;
5.
That
Physical Science Report was issued by PNP Crime Laboratory Office detailing the
findings of the Forensic Chemist; and
6.
The
qualification of the Forensic Chemist.
The
prosecution marked the following exhibits:
A Final Investigation Report
A-1 Signature of PO1 Alex Inopia
A-2 Signature of SPO4 Arsenio Mangulabnan
B Request for Laboratory Examination
B-1 Signature of SPO4 Arsenio Mangulabnan
C Duplicate Copy of Physical Science
Report
C-1 Signature of Karen Palacios
D Original
Copy of Physical Science Report
D-1 Signature of Karen Palacios
D-2 Signature of Engr. Richard Allan B.
Mangalip
D-3 Signature of Juanita A. Ramos
The prosecution
reserved its right to present and mark additional exhibits in the course of the
trial.
The defense did
not mark any exhibit but reserved the right to present and mark them in the
course of the trial.
With the stipulation entered into by the prosecution
and the defense, the testimony of Forensic Chemist Karen S. Palacios is
dispensed with.
Pre-trial is
terminated.[9]
Joint trial on the
merits followed. The essential facts, based on the records, are summarized
below.
At around
Acting on this
information, SPO4 Orbeta dispatched PO2 Faustino De Guia (PO2 De Guia), PO2 Renato De Guzman, (PO2 De Guzman), PO2 Gonzalo Acnam, PO1 Donie Tidang (PO1 Tidang), and one Major Ancheta to D.
Gomez St., Barangay Tejeros to verify
the report. They were in uniform.[12]
They reached their intended destination at
At the police station, PO2
De Guzman marked the confiscated items,[23]
and turned them and the suspects to SPO4 Arsenio Mangulabnan (SPO4 Mangulabnan). The latter prepared a
request for laboratory examination;[24]
immediately after, the seized items were brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory
for analysis and examination. Police Inspector Karen S. Palacios (Police Inspector Palacios), Forensic
Chemical Officer of the PNP Crime Laboratory, conducted an examination on the
specimens submitted,[25]
and found them to be positive for the presence of shabu.[26]
Urine tests conducted on the petitioner and Villaflor also yielded a positive
result.[27]
The petitioner
presented a different version of the events and narrated that he and Villaflor
were talking at around P100.00 in his pocket. PO1 Tidang
then conducted a search on the room.[30]
Afterwards, the police brought them to Precinct 1 where they were detained. At
the police station, the police asked them whether they had money to give in
exchange for their liberty (i.e. “pang-areglo”).
The police initially demanded P20,000.00, but the petitioner and
Villaflor answered that they did not have this amount.[31]
The petitioner likewise denied that he and Villaflor were using drugs when the
police entered his house.[32]
On cross examination,
he testified that Villaflor was a friend of his sister, Julie; and that the
latter requested Villaflor to borrow money from their (his sister’s and his)
mother, whose house was located in a nearby street.[33]
The money was for the baptism of Julie’s daughter scheduled for the next day.[34]
He did not anymore accompany Villaflor to his mother’s house because her mother
was already asleep.[35]
He declared that he did not personally know the persons who arrested them prior
to their arrest.[36] He
also added that PO2 De Guzman demanded P20,000.00 from him in exchange
for his liberty.
The RTC, in its decision of
1.
In
Criminal Case No. 03-3559, the accused GILBERT ZALAMEDA y SUMILE is found
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section 11, Article
II, R.A. No. 9165 and is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate imprisonment of
TWELVE (12) YEARS, ONE (1) DAY as minimum to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS as maximum pursuant
to the Indeterminate Sentence Law, R.A. No. 4103, as amended, and to pay a fine
of P300,00.00.
2.
In
Criminal Case No. 03-3560, the accused GILBERT ZALAMEDA y SUMILE and accused
ALBERT VILLAFLOR y HUERTE are found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of violation of Section 12, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 and are sentenced to
suffer the indeterminate sentence of FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY as
minimum, to TWO (2) YEARS, SEVEN (7) MONTHS, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P10,000.00.
In both cases, the
period during which the accused were held under detention shall be considered
in their favor pursuant to existing rules.
The dangerous drug
subject matter of Criminal Case No. 03-3559 consisting of 0.03 gram of
Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu and the pieces of drug paraphernalia
recovered from the accused and subject of Criminal Case No. 03-3560 are hereby
transmitted to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for its
appropriate disposition.
SO ORDERED.
The
petitioner appealed to the CA and this appeal was docketed as CA-G.R. CR No.
30061. The CA affirmed the RTC decision
in its decision of
In the present
petition,[40]
petitioner alleges that the items confiscated from him were inadmissible, and
that the prosecution failed to prove the existence of the illegal drug.
For the State, the
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)
counters with the argument that the testimonies of PO2 De Guzman and PO2 De
Guia were straightforward and consistent on material points.[41]
In addition, the warrantless arrest conducted by the police was valid as the
petitioner and Villaflor were caught sniffing shabu. Since the arrest was lawful, the search made incidental to
the arrest of the two accused was also lawful.[42]
The OSG further argues
that the prosecution was able to show all the elements of the crimes charged.[43]
The police also complied with the procedure in the custody and disposition of
seized drugs under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its Implementing Rules.[44]
Finally, the OSG
contends that the petitioner’s bare denial constitutes self-serving negative
evidence which cannot prevail over the categorical and positive testimony of
the prosecution witnesses.[45]
We
DENY the petition for lack of merit. The
records of the case records support the conclusion that a lawful arrest, search
and seizure took place, and that the prosecution fully discharged its burden of
establishing all the elements
necessary for conviction for the crimes charged beyond reasonable doubt.[46]
The prosecution duly
established
the elements of
the crimes charged
Illegal possession of dangerous drugs
under Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165 carries the following elements: (1) possession
by the accused of an item or object identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) the
possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the free and
conscious possession of the drug by the accused.[47]
On the other hand, the elements of illegal
possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for
dangerous drugs under Section 12 are: (1) possession or control by the accused of
any equipment, apparatus or other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking,
consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous
drug into the body; and (2) such possession is not authorized by law. The evidence
for the prosecution showed the presence of all these elements.
PO2 De Guzman, in his testimony of
PO2 De Guzman duly and positively identified the petitioner
as the person he saw sniffing shabu
with Villaflor, and as the same person from whose right pocket he recovered a
rectangular plastic sachet containing white crystalline substances. He also narrated
how the police inadvertently found various drug apparatus and paraphernalia
scattered on top of the petitioner’s bed. Per Report No. D-1142-03S
of Police Inspector Palacios, the plastic sachet recovered from the petitioner was
examined and found to contain 0.03 gram of methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a
prohibited drug. The two aluminum foil strips and three unsealed transparent
plastic sachets recovered on top of the petitioner’s bed also tested positive
for the presence of shabu. Thus, the
petitioner knowingly possessed shabu – a prohibited drug – and had under his control various drug
paraphernalia without legal authority to do so, all in violation of Sections 11
and 12 of R.A. No. 9165.
PO2 De Guzman’s testimony also presented a complete picture of
the police operation – from the time the desk officer received a tip regarding an
ongoing pot session at the petitioner’s house on
PO2 De Guzman testified in a spontaneous, straightforward
and categorical manner, proving all the elements of the crimes charged; he
never wavered despite the grueling cross-examination by the defense counsel.
The Petitioner’s Defenses
a. The Legality of the Petitioner’s
Arrest
The petitioner alleges
that since the warrantless arrest conducted by the police was illegal, the
items seized from him as a result of said arrest were inadmissible.
This
argument totally lacks merit.
We stress at the outset
that the petitioner failed to question the legality of his warrantless arrest.
The established rule is that an accused may be estopped from assailing the
legality of his arrest if he failed to move for the quashing of the Information
against him before his arraignment. Any objection involving the arrest or the
procedure in the court’s acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of an
accused must be made before he enters his
plea; otherwise the objection is deemed waived.[52]
In
any event, we carefully examined the records and now hold that the warrantless
arrest conducted on the petitioner was valid. Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure lists the
situations when a person may be arrested without a warrant, thus:
Sec.
5. Arrest
without warrant; when lawful. - A peace officer or a private person may,
without a warrant, arrest a person:
a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
b) When an offense has just been committed, and he has
probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances
that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
c)
When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily
confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from
one confinement to another.
Paragraph (a) of
Section 5 is commonly known as an in
flagrante delicto arrest. For a warrantless arrest of an accused caught in flagrante delicto to be valid, two
requisites must concur: (1) the
person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the
presence or within the view of the arresting officer.[53]
After carefully
evaluating the evidence in its totality, we hold that the prosecution successfully
established that the petitioner was arrested in flagrante delicto.
We emphasize that the
series of events that led the police to the petitioner’s house and to his
arrest were triggered by a “tip” from a concerned citizen that a “pot session” was
in progress at the petitioner’s house located on
In the course of the
arrest and in accordance with police procedures, the petitioner and Villaflor
were frisked, which search yielded the prohibited drug in the petitioner’s
possession. The police, aside from seeing Villaflor throw away a tooter, also saw
various drug paraphernalia scattered on top of the petitioner’s bed. These
circumstances were sufficient to justify the warrantless search and seizure
that yielded one (1) heat-sealed plastic sachet of shabu. In this regard, Section
13, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court states:
Section
13. Search Incident to Lawful Arrest.
– A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything
which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense
without a search warrant.
The seizure of the various
drug paraphernalia is likewise beyond question. Under the plain view doctrine,
objects falling in the “plain view" of an officer who has a right to be in
the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented as
evidence. This doctrine applies when the following requisites concur: (a) the
law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for
an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area; (b)
the discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; and (c) it is
immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence
of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.[54]
All the foregoing
requirements for a lawful search and seizure are present in this case. The
police officers had prior justification to be at the petitioner’s place as they
were dispatched by their desk officer; they arrested the petitioner and Villaflor
as they had reason to believe that they were illegally using and possessing a
prohibited drug and drug paraphernalia. The search of the petitioner incident
to his arrest yielded the confiscated crystalline substance which later proved
to be shabu. In the course of their
lawful intrusion, they inadvertently saw the various drug paraphernalia
scattered on the bed. As these items were plainly visible, the police officers were
justified in seizing them.
The petitioner also
harps on the fact that the police did not conduct a prior surveillance to
verify the tipped information. We emphasize that the “tip” has reference to an
ongoing pot session – an activity that does not usually last for an extended
period. We have held that when time is of the essence, the police may dispense
with the need for prior surveillance.[55] Simply stated, a prior surveillance
is not necessary where the police operatives are pressed for time to capture a
suspected offender, as in this case. Thus, the absence of a surveillance did not undermine the validity of the petitioner’s arrest.
b. Denial and Extortion
The petitioner denied that he and Villaflor were caught
sniffing shabu, and maintained that
they were just talking to each other when the police arrived at his house at
As the lower courts did, we find the petitioner’s story
unworthy of belief.
We
find the petitioner’s claim that he was arrested and detained in the evening of
The petitioner’s denial must likewise fail in light of the
positive identification and declarations made by the prosecution witnesses. As
we stated earlier, these witnesses testified in a straightforward and
categorical manner regarding the identities of the malefactors. They did not
waver despite the defense counsel’s rigid questioning.
Courts generally view the defense of
denial with disfavor due to the facility with which an accused can concoct it
to suit his or her defense. As evidence that is both negative and self-serving,
this defense cannot attain more credibility than the testimonies of prosecution
witnesses who testify clearly, providing thereby positive evidence on the
various aspects of the crime committed. One such positive evidence is the result
of the laboratory examination conducted by the PNP Crime Laboratory on the various
drug and drug paraphernalia recovered from the petitioner and Villaflor which
revealed that the following confiscated items tested positive for the presence
of shabu: (a) one heat-sealed
transparent plastic sachet with marking “GSZ” containing 0.03 gram of white
crystalline substance; (b) two aluminum foil strips both with markings “AHV,”
each containing white crystalline substance; and (c) three unsealed transparent
plastic sachets all with markings “RSG” each containing white crystalline
substance. In addition, the drug tests conducted on the petitioner and
Villaflor both yielded positive results.
Petitioner’s claim of extortion is
similarly untenable. An allegation of frame-up and
extortion by police officers is a common and standard defense in most dangerous
drug cases. It is viewed by this Court with disfavor, for it can be easily
concocted. To substantiate such a defense, the evidence must be clear and
convincing.[61]
In the present case, the petitioner was unable to support
his allegation of extortion with any other evidence. The petitioner also
admitted that he did not know the policemen previous to the
arrest, hence negating any improper motive on the part of the police. Such lack
of dubious motive coupled with the presumption of regularity in the performance
of official duty, as well as the findings of the trial court on the credibility
of prosecution witnesses, should prevail over the petitioner’s self-serving and
uncorroborated extortion claim. It is also worth noting that the petitioner has
not filed a single complaint against the police officers who allegedly attempted
to extort money from him.
c.
Non-presentation of the Informant
The petitioner argues
that the informant was never presented in court to corroborate the testimonies
of the prosecution witnesses.
We do not find this
argument convincing.
The
settled rule is that the presentation of an informant in an illegal drugs case
is not essential for conviction nor is it indispensable for a successful
prosecution because his testimony would be merely corroborative and cumulative.[62]
Moreover, informants are usually
not presented in court because of the need to hide their identities and
preserve their invaluable service to the police.[63] Thus, we held in People v. Boco:[64]
Under the circumstances, we do not find
any necessity for additional corroborating testimony, particularly that of the
confidential informant. Intelligence
agents, due to the nature of their work, are often not called to testify in
court so as not to reveal their identities publicly. Once known, they could no longer be used
again and, worse, may be the object of revenge by the criminals they
implicate. The prevailing doctrine is
that their testimonies are not essential for conviction, nor are they
indispensable to a successful prosecution.
With the testimonies of the arresting officers, they would be, after
all, merely corroborative and cumulative.
d.
The Integrity and Evidentiary Value of the
Examined
and Presented Seized Items
The petitioner alleges
that the prosecution failed to establish
the evidence’s chain of custody because the police operatives
failed to strictly comply with Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165. He adds that the
police did not immediately mark, photograph and inventory the drugs and drug
paraphernalia at the place where they were seized.
We disagree.
The chain of custody
rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence
sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the
proponent claims it to be.[65]
Contrary to
what the petitioner wants to portray, the chain of custody of
the seized prohibited drug was shown not to have been broken. After the seizure
of the rectangular plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance from
the petitioner’s possession and of the various drug paraphernalia on top of the
petitioner’s bed, the police immediately brought the petitioner and Villaflor
to the police station, together with the seized items. PO2 De Guzman himself brought these items to
the police station and marked them. The plastic sachet containing white
crystalline substance was marked “GSZ”[66] (Exh. “F”); the improvised tooter aluminum foil strips and aluminum
foil with traces of methylamphetamine hydrochloride were marked “AHV”[67] (Exh. “G” and “H”); the three pieces of unsealed transparent plastic
sachet were marked “RSG”[68] (Exh. “I’, “I-1”, and “I-2”); the disposable lighter was marked
“RSG” (Exh. “J”); the stainless pair
of scissors was marked “RSG” (Exh.
“K”); the transparent plastic sachet containing three aluminum foil strips was
marked “RSG” (Exh. “L”); and the
Monsieur bag was marked ‘RSG” (Exh.
“M”). These confiscated items were
immediately turned over to SPO4 Mangulabnan, who in turn, forwarded them to the
PNP Crime Laboratory, Southern Police District for examination to determine the
presence of dangerous drugs. After a qualitative examination conducted on the
specimens, Forensic Chemist Palacios concluded that Exhibits “F,” “G,” “H,” “I,”
“I-1,” and “I-2” tested positive for the presence of methylamphetamine
hydrochloride.[69]
When the prosecution presented these marked specimens in court, PO2 De Guzman
positively identified them to be the same items he seized from the
petitioner and which he later marked at the police station, from where the
seized items were turned over to the laboratory for examination based on a duly
prepared request.[70] We quote the pertinent
portions of the records:
x x x
PROSECUTOR ALEX BAGAOISAN:
Q: Now Mr. Witness, you mentioned earlier that when you frisked accused Zalameda, you were able to recover from his possession a sachet containing white crystalline substance?
PO2 RENATO DE GUZMAN:
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: If that
sachet containing white crystalline substance will be shown to you, will you be
able to identify the same?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: I am showing to you, Mr. Witness, a sachet,
which contains white crystalline substance. Will you please go over the same
and tell us what relation does this have to the sachet containing white
crystalline substance, which you said was recovered from accused Zalameda?
A: This is the plastic sachet that I have
recovered from the possession of accused Zalameda, sir.
Q: Why are you certain that this is the same
sachet containing white crystalline substance, which you recovered from accused
Zalameda?
A: I put markings, sir.
Q: What
markings?
A: I
placed GSZ.
Q: Where
did you place this marking?
A: Inside
the headquarters, sir.
Q: Could
you tell us what does this marking GSZ stand for?
A: Gilbert
Sumile Zalameda, sir.
Q: May I
request, Your Honor, that this white crystalline substance contained in a
plastic sachet with markings GSZ be marked as Exhibit F, Your Honor. Now, you
mentioned also that you were able to recover drug paraphernalia from the bed.
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: You
mentioned of an improvised tooter aluminum foil?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: I have here several pieces of evidence.
Will you please step down and identify the improvised tooter aluminum foil you
have mentioned?
A: This one, sir.
Q: And why are you certain that this is the
same improvised tooter aluminum foil that you recovered from the accused?
A: I placed markings sir.
Q: What is
the markings that you placed?
A: AHV,
sir.
Q: What
does AHV stand for?
A: Albert
Huerte Villaflor, sir.
Q: May I
request, Your Honor that this improvised tooter aluminum foil identified by the
witnesses be marked as exhibit G with markings AHV. Now, you also mentioned of one aluminum foil, which was made as a tray,
could you identify that particular object evidence that you have mentioned?
A: Yes, sir, this is the one.
Q: And why are you certain that this is the
same aluminum foil, which was used as a tray?
A: I also placed markings, sir.
Q: What
markings did you place in this particular object evidence?
A: AHV,
sir.
Q: May I
request, Your Honor, that this aluminum foil identified by the witness with
markings AHV be marked as exhibit H. You
mentioned of three pieces plastic sachets containing white crystalline
substance. Now could you point to us these sachets that you have mentioned?
A: Yes, sir. These are the plastic sachets.
Q: And why are you certain that these are the
same sachets which you said contained traces of shabu?
A: I placed the markings, sir.
Q: What
markings did you place?
A: My
initial, sir, RSG.
Q: May I
request, Your Honor, that these three pieces of plastic sachets containing
traces of shabu be marked as exhibit I, I-1, and I-2. Now, you also mentioned of disposable lighter. Will you please identify
the disposable lighter that you have mentioned?
A: Yes, sir, this is the one.
Q: May I
request, Your Honor, that the disposable lighter identified by the witness with
markings RSG be marked as Exhibit J. How
about the scissors, could you identify the scissors that you have recovered?
A: Yes, sir. This is the one.
Q: The witness identified stainless scissors,
which we request to be marked as Exhibit K. Aside from these object evidence,
what other object evidence did you find on the bed?
A: I also found three rolled aluminum foil,
sir.
Q: Will you be able to identify those three
aluminum foils that you have mentioned?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: Please point them out to us.
A: Here, sir.
Q: May I request, Your Honor, that these three
rolled aluminum foils with markings RS be marked as Exhibit L. Now, why are
the markings different, there is the marking RSG, there is a marking AHV? [sic]
A: For
identification, sir.
Q: You also mentioned a bag. Will you please
identify that bag?
A: Here, sir.
Q: We
request, Your Honor, that the bag identified by the witness be marked as
Exhibit M. Now, you also mentioned that you brought Zalameda to the
headquarters.
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: How
about accused Albert Villaflor?
A: We also
brought him to the headquarter[s].
Q: What
did you do at the precinct?
A: Our
desk officer prepared the necessary paper to turn over the two suspects to the
investigator.
Q: So, did
you come to know what happened after that?
A: The
investigator prepared a request addressed to the crime lab. for laboratory
examination of the confiscated evidence, sir.
Q: How
about the accused, what did you do with them after the investigation?
A: The
investigator also made a request for drug test examination addressed to the
Crime Laboratory.
Q: And
did you come to know what was the result of the examination conducted?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: And
what was the result?
A: The
result is positive, sir.
Q:
What do you mean positive?
A: Positive,
sir, for methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu,
sir.
Q: How
about the drug test?
A: The
accused also gave positive result.
x x x[71] [Emphasis ours]
Thus, the
prosecution established the crucial link in the
chain of custody of the seized items from the time they were first discovered
until they were brought for examination. Besides, as earlier stated, the
petitioner did not contest the admissibility of the seized items during trial. The integrity and the evidentiary value of
the drug seized from the petitioner were therefore duly proven not to have been
compromised.
We also
reject the petitioner’s claim that the non-presentation of the forensic chemist
was fatal to the prosecution’s case. The petitioner never raised in issue before
the trial court the non-presentation of Police Inspector Palacios. In fact, the defense during the pre-trial
agreed to dispense with her testimony.[72]
It must also be stressed that Police
Inspector Palacios is a public officer, and her report carries the presumption
of regularity. Besides, Section 44, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court
provides that entries in
official records made in the performance of his duty by a public officer of the
Jurisprudence teems with pronouncements that failure to
strictly comply with Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165[74]
does not necessarily render an accused’s arrest illegal or the items seized or
confiscated from him inadmissible. What
is of utmost importance is the preservation
of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as these
would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the
accused.[75] In the present case, we see substantial
compliance by the police with the required procedure on the custody and control
of the confiscated items, thus showing that the integrity of the seized
evidence was not compromised. We refer
particularly to the succession of events established by evidence, to the
overall handling of the seized items by specified individuals, to the test
results obtained, under a situation where no objection to admissibility was
ever raised by the defense. All these,
to the unprejudiced mind, show that the evidence seized were the same evidence
tested and subsequently identified and testified to in court. In People
v. Del Monte,[76]
we explained:
We would like to add that
non-compliance with Section 21 of said law, particularly the making of the
inventory and the photographing of the drugs confiscated and/or seized, will
not render the drugs inadmissible in evidence.
Under Section 3 of Rule 128 of the Rules of Court, evidence is admissible
when it is relevant to the issue and is not
excluded by the law or these rules. For evidence to be inadmissible, there should
be a law or rule which forbids its reception.
If there is no such law or rule, the evidence must be admitted subject
only to the evidentiary weight that will accorded it by the courts. x x x
We do not find any provision or
statement in said law or in any rule that will bring about the
non-admissibility of the confiscated and/or seized drugs due to non-compliance
with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165.
The issue therefore, if there is non-compliance with said section, is
not of admissibility, but of weight – evidentiary merit or probative value – to
be given the evidence. The weight to be
given by the courts on said evidence depends on the circumstances obtaining in
each case.
The Proper Penalties
The
petitioner was caught in possession of 0.03 gram of shabu or methamphetamine
hydrochloride. The illegal possession of dangerous drugs is
punished under
Section 11, paragraph 2(3), Article II of R.A. No. 9165,
which provides:
(3) Imprisonment of
twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from
Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand
pesos (P400,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5)
grams of x x x methamphetamine hydrochloride or “shabu” x x x
We sustain the penalty imposed by the RTC and
affirmed by the CA in Criminal Case No. 03-3559, as it is within the range
provided for by law.
Meanwhile, Section 12, Article II of R.A. No.
9165 provides that the penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) months and
one (1) day to four (4) years and a fine ranging from Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00)
to Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person,
who unless authorized by law, shall possess or have under his/her control any
equipment, instrument, apparatus and any other paraphernalia fit or intended
for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing any
dangerous drug into the body.
The courts a
quo sentenced the petitioner to suffer the indeterminate penalty of four
months and one day, as minimum, to two years and seven months, as maximum in
Criminal Case No. 03-3560. Pursuant to Section 12 of R.A. No. 9165, we increase
the minimum to six (6) months and one (1) day imprisonment.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
Court of Appeals decision and resolution dated March 18, 2008 and July 15,
2008, respectively, in CA-G.R. CR No. 30061 are AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION
that in Criminal Case No. 03-3560, petitioner Gilbert Zalameda is SENTENCED to suffer the indeterminate
penalty of six (6) months and one (1) day, as minimum, to two (2) years and
seven (7) months, as maximum.
The CA decision finding the petitioner guilty of
violation of Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165 in Criminal
Case No. 03-3559 is AFFIRMED in
all respects.
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CONCHITA
CARPIO-MORALES MARIANO C.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest
that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s
Division.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
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
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, and concurred in by Associate Justice Mario L. Guariña III and Associate Justice Sixto C. Marella, Jr.; rollo, pp. 87-96.
[2]
[3] Penned by Judge Delia H. Panganiban; id., pp. 60-68.
[4] Sec.11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs.
[5] Sec. 12. Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs.
[6] CA records, p. 10.
[7]
[8] Records, pp. 18-19.
[9] Pre-trial Order, id., pp. 33-34.
[10] TSN,
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26] See Physical Science Report No. D-1142-03S, records, p. 55.
[27] TSN,
[28] TSN,
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37] RTC Decision, rollo, pp. 67-68.
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41] Comment, id., p. 132.
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46] See People
v. Rivera, G.R. No. 182347,
[47] People
v. Naquita, G.R. No. 180511,
[48] TSN,
[49]
[50]
[51] See People
v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 184804,
[52] See People
v. Divina, G.R. No. 174067,
[53] See People
v. Laguio, Jr., G.R. No. 128587,
[54] See People
v. Salanguit, G.R. Nos. 133254-55,
[55] See Quinicot
v. People, G.R. No. 179700,
[56] TSN,
[57]
[58]
[59]
[60] False in part, fake in everything.
[61] See People
v. Boco, G.R. No. 129676,
[62] See People
v. Lopez, G.R. No. 172369,
[63] See Dimacuha
v. People, G.R. No. 143705,
[64] G.R. No. 129676,
[65] See People
v. Gum-Oyen, G.R. No. 182231,
[66] The initials of petitioner Gilbert S. Zalameda.
[67] The initials of Albert H. Villaflor.
[68] The initials of PO2 Renato S. De Guzman.
[69] See Physical Science Report No. D-1142-03S, records, p. 55.
[70] TSN,
[71] TSN,
[72] Pre-Trial Order, supra.
[73] See People
v. Bandang, G.R. No. 151314,
[74] See People v. Naquita, G.R. No. 180511, July 28, 2008, 560 SCRA 430; People v. Mateo, G.R. No. 179478, July 28, 2008, 560 SCRA 375; People v. del Monte, G.R. No. 179940, April 23, 2008, 552 SCRA 627; People v. Pringas, G.R. No. 175928, August 31, 2007, 531 SCRA 828; People v. Sta. Maria, G.R. No. 171019, February 23, 2007, 516 SCRA 621.
[75] See People
v. Teodoro, G.R. No. 185164,
[76] G.R. No. 179940,