Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - ELIZABETH MARCELINO y REYES, Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R.
No. 189278 Present: CORONA,
C.J., Chairperson, VELASCO, JR., LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, DEL CASTILLO, and PEREZ, JJ. Promulgated: July
26, 2010 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
VELASCO, JR., J.:
This
is an appeal from the June 29, 2009 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in
CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03153 entitled People
of the Philippines v. Elizabeth Marcelino y Reyes, which affirmed the Decision in Criminal Case Nos. 3048-M-2002 and
3049-M-2002 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 76 in Malolos City,
Bulacan. The RTC found accused-appellant Elizabeth Marcelino guilty of violating
Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Facts
Two Informations
charged accused-appellant as follows:
Criminal Case No. 3048-M-2002
That on or about the 31st day of October, 2002, in the Municipality of Balagtas, Province of Bulacan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law and legal justification, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, trade, deliver, give away, dispatch in transit and transport [a] dangerous drug consisting of one (1) [heat-sealed] transparent plastic sachet of Methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) weighing 0.494 gram.[1]
Criminal Case No. 3049-M-2002
That on or about the 31st day of October, 2002, in the Municipality of Balagtas, Province of Bulacan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law and legal justification, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in her possession and control [a] dangerous drug consisting of one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet of Methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) weighing 3.296 [grams].[2]
During
her arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges.
The
defense agreed to the following stipulations[3]
during the pre-trial:
1)
the
qualification and competence of Forensic Analyst Amilyn Flores-Maclid as an
expert witness;
2)
the
existence of the request for laboratory examination signed by Police Senior
Inspector Arthur Felix Asis and received by the Bulacan Provincial Crime
Laboratory on November 1, 2002; and
3)
the
existence of Chemistry Report No. D-628-02 signed by Forensic Analyst Amilyn
Flores-Maclid including the specimens examined by said Forensic Analyst
attached to the Chemistry Report contained in a brown envelope with marking
D-628-02-AFM consisting of two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets each
containing white crystalline substance with markings and recorded net weights
A(MDC-1)-0.494 gm. and B(MDC-2)-3.296 gms., respectively.
Version of the
Prosecution
At the trial, the prosecution
presented SPO1 Marciano Dela Cruz[4] as
its sole witness.
SPO1
Dela Cruz, a police officer stationed at the Balagtas Police Station in Bulacan,
was part of a team that conducted a test-buy on October 30, 2002 to verify a
report of accused-appellant Elizabeth engaging in illegal drug activities.[5]
When
the test-buy confirmed that Elizabeth was indeed selling illegal drugs, a team
was formed to conduct a buy-bust operation. SPO1 Dela Cruz was designated as
poseur-buyer. He placed his initials
“MDC” on a five hundred peso bill to be used as boodle money.[6]
On
October 31, 2002, the buy-bust team headed for P. Castro St. Burol 1st,
Balagtas, Bulacan at around half past seven in the evening. SPO1 Dela Cruz and his asset went to meet Elizabeth
and asked to buy shabu worth five hundred pesos (PhP 500). Once Elizabeth had handed the shabu to
SPO1 Dela Cruz, he gave the pre-arranged signal, prompting SPO3 Felix Dela Cruz
to approach them. SPO3 Dela Cruz
recovered the marked PhP 500 bill and another sachet of suspected shabu
from Elizabeth. She was then apprised of her constitutional rights. SPO1 Dela Cruz subsequently marked the sachet
that was sold to him as “MDC-1” and the sachet found on the person of Elizabeth
as “MDC-2.”[7]
A
request was later submitted to the crime laboratory for a laboratory
examination of the seized substances.[8] Chemistry Report No. D-628-2002 confirmed
that the subject drugs were positive for shabu.[9]
Version of the Defense
The
defense offered the testimonies of Elizabeth and tricycle driver Rodrigo
Laviña, a neighbor.
In
her defense, Elizabeth claimed that on October 31, 2002, she was at her home at
P. Castro St., Burol 1st, Balagtas, Batangas with her grandson and
her sister, Consuelo Reyes, when they suddenly heard a knock at the door. When Consuelo answered the door, three men
suddenly entered the house and announced that they were police officers. [10]
Elizabeth
recalled that the police officers who arrested her at her home were not the
same ones that the prosecution presented as members of the buy-bust operation. She also claimed that when she got to the
police station, a woman named Mila Trias told her, “Ngayon nakikilala mo na
kung sinong kinalaban mo.” According
to Elizabeth, she had a quarrel with Mila because she suspected Mila was having
an affair with her husband.[11]
To
corroborate Elizabeth’s story, Laviña testified that on October 31, 2002, at
about 7:35 in the evening, he was parked outside the house of Elizabeth. He was waiting for passengers when, suddenly,
two “owner-type” jeeps arrived carrying two passengers each. The passengers were all male and dressed in
civilian clothes. All headed towards Elizabeth’s
house. Elizabeth opened the door and the
men entered the house, with the door closing behind them. From the outside, Laviña heard Elizabeth
shouting as to why the men were searching her house. He approached the house and heard commotion
inside. He heard sounds of objects
falling. Later, he saw the men coming
out of the house and boarding Elizabeth into one of their vehicles.[12]
The Ruling of the Trial Court
On
January 21, 2008, the RTC found Elizabeth guilty of the crimes charged based on
what it found to be the credible testimony of SPO1 Dela Cruz. In Criminal Case No. 3048-M-2002 (illegal
sale of drugs), the trial court found that all the elements of the crime were
established by the prosecution with moral certainty. In Criminal Case No. 3049-M-2002 (illegal
possession of dangerous drugs), the trial court ruled that the search conducted
on Elizabeth was valid under the rule on search incidental to a lawful
arrest.
The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision[13]
reads:
WHEREFORE, finding the accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt, accused ELIZABETH MARCELINO y REYES is hereby CONVICTED:
[A] in Criminal Case No. 3048-M-2002, which charges accused with sale of [a] dangerous drug consisting of one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet of methylamphetamine hydrochloride commonly known as shabu, weighing 0.494 gram and a dangerous drug, in violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,” and is SENTENCED to suffer LIFE IMPRISONMENT, and to pay the FINE of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00);
[B] in Criminal Case No. 3049-M-2002 which charges accused for possession and control of dangerous drug consisting of one (1) heat sealed transparent plastic sachet of methylamphetamine hydrochloride commonly known as shabu, weighing 3.296 grams and a dangerous drug, in violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,” and is SENTENCED to suffer the imprisonment of, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, TWELVE (12) YEARS AND ONE DAY, AS THE MINIMUM TERM, TO THIRTEEN (13) YEARS, AS THE MAXIMUM TERM, and to pay the FINE of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) x x x.
The Ruling of the Appellate Court
Dissatisfied with the RTC’s Decision, Elizabeth appealed to
the CA, arguing that the evidence presented against her was inadmissible, since
it was acquired during her unlawful arrest. She likewise insisted that her guilt was not
proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The CA
in its Decision[14]
affirmed the appealed RTC Decision. The
appellate court ruled that Elizabeth was estopped from questioning the legality
of her arrest, as it was being raised for the first time on appeal. It held that even the police officers had
minor lapses in complying with Sec. 21, Art. II of RA 9165, there was still no
doubt that the shabu presented during
the trial was the same substance retrieved from her.
Aggrieved,
Elizabeth filed a Notice of Appeal from the CA Decision.
On
December 2, 2009, this Court notified the parties that they may submit their
supplemental briefs. The People,
represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), manifested that it
was dispensing with the filing of a Supplemental Brief.
The Issues
I
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT A SEARCH WARRANT WAS NOT NECESSARY
II
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT THE INTEGRITY AND IDENTITY OF THE SHABU WAS PRESERVED
The Ruling of this Court
Accused-appellant
Elizabeth reiterates that two test-buys were conducted before the actual
buy-bust operation was launched. She
thus contends that after the two test-buys, the police officers certainly had
sufficient time to secure both a search warrant and a warrant of arrest but
failed to do so. She argues that a
buy-bust operation should never be used as a cover for an illegal warrantless
search and arrest.
She
also imputes grave doubts on whether SPO1 Dela Cruz observed the requirements
of RA 9165 on inventory and photographing of the illegal substance, arguing
that said police officer did not state where and when he marked the sachets of shabu.
The
OSG, on the other hand, argues that no search warrant and warrant of arrest
were needed, a buy-bust operation being recognized as a valid form of
entrapment. Citing jurisprudence, the
OSG claims that it is ridiculous for the buy-bust team to first obtain a search
warrant when a crime is committed before their eyes.
As
to the other contention of Elizabeth, the OSG refutes this by saying that the
identity of the seized substance was adequately established by the prosecution,
as this was properly marked and its paper trail ascertained, from the request
for laboratory examination to the physical science report on the illegal
substance and the actual presentation in court.
We
affirm Elizabeth’s conviction.
The appellate court correctly ruled
that Elizabeth cannot question her arrest for the first time on appeal. And even if we were to allow her to raise such
issue, her appeal must still fail.
Search warrant and warrant of arrest not needed
In People v. Villamin,[15]
involving an accused arrested after he sold drugs during a buy-bust
operation, the Court ruled that it was a circumstance where a warrantless arrest is justified under
Rule 113, Sec. 5(a) of the Rules of Court.[16] The same ruling applies to the instant case. When carried out with due regard for
constitutional and legal safeguards, it is a judicially sanctioned method of
apprehending those involved in illegal drug activities. It is a valid form of
entrapment, as the idea to commit a crime comes not from the police officers
but from the accused himself. The
accused is caught in the act and must be apprehended on the spot. From the very nature of a buy-bust operation,
the absence of a warrant does not make the arrest illegal.[17]
The illegal drug seized was not the
“fruit of the poisonous tree” as the defense would like this Court to believe. The seizure made by the buy-bust team falls
under a search incidental to a lawful arrest under Rule 126, Sec. 13 of the
Rules of Court, which pertinently provides:
A person lawfully arrested may be searched
for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute proof
in the commission of an offense without a search warrant.
Since
the buy-bust operation was established as legitimate, it follows that the
search was also valid, and a warrant was likewise not needed to conduct it.
Chain of custody
The prosecution’s failure to submit
in evidence the required physical inventory and photograph of the evidence
confiscated will not result in accused-appellant’s acquittal of the crimes
charged. Non-compliance with the
provisions of RA 9165 on the custody and disposition of dangerous drugs is not
necessarily fatal to the prosecution’s case.
Neither will it render the arrest of an accused illegal nor the items
seized from her inadmissible.[18]
We discussed in People v. Pagkalinawan[19]
both what the law provides and the level of compliance it requires:
Sec. 21 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 provides:
SECTION 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:
(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 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. x x x (Emphasis supplied.)
As can be gleaned from the language of Sec.
21 of the Implementing Rules, it is clear that the failure of the law enforcers
to comply strictly with it is not fatal. It does not render appellant’s
arrest illegal nor the evidence adduced against him inadmissible. What is
essential is “the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of
the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt
or innocence of the accused.”
Here, the chain of custody was
established through the following links: (1) SPO1 Dela Cruz marked the seized sachet
with “MDC-1” for the sachet that was the subject of the buy-bust, and “MDC-2”
for the sachet found on accused-appellant’s person; (2) a request for laboratory examination of the seized items “MDC-1” and
“MDC-2” was signed by Police Senior Inspector Arthur Felix Asis; (3) the
request and the marked items seized were received by the Bulacan Provincial
Crime Laboratory; (4) Chemistry Report
No. D-628-02 confirmed that the marked items seized from accused-appellant were
shabu; and (5) the marked items were offered in evidence as Exhibits
“C-1” and “C-2.”
As there is no proof to support the
claim that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized shabu have been compromised at some
stage, we find no reason to overturn the finding of the trial court that what were
seized from Elizabeth were the same illegal drugs presented in the trial court.
As it is, there was substantial
compliance with the requirements under RA 9165, and the prosecution adequately
established that there was an unbroken chain of custody over the shabu seized from Elizabeth.
Also
working against Elizabeth’s cause is the presumption of regularity accorded those
involved in the buy-bust operation. It
is a 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.[20] Accused-appellant failed to overcome this
presumption by showing clear and convincing evidence that the police officers
did not properly perform their duty or that they were inspired by an improper
motive.[21]
Penalty Imposed
Criminal Case No. 3048-M-2002 (illegal sale of drugs)
The
penalty for sale of illegal drugs under RA 9165 is the following:
SEC. 5. Sale,
Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and
Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential
Chemicals. - 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 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.
Criminal Case No. 3049-M-2002
RA
9165 penalizes possession of dangerous drugs as follows:
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 x
(5)
50 grams or more of methamphetamine hydrochloride or “shabu”; otherwise, if the
quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be
graduated as follows:
x x x x
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.
Finding the sentence handed by the
lower court in both criminal cases to be within the range provided under RA
9165, we affirm accused-appellant Elizabeth’s sentence for both charges.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED.
The Decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03153 finding accused-appellant guilty of violation of Secs.
5 and 11 of Article II, RA 9165 is AFFIRMED IN TOTO.
SO
ORDERED.
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Chairperson
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate Justice Associate Justice
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
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