Republic of the
SUPREME COURT
THIRD DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, -
versus - HASANADDIN GUIARA y
BANSIL, Accused-Appellant. . |
|
G.R. No. 186497 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J., Chairperson, CHICO-NAZARIO, VELASCO,
JR., NACHURA,
and PERALTA,
JJ. Promulgated: September
17, 2009 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
VELASCO, JR., J.:
This is an appeal from the September 19, 2008 Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02958 entitled People of the Philippines v. Hasanaddin
Guiara y Bansil which affirmed the July 18, 2007 Joint Decision[2] of
Branch 267 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City in Criminal Case Nos.
14272-D-TG and 14273-D-TG, finding accused-appellant Hasanaddin Guiara y Bansil
guilty of violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165
or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
of 2002.
The charge against the accused-appellant stemmed from the
following Information:
Criminal Case No. 14272-D-TG
(Violation of Section 5 [
That on or about the 24th day of August, 2005, in the City of Taguig, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell, deliver and give away to PO2 Rolly B. Concepcion, who acted as poseur-buyer, a total of 0.17 gram of white crystalline substance, which substance was found positive to the test for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, also known as Shabu, a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law.[3]
Criminal Case No. 14273-D-TG
(Violation of Section 11 [Possession],
Article II of R.A. 9165)
That on or about the 24th day of August, 2005, in the City of Taguig, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law to possess any dangerous drug, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly possesses and under his custody and control .23 gram of white crystalline substance contained in one (1) heat sealed transparent plastic sachet, which substance was found positive to the test for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, also known as “Shabu”, a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.
Contrary to law.[4]
On November 29, 2005, accused-appellant
was arraigned and entered a plea of “not guilty” to the charges against him.
At the pre-trial conference, the
prosecution and the defense stipulated on: (1) the identity of
accused-appellant; (2) the jurisdiction of the trial court over the person of
accused-appellant and the subject matter of the cases; (3) the date, place, and
fact of the arrest; (4) the authority of the police officers as members of the Station
Anti-Illegal Drugs-Special Operations Task Force (SAID-SOTF) of the Taguig City
Police Station; (5) the existence of the subject specimens; (6) the fact that a
request has been made by the arresting officers for the examination of the
confiscated items; (7) the fact that the Forensic Chemist, Police Senior
Inspector Maridel Rodis, examined the specimens and issued a laboratory report
thereon; (8) the fact that the examining forensic chemist had no knowledge from
whom the alleged specimens were taken; and (9) the fact that the subject
specimens tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride. Hence, after the
stipulations were made, the testimony of the Forensic Chemist was dispensed
with.
Thereafter, trial on the merits
ensued.
During the trial, the prosecution
presented as their witnesses PO2 Rolly B. Concepcion and PO2 Ronnie L. Fabroa.
On the other hand, the defense presented as its witnesses accused-appellant,
Normina Piang, and Abdul Pattah.
Version of
the Prosecution
The facts, according to the
prosecution, are as follows:
On August 24, 2005, at about 3
o’clock in the afternoon, a confidential informant arrived at the Taguig City
Police Station and reported the illegal drug peddling activities of one alias
“Mads” on
During the briefing, PO2 Rolly B.
Concepcion was designated as the poseur-buyer.
He was given a five hundred peso (PhP 500) bill, which he marked with his
initials, “RBC,” and photocopied for record purposes, to be used as the
buy-bust money during the entrapment.
After making the necessary
coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, the police team,
which was composed of P/Insp. Pamor, PO2 Concepcion, PO3 Arnulfo Vicuña, PO3
Danilo Arago, PO3 Santiago Cordova, PO3 Felipe Metrillo, PO2 Ronnie L. Fabroa,
PO2 Remegio Aguinaldo, PO3 Antonio Reyes, and SPO1 Angelito Galang, with the
informant, proceeded to their target area. Upon arriving at the target area,
the team members positioned themselves strategically to observe the transaction,
while PO2 Concepcion and the informant proceeded to the location of the shabu peddler where the informant
introduced PO2 Concepcion to alias “Mads.” He told “Mads” that his friend
wanted to buy PhP 500 worth of shabu.
“Mads” then replied, “Limang-daang piso
lang ba? Meron pa ako dito.” He then pulled out two (2) plastic sachets
containing white crystalline substance and gave the smaller packet to PO2
Concepcion. In turn, PO2 Concepcion gave the marked money to “Mads.”
Thereafter, “Mads” handed a plastic sachet containing shabu to PO2 Concepcion, who upon receiving the same, executed the
pre-arranged signal, by removing his ballcap, signifying that the transaction
was already consummated. This prompted his team to rush to their position to
assist in the arrest.
After the apprehension of “Mads,”
who was later identified as accused-appellant, the buy-bust money was recovered
from the possession of accused-appellant, as well as another plastic sachet
containing shabu. PO2 Concepcion then
marked the confiscated pieces of evidence for future identification purposes.
After marking, accused-appellant was brought to the police station.
Upon arrival at the police station,
PO2 Concepcion turned over the confiscated items to the police investigator for
the preparation of the necessary request for examination at the crime
laboratory. Subsequently, the specimens subject of the buy-bust operation were forwarded to the Philippine
National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory in
SPECIMEN SUBMITTED:
Two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets each containing white crystalline substance having the following markings and net weights:
A (HBG-1 8-24-05) – 0.17 gram
B (HBG-2 8-24-05) – 0.23 gram
x x x x
PURPOSE OF LABORATORY EXAMINATION:
To determine the presence of any dangerous drugs. x x x
FINDINGS:
Qualitative examination conducted on specimen A and B gave POSITIVE result to the tests for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
x x x x
CONCLUSION:
Specimen A and B contain Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.[5] x x x
Version of
the Defense
On the other hand, accused-appellant interposed the defenses
of denial and frame-up.
He recounted that on August 24, 2005, at around 2:30 in the
afternoon, while he was on his way to a billiard hall, a white motor vehicle
suddenly stopped in front of him on
While at the police station, accused-appellant inquired as to
the reason why he was being detained. The police officers did not respond,
instead they told him to call his parents or relatives and to tell them that he
was caught by the police. PO2 Concepcion extorted him and told him to produce PhP
20,000 or else they would file a case against him for violation of the
dangerous drugs law.
After having failed to produce the amount that the police
were asking, accused-appellant was taken to the PNP Crime Laboratory in
The testimony of accused-appellant was corroborated by the
testimonies of Normina Piang and Abdul Pattah to the extent of the manner in
which the arrest of the accused-appellant was made by the police.
Ruling of
the Trial Court
After trial, the RTC convicted accused-appellant.
The dispositive portion of the Joint Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the
foregoing considerations, the Court finds accused HASANADDIN GUIARA y Bansil in
Criminal Case No. 14272-D-TG for
Violation of Section 5, 1st paragraph, Article II of Republic Act
No. 9165, otherwise known as “The Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002”, GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, accused Hasanaddin Guiara y Bansil is hereby
sentenced to suffer LIFE IMPRISONMENT and ordered to pay a fine of FIVE
HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (PhP500,000.00).
Moreover, accused HASANADDIN GUIARA y Bansil is also found GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case
No. 14273-D-TG for Violation of Section 11, 2nd paragraph, No. 3
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as “The Comprehensive
Drugs Act of 2002”. And since the quantity of methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu)
found in the possession of the accused is only .23 gram, accused Hasanaddin
Guiara y Bansil is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment ranging from TWELVE
(12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY as minimum -to- FOURTEEN (14) YEARS and
TWENTY ONE (21) DAYS as maximum. Accused Hasanaddin Guiara y Bansil is
further penalized to pay a fine in the amount of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND
PESOS (PhP300,000.00).
Accordingly, the Jail Warden of Taguig city Jail where accused Hasanaddin
Guiara y Bansil is presently detained is hereby ordered to forthwith commit the
person of convicted Hasanaddin Guiara y Bansil to the New Bilibid Prisons
(NBP), Bureau of Corrections in
Upon the other hand, the shabu contained in two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets with a total weight of 0.40 gram which are the subject matter of the above-captioned cases, are hereby ordered transmitted and/or submitted to the custody of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) subject and/or pursuant to existing Rules and Regulations promulgated thereto for its proper disposition.
Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.[6]
On appeal to the CA, accused-appellant
disputed the lower court’s decision finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime charged. He raised the issue that the police officers failed to
conduct a legitimate and valid buy-bust operation. He also questioned whether
the chain of custody of the shabu allegedly
recovered from him was properly established arguing that the police officers
failed to follow the established rules governing custodial procedures in drug
cases without any justification for doing so.
Ruling of
the Appellate Court
On September 19, 2008, the CA
affirmed the judgment of the lower court. It ruled that all the elements of the
crimes charged were aptly established by the prosecution, including the chain
of custody, to wit:
The foregoing testimony indubitably shows that a transaction involving shabu between appellant and the poseur-buyer actually took place. This is important because in prosecutions involving illegal sale of dangerous drugs, 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. The corpus delicti in this case was sufficiently established with the presentation of the specimen ‘HBG-1’ in court and the Chemistry Report No. D-959-05 which clearly states that the contents thereof were shabu.
x x x x
In the case at bar, appellant was caught in actual possession of prohibited drugs without any showing that he was duly authorized by law to possess the same. Having been caught in flagrante delicto, there is, therefore a prima facie evidence of animus possidendi on appellant’s part.
x x x x
On this aspect, [w]e find that the chain of custody of the seized
substance was not broken and that the prosecution was able to properly identify
the same. The confiscated items were marked by PO2 Concepcion immediately after
he arrested appellant. Moreover, said marked items were the same items which
were submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory for analysis and examination, and
which was later on found to be positive for shabu.[7]
The CA also dismissed the
allegation of frame-up saying that the defense failed to establish any ulterior
motive on the part of the arresting officers in deviation from the legitimate
performance of their duties.
The dispositive portion of the CA
Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, the Joint Decision of the
With costs against the accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED.[8]
Accused-appellant filed a timely
notice of appeal of the CA Decision.
Whether or not the evidence adduced by the
prosecution is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt
We sustain accused-appellant’s
conviction.
Buy-Bust Operation was Legitimate and Valid
Accused-appellant attacks the
credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation. He
argues that the contradictory testimonies of the police show that no buy-bust
operation was actually carried out and that it was merely fabricated or
concocted by the police officers to maliciously charge accused-appellant.
We disagree.
In our jurisprudence, a buy-bust
operation is a recognized means of entrapment using such ways and means devised by peace officers
for the purpose of trapping or capturing a lawbreaker.[9] It is
legal and has been proved to be an effective method of apprehending drug peddlers,
provided due regard to constitutional and legal safeguards is undertaken.[10]
In the prosecution of illegal sale of shabu, the essential elements have to be established, to wit: (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 therefor.[11]
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. The delivery of the illicit drug to the
poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully
consummate the buy-bust transaction.
In the instant case, the prosecution was able to establish
these elements beyond moral certainty. Accused-appellant
sold and delivered the shabu for PhP
500 to PO2 Concepcion posing as buyer; the said drug was seized and identified
as a prohibited drug and subsequently presented in evidence; there was actual
exchange of the marked money and contraband; and finally, accused-appellant was
fully aware that he was selling and delivering a prohibited drug. In fact, PO2
Concepcion testified thus:
PROSEC.
A: 5:45 p.m., sir.
PROSEC.
A: At
PROSEC.
A: Upon arrival, sir, we walk towards the basketball court together with the confidential informant and readily saw alias “mads”, sir.
PROSEC.
A: Yes, sir.
PROSEC.
A: He talked to alias “mads” and he introduced me as [a] buyer of shabu.
PROSEC.
A: They talked, sir, and he told him that I’m his friend and I’m going to buy shabu worth five hundred pesos and alias “mads” uttered “limang-daang piso lang ba? Meron pa ko dito”.
PROSEC.
A: He asked for the five hundred pesos and he brought out two (2) plastic sachets, he chooses [one] and [gives] me the plastic sachet with a lesser contents.
PROSEC.
A: Only one (1) plastic sachet, sir.
PROSEC.
A: I gave the pre-arrange and I saw the immediate approach of PO2 Ronnie Fabroa, sir.
PROSEC.
A: We arrested alias “mads” and I ask for his personal circumstances and I told him to bring out the contents of his pockets.
PROSEC.
A: Yes, sir, and I recovered the buy-bust money and another plastic sachet containing suspected shabu.[12]
The foregoing testimony indubitably
shows that a transaction involving shabu
actually took place between accused-appellant and the poseur-buyer. What is
more, the corpus delicti in this case
was sufficiently established with the presentation of the specimen “HBG-1” in
court and Chemistry Report No. D-959-05 which clearly states that the contents were
shabu.
Likewise, the foregoing testimony also
establishes that accused-appellant was indeed found in possession of illegal
drugs aside from what he sold to the poseur-buyer, without showing that
accused-appellant had any authority to possess them.
On the other hand, in the
prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following elements
must be proved with moral certainty: (1) that the accused is in possession of
the object identified as a prohibited or regulatory drug; (2) that such
possession is not authorized by law; and (3) that the accused freely and
consciously possessed the said drug.[13]
It bears stressing that this crime
is mala prohibita, and as such,
criminal intent is not an essential element. Further, possession, under the
law, includes not only actual possession, but also constructive possession.
Actual possession exists when the drug is in the immediate physical possession
or control of the accused. Constructive possession, on the other hand, exists
when the drug is under the dominion and control of the accused or when he has
the right to exercise dominion and control over the place where it is found.[14]
Also, the prosecution must prove
that the accused had animus possidendi
or the intent to possess the drugs. In U.S.
v. Bandoc,[15]
the Court ruled that the finding of a dangerous drug in the house or within the
premises of the house of the accused is prima
facie evidence of knowledge or animus
possidendi and is enough to convict in the absence of a satisfactory
explanation.[16]
In the case at bar,
accused-appellant was caught in actual possession of prohibited drugs without
any showing that he was duly authorized by law to possess the same. Having been
caught in flagrante delicto, there
is, therefore, a prima facie evidence
of animus possidendi on
accused-appellant’s part.
As a matter of fact, the trial court, in disposing the
case, said:
The substance of the prosecution’s evidence is to the effect that accused Hasanaddin Guiara y Bansil was arrested by the police because of the existence of the shabu he sold to PO2 Rolly B. Concepcion as well as the recovery of the buy-bust money from his possession, and the presence of another plastic sachet containing shabu that was also recovered from his person.
To emphasize, the prosecution witnesses in the person of PO2
Rolly B. Concepcion and PO2 Ronnie L. Fabroa positively identified accused
Hasanaddin Guiara y Bansil as the person they apprehended on August 24, 2005 at
The buy-bust money recovered by the arresting officers from the possession of the accused Hasanaddin Guiara y Bansil as well as the shabu they were able to purchase from the accused sufficiently constitute as the very corpus delicti of the crime of ‘Violation of Section 5, 1st paragraph, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165’, and the other plastic sachet containing shabu that was recovered from the accused Guiara similarly constitute as the corpus delicti of the crime of ‘Violation of Section 11, 2nd paragraph, No. 3, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165’.[17] x x x
Clearly, the trial court found that the testimonies of both
PO2 Concepcion and PO2 Ronnie L. Fabroa established the existence of a valid
and legitimate buy-bust operation and all the essential elements of the crimes
charged against accused-appellant.
Furthermore, contrary to
accused-appellant’s contentions, the minor inconsistencies in the testimonies
of the police officers are too insufficient or insubstantial to overturn the
judgment of conviction against him, since those testimonies are consistent on
material points. Time and time again, this Court has ruled that the witnesses’
testimonies need only to corroborate one another on material details
surrounding the actual commission of the crime.[18]
Questions as to the exact street where the illegal sale was consummated do not
in any way impair the credibility of the witnesses. To secure a reversal of the
appealed judgment, such inconsistencies should pertain to that crucial moment
when the accused was caught selling shabu,
not to peripheral matters.[19]
It should be noted that in passing upon the credibility of
witnesses, the appellate court generally yields to the judgment of the trial
courts since they are in a better position to decide the question, having heard
the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying
during the trial.[20]
Thus, this Court finds no cogent reason to disturb the trial court’s assessment
of the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.
Chain of Custody Was Properly Established
In every prosecution for the
illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the presentation of the drug, i.e., the corpus delicti, as evidence in court is
material.[21]
In fact, the existence of the dangerous drug is crucial to a judgment of
conviction. It is, therefore, indispensable that the identity of the prohibited
drug be established beyond doubt. Even more than this, what must also be
established is the fact that the substance bought during the buy-bust operation
is the same substance offered in court as exhibit. The chain of custody
requirement performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts
concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.[22]
To ensure that the chain of custody
is established, the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 provide:
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.[23]
x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)
A close reading of the law reveals
that it allows certain exceptions. Thus, contrary to the assertions of
accused-appellant, Section 21 need not be followed with pedantic rigor. Non-compliance
with Sec. 21 does not render an accused’s arrest illegal or the items
seized/confiscated from him inadmissible.[24]
What is essential 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.”[25]
In the instant case, there was
substantial compliance with the law and the integrity of the drugs seized from
accused-appellant was preserved. The chain of custody of the drugs subject
matter of the case was shown not to have been broken. The factual milieu of the
case reveals that the confiscated items were marked by PO2 Concepcion
immediately after he arrested accused-appellant. Then, the said marked items
were submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory for analysis and examination, and
which was later on found to be positive for shabu.
PO2 Concepcion testified thus:
PROSEC.
A: We arrested him and I [asked] for his personal circumstances and marked the evidence I confiscated from him and the shabu I bought, sir.
PROSEC.
A: HBG-1, the subject of the sale and HBG-2 the evidence confiscated from his possession.
PROSEC.
A: My companions [approached] us and we brought alias “mads” to the police station.
x x x x
PROSEC.
A: We [turned] it over to the investigator and after that he prepared a request for laboratory examination.
PROSEC.
A: Yes, sir.
PROSEC.
A: I and the investigator, sir.
PROSEC.
A: Yes, sir.
PROSEC.
A: They received the request for laboratory examination.
PROSEC.
A: Together with the specimens, sir.
PROSEC.
A: There was, sir.
PROSEC.
A: The stamp received, sir.
PROSEC.
A: Yes, sir.
PROSEC.
A: It was recorded by PO1 Calimag, sir.
PROSEC.
A: Yes, sir.
PROSEC.
A: Because there are my initials, sir.
PROSEC.
A: This one is the subject of the sale, HBG-1.
INTERPRETER: Witness is referring to Exhibit ‘D-1’.
A: And HBG-2, this is the plastic sachet confiscated from the accused.
INTERPRETER: Witness is referring to Exhibit ‘D-2’.[26]
Moreover, this Court held in Malillin v. People[27]
that the testimonies of all persons who handled the specimen are important to
establish the chain of custody. Thus,
the prosecution offered the testimony of PO2 Concepcion, the police officer who
first handled the dangerous drug. The testimony of Police Senior Inspector Maridel C.
Rodis, who handled the dangerous drug
after PO2 Concepcion, was, however, dispensed with after the stipulations made
by both the prosecution and the defense.
Undoubtedly, therefore, there was
an unbroken chain in the custody of the illicit drug purchased from
accused-appellant.
Defenses of Denial and Frame-Up Are Weak
Denial, as a defense, is
an inherently weak one[28]
and has been viewed by this Court with disdain, for it can easily be concocted
and is a very common line of defense in prosecutions arising from violations of
RA 9165.[29]
Similarly, the defense of frame-up is also easily fabricated and commonly used
in buy-bust cases.[30]
In order for the Court to
appreciate such defenses, there must be clear and convincing evidence to prove
such defense because in the absence of any intent on the part of the police
authorities to falsely impute such crime against accused-appellant, the
presumption of regularity in the performance of duty stands.
In the case at bar, the defense failed to show
any evidence of ill motive on the part of the police officers. Even accused-appellant
himself declared that he did not know any of the police officers who arrested
him. During his direct examination, he testified, thus:
Q : While walking along
A : A white Adventure blocked my way, sir.
Q : And after this vehicle blocked your way,
what happened, Mr. Witness?
A : Three men in civilian clothes alighted from
the vehicle and approached me. They held me and forced me to board their
vehicle.
Q : Do you know any of the three individuals who
got out and tried to force you inside the vehicle?
A : None, sir.
ATTY. GARLITOS : Did they tell you the
reason why you are being forcibly taken inside the vehicle?
A : No sir.
Q : Did they introduce themselves to you?
A : They introduced themselves as policemen,
sir.[31]
Likewise, the trial court held:
The testimony of PO2 Rolly B. Concepcion that was corroborated by PO2
Ronnie L. Fabroa, who have not shown and displayed any ill motive to arrest the
accused is sufficient enough to convict the accused of the crimes charged
against him. x x x As law enforcers, their narration of the incident is worthy
of belief and as such they are presumed to have performed their duties in a
regular manner, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. To stress x x x
testimony of arresting officers, with no motive or reason to falsely impute a
serious charge against the accused is credible.[32]
Thus, the categorical statements of the
prosecution witnesses must prevail over the bare denials of the accused.[33]
Denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is a negative and
self-serving evidence which deserves no weight in law and cannot be given
greater evidentiary value over the testimony of the credible witnesses who testify
on affirmative matters.[34]
Therefore, this Court upholds the presumption
of regularity in the performance of official duties and finds that the prosecution has
discharged its burden of proving the guilt of accused-appellant beyond
reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The
CA Decision in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 02958 finding accused-appellant Hasanaddin
Guiara guilty of the
crimes charged is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate
Justice
WE
CONCUR:
Associate Justice
Chairperson
MINITA V.
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.
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] Rollo, pp. 2-24. Penned by Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Noel G. Tijam and Arturo G. Tayag.
[9] People v. Rumeral, G.R. No. 86320, August 5, 1991, 200 SCRA 194; People v. Castiller, G.R. No. 87783, August 6, 1990, 188 SCRA 376; People v. Gatong-o, G.R. No. 78698, December 29, 1988, 168 SCRA 716.
[10] People v. Herrera, G.R. No. 93728, August 21, 1995, 247 SCRA 433; People v. Tadepa, G.R. No. 100354, May 26, 1995, 244 SCRA 339.
[11] People v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 143805, April 11, 2002, 380 SCRA 689; People v. Bongalon, G.R. No. 125025, January 23, 2002, 374 SCRA 289; People v. Lacap, G.R. No. 139114, October 23, 2001, 368 SCRA 124; People v. Tan, G.R. No. 133001, December, 14, 2000, 348 SCRA 116; People v. Zheng Bai Hui, G.R. No. 127580, August 22, 2000, 338 SCRA 420.
[14] People v. Tira, G.R. No. 139615, May 28,
2004, 430 SCRA 134.
[18] People v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 143805, April 11, 2002, 380 SCRA 689; People v. Uy, G.R. No. 129019, August 16, 2000, 338 SCRA 232.
[20] People v. Appegu, G.R. No. 130657, April 1, 2002, 379 SCRA 703; People v. Julian-Fernandez, G.R. Nos. 143850-53, December 18, 2001, 372 SCRA 608.
[21] People v. Doria, G.R. No. 125299, January 22, 1999, 301 SCRA 668, 718; citing People v. Zervoulakos, G.R. No. 103975, February 23, 1995, 241 SCRA 625 and People v. Rigodon, G.R. No. 111888, November 8, 1994, 238 SCRA 27.
[24] People v. Naquita, G.R. No. 180511, July 28, 2008, 560 SCRA 430, 448; citing People v. Del Monte, G.R. No. 179940, April 23, 2008, 552 SCRA 627.
[27] Supra note 22, at 632-633: “As a method of authenticating evidence, 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 claim it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness’ possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.”
[28] People v. Dulay, G.R. No. 150624, February 24, 2004, 423 SCRA 652, 662; citing People v. Arlee, G.R. No. 113518, January 25, 2000, 323 SCRA 201, 214.