FIRST
DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE
Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - MICHAEL SEMBRANO y CASTRO, Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 185848 Present:
Chairperson, VELASCO, JR., LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, PEREZ,
JJ. Promulgated: August 16, 2010 |
x - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
PEREZ, J.
Accused-appellant
MICHAEL SEMBRANO y CASTRO (appellant) is before this Court appealing from the
The
antecedent facts
On 26
July 2004, the operatives of the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs (SAID) of the
Novaliches Police Station arrested appellant in broad daylight, in the course
of a buy-bust operation and after a follow-up search on him.
On 28
July 2004, the Assistant City Prosecutor of Quezon City in the National Capital
Region (QC-NCR) filed two separate Informations against him for (1) illegal
sale and (2) illegal possession of shabu,
a dangerous drug. The two cases were
raffled to Branch 82 of the RTC, QC and docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. Q-04-128370
and Q-04-128371, imputing the following acts against him:
Criminal Case
No. Q-04-128370
That on or about the 26th day of July 2004, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, not being authorized by law to sell, dispense, deliver transport or distribute any dangerous drug, did, then and there, willfully and unlawfully sell, dispense, deliver, transport, distribute or act as broker in the said transaction, zero point twelve (0.12) gram of white crystalline substance containing of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.[4]
Criminal Case No. Q-04-128371
That on or about the 26th
day of July 2004, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, not being
authorized by law to possess any dangerous drug, did, then and there,
willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his/her/their possession and
control, zero point twenty seven (0.27) gram of white crystalline substance
containing Methylamphetamine
Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.[5]
Sembrano was arraigned on
During trial, the prosecution presented the testimonies of
the following witnesses: (1) Police Officer 1 (PO1) Jomar Manaol; and (2) Police
Officer 1 (PO1) Kingly James Bagay.
The combined testimonies of PO1 Manaol and PO1 Bagay sought
to establish that at around 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon of 26 July 2004, an
informant of the police arrived at the SAID of the Novaliches Police Station. The confidential informant relayed
information regarding illicit drugs trade operations conducted by a certain
Michael Sembrano alias ‘Takol’ in the area of Gulod in Novaliches,
Superintendent (Supt.) Ramon Perez, head of SAID, formed a
buy-bust team composed of PO1 Jomar Manaol, SPO1 Cesar Futol, PO1 Kingly James
Bagay, PO1 Neil John Dumlao, and PO1 Fernando Salonga. SPO1 Futol prepared the pre-operation report
for the team. The group then proceeded
to
The group arrived at the designated area at around 3:30
o’clock in the afternoon. PO1 Manaol was
designated poseur-buyer. He was handed
two (2) One Hundred Peso bills which he marked with his initials ‘JAM’ on the
lower right side thereof, right below the image of the Philippine Flag. PO1 Manaol, together with the confidential
informant, then proceeded to the target site. The other members of the team, including
witness PO1 Bagay, acted as back-up and positioned themselves about twenty-five
meters away from where PO1 Manaol and the confidential informant were.
They waited until appellant arrived at around
PO1 Manaol recovered the suspected shabu subject of the sale from appellant and placed his initials
JAM thereon. PO1 Bagay was also able to
retrieve the buy-bust money from appellant’s right hand. A follow-up frisk on appellant resulted in
the confiscation of two other plastic sachets of white crystalline substance
suspected to be shabu, from the right
hand pocket of his shorts. Immediately
after retrieving the evidence, PO1 Bagay marked the confiscated sachets with
his initials KJB.
After his arrest, the police officers took appellant to the
police station where he was turned over to the desk officer and to the on-duty
investigator. PO1 Bagay, who had custody
of the confiscated evidence, turned over the seized three (3) plastic sachets
of white crystalline substance to the investigator. PO1 Manaol and PO1 Bagay executed a Joint
Affidavit of Arrest and signed the Inventory of Seized Drugs/Item prepared by
SPO1 Cesar Futol.
The confiscated items were transmitted on the same day by
the investigator on-duty, through PO1 Salonga, PO1 Manaol and PO1 Bagay to the
Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory for examination.
A forensic examination of the contents of the seized sachets
as conducted by Police Senior Inspector (P/S Insp.) Leonard T. Arban, Forensic
Chemical Officer yielded the following results in Chemistry Report No.
D-698-04:
SPECIMEN SUBMITTED:
Three (3) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets, each containing white crystalline substance with the following markings and recorded net weights:
A (JAM - MCS) = 0.12 gram
B (KJB – MCS1) = 0.10 gram
C (KJB – MCS2) = 0.17 gram
FINDINGS:
Qualitative examination conducted on the above-stated specimens gave POSITIVE result to the tests for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.[7]
Expectedly, the defense had an entirely different version, with
Sembrano testifying on the witness stand.
He narrated that at around 1:00 o’clock in the afternoon of 26 July 2004;
he was buying lumber somewhere along
The RTC found accused-appellant guilty as charged in Criminal
Cases Nos. Q-04-128370 and Q-04-128371. Weighing the body of evidence submitted
by both parties, the trial court gave little credence to appellant’s unsubstantiated
claim that he was a police asset and ascertained that the prosecution established
all the elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of a dangerous or
prohibited drug.
Thus, in its Decision dated
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
a) Re:
Criminal Case No. Q-0-4128370, accused MICHAEL SEMBRANO is hereby found guilty
beyond reasonable doubt a (sic) of a violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A.
No. 9165, and accordingly, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE
IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine in the amount of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00)
PESOS;
b) Re:
Criminal Case No. Q-04-128371, said accused is likewise found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11, Article II of the same Act and,
accordingly, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of
imprisonment of TWELVE (12) YEARS and one (1) DAY as MINIMUM to FOURTEEN (14)
YEARS as MAXIMUM and to pay a fine in the amount of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P300,000.00)
PESOS.[8]
Seeking recourse from his conviction by the trial court, the
appellant elevated the case to the Court of Appeals via Notice of Appeal. Insisting on his innocence, the defense
questioned the admissibility of the confiscated evidence on the ground of illegality
of appellant’s arrest. The defense also
attacked the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, claiming their stories
are unbelievable and should have led to the dismissal of the charges.
According credence to the evidence of the prosecution, the
Court of Appeals promulgated its Decision on 18 June 2008, where the appellate
court affirmed the findings and conclusions of the trial court, but reduced the
penalty imposed in the illegal possession case to six (6) years and one (1) day
of prision mayor as minimum to
fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum.[9]
Appellant is now appealing his conviction to this Court, as
a final recourse, praying that he be absolved of the charges. Instead of filing supplemental briefs, the
defense and the prosecution adopted the arguments in their respective appellate
briefs submitted before the Court of Appeals.
Thus, this Court is tasked to resolve the following
assignment of errors:
I. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT APPELLANT WAS ILLEGALLY ARRESTED AND AS SUCH, THE SACHETS OF SHABU ALLEGEDLY RECOVERED FROM HIM WERE INADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE.
II. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE INCREDIBLE TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES.
III. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME CHARGED.
The defense challenges the RTC and Court of Appeals rulings,
anchored on its claim that the warrantless arrest against appellant was unlawful.
Consequently, applying the ‘fruit of the
poisonous tree’ doctrine, any evidence allegedly obtained during such unlawful
warrantless arrest cannot be used as evidence.
The defense proffers that the illegal drugs allegedly seized from appellant
during the buy-bust operation should have been declared inadmissible. Alleging he is a victim of frame-up by the
police officers, appellant attacks the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. In sum, appellant seeks acquittal on the
ground that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Coming from an entirely different perspective, the Office
of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing the prosecution, disagrees with
the aforementioned contentions from the defense side. It counters that the sachets of shabu were seized from appellant during a
buy-bust operation. Thus, any opposition
thereto with respect to its admissibility on the ground that said sachets were
seized during an illegal arrest is unfounded.
As for the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the testimony of
the poseur-buyer, in particular, was corroborated by the police operatives on
material points.
We find no merit in the appeal.
Conviction is
proper in prosecutions involving illegal sale of regulated or
prohibited drugs if the following elements are present: (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 thereto.[10]
What is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place,
coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited or regulated drug.[11] We reiterate the meaning of the term corpus
delicti which is the actual commission by someone of the particular crime
charged.[12]
Having weighed
the arguments and evidence propounded by the defense and the prosecution, this
Court is satisfied that the prosecution discharged its burden of establishing
all the elements of illegal sale of regulated or prohibited drugs and proved appellant’s
guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The collective
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, as well as the documentary evidence
offered in court, provide a detailed picture of the sequence of events leading
to the consummation of the transaction, the very moment PO1 Manaol received the
drug from accused-appellant, the seller.
The foregoing is the very corpus
delicti of the offense.
Whatever doubt
concerning appellant’s culpability is now beyond question after he was caught
in a buy-bust operation conducted by the operatives of the Novaliches Police
Station in the afternoon of
Appellant was caught in flagrante delicto delivering 0.12
gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu
to PO2 Manaol, the poseur-buyer, for a consideration of P200.00. Upon frisking after his arrest, another 0.27
gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride were recovered from him. It is clear from the evidence on record that
the sachet of shabu sold by appellant
was marked by PO2 Manaol with his initials, while the other two sachets were
marked by PO1 Bagay with his initials. PO1
Bagay, who had custody of the seized evidence, brought confiscated three
plastic sachets of white crystalline substance to the police station and turned
over to the investigator. At the police
station, an Inventory of Seized
Drugs/Item was prepared by SPO1 Cesar Futol and signed by PO1 Manaol and PO1
Bagay. The investigator on duty, to whom
the seized evidence were encrusted by PO1 Bagay, through PO1 Salonga, PO1
Manaol and PO1 Bagay, turned over the evidence to the PNP-Crime Laboratory for
forensic examination on the same day he received the items. In a Chemistry Report released by P/S Insp.
Leonard T. Arban, the white crystalline substance taken from the three sachets proved
positive for shabu.
PO1 Manaol, the
poseur-buyer, positively identified Sembrano as the person who sold and handed
him the sachet containing white crystalline substance, proven to be shabu.[13]
On the legality
of the warrantless arrest, We reiterate that appellant was arrested during an
entrapment operation where he was caught in
flagrante delicto selling shabu. When an arrest is made during an entrapment
operation, it is not required that a warrant be secured in line with the
provisions of Rule 113, Section 5(a) of the Revised Rules of Court allowing warrantless arrests, to wit:
Section 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.
x x x
A buy-bust
operation is a form of entrapment which in recent years has been accepted as a
valid and effective mode of apprehending drug pushers.[14] If carried out with due regard for
constitutional and legal safeguards, a buy-bust operation, such as the one
involving appellant, deserves judicial sanction. Consequently, the warrantless arrest
and warrantless search and seizure conducted on the person of appellant were
allowed under the circumstances. The
search, incident to his lawful arrest, needed no warrant to sustain its
validity.[15] Thus, there is no doubt that the sachets of shabu recovered during the legitimate
buy-bust operation, are admissible and were properly admitted in evidence
against him.[16]
Appellant’s
defenses of denial and frame-up are both self-serving and uncorroborated, and must
fail in light of straightforward and positive testimony of poseur-buyer
identifying him as the seller of shabu. The twin defenses of denial and frame-up hold
little weight vis-à-vis the strong
evidence gathered by the prosecution in proving his complicity to the
offenses. To recall, PO1 Manaol’s
testimony was corroborated on material points by PO1 Bagay, who identified appellant
as the one who handed the sachet of shabu
to PO1 Manaol after being handed two (2) One Hundred Peso bills. Contrary to the defense’s claim, it is not
impossible for a buy-bust operation to be conducted in broad daylight, as in
the case at bar. Frame-up, like denial,
is viewed by this Court with disfavor for it can easily be concocted.[17]
Finally, in
cases involving violations of Dangerous Drugs Act, credence should be given to
the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses especially when they
are police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a
regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary.[18] In this regard, the defense failed to show
any ill motive or odious intent on the part of the police operatives to impute
such a serious crime that would put in jeopardy the life and liberty of an
innocent person, such as in the case of appellant. Incidentally, if these were
simply trumped-up charges against him, it remains a question why no
administrative charges were brought against the police operatives. Moreover, in weighing the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses vis-à-vis those
of the defense, it is a well-settled rule that in the absence of palpable error
or grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge, the trial court’s
evaluation of the credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed on appeal.[19]
On the merits of allegations of illegal
possession of shabu, We find,
likewise, against appellant and sustain the findings of the RTC and Court of
Appeals.
For illegal
possession of regulated or prohibited drugs, the prosecution must
establish the following elements: (1) the accused is in possession of an item
or object, which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is
not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the
drug.[20] All the aforesaid elements were established. Incident to his lawful arrest resulting from
the buy-bust operation, appellant was likewise found to have in his possession
0.27 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu, the same kind of dangerous drug he was caught selling in flagrante delicto. There is nothing on record to show that he had
legal authority to possess the same.
Finally, this Court held in a number of cases, as in People v. Noque, G.R. No. 175319, 15
January 2010, citing People v. Tee, 443 Phil. 521, 551 (2003), ‘mere
possession of a regulated drug per se constitutes prima facie evidence
of knowledge or animus possidendi
sufficient to convict an accused absent a satisfactory explanation of such
possession – the onus probandi is
shifted to the accused, to explain the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi.’
We now determine
the imposable penalties.
The sale
of shabu is punishable under Section
5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, viz.:
Section 5.
P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00)
shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell,
trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute dispatch
in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of
opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a
broker in any of such transactions. x x x
Under
the provisions of said law, the sale of any dangerous drug, e.g. shabu, regardless of its quantity and
purity, carries with it the penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine
ranging from Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten Million
Pesos (P10,000,000.00).[21] With the effectivity, however, of Republic Act
No. 9346, otherwise known as “An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death
Penalty in the
On the
other hand, illegal possession of dangerous drugs is penalized under Section
11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, to wit:
Section 11. Possession
of Dangerous Drugs. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine
ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million
pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless
authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug in the following
quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof:
x x x Otherwise, if the
quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be
graduated as follows:
(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 opium,
morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or
marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu", or other dangerous drugs
such as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy", PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB,
and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives,
without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond
therapeutic requirements; or less than three hundred (300) grams of marijuana x
x x.
The
foregoing provision specifically states that illegal possession of less than
five (5) grams of said dangerous drug is penalized with 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).[22] The
evidence adduced by the prosecution in Criminal Case No. Q-04-128371 established
beyond reasonable doubt that appellant, without any legal authority, had in his
possession 0.27 gram of shabu or less
than five (5) grams of dangerous drug.
Applying
the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum period of the imposable penalty shall
not fall below the minimum period set by the law; the maximum period shall not
exceed the maximum period allowed under the law. Taking the foregoing into consideration, We
find that the Court of Appeals erred in imposing the penalty of Three Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) fine and imprisonment of six (6) years and
one (1) day to eight (8) years only. Thus, the penalty of twelve (12) years and
one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00)
imposed by the RTC is proper.
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the P300,000.00) in Criminal Case No. Q-04-128371,
for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, of Republic Act No.
9165. The penalties imposed in Criminal
Case No. Q-04-128370, for illegal sale
of dangerous drugs under Section 15, of Republic Act No. 9165, is sustained.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
JOSE
|
WE
CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Chairperson
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. TERESITA
J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice Associate Justice
MARIANO C.
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, 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.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
[1] Penned
by Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia, with the concurrence of Associate
Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Isaias P. Dicdican; Rollo, pp. 2-19.
[2] Penned
by Judge Severino B. De Castro, Jr., CA
rollo, pp. 20-27.
[3] Section
5. P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00)
shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell,
trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute dispatch
in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of
opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a
broker in any of such transactions. x x x.
Section 11. Possession of Dangerous
Drugs. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine
ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million
pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless
authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug in the following
quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof:
x x x Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the
foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be graduated as follows:
(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 opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride,
marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu", or other dangerous drugs
such as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy", PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB,
and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives,
without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond
therapeutic requirements; or less than three hundred (300) grams of marijuana x
x x.
[4] Records,
p. 2.
[5] Records,
p. 6.
[6] Records,
Vol. 1, p. 65.
[7] Chemistry
Report D-698-04, Exhibit C, Records, p. 142.
[8] CA
rollo, pp. 26-27.
[9] Rollo, p. 19, the dispositive portion of
the assailed Decision reading:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Appeal is hereby
DENIED. The Decision dated
[10] People v. Partoza, G.R. No. 182418, 8
May 2009, 587 SCRA 809, 816.
[11] People v. Rivera, G.R. No. 182347, 17 October 2008, 569 SCRA 879, 893.
[12] People. v. Taboga, G.R. No. 144086-7,
426 Phil. 908, 922 (2002).
[13] Supra
note 7 at 6.
[14] People v. Cabugatan, G.R. No. 172019, 12
February 2007, 515 SCRA 537, 552.
[15] There
are eight (8) instances when a warrantless search and seizure is valid, to wit:
(1) consented searches; (2) as an incident to a lawful
arrest; (3) searches of vessels and aircraft for violation of immigration,
customs, and drug laws; (4) searches of moving vehicles; (5) searches of
automobiles at borders or constructive borders; (6) where the prohibited
articles are in "plain view;" (7) searches of buildings and premises
to enforce fire, sanitary, and building regulations; and (8) "stop and
frisk" operations.
[16] People v. Agulay, G.R. No. 181747, 26 September 2008, 566 SCRA 594.
[17] Chang v. People, G.R. No. 177237, 17
October 2008, 569 SCRA, 711, 733.
[18] People v. Lamado, G.R. No. 185278, 13 March 2009, 581 SCRA 544, 552.
[19] People v.
Remerata, G.R. No. 147230, 449 Phil. 813, 822 (2003).
[20] People. v. Lagman, G.R. No. 168695, 8 December
2005, 573 SCRA 224, 232-233.
[21] People v. Serrano, G.R. No. 179038, 6
May 2010.
[22] People v. Darisan and Gauang, G.R. No. 176151, 30 January 2009, 577 SCRA 486, 492.