G.R. No. 183101

G.R. No. 183101 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES versus NOEL CATENTAY

Promulgated:

July 6, 2010

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

DISSENTING OPINION

VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

Appellant Noel Doroja Catentay (Catentay) was charged with violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, for selling and possessing illegal drugs.

The prosecution filed two separate informations against Catentay, to wit:

That on or about the 14^th day of April 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 0.03 (zero point zero three) gram of white crystalline substance containing Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

and

That on or about the 14^th day of April 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, 0.03 (zero point zero three) gram of white crystalline substance containing Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.

CONTRARY TO LAW.[1]

Catentay pleaded not guilty during his arraignment. During pre-trial, the parties stipulated that PO1 Reyno Riparip was the investigator of the case and the one (1) who prepared the request for laboratory examination. Also stipulated was the fact that Leonard Jabonillo, a forensic chemical officer, received the request for laboratory examination of the specimen involved, examined the same, and found it positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu. Both parties agreed to dispense with their testimonies in open court. Trial thereafter ensued.

The prosecution presented PO3 Gerardo Quimson (Quimson) as its main witness. It was shown during trial that Quimson and his anti-illegal drugs unit received a report from its informant that Catentay was engaged in drug trafficking in a billiard hall located along Lira St., North Fairview, Quezon City, and that Quimson and his team conducted a buy-bust operation. Quimson, who served as the poseur-buyer, marked the 100-peso bill used in the operation with his initial “GQ”. The informant introduced Quimson to Catentay as someone who wanted to buy P100 worth of shabu. Quimson gave the marked money to Catentay and the latter took out two (2) plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance from his pocket and handed one (1) of them to Quimson. After the sale, Quimson signaled his partner, PO2 Rey Valdez (Valdez), about the consummation of the transaction. Quimson and his partner then arrested Catentay. They seized from Catentay the other plastic sachet and the marked money. Quimson immediately wrote the letters “GQ” on the sachet he bought from Catentay and “GQ1” on the other sachet seized from Catentay. At the police station, they turned over Catentay to an investigating officer together with the seized items. The investigator was the one who submitted the white crystalline substance to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. When the same tested positive for shabu, they brought Catentay to the inquest prosecutor.

It likewise appears that the prosecution was to present Valdez as its witness but his testimony was dispensed with since the parties stipulated that he was one (1) of the back-up officers of the buy-bust team, that he was the one (1) who confiscated the buy-bust money from Catentay, and that he could identify the accused and the buy-bust money used in the operation.[2]

Catentay for his part denied the charge against him and claimed that he had been framed up. He claimed that he was plying his route as a tricycle driver when Quimson, Riparip and Valdez flagged him down and invited him to the police station. There he was asked about the whereabouts of his neighbor Roger Geronimo. The police tortured him and allegedly planted the two (2) sachets of shabu.

The RTC convicted Catentay for illegal selling of shabu but dismissed the charge of possession of dangerous drugs.[3] It found that the testimony of Quimson was credible. Quimson was able to identify the sachets he seized from Catentay, and the Chemistry Report showed that the sachets containing white crystalline substance proved to be positive of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. It noted that Catentay failed to present any evidence to support his allegations that he was falsely charged by the police. Although only one (1) sachet was sold to Quimson during the buy-bust operation, it was shown that Catentay brought out two (2) sachets from his pocket and showed them to Quimson. The trial court found that it was Catentay’s intention to sell the other sachet at the time of the buy-bust operation; hence, Catentay cannot be held liable for illegal possession of dangerous drugs since it was absorbed in the charge for illegal sale of dangerous drugs.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC.[4] It found no reason to disturb the RTC’s assessment of the credibility of the prosecution’s witness, Quimson. According to the CA, the positive identification by Quimson and the physical evidence presented establish with moral certainty Catentay’s guilt for illegally selling a dangerous drug. Catentay’s assertion that a serious charge was fabricated against him simply because he failed to provide information on the whereabouts of his neighbor is too frivolous to be believed as constituting ill-motive on the part of the police officers.

Aggrieved, Catentay filed a notice of appeal.[5]

Catentay reiterated the assignment of errors made before the Court of Appeals,[6] to wit:

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT WAS ILLEGALLY ARRESTED.

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIMES CHARGED.

The elements of the sale of illegal drugs are (a) the identities of the buyer and seller, (b) the transaction or sale of the illegal drug, and (c) the existence of the corpus delicti.[7] With respect to the third element, the prosecution must show that the integrity of the corpus delicti has been preserved. This is crucial in drugs cases because the evidence involved—the seized chemical—is not readily identifiable by sight or touch and can easily be tampered with or substituted.

Here, I respectfully submit with all due respect that the chain of custody of the shabu was established starting from the seizure made during the buy-bust operation to the turn over to the investigator, and from the latter to the chemist. In the instant case, the integrity of the drugs seized from Catentay was preserved. The evidence shows that after Quimson seized and confiscated the dangerous drugs and immediately marked the same, Catentay was immediately arrested and brought to the police station for investigation. Immediately thereafter, the two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets, bearing Quimson’s markings, were submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination, with a letter of request for examination, to determine the presence of any dangerous drug. Per Chemistry Report No. D-369-2004 dated April 15, 2004,[8] the specimen submitted, two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets having the markings “GQ” and “GQ1”, contained methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. The examination was conducted by one (1) Engr. Jabonillo, a Forensic Chemical Officer of the PNP Crime Laboratory, whose proposed testimony was stipulated upon by the parties.[9] The prosecution and the defense stipulated during the pre-trial:

x x x x

(2) That the said forensic chemical officer [Engr. Leonard Jabonillo] was the one who personally received the letter of request for laboratory examination together with the specimens subject matter of the case involving two (2) heat sealed transparent plastic sachets, each containing white crystalline substance with the following markings and recorded net weights: A(GQ)= 0.03 gram and B(GQ1)= 0.03 gram;

(3) That the purpose of the examination was to determine the presence of the dangerous drugs. Thereafter, the said forensic chemical officer, Engr. Leonard M. Jabonillo conducted a qualitative examination on the specimens that gave positive results to the test for dangerous drugs;

(4) That the result was reduced into writing and signed by the said forensic chemical officer, duly noted by the Chief of the Crime Laboratory;

(5) That the witness will identify the document as well as the specimens he examined;[10]

x x x x

The ponencia acquits the appellant because the prosecution did not present the forensic chemist, and as such the latter was unable to testify as to what he did with the substance after examination: whether he properly closed and resealed the plastic sachets with adhesive and placed his own markings on the resealed plastic to preserve the integrity of their contents until they were brought to the court.

With all due respect, however, I respectfully submit that the fact that the forensic chemist was not presented should not operate to acquit Catentay. As we held in People v. Zenaida Quebral y Mateo, et al.,[11]

xxx This Court has held that the non-presentation of the forensic chemist in illegal drug cases is an insufficient cause for acquittal. The corpus delicti in dangerous drugs cases constitutes the dangerous drug itself. This means that proof beyond doubt of the identity of the prohibited drug is essential.

Besides, corpus delicti has nothing to do with the testimony of the laboratory analyst. In fact, this Court has ruled that the report of an official forensic chemist regarding a recovered prohibited drug enjoys the presumption of regularity in its preparation. Corollarily, under Section 44 of Rule 130, Revised Rules of Court, entries in official records made in the performance of official duty are prima facie evidence of the facts they state. Therefore, the report of Forensic Chemical Officer Sta. Maria that the five plastic sachets PO3 Galvez gave to her for examination contained shabu is conclusive in the absence of evidence proving the contrary. At any rate, as the CA pointed out, the defense agreed during trial to dispense with the testimony of the chemist and stipulated on his findings.

It should be emphasized that the parties have stipulated that the forensic chemist received the two (2) transparent plastic sachets bearing Quimson’s markings still heat-sealed. The chemistry report, which carries with it the presumption of regularity in the performance of duties and which is presumed to be evidence of the facts therein stated, states that the specimen received were “two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets each containing white crystalline substance having the following markings and recorded net weights: A(GQ) = 0.03gm; B(GQ1) = 0.03 gm.” Said report was prepared by Jabonillo who, as stipulated, personally received the specimen. Hence, there is no doubt that the two (2) plastic sachets containing shabu that were seized from the accused were the same plastic sachets submitted for examination and found positive for shabu. The plastic sachets were identified by Quimson in court. Moreover, it was stipulated that Jabonillo would be able to “identify…the specimens he examined.”[12]

Against the evidence pointing to his culpability, Catentay could only offer bare denial. He claims that he was falsely charged because he failed to give the arresting officers any information as to the whereabouts of his neighbor, a certain Roger Geronimo. In his brief, he also questions the credibility of prosecution witness Quimson and points out that the illegal transaction could not have happened in a public place in broad daylight.[13] It should be stressed, however, that his testimony and account of what allegedly transpired was found undeserving of credence by the trial court, which finding was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Indeed, as held by the CA, Catentay’s assertion that a serious charge was fabricated against him simply because he failed to provide information on the whereabouts of his neighbor is too frivolous to be believed as constituting ill-motive on the part of the police officers. Likewise, the fact that the sale was in public does not diminish the credibility or the trustworthiness of Quimson’s testimony. In People v. Zervoulakos,[14] we observed that “the sale of prohibited drugs to complete strangers, openly and in public places, has become a common occurrence. Indeed, it is sad to note the effrontery and growing casualness of drug pushers in the pursuit of their illicit trade, as if it were a perfectly legitimate operation.”

I submit that given the evidence in this case, the prosecution was able to prove with moral certainty that Catentay is guilty of illegal selling of dangerous drugs. The evidence clearly shows that the buy-bust operation conducted by the police officers, who made use of said entrapment to capture Catentay in the act of selling a dangerous drug, was valid and legal. The Pre-operational Report[15] accomplished prior to the buy-bust operation bolsters this fact. Moreover, the defense has failed to show any evidence of ill motive on the part of the police officers or to discharge its burden to point out any circumstance which will show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated drugs was not maintained. Additionally, Catentay is bound by the stipulations he made. The parties’ stipulation to the testimonies of Valdez and Riparip would debunk Catentay’s claim of frame up. During pre-trial, the parties stipulated that Riparip was the one who investigated the case and made the request for laboratory examination. Then, during the trial, the parties stipulated that Valdez was the arresting officer in the buy-bust operation who recovered the marked money from Catentay. Clearly, appellant himself has admitted the buy-bust operation, the existence of the marked money, and the fact that the same was recovered from him.

For these reasons, I vote to DISMISS the appeal and to AFFIRM the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01712 finding appellant Noel Catentay guilty of the crime charged.

MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.

Associate Justice

[3] CA rollo, pp. 19-27. Penned by Judge Henri Jean-Paul Inting. The dispositive portion reads:

WHEREFORE, the Court renders its joint decision in these cases as follows:

I. Crim. Case No. Q-04-126517 is DISMISSED.

II. In Crim. Case No. Q-04 126518, the Court finds accused NOEL CATENTAY GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 or illegal selling of 0.03 gram of methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug; he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and pay a fine in the amount of Php500,000.00

The plastic sachets of “shabu”, subject matter of these case are hereby ordered forfeited in favor of the government and the Officer-in-charge of the Court is hereby ordered to safely deliver or cause the safe delivery of the same to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for proper disposition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

[4] Rollo, pp. 2-14. The decision was penned by Associate Justice Rosmari Carandang, and concurred in by Associate Justices Marina Buzon and Mariflor Punzalan Castillo. The dispositive portion reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Joint Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 95, finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00 is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

[7] People v. Peralta, G.R. No. 173472, February 26, 2010.

[11] G.R. No. 185379, November 27, 2009, pp. 6-7, citing People v. Cervantes, G.R. No. 181494, March 17, 2009, 581 SCRA 762, 781, People v. Bandang, G.R. No. 151314, June 3, 2004, 430 SCRA 570, 586-587 and Malillin v. People, G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 619, 631-632.