THIRD DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF
THE Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - ALIODING
SULTAN, Accused-Appellant. |
G.R.
No. 187737 Present: CARPIO MORALES J., Chairperson, BRION, BERSAMIN,
ABAD,* and VILLARAMA,
JR., JJ. Promulgated: July
5, 2010 |
x-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -x
DECISION
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
Assailed
before this Honorable Court is the
The prosecution charged appellant
with violation of Section 5, Article II of Rep. Act No. 9165 in two (2) Informations
which read:
Criminal Case No. 11867 for illegal delivery of shabu
That on or about the 19th day of August 2005 in the City of Laoag, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the herein accused, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously give away and deliver to a police officer who acted as a poseur buyer one plastic bag containing metamphetamine hydrochloride (popularly known as shabu) a dangerous drug with a weight of .1211 gram. without any license or authority, in violation of the aforecited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[5]
Criminal Case No. 11868 for
illegal sale of shabu
That on or about the 19th day of August 2005 in the City of Laoag, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the herein accused, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to a police officer who acted as a poseur buyer two plastic bags containing metamphetamine hydrochloride (popularly known as shabu) a dangerous drug with a weight of .4931 grams and 0.5334 grams respectively without any license or authority, in violation of the aforecited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[6]
Upon
arraignment on
The prosecution
evidence established the following facts:
At around
PO2 Cabigas,
who was the poseur-buyer, went with the informant and took a tricycle to the
Muslim Compound where the appellant’s residence was located. Upon reaching an
abandoned school located near the compound, PO2 Cabigas and the informant
alighted from the tricycle and proceeded on foot to the appellant’s residence. However, even before reaching the said
residence, the informant spotted the appellant walking towards them at a
distance of around fifteen (15) meters. She discreetly informed PO2 Cabigas
that the person in yellow was the person they were after. PO2 Cabigas and the
informant met with the appellant and received two (2) plastic sachets of shabu[10]
in exchange for P2,000 and a smaller sachet of shabu as “bonus.”[11]
Upon
receiving the three (3) sachets of shabu from the appellant, PO2 Cabigas
inserted them in his right side pocket and simultaneously pressed the “call
button” on his cellular phone inside his pocket. This raised the signal to SPO3
Balolong and SPO3 Tunac, who were waiting nearby inside their vehicle, that the
illegal sale of shabu has been consummated and for them to assist PO2
Cabigas in arresting the appellant. After
pressing the call button, PO2 Cabigas held the appellant’s arm and informed him
that he was a police officer and that he was arresting him for violation of Rep.
Act No. 9165. According to PO2 Cabigas, “[the appellant] put up a strong
resistance.”[12] Around fifteen (15) seconds after the signal
was sent, SPO3 Balolong and Tunac arrived at the scene. They saw PO2 Cabigas
and the appellant grappling and immediately assisted PO2 Cabigas in arresting
the appellant.
After
the arrest, SPO3 Balolong confiscated the buy-bust money from the appellant’s wallet
and asked him whether he had authority to sell shabu, to which the appellant
could not present any. The police
officers then brought the appellant to the Laoag City Police Station together
with the confiscated shabu and buy-bust money and turned over the
evidence to the evidence custodian, SPO2 Loreto Ancheta, who marked[13]
the items appropriately. Thereafter they filed the appropriate charges.[14]
On
the other hand, the evidence of the appellant is basically a denial of all the
allegations. According to the defense, that
morning at around P1,000 and
sent her to the Muslim Compound to buy shabu. He did not tell her from
whom to buy but she was nonetheless able to buy the shabu. She handed
the shabu to Ariel Palaganas and then proceeded to
The appellant, for his part, testified that on that day, he was walking on the street beside the house of his siblings as he was looking for his children when suddenly he was arrested. He asked why he was being arrested and the police responded by saying that he should come with them peacefully if he did not want to get harmed. He was brought to the headquarters where the policemen took off his clothes and kept telling him to just bring “it” out. He, however, did not know what it was that they wanted him to bring out. This went on for around fifteen (15) minutes but still the police did not find anything on him.[16]
After trial,
the RTC of Laoag City, Branch 13, gave credence to the testimonies and evidence
presented by the prosecution and found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the offense charged. The dispositive portion of the Decision dated
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby renders
judgment finding the accused Alioding Sultan GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as charged of illegal sale and
delivery of shabu in Criminal Case No. 11868 and is therefore sentenced to suffer
the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P2,000,000.00,
with no costs.
For lack of factual basis, the accused is found NOT GUILTY and is therefore ACQUITTED of the separate case of illegal delivery of shabu as charged in Criminal Case No. 11867.
The shabu subject of these cases are forfeited, the same to be disposed of as the law prescribes.
SO ORDERED.[17]
On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC in its
It is settled rule that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary suggesting ill motive on the part of the police officers or deviation from the regular performance of their duties. Prescinding from the foregoing, this Court is convinced that the guilt of appellant has been sufficiently proven beyond reasonable doubt by the evidence on record.
The sale of shabu is penalized under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. Said section reads:
SEC. 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.
Hence, the penalty of life
imprisonment and a fine of P2,000,000.00 were properly imposed on the
appellant.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.[18]
Hence, this appeal.
The main
issue in this case is whether or not the appellant is guilty beyond reasonable
doubt for violation of Section 5, Article II of Rep. Act No. 9165 for selling
and delivering 0.4931 grams and 0.5334 grams of shabu, respectively.
The appellant
contends that the prosecution failed to prove the corpus delicti. According to
him, there was no showing of any attempt or effort by the arresting officers to
comply with the requirements of Section 21 of Rep. Act No. 9165 and the
prosecution failed to present evidence on post-examination custody as the
chemist who examined the specimens did not testify in open court. Hence, there
is doubt as to the identity of the specimen submitted in court.
The State, for
its part, through the Solicitor General maintains that the prosecution
sufficiently established the unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs and
that the trial court correctly gave credence to the prosecution witnesses’
testimonies as against those of the defense.
We affirm the
appellant’s conviction.
Section 21 of Rep. Act No. 9165 was originally envisioned by the
legislature to serve as a protection for the accused from malicious imputations
of guilt by abusive police officers. The illegal drugs being the corpus delicti, it is essential for the
prosecution to prove and show to the court beyond reasonable doubt that the
illegal drugs presented to the trial court as evidence of the crime are indeed
the illegal drugs seized from the accused.
Section 21, paragraph No. 1, prescribes the method by which law enforcement agents/personnel are to go about in
handling the corpus delicti at the
time of seizure in order to ensure full protection to the accused. It reads:
SEC. 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:
(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;
x x x x
However, Section 21 was not meant to thwart the
legitimate efforts of law enforcement agents.
Slight infractions or nominal deviations by the police from the
prescribed method of handling the corpus
delicti should not exculpate an otherwise guilty defendant.[19]
In fact, the Implementing Rules and
Regulations of Rep. Act No. 9165 adequately reflects the desire of the law to
excuse from the rigid tenor of Section 21 situations wherein slight infractions
in methodology are present but the integrity and identity of the specimen
remains intact. It reads:
Section
21. x x x
(a)
xxx 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;
In the case at bar, the failure of the apprehending officer to “immediately after seizure and confiscation,
physically inventory and photograph the [prohibited drugs] in the presence of
the accused” as required by Section 21 can be considered as a slight infraction
that does not automatically render the seized items inadmissible. There is a
justifiable reason for such failure in this case as was explained by SPO3
Balolong during his cross-examination. To wit:
[ATTY. CARIDAD:] Now, while you were still there and you said the accused resisted, is it not a fact that the sisters of the accused tried to pull the accused because they insisted that the accused was not selling shabu, yes or no?
[WITNESS:] I do not know any sister of the accused, sir.
[ATTY. CARIDAD:] There were women who tried to pull the accused from the hold of Cabigas and the police officers who were with Cabigas because they insisted that the accused was not selling shabu at that time when he was arrested?
[WITNESS:] No, sir, they were interfering with our job, sir.
[ATTY CARIDAD:] Interfering you said, what do you mean by interfering? What did they do by way of interfering?
[WITNESS:] They
tried to stop us by pulling, grabbing and pushing us from arresting Alioding
Sultan, sir.[20]
x x x x
[ATTY CARIDAD:] He never made any inventory of those sachets in that place where
the same were confiscated?
[WITNESS:] We
could not, sir.
[ATTY CARIDAD:] The answer is yes or no.
[WITNESS:] No,
sir.
[ATTY CARIDAD:] Also you did not mark except the markings that you made before
the alleged buy-bust operation was conducted, after confiscating the same from
the possession of the accused, you never marked the same?
[WITNESS:] If
you mean the money, sir, no, sir.
[ATTY CARIDAD:] So it is very clear now, Mr. Witness, that you never made an inventory
in the place where the arrest was made by placing or wrote in the very place
the three (3) sachets in that inventory together the money, alleged money that
was used in the buy-bust operation, is that it?
[WITNESS:] We
could not, sir.
[ATTY CARIDAD:] Now, no pictures were taken on those articles that were
confiscated as well as the buy-bust money allegedly used in that buy-bust
operation, is it not, there were none?
[WITNESS:] The
investigators, I do not know if the investigators took pictures, sir.
[ATTY CARIDAD:] Took pictures, where are those pictures now, Mr. Witness, if you
say that the investigators took pictures of those evidences?
[WITNESS:] No.
I said I am not sure if the investigators took pictures, sir.
[ATTY CARIDAD:] I see. But you are very sure that no pictures were taken at the
place where the confiscation was made, is it not?
[WITNESS:] It
is impossible, sir.[21]
It was the difficulty, if not the impossibility, of strictly
complying with Section 21 of Rep. Act No. 9165 during the actual apprehension
and arrest which justifies the slight deviation by the arresting officers from the
rule. The strong resistance of
the appellant to the arrest and the interference of several persons made it
imperative upon the apprehending police officers to withdraw from the place
immediately. Consequently, the
confiscated items were marked only upon turn over to the evidence
custodian.
But were the
integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated drugs preserved despite the
justified infraction of Section 21? We rule in the affirmative.
For the successful prosecution of the illegal sale of shabu, the following elements
must be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object
of the sale, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and
its payment. What is material is the proof that the
transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court
of the corpus delicti as evidence. All these requisites were
met by the prosecution in this case.
The chain of custody in the instant case did
not suffer from serious flaws as appellant argues. The identity of the regulated drug, as
well as the buy-bust money, has been proven beyond reasonable doubt by the
prosecution. The prosecution was able to
establish the chain of custody in the presentation of the evidence custodian
whose testimony was dispensed with upon the admission of the defense that he made the identifying markings on the “items confiscated
from the possession of the [appellant]” and personally submitted them
to the Ilocos Norte Provincial Crime Laboratory
Office at Camp Juan, Laoag City.[22] They were received on
The
prosecution witnesses were further able to present and identify in court the
confiscated items and the marked money.
PO2 Cabigas identified in open court the
three (3) sachets that the appellant gave in the course of the illicit sale
transaction. In particular, he pointed
to the smallest plastic sachet[28]
as the plastic sachet that the appellant gave away as bonus while the two (2)
other sachets bigger in size[29]
were the ones that the appellant sold, pointing in the process the markings
that SPO2 Ancheta made in his presence, specifically, the initial signature of
SPO2 Ancheta, the letters “LCPS” which is the acronym for the Laoag City Police
Station, the initials “AS” of the appellant and the letters “BB” which stand
for “buy bust.”[30]
He also identified the marked money, the serial numbers of which were placed in
the police blotter after the operation.
Further, SPO3 Balolong who was also present and looking when the
markings were made by the evidence custodian, made a similar identification.[31]
He also identified the four (4) P500 bills buy-bust money that he marked
before the operation with his initials.
The trial court observed that the bills presented in court had the same
serial numbers as those mentioned in the Joint Affidavit[32]
of the arresting police officers. Thus,
it is clear that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were
not affected by the failure to comply strictly with Section 21. There is no doubt in our minds that the
seized drugs obtained from the appellant at the Muslim Compound in Barangay 1,
Laoag City, were the same ones which were brought to the crime laboratory and
analyzed as positive for shabu.
The non-presentation of the chemist who tested the illegal
drugs, contrary to appellant’s contentions, is
insufficient to acquit him. As we ruled
in People v. Zenaida Quebral y
Mateo, et al.,[33] which dealt with a similar issue,
The accused-appellants also point out that, since the
chemist who examined the seized substance did not testify in court, the
prosecution was unable to establish the indispensable element of corpus
delicti. But this claim is
unmeritorious. 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.
Notably,
similar
to the above-cited case, the parties in this case also stipulated on the
content of the would-be testimony of the chemist.[34]
Also undeserving of serious consideration is appellant’s
defense that there was no buy-bust operation. The trial court found undeserving of credence appellant’s
self-serving testimony and defense witness Chona Martin’s assertion that it was merely by chance that she saw appellant and pointed him to the
police officers as the person peddling illegal drugs. The trial court, in fact, branded Chona
Martin’s testimony as obviously fabricated.[35]
It is a fundamental rule that findings of
the trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve credibility are
accorded respect when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts and
speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such
findings. The reason for this is that the trial
court is in a better position to decide the credibility of witnesses, having
heard their testimonies and observed their deportment and manner of testifying
during the trial.[36] The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are
sustained by the CA.[37] As there appears no cogent reason to depart from the findings of the
trial court and the CA, we stand by their findings.
Having
been caught in flagrante delicto, the appellant’s identity as seller of the shabu can no longer be doubted. Against the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, appellant’s plain denial of the offenses
charged, unsubstantiated by any credible and convincing evidence, must simply
fail.[38] Moreover,
there is no showing that the prosecution witnesses were impelled by ill motives
to testify falsely against the appellant. As appellant himself has testified,
he has never met the police officers prior to the arrest.[39]
WHEREFORE,
the Court DENIES the appeal and AFFIRMS the October 17, 2008 Decision
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02646 which affirmed the August
28, 2006 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Laoag City.
Costs against the
accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
|
WE CONCUR: CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice Chairperson |
|
|
ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice |
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
|
ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate Justice |
|
A T T E S T A T I O 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.
|
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice Chairperson, Third
Division |
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the 1987 Constitution and the 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 |
*
Additional member per Special Order
No. 843.
[1] Rollo, pp. 2-14. Penned by Associate Justice Romeo F. Barza, with Associate Justices Mariano C. Del Castillo (now a member of this Court) and Arcangelita M. Romilla-Lontok concurring.
[2] CA rollo, pp. 37-48. Penned by Judge Philip G. Salvador.
[3] SEC. 5.
The penalty of imprisonment
ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine
ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand
pesos (P500,000.00) 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 controlled precursor and
essential chemical, or shall act as a broker in such transactions.
If the sale, trading,
administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution or transportation of any
dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical transpires
within one hundred (100) meters from the school, the maximum penalty shall be
imposed in every case.
For drug pushers who use minors
or mentally incapacitated individuals as runners, couriers and messengers, or
in any other capacity directly connected to the dangerous drugs and/or
controlled precursors and essential chemicals trade, the maximum penalty shall
be imposed in every case.
If the victim of the offense is
a minor or a mentally incapacitated individual, or should a dangerous drug
and/or a controlled precursor and essential chemical involved in any offense
herein provided be the proximate cause of death of a victim thereof, the
maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed.
The maximum penalty provided for
under this Section shall be imposed upon any person who organizes, manages or
acts as a “financier” of any of the illegal activities prescribed in this
Section.
The penalty of twelve (12) years
and one (1) day to twenty (20) years of imprisonment and a fine ranging from
One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who acts as a “protector/coddler”
of any violator of the provisions under this Section.
[4] An Act Instituting the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002, Repealing Republic Act No.
6425, Otherwise Known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as Amended, Providing Funds Therefor,
and for Other Purposes.
[5] Records (Criminal Case No. 11867), p. 1.
[6] Records (Criminal Case No. 11868), p. 1.
[7] Records (Criminal Case No. 11867), p. 15.
[8]
[9] TSN,
[10] Chemistry Report No. D-059-2005, records (Criminal Case No. 11867), p. 7.
[11] TSN,
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15] TSN,
[16] TSN,
[17] Records (Criminal Case No. 11867), p. 72.
[18] Rollo, pp. 12-13.
[19] See People v. Sta. Maria, G.R. No. 171019,
[20] TSN,
[21]
[22] TSN,
[23] Exhibit “B-1”, records (Criminal Case No.
11867), p. 16; TSN,
[24] Exhibit “B”, id.
[25] TSN,
[26] Exhibit “C”, records (Criminal Case No. 11867), p. 17.
[27] Exhibit “D”, id. at 18.
[28] Exhibit “D-3”, TSN,
[29] Exhibit “D-1” and “D-2”, id. at 15-16.
[30] TSN,
[31] TSN,
[32] Records (Criminal Case No. 11867), pp. 3-4.
[33] 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, Malillin v. People, G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 619, 631-632 and People v. Bandang, G.R. No. 151314, June 3, 2004, 430 SCRA 570, 586-587.
[34] TSN,
[35] CA rollo,
p. 47.
[36] People v. Julian-Fernandez, 423 Phil. 895, 910 (2001).
[37] People v. Cabugatan,
G.R. No. 172019,
[38] People v. Sy, G.R. No. 171397,
[39] TSN,