Republic of the
SUPREME COURT
FIRST
DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - ROGELIO J. ROSIALDA, Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 188330 Present: VELASCO, JR., LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, PEREZ, JJ. Promulgated: August 25, 2010 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I
S I O N
VELASCO,
JR., J.:
The Case
This
is an appeal from the February 17, 2009 Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 02968, which affirmed the Decision[2]
dated April 27, 2007 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 164 in Pasig City,
finding accused-appellant Rogelio Rosialda guilty of violating Section 5,
Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002. The RTC sentenced
accused-appellant to life imprisonment and imposed upon him a fine of PhP
500,000, with the accessory penalties provided under Sec. 35 of RA 9165.
The Facts
On March 27, 2003, the Mayor’s
Special Action Team, City Hall Detachment, Pasig City Police, received information
from Brgy. Councilor Antonio Santos of Brgy.
Accompanied by
At the police station, Bong was
identified as accused-appellant Rogelio Rosialda. There, too, PO1 Panis then turned over the plastic
sachet to Police Senior Inspector Rodrigo Villaruel, who prepared a laboratory
examination request, addressed to the Eastern Police District Crime Laboratory
Office. A certain PO1 Mariano brought
the plastic sachet with the examination request to the crime laboratory where
it was received by a certain PO1 Chuidian.
The contents of the plastic sachet were then examined by Police
Inspector (P/Insp.) Lourdeliza Gural, who prepared the corresponding Chemistry
Report No. D-548-03E, with the following findings:
FINDINGS
Qualitative examination conducted on the
above-stated specimen gave POSITIVE result to the tests for the presence of
Methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drugs (Exh. “C”)[3]
Thus,
the following Information[4]
dated March 28, 2003 was filed against Rosialda for violation of Sec. 5,
Article II of RA 9165:
On
or about March 27, 2003 in Pasig City and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the accused, not being lawfully authorized by law, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and give away to
PO1 Roland A. Panis, a police poseur buyer, one (1) small heat-sealed
transparent plastic sachet, containing 0.03 gram of white crystalline
substance, which was found positive to the test for methylamphetamine
hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of the said law.
Contrary
to law.
The
case before the RTC was docketed as Criminal Case No. 12267-D entitled People of the Philippines v. Rogelio
Rosialda y Jamot @ Bong.
At
his arraignment, Rosialda pleaded not guilty. Pre-trial ensued where, notably, the parties
stipulated on the following facts:
(1) on the existence of the specimen (white crystalline substance contained in the plastic sachet marked as “Exh A RAP 3/27/03”);
(2) that a request for the examination of the specimen was made;
(3) that P/Insp. Gural examined the same and, as a result, issued Chemistry Report No. D-548-03E;
(4) that P/Insp. Gural had no personal knowledge from whom the specimen was taken; and,
(5) that the examination led to the identification of the specimen as methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
During
the trial proper, the prosecution presented as witnesses PO1 Panis, and three
other police officers to corroborate his testimony: PO1 Janet Sabo, PO3 Arturo San Andres, and Senior
Police Officer 1 Amilassan Salisa, all from the Pasig City Police Station, City
Hall Detachment. P/Insp. Gural was not
presented as a witness during the hearing.
The
defense, on the other hand, presented as witnesses accused-appellant
Rosialda
testified that on
The
defense’s second witness, Frances Rosialda, Rosialda’s daughter, corroborated her
father’s testimony regarding his apprehension, except as to the date. She testified that her father was taken on
The
third witness, Velasco, also corroborated the testimony of the Rosialda on his
being arrested. But the witness
testified also that the incident happened on March 27 and not March 24, 2003.
Subsequently,
the RTC rendered its Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE,
the court finds accused Rosialda y Jamot @ Bong GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt
of violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 and hereby imposes upon him
the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand
(Php500,000.00) Pesos, with the accessory penalties provided for under Section
35 of the said law.
The
plastic sachet containing shabu (Exhs “D” and “D-1”) is hereby ordered
confiscated in favor of the government and turned over to the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency for destruction.
With
costs against the accused.
SO
ORDERED.
From
the above decision, accused-appellant filed a Notice of Appeal[5]
dated April 30, 2007.
The
appeal was docketed before the CA as CA-G.R. CR No. 02968. Eventually, the CA rendered the assailed decision
affirming Rosialda’s conviction, the fallo of which reads:
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the Appeal is hereby DENIED.
The challenged Decision is AFFIRMED in toto.
In
its Decision, the CA found that the elements of the crime were present in the
case. Moreover, it found that Rosialda’s
defense of frame-up was not proved, holding that for the defense of frame-up to
prosper, clear evidence of ill-motive on the part of the arresting officers
must be shown on why they would impute false charges against the accused. The CA found that the self-serving allegations
of Rosialda were insufficient. In addition,
the appellate court cited the doctrine that the defense of frame-up, like alibi, has been generally viewed by the
Court with disfavor as it is easily concocted.
Anent
Rosialda’s claim of inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses, the CA found them to be minor ones which did not affect the veracity
of the testimonies.
Rosialda
also questioned the admissibility of the Chemistry Report, arguing that since
issuing officer P/Insp. Gural was not presented as a witness, said report is
inadmissible. The CA dismissed such
argument ruling that there was no need to present P/Insp. Gural, given the
stipulations entered into by the parties at the pre-trial of the case. Moreover, the CA enunciated that the findings
in the report are entries in official records made in the course of official
duty, and as such, they are prima facie
evidence of the facts stated in the report.
The
issue of the police officers’ non-compliance with Sec. 21, Article II of RA
9165 was also raised by Rosialda before the CA.
However, relying on People v.
Pringas,[6] the CA
ruled that the failure to comply with Sec. 21 does not render the arrest of the
accused illegal nor the items seized/confiscated inadmissible, for as long as
there is a justifiable ground for such failure, and the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the confiscated/seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending officer.
Finally,
as to the chain of custody of the seized item, the CA found that the facts and
evidence presented show that such chain was unbroken from the time the sale was
consummated, the marking of the specimen, and until it was delivered to the
Eastern Police District Crime Laboratory Office for examination to the
surrender of the specimen to the trial prosecutor who offered it to the RTC as
evidence.
Hence, the instant appeal.
The Issues
Unconvinced,
Rosialda raises in his Supplemental Brief the following issues for our
consideration:
1. Whether there was ill-motive on the part of the arresting officer to give credence to the accused’s allegation that he was framed; and,
2. Whether the chain of custody of the alleged illegal drugs was indeed unbroken.
The Ruling of the Court
The appeal is bereft of merit.
The
first paragraph of Sec. 5, Art. II of RA 9165 penalizes the selling of dangerous
drugs, thus:
Section 5.
In
People v. Darisan,[7]
the Court enumerated the elements of the crime of sale of dangerous drugs:
In
a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must
first be established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took place and (2)
the presentation in court of the corpus
delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.
One with the RTC and the CA, we find
the above elements present and proved beyond reasonable doubt in the instant
case through the evidence and testimonies presented by the prosecution.
The
first element was proved by the testimonies of the police officers who
conducted the buy-bust operation. For
clarity, we quote the testimony of poseur-buyer PO1 Panis:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
Prosecutor
Bautista: Mr. Witness, you
are a member of Mayor Special Action Team (sic)?
PO1 Panis: Yes, sir.
Q: As a
member of Mayor Special Action Team, will you tell us what you usually do?
A: We
are task[ed] to apprehend person of people (sic) engaged in illegal vices
particularly on illegal drugs, sir.
Q: Do
you know the accused in this case?
A: Yes,
sir, he is present right now.
Q: Why
do you know him?
A: I
arrested him, sir.
Q: Why
was he arrested?
A: Because
he sold me illegal drugs of shabu (sic), sir.
Q: Where
was he arrested?
A:
Q: When
was he arrested?
A: Around
Q: Will
you tell us the circumstances of this buy-bust operation?
A: At
about
Q: What
was the conversation all about?
A: After
their conversation he ordered us to go to the office of Ka Tonying to give us
the information, sir.
Q: Did
you heed this order?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: And
what did you find out?
A: We
conducted a buy-bust operation and Inspector Villaroel gave me money, P100 peso
bill to use in buying illegal drugs from one alias “Bong”.
Q: Were
you able to proceed to this target area?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: What
time was it when you proceeded to the area?
A: More
or less
Q: Will
you tell us what happened then?
A: We
arrived in the area, I was with the civilian asset, our informant saw alias
“Bong”, he approached him together with me and then I was introduced as a
friend, sir.
Q: Who
was your companion at the time?
A: At
the time the civilian informant, sir.
Q: You
were introduced to the accused?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: And
upon introduction, what transpired?
A: I
was asked “Anong kailangan naming” and we uttered “Iiscore kami ng shabu.”
Q: And
what was your answer?
A: He
asked me how much, sir.
Q: And
what did you say?
A: I
told him P100, after that I handed the money, sir.
x x x x
Q: So, when this stuff was handed to
you by the accused, you made the pre-arranged signal by scratching your head?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: Afterwards,
what did you do?
A: I
immediately held his hand and I introduced myself as a Police Officer and told
him of his violation and afterwards we have konting pagtatalo and he resisted,
sir.
Q: Did
you inform him of his constitutional rights?
A: Yes,
sir.[8]
Affirmed
by the appellate court, the RTC gave full credence to the testimonies of PO1 Panis
and the other police officers. Such finding
of the trial court must be given great respect and shall generally not be
disturbed by this Court. This principle
was revisited in Sumbillo v. People of
the Philippines,[9]
where this Court reiterated that:
The assessment of the credibility of
witnesses and their testimonies is best undertaken by the trial court due to
its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their
demeanor, conduct and attitude under grilling examination. x x x The findings
of the trial court on such matters are binding and conclusive on the appellate
court unless some facts or circumstances of weight and substance have been
overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted, which is not true in the present
case.
Rosialda, however, continues to question
the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses asserting that the incident as
narrated by them did not happen. He
claims that he was framed. This defense,
however, is unsupported by the evidence.
As
correctly ruled by the courts a quo, for the defense of frame-up to
prosper, the accused must present clear and convincing evidence of such fact. It must be noted at this juncture that a prima facie case against Rosialda had
already been established. The burden of
evidence now lies with him to prove his defense of frame-up. Correlatively, the Court ruled in People v. Rodrigo:[10]
Once the prosecution overcomes the
presumption of innocence by proving the elements of the crime and the identity
of the accused as perpetrator beyond reasonable doubt, the burden of evidence then shifts to the defense which shall then
test the strength of the prosecution’s case either by showing that no crime was
in fact committed or that the accused could not have committed or did not
commit the imputed crime, or at the very least, by casting doubt on the guilt
of the accused. (Emphasis supplied.)
Thus, in People v. Hernandez,[11]
the Court dismissed the defense of frame-up relied upon by the accused for failing
to present clear and convincing evidence to prove his allegations. The Court
said:
The defense of denial and frame-up has been
invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor, for it can easily be concocted
and is a common and standard defense ploy in prosecutions for violation of the
Dangerous Drugs Act. In order to
prosper, the defense of denial and frame-up must be proved with strong and
convincing evidence. In the case
before us, appellants miserably failed to present any evidence in support of
their claims. Aside from their
self-serving assertions, no plausible proof was presented to bolster their
allegations. (Emphasis supplied.)
The
Court held succinctly in People v. Agulay:[12]
Apart from his defense that he is a victim of
a frame-up and extortion by the police officers, accused-appellant could not present
any other viable defense. Again, while
the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by law
enforcement agents should not by itself prevail over the presumption of
innocence, for the claim of frame-up to prosper, the defense must be able to
present clear and convincing evidence to overcome this presumption of
regularity.
Anent the second element, Rosialda raises
the issue that there is a violation of Sec. 21, Art. II of RA 9165, particularly
the requirement that the alleged dangerous drugs seized by the apprehending
officers be photographed “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.” Rosialda argues that such
failure to comply with the provision of the law is fatal to his conviction.
This contention is untenable.
The Court made the following
enlightening disquisition on this matter in People
v. Rivera:[13]
The procedure to be followed in the custody
and handling of seized dangerous drugs is outlined in Section 21, paragraph 1,
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 which stipulates:
(1)
The apprehending 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.
The
same is implemented by Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165, viz.:
(a) The apprehending 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, 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.
The
failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the
required physical inventory and photograph of the evidence confiscated pursuant
to said guidelines, is not fatal and does not automatically render
accused-appellant’s arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him
inadmissible. Indeed, the
implementing rules offer some flexibility when a proviso added 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.’
The same provision clearly states as well, that it must still be shown
that there exists justifiable grounds and proof that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the evidence have been preserved.
This
Court can no longer find out what justifiable reasons existed, if any, since
the defense did not raise this issue during trial. Be that as it may, this
Court has explained in People v. Del
Monte that what is of utmost importance is the preservation of the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be
utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. The
existence of the dangerous drug is a condition sine qua non for conviction for
the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The dangerous drug itself constitutes the
very corpus delicti of the crime and the fact of its existence is vital to a
judgment of conviction. Thus, it is essential that the identity of the
prohibited drug be established beyond doubt. The chain of custody requirement
performs the function of ensuring that the integrity and evidentiary value of
the seized items are preserved, so much so that unnecessary doubts as to the
identity of the evidence are removed.
To be admissible, the prosecution must show
by records or testimony, the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit at least
between the time it came into possession of the police officers and until it was
tested in the laboratory to determine its composition up to the time it was
offered in evidence. (Emphasis supplied.)
In
the instant case, we find that the prosecution has adequately showed the
continuous and unbroken possession and subsequent transfers of the plastic
sachet containing dangerous drugs from the time accused-appellant Rosialda
handed it to PO1 Panis to consummate the sale of illicit drugs until it was offered
in court. The fact that the plastic
sachet containing shabu was immediately marked by PO1 Panis with such
marking remaining until the plastic sachet was presented in court persuasively proves
not only the identity of the shabu as seized from Rosialda, but more
importantly that it is the same item seized from the buy-bust operation. Its integrity and evidentiary value were,
thus, duly preserved. Consequently, the
CA correctly appreciated that the chain of custody of the seized drug remains
unbroken. Accordingly, the conviction of
accused-appellant Rosialda must be maintained.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED for lack of merit. The
February 17, 2009 CA Decision in CA-G.R. CR No. 02968 is hereby AFFIRMED IN TOTO.
No
costs.
SO ORDERED.
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Chairperson
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO MARIANO C.
Associate
Justice Associate Justice
JOSE
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I
C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution, 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 Associate Justice Myrna Dimaranan Vidal and concurred in by Associate Justices Martin S. Villarama, Jr. (now a member of this Court) and Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente.
[2] CA rollo, pp. 14-18.
[3] Rollo, p. 4.
[4] CA rollo, p. 5.
[5]
[6]
G.R. No. 175928,
[7] G.R. No. 176151,
[8] Rollo, pp. 10-13.
[9] G.R.
No. 167464,
[10] G.R. No. 176159, September 11, 2008, 564 SCRA 584, 596.
[11] G.R.
No. 184804,
[12] G.R.
No. 181747,
[13] G.R. No. 182347,