SECOND DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - PETER M. CAMPOMANES and EDITH MENDOZA, Accused-Appellants. |
|
G.R. No. 187741 Present: CARPIO, J., Chairperson, NACHURA, PERALTA, ABAD, and MENDOZA, JJ. Promulgated: August 8, 2010 |
x
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
MENDOZA, J.:
Before the Court is a
petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the November
14, 2008 Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals (CA),
in CA-G.R. CR-HC. No. 01469, which affirmed the Decision[2]
of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 70,
On
On or about March
22,
Contrary to law.[4]
The second information, docketed as Criminal Case No. 12256-D,
charged only accused Campomanes with the crime of illegal possession of drug
paraphernalia (Section 12). This second
case is not covered by this disposition as accused Peter Campomanes has already
passed away.[5] The Court shall, however, refer to his
defense as long as it is relevant to the resolution of the case.
As
can be gleaned from the prosecution evidence, it appears that sometime in March
2003, after receipt of numerous reports about the drug activities of one alias
“Pete” in Bagong Ilog,
Before
proceeding to the target area, the police officers coordinated with the
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) and prepared the buy-bust money
consisting of one (1) one hundred peso (P100.00) bill. After a briefing,
the team, together with the informant, proceeded to P100.00 bill with serial number VJ979363. Upon receipt of the marked money, petitioner
went back inside the house.
After
a while, Pete came out and handed to PO1 Mapula a plastic sachet containing an
undetermined amount of white crystalline substance. Upon receiving it, PO1 Mapula took hold of Pete
and removed his cap signifying a positive bust. Before the other team members
could get near them, Pete ran inside the house. PO1 Mapula and the other team members ran
after him and were able to corner him in the kitchen. Pete was frisked and the marked 100-peso bill
was recovered from him. In the presence of the petitioner, PO1 Mapula immediately
marked the plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance with Exhibit
“A,” AVM-PMC-03/22/03, and the P100-peso bill with AVM. PO1 Mapula and
PO2 Laro also saw several drug paraphernalia on the table beside where petitioner
was seated. There were four (4) aluminum foil strips, three (3) improvised
burners, three (3) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets, one (1) improvised
plastic pipe, one (1) improvised tooter, two (2) disposable lighters colored
yellow, one (1) improvised burner, and one (1) improvised bamboo sealer.
Thereafter,
the police officers brought Pete and the petitioner to their office, together
with the seized items - plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance,
marked money and drug paraphernalia. It was only then that the police officers learned that
Pete was Peter M. Campomanes. Upon
arriving at their office, PO1 Mapula and PO2 Laro turned over the plastic
sachet containing white crystalline substance and the drug paraphernalia to
their investigator for the preparation of the request for laboratory
examination. Then, the marked
pieces of evidence were brought by PO1 Mapula to the Eastern Police District (EPD)
Crime Laboratory for chemical analysis.
Police Inspector Lourdeliza
M. Gural, a forensic chemist, conducted a qualitative examination of
the specimen, which tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a
dangerous drug. She then prepared and issued Chemistry
Report No. D-522-2003E containing her findings.[6]
Accused Campomanes[7] and petitioner denied the accusations against them. Campomanes claimed that on March 22, 2003, he
was sleeping in his bedroom at No. 17 Francisco St., Bagong Ilog, Pasig City
when five (5) police officers, all wearing civilian clothes, entered his
two-storey house; that two of the police officers, PO3 Luna and PO2 Laro,
entered his room, forced him out of his bed, handcuffed him,
and
brought him to the living room where his boarder, petitioner Edith Mendoza, was
already seated; that while they were in the living room, PO1 Esperas and PO1
Mapula searched his room and petitioner’s room located on the second floor of
his house; that the police officers did not ask permission before they made the
search; and that the police
officers brought them to the police station without informing them of the
charges.
Accused Campomanes also denied that he
sold shabu to PO1 Mapula or PO2 Laro. He did admit, however, that he used and sold shabu to his peers; that he sourced his
shabu from another drug pusher in a place called the barracks; that police officers asked him to accompany them to the barracks but the drug pusher was not
there so they went back to the headquarters; and that his caretaker told him
that the police officers were asking for five thousand (P5,000.00)
pesos.
Petitioner Edith Mendoza corroborated the testimony of Campomanes. She claimed that on March
22, 2003 at around 4:15 o’clock in the afternoon, she was in her boarding house
owned by Campomanes; that she was cleaning the house when five (5) male persons
entered the house; that four (4) of them went straight to the room of
Campomanes; that when she asked them what they needed, they told her to sit on
the sofa and keep quiet or they would slap her; that after the four men had searched
the room of Campomanes, they also searched her room and the other rooms rented
by the other boarders; that the police officers forced them to go to the police
station for investigation; that she was not hurt or injured by the policemen;
and that she did not file any criminal complaint against them.
On
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, judgment is hereby rendered, as follows:
In Criminal Case No. 12255-D both accused Peter
Campomanes and Edith Mendoza are hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the offense of violation of Section 5, Article II, Republic Act 9165 (illegal
sale of shabu) and are hereby sentenced to LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to solidarily pay
a FINE of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (PHP500,000.00).
In
Criminal Case No. 12256-D, accused Peter Campomanes is hereby found GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Violation of Section 12, Article II,
Republic Act 9165 (illegal possession of drug paraphernalia) and is hereby
sentenced to Six Months and One (1) Day to Four (4) Years and a Fine of Ten
Thousand Pesos (PHP10,000.00)
Considering the penalty imposed by the Court,
the immediate commitment of accused Peter Campomanes and Edith Mendoza to the
National Penitentiary, New Bilibid Prisons,
Pursuant to Section 20 of Republic Act 9165, the amount
of PHP100.00 representing the proceeds from illegal sale of the plastic sachet
of shabu is hereby ordered forfeited
in favor of the government.
Again, pursuant to Section 21 of the same
law, the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) is hereby ordered to take
charge and have custody of the sachet of shabu
subject of Criminal Case No. 12255-D.
Costs
against the accused.[8]
On
Elevated before it, the Court of Appeals
denied the appeal and affirmed the RTC decision based on the testimonies of PO1
Mapula and PO2 Laro on the circumstances surrounding the buy-bust operation.[12]
The CA found no reason to overturn the RTC findings as it assessed the
witnesses to be candid and straightforward. It rejected the defense of denial
and frame-up and gave greater credence to PO1 Mapula’s testimony favoring it
with the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions. It
also sustained the findings of the trial court that conspiracy existed between
accused Campomanes and the petitioner. The CA brushed aside the attack on the non-compliance
with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 citing the case of People v. Pringas,[13]
where it was held that non-compliance is not fatal as long as the integrity and
the evidentiary value of the confiscated items were properly preserved.[14]
As earlier mentioned, the Chief
Superintendent of the New Bilibid Prison informed the Court that accused Peter
Campomanes died on
From the records, the principal issues raised in
this case are the following:
I.
WHETHER OR NOT
THE POLICE OFFICERS FOLLOWED THE PRESCRIBED PROCEDURE IN THE INITIAL CUSTODY OF
THE DRUGS SEIZED AND/OR CONFISCATED AS PROVIDED UNDER SEC. 21 PAR. A OF RA
9165.
II.
WHETHER OR NOT
THE HEREIN QUESTIONED DECISION OF THE COURT A QUO IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LATEST EN BANC JURISPRUDENCE.
III.
WHETHER OR NOT
THE PROSECUTION HAS PROVEN THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED WITH PROOF BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT.[17]
In the Supplemental Appellant’s Brief
filed by petitioner, she added the following errors:
I.
THE
TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE TWO (2) ACCUSED-APPELLANTS
CONSPIRED AND CONFEDERATED WITH ONE ANOTHER IN THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME
CHARGED.
II.
THE
TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT EDITH MENDOZA GUILTY
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF VIOLATION OF SEC. 5, ARTICLE II, R.A. NO. 9165.[18]
In sum, the
issues to be resolved are (1) the credibility of the police officers who
conducted the buy-bust operation; and (2) the chain of custody of the seized
shabu.
Regarding the
first issue, the petitioner argues that the presumption of regularity, upon
which her conviction rests, should not take precedence over the presumption of
innocence. According to her, the trial
court overlooked the conflicting testimonies of PO1 Mapula and PO2 Laro. PO1
Mapula testified that he handed the buy-bust money to petitioner and, later, Campomanes
handed a sachet of shabu to him. PO2 Laro, on the other hand, said that he saw
PO1 Mapula talking to a female person and then exchanged something with Campomanes.
In other words, the prosecution
witnesses’ testimonies were not congruent as to who received the buy-bust
money. Moreover, PO2 Laro did not identify her as the woman who talked with PO1
Mapula.
The Court finds no compelling reason to
reverse the findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals. Settled is the rule that the findings and conclusion of
the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect
because the trial courts have the advantage of observing the demeanor of
witnesses as they testify.[19]
The
rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained
by the Court of Appeals as in this case.[20]
A
successful prosecution for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs must establish
the following elements: (1) identities of the buyer and seller, the object, and
the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment
therefor.[21] In
the prosecution for illegal sale of shabu, what is material is the proof
that the transaction or sale actually took place and the presentation in court
of the corpus delicti as evidence.[22]
In the present case, all the elements
have been clearly established. PO1
Mapula, who acted as the poseur-buyer, positively identified petitioner
as the person who came out of the
house, and dealt with him and the informant during the buy-bust operation. It
was the petitioner herself who asked what they needed and, upon learning that
they would buy shabu, took the buy-bust money and went inside the
house. After a while, Campomanes came out and handed to PO1 Mapula a
plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. Upon examination, the white crystalline substance bought by PO1 Mapula
from petitioner tested positive for shabu per Chemistry Report
No. D-522-2003E issued by the
Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory.
Contrary
to the claim of accused, the Court finds no material inconsistency or
contradiction in the testimonies of PO1 Mapula and PO2 Laro. The alleged inconsistencies or
contradictions cited by petitioner are not cogent enough to overturn her conviction.
The testimonies of witnesses only need to corroborate one another on material
details surrounding the actual commission of the crime.[23]
This Court has repeatedly held that a few discrepancies and inconsistencies in
the testimonies of witnesses referring to minor details and not actually
touching upon the central fact of the crime do not impair their credibility.[24]
Thus, the Court will
not disturb the findings of the trial court in assessing the credibility of the
witnesses, unless some facts or circumstances of weight and influence have been
overlooked or the significance of which has been misinterpreted by the trial
court.[25]
This arises from the fact that the lower courts 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.[26]
As to the second
issue, petitioner questions the integrity of the evidence used against her on
the ground of failure of the prosecution to establish the chain of custody of
the seized illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia particularly the inventory and
photographing of the seized items as required under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. The failure cast serious doubt on whether or
not the specimens presented in court were the ones actually confiscated from her.
The Court does
not agree.
Section 21(a) of Article II
of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 provides
that:
(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 the 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.
Although Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165 mandates
that the apprehending team must immediately conduct a physical inventory of the
seized items and photograph them, non-compliance
with said section 21 is not
fatal as long as there is a justifiable ground therefor, and as long as the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated/seized items are
properly preserved by the apprehending team.[27] Thus, the prosecution must demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary value
of the evidence seized have been preserved.[28]
We
note that nowhere in the prosecution evidence does it show the “justifiable
ground” which may excuse the police operatives involved in the buy-bust
operation in the case at bar from complying with Section 21 of Republic Act No.
9165, particularly the making of the inventory and the photographing of the
drugs and drug paraphernalia confiscated and/or seized. However, such omission
shall not render accused-appellant’s arrest illegal or the items
seized/confiscated from him as inadmissible in evidence. In People v. Naelga,[29]
We have explained that what is of utmost importance is the preservation of the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items because the same will
be utilized in ascertaining the guilt or innocence of the accused.
It
must be stressed that said “justifiable ground” will remain unknown in the
light of the apparent failure of the accused-appellant to challenge the custody
and safekeeping or the issue of disposition and preservation of the subject
drugs and drug paraphernalia before the RTC. She cannot be allowed too late in
the day to question the police officers’ alleged non-compliance with Section 21
for the first time on appeal.[30]
In People v. Sta. Maria,[31]
in which the very same issue was raised, We ruled:
Indeed,
the police
officers’ alleged violations of Sections 21 and 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 were not raised
before the trial court but were instead raised for the first time on
appeal. In no instance did appellant
least intimate at the trial court that there were lapses in the safekeeping of
seized items that affected their integrity and evidentiary value. Objection to evidence cannot be raised for
the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court to reject the evidence
offered, he must so state in the form of objection. Without such objection he cannot raise the
question for the first time on appeal. (Emphasis supplied)
In this case, there
was substantial compliance with the law and the integrity of the drugs seized
was properly preserved. The records of the case disclose that after
PO1 Mapula seized the sachet of shabu
and the buy-bust
money, he immediately marked them with
his initials in the presence of Campomanes and the petitioner. Then, Campomanes
and the petitioner were brought for investigation to the police station where PO1 Mapula and PO2 Laro turned over the sachet of shabu and drug paraphernalia to the police
investigator for the preparation of the request for laboratory examination. The
specimen, together with the request, was subsequently forwarded by PO1 Mapula
himself to the EPD crime laboratory for chemical analysis. Per
Chemistry Report No. D-522-2003E of P/Insp. Gural, the specimen was
found to be methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). These links in the chain of custody are
undisputed; the integrity of the seized drugs remains intact.
WHEREFORE,
the November
14, 2008 Decision of the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. CR-HC. NO. 01469, is AFFIRMED.
SO
ORDERED.
JOSE CATRAL
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO EDUARDO
B. NACHURA DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
A T T E S T A T
IO N
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.
ANTONIO T.
CARPIO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson,
Second Division
C E R T I F I C
A T I O N
Pursuant to
Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 2-18. Penned by Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and concurred in by Justices Isaias P. Dicdican and Marlene Gonzales-Sison.
[2] Records, pp. 128-135. Penned by Judge Pablito M. Rojas.
[3] In Criminal Case No. 12255-D and Criminal Case No. 12256-D.
[4] Records, p. 1.
[5] In a letter
dated
[6] Records, p. 62.
[7] As earlier stated, accused Peter Campomanes passed away but his defense will be recited as long as it is relevant to the defense of petitioner Edith Mendoza.
[8] Records, pp. 134-135.
[9]
[10]
[11] Section 7, Rule
120 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure reads:
Sec. 7. Modification of judgment. – A judgment
of conviction may, upon motion of the accused, be modified or set aside before
it becomes final or before appeal is perfected. Except where the death
penalty is imposed, a judgment becomes final after the lapse of the period for
perfecting an appeal, or when the sentence has been partially or totally
satisfied or served, or when the accused has waived in writing his right to
appeal, or has applied for probation.
[12] Rollo, p. 17.
[13]
G.R. No. 175928,
[14] CA rollo, pp. 195-204.
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
People v. Lazaro, Jr., G.R. No.
186418,
[20] People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 177569,
[21]
People v. Naelga, G.R. No. 171018,
[22] Supra note 19.
[23] Aparis v. People, G.R. No. 169195,
[24] People v. Lim, G.R. No. 187503,
[25] People v. Cruz, G.R. No. 185381,
[26] People v. Razul, 441 Phil. 62 (2002).
[27] People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 175832,
[28] People v. Denoman, G.R. No. 171732,
[29] Supra note 21.
[30] People v. Norberto Del Monte y Gapay, G.R. No. 179940, April 23, 2008, 552 SCRA 627, 642.
[31]
G.R. No. 171019,