Republic of the
SUPREME COURT
THIRD DIVISION
|
THE PEOPLE OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, -
versus - DARLENE QUIGOD y MIRANDA, Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 186419 Present: VELASCO,
JR., LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO,* PERALTA,
and MENDOZA,
JJ. Promulgated: April
23, 2010 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
VELASCO, JR., J.:
This is an appeal from the October 13, 2008 Decision of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00279-MIN entitled People of the Philippines v. Darlene Quigod y Miranda which
affirmed the August 6, 2004 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch
4 in Butuan City in Criminal Case No. 9584 for Violation of Section 5, Article
II of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165), otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The charge against accused-appellant stemmed from the following
Information:
The undersigned accuses DARLENE QUIGOD y MIRANDA of the crime of Violation of Sec. 5, Article II of R.A. 9165, committed as follows:
That on or about 4:30 o’clock in the afternoon of September 6, 2002 at Ong Yiu, Butuan City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver two (2) sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as shabu, weighing zero point four six seven zero (0.4670) grams, to SPO2 Antonio Paloma Jamila (acting as poseur-buyer), which is a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW: (Violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165)
On
During the trial, the prosecution presented as their
witnesses, SPO2 Antonio Jamila (SPO2 Jamila) and Police Inspector Cramwell
Tanquiamco Banogon (P/Insp. Banogon). On
the other hand, the defense presented as its witnesses, Darlene Quigod, the
accused-appellant herself, and Manuel Vergara, Jr.
Version of the Prosecution
The facts, according to the prosecution, are as
follows:
In the morning of
At around
Shortly thereafter, accused-appellant came back with the two (2) sachets
of shabu and demanded immediate payment for them from SPO2 Jamila who,
in turn, carefully examined the articles.
When he already had the two (2) sachets of shabu, SPO2 Jamila
gave the pre-arranged signal to PO1 Morales, who was only about 10 to 15 meters
away. The latter, along with other
police officers, rushed towards accused-appellant, identified themselves as
PDEA agents, and arrested her.[5]
The team, together with accused-appellant, immediately proceeded to their
office for booking, documentation and filing of the case against her.[6] The 2 articles seized, respectively marked as
RPM1 and RPM2, were under the initial custody of SPO2 Jamila.[7]
At about
P/Insp. Banogon, a forensic chemist, conducted a qualitative examination
on the specimen weighing 0.1821 gram (RPM1) and 0.2849 gram (RPM2),
respectively. The specimen gave positive
result to the tests for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. This was indicated in Chemistry Report No.
D-126-2002[9] issued by P/Insp. Banogon
after conducting the afore-mentioned qualitative examination. The urine sample
taken from accused-appellant also gave a “positive” result for the presence of
the same drug,[10] as indicated in Chemistry
Report No. and DT-070-2002.[11]
Version of the Defense
On the other hand, accused-appellant interposed the defense of denial.
She testified that she was a fish vendor who looked after her family’s carenderia
before she got arrested. She resided at
Accused-appellant recounted that on
Manuel Vergara, Jr., the second witness for the defense, testified that
accused-appellant was indeed a police asset of a certain Toto Maravilla. He stated that he knew this because he
allegedly was also a police asset and they had worked together in 2000 during
buy-bust operations conducted in Bayugan and in RTR, Agusan del Norte.[15] However, he did not know of the incident that
transpired on
Ruling of the Trial Court
After trial, the RTC of Butuan City convicted
accused-appellant. The dispositive
portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds accused Darlene Quigod y Miranda guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 5, Art. II of Republic Act 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and hereby imposes upon her the penalty of life imprisonment and fine of Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) Pesos.
The confiscated shabu is hereby ordered destroyed in accordance with the provisions of Section 21 of Republic Act 9165.
The accused shall serve her sentence at the Correctional Institute for Women at Mandaluyong, Metro Manila. She shall be entitled to the full benefits of her preventive imprisonment which shall be credited in the service of her sentence according to the provision of Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
SO ORDERED.[16]
On appeal to the CA, accused-appellant questioned the
lower court’s decision in convicting her despite the failure of the prosecution
to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
She raised the issue of whether the chain of custody of the shabu allegedly recovered from her was
properly established. She argued that
SPO2 Jamila failed to properly identify the prohibited drug and that the
prosecution was unable to prove that the drugs presented in court were the same
drugs seized from her.
Ruling of the Appellate Court
On
During the trial, the prosecution through SPO2 Jamila (as poseur-buyer) was able to establish the consummation of the sale by agreeing to purchase sachets of shabu at P1,000.00 each from appellant, which the latter had voluntarily delivered at the total price of P2,000.00 for two (2) sachets of shabu. SPO2 Jamila personally identified appellant in court as the same person who sold to him the shabu. The two (2) sachets of shabu confiscated from appellant, properly marked as Exhibits “RPM1 and RPM2”, were immediately brought to the laboratory for qualitative examination. The result of tests conducted confirmed that the specimen submitted were positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride. More so, appellant’s urine specimen that was taken by the authorities was found with traces of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, thus indicating that she had recentlty “used” shabu.
Tested against the elements necessary to establish the fact of sale or delivery of illegal drugs, i.e., (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefore, the prosecution was able to establish that appellant is guilty of the crime with which she was charged.[17]
The CA also held that in the face of SPO2 Jamila’s
positive testimony, accused-appellant’s denial is self-serving and has little
weight in law.
The dispositive portion of the Decision of the CA
reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision dated August 16, 2004 (sic) of the trial court appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED IN TOTO.
SO ORDERED.[18]
On November 5, 2008, accused-appellant filed her Notice of Appeal of the Decision
dated October 13, 2008 rendered by the CA.[19]
In Our Resolution dated March 30, 2009,[20]
We notified the parties that they may file their respective supplemental
briefs, if they so desire, within thirty (30) days from notice. On June 16, 2009, the People of the
Accused-appellant contends in both
her Brief for Accused-Appellant[23]
and Supplemental Brief[24]
that:
I.
the court of appeals erred in CONVICTING
accused-appellant DESPITE THE failure OF THE PROSECUTION to prove HER guilt
beyond reasonable doubt.
II.
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE
ERROR IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROPER CUSTODY OF SEIZED DANGEROUS DRUGS UNDER R.A. NO.
9165.
III.
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE
ERROR IN GIVING FULL WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE PROSECUTION’S EVIDENCE
NOTWITHSTANDING ITS FAILURE TO PROVE THE INTEGRITY OF THE SEIZED DRUG.
We sustain accused-appellant’s conviction.
Factual finding of the trial
court, especially when affirmed by the CA, are generally binding and conclusive
upon this Court
After a careful examination of the records of
this case, We are satisfied that the prosecution’s evidence established the
guilt of accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
In deciding this appeal, the Court once again reiterates the legal
aphorism that factual findings of the CA affirming those of the trial court are
binding on this Court unless there is a clear showing that such findings are
tainted with arbitrariness, capriciousness or palpable error.[25] Unfortunately, however, accused-appellant
failed to show any of these as to warrant a review of the findings of fact of
the lower courts.
Furthermore, it is an oft-stated doctrine that factual findings of the
trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its
assessment of their probative weight is given high respect if not conclusive
effect, unless the trial court ignored, misconstrued, misunderstood or
misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances of substance, which, if considered,
will alter the outcome of the case.[26] In the instant case, a meticulous review of
the records gave us no reason to deviate from the factual findings of the trial
court.
Buy-Bust Operation is a
Legitimate Mode of Apprehending Drug Pushers
A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment whereby ways and means are
resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreakers in the
execution of their criminal plan.[27] In this jurisdiction, the operation is legal
and has been proven to be an effective method of apprehending drug peddlers,
provided due regard to constitutional and legal safeguards is undertaken.[28]
In the case at bar, the evidence clearly shows that the buy-bust
operation conducted by the police officers, who made use of entrapment to
capture accused-appellant in the act of selling a dangerous drug, was
valid. It has been established that it
was the police informant who made the initial contact with accused-appellant
when he introduced SPO2 Jamila as a buyer for shabu. SPO2 Jamila then ordered two (2) sachets of shabu
which accused-appellant agreed to sell at PhP 1,000 per sachet. Accused-appellant left for a while and
shortly thereafter, she came back with the two (2) sachets containing a white
crystalline substance which was later identified as shabu and gave them to
SPO2 Jamila. The latter then paid her
with the previously marked money he brought with him. Subsequently, upon giving
the pre-arranged signal, the accused-appellant was arrested. Evidently, the facts themselves demonstrate a
valid buy-bust operation that is within the bounds of a fair and reasonable
administration of justice.
Chain of Custody was
Properly Established
Accused-appellant contends in both her Brief for Accused-Appellant[29]
and Supplemental Brief[30] that
there was failure on the part of the police officers who allegedly conducted
the buy-bust operation to properly make an inventory of the shabu allegedly recovered from her. She further argues that the police officers
also failed to photograph and mark the shabu
immediately after the alleged buy-bust operation. In other words, she claims
that there is clear doubt on the identity of the shabu that was allegedly recovered from the accused-appellant
because the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody of the
prohibited drug.
We do not agree.
In the prosecution for the illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the Court
has reiterated the essential elements in People v. Pendatun, to wit: (1)
the accused sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another; and (2) he knew
that what he had sold and delivered was a prohibited drug.[31] All these elements were ably proven by the
prosecution in the instant case. The accused-appellant sold and delivered the shabu for PhP 2,000 to SPO2 Jamila
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, the accused-appellant was fully aware that
she was selling and delivering a prohibited drug. As testified by SPO2 Jamila:
Q: Now, at about 4:30 o’clock in the afternoon of
September 6, 2002, where were you at that time, Mr. Witness?
A: We were at
the vicinity of Purok Ong Yiu,
Q: What
particular purok, if you can remember?
A: At Purok
7, near the basketball court.
Q: Who were
your companions at that time?
A: One PO1
Morales and our confidential agent, Sir.
Q: When you
arrived at the place as you already mentioned a while ago, what else
transpired?
A: Our
confidential agent tried to contact one alias Darlene Quigod.
Q: And under
whose instruction was that?
A: By myself,
Sir.
Q: Your
instruction?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: Was that
confidential agent, a boy or a girl?
A: A boy,
Sir.
Q: Was that
confidential agent able to contact a certain Darlene?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: And, what
transpired next after he was able to contact Darlene?
A: I was
introduced to one Darlene that I am the buyer of shabu, and we agreed that she
will sell the shabu at P1,000.00 per sachet.
Q: Did you
agree to the proposal?
A: Yes, Sir,
I ordered two (2) sachets.
Q: So, at that
time Darlene was there in your presence.
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: What
transpired next after that?
A: She asked
permission that she will get the stuff and for us to wait and so we waited for
her near the basketball court.
Q: Did she
arrive?
A: After
several minutes, she arrived, Sir.
Q: Who was
with her, if there was any?
A: She was
alone, Sir.
Q: What
transpired when she arrived?
A: She handed
to me the two (2) sachets and demanded the money, and I told her that I will
first see the stuff whether it is a real one.
Q: How much
amount was she demanding as purchase price?
A: It was
P2,000, Sir.
Q: Why is that
P2,000?
A: Because
that is what we agreed that the price would be P1,000 per sachet.
Q: Did she
give you the alleged shabu?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: And, what
did you do when you were already in the possession of the two (2) sachets of
shabu which is, according to you, worth P2,000 as per sachet is P1,000?
A: I gave the
pre-arranged signal to PO1 Morales and then he rushed up and introduced
ourselves as PDEA agents and made the arrest. After which we informed of her
constitutional rights.
Q: By the way,
at the time when the sachets of shabu were handed to you by Darlene, where was
Morales situated?
A: In a distance
of about ten (10) to fifteen (15) meters, more or less, where the suspect could
not detect him.[32]
Clearly, all the elements for the crime of
illegal sale of prohibited drugs were proven in the instant case. The testimony
of SPO2 Jamila plainly showed that a sale occurred between the
accused-appellant, as the seller, and himself, as the buyer, for PhP 2,000
worth of shabu.
Further,
it is worth noting that the chain of custody was also clearly established. In
every prosecution for the illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the presentation of
the drug, i.e., as part of the corpus
delicti, as evidence in court is also material.[33]
Corpus delicti is the body or substance of the
crime, and establishes the fact that a crime has actually been committed.[34]
In the instant case, the existence of the
dangerous drug is vital to a judgment of conviction. It is, therefore, essential 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.[35]
For the purpose of ensuring that the chain of
custody is established, the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 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; x x x[36] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)
Significantly, non-compliance with Section 21
does not render an accused’s arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated
from him inadmissible.[37] 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.”[38]
In the instant case, there was substantial
compliance with the law, and the integrity of the drugs seized from the
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
after SPO2 Jamila seized and confiscated the dangerous drugs, as well as the
marked money, the accused-appellant was immediately arrested and brought to the
police station for investigation.
Immediately thereafter, the confiscated
substance marked as “RPM1” and “RPM2,” respectively, together with a letter of
request for examination, was submitted by SPO2 Jamila to the PNP Crime
Laboratory for laboratory examination to determine the presence of any
dangerous drug. Notably, PO1 Morales and
accused-appellant herself were with SPO2 Jamila when he delivered the same to
the laboratory.
Also, it was P/Insp. Banogon himself who
received the specimen from SPO2 Jamila. As mentioned above, P/Insp. Banogon is
the Forensic Chemical Officer of the PNP Crime Laboratory who conducted the
laboratory examination on the specimen, and based on Chemistry Report No.
D-126-2002, the specimen submitted indeed contained Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. As
testified by P/Insp. Banogon:
PROSECUTOR GUIRITAN:
Q: Now, insofar as this Exh. ‘A’ which is the
written request for laboratory examination, based on this written request,
please tell the court as to when it was
actually received by your office?
A: It was
received, sir, at around 1835 Hours or
Q: And who
actually delivered the specimen to your office?
A: It was
delivered by a certain SPO2 Jamila.
PROSECUTOR GUIRITAN:
Q: And who
actually received the specimen in your office?
A: It was me
who received the specimen, sir.
PROSECUTOR GUIRITAN:
For identification purposes, Your Honor, may we request the office stamp
mark – it’s already marked as Exh. ‘A’ for the prosecution, Your Honor.
Q: Now, what
was the result? Who actually did? The examination of this specimen?
A: It was me,
sir, the forensic examiner, the forensic chemist of the Regional Crime
Laboratory who did the actual laboratory examination wherein both of the
specimen tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride,
otherwise known as shabu.
Q: You mean
the two (2) sachets of alleged shabu were?
A: All
positive, sir.
Q: All
positive. And what is your basis in saying that? Was that report of findings of
yours reduced into writing, Mr. Witness?
A: Yes, sir.
I immediately consolidated my results into an official chemistry report which
is now in your possession having the Chemistry Report No. of D-126-2002.”[39]
Based on the foregoing, it is evident that
there was an unbroken chain in the custody of the prohibited drug purchased
from accused-appellant.
Defense of Denial is
Inherently Weak
In the face of SPO2 Jamila’s positive
testimony, accused-appellant’s denial is self-serving and has little weight in
law. A bare denial is an inherently weak defense[40]
and has been invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor for it can be easily
concocted but difficult to prove, and is a common standard line of defense in
most prosecutions arising from violations of RA 9165.[41] Time and again, We have held that “denials unsubstantiated by convincing
evidence are not enough to engender reasonable doubt, particularly where the
prosecution presents sufficiently telling proof of guilt.”[42]
Also, in the absence of any intent on the part
of the police authorities to falsely impute such crime against the
accused-appellant, the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty
stands.[43] More so in the instant case, where an
assiduous analysis of SPO2 Jamila’s testimony does not indicate any
inconsistency, contradiction or fabrication.
In addition, SPO2 Jamila testified that prior to the incident, he does
not know accused-appellant.
All told, we uphold the presumption of
regularity in the performance of official duty and find that the prosecution has
discharged its burden of proving the guilt of accused-appellant beyond
reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision of the CA in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No.
00279-MIN finding accused-appellant Darlene Quigod guilty of the crime charged
is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate
Justice
WE
CONCUR:
Associate Justice
Chairperson
TERESITA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
JOSE CATRAL
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
* Additional member per August 12, 2009 raffle.
[26]
[27] People v. De Leon, G.R. No. 186471, January 25, 2010; citing Cruz v. People, G.R. No. 164580, February 6, 2009, 578 SCRA 147 and People v. Del Mundo, G.R. No. 169141, December 6, 2006, 510 SCRA 554.
[31] G.R. No. 148822, July 12, 2004, 434 SCRA 148, 155-156; citing People v. Cercado, G.R. No. 144494, July 26, 2002, 385 SCRA 277; People v. Pacis, G.R. No. 146309, July 18, 2002, 384 SCRA 684.
[33] People v. Doria, G.R. No. 125299, January 22, 1999, 301 SCRA 668, 718; citing People v. Zervoulakos, 241 SCRA 625 (1995) and People v. Rigodon, 238 SCRA 271 (1994).
[37] 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.
[38] People v. Naquita, G.R. No. 180511, July 28, 2008, 560 SCRA 430, 448; citing People v. Concepcion, G.R. No. 178876, June 27, 2008, 556 SCRA 421.
[40] People v. Dulay, G.R. No. 150624, February 24, 2004, 423 SCRA 652, 662; citing People v. Arlee, 323 SCRA 201, 214 (2000).