Republic of the
Supreme Court
SECOND DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Appellee, - versus - EVANGELINE
LASCANO y VELARDE, Appellant. |
G.R. No.
172605 Present:
CARPIO, j., Chairperson, PERALTA, ABAD, and MENDOZA,
JJ. Promulgated: November 22, 2010 |
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
PERALTA, J.:
Appellant
Evangeline V. Lascano seeks the reversal of the Decision[1]
dated
The facts, as
gathered from the records, are as follows:
On
Criminal Case
No. 25582-MN
That on or about the 18th day of October 2001, in the City of Malabon, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being a private person and without authority of law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in her possession, custody and control a transparent plastic sachet containing dried suspected Marijuana fruiting tops with net weight of 5.84 grams and one (1) plastic bag colored yellow and marked as D containing one (1) brick of dried suspected marijuana fruiting tops with markings ACF R-1/10/01 and marked as D-1 weighing 942.8 grams, which when subjected to chemistry examination gave positive result for “Marijuana” which is a prohibited drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[2]
Criminal Case
No. 25583-MN
That
on or about the 18th day of October 2001, in the City of Malabon,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, being a private person and without authority of law,
did then and there, willfully unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver in
consideration in the amount of P200.00
to poseur-buyer two (2) heat sealed transparent plastic bags, each containing
Marijuana fruiting tops with net weight 5.41 grams, and 6.13 grams which when
subjected to chemistry examination gave positive result for Marijuana which is
a prohibited drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]
Upon
her arraignment, appellant, assisted by a counsel de oficio, pleaded not guilty to the charges.[4] Trial
thereafter ensued.
The
prosecution's version of the incident were testified to by Police Officer 1
Allan Fernandez (PO1 Allan), PO1 Joel Fernandez
(PO1 Joel) and Forensic Chemist Vicente Drapete (Drapete) as follows:
Around
P100.00 each. PO1 Allan and PO1 Joel respectively
talked with the informant on the phone and the latter told them to meet him at P100.00 bills were given. PO1 Joel and
PO1 Allan, together with the other police operatives, went to the meeting
place.
Upon
arriving at
x x x x
SPECIMEN SUBMITTED:
1. Three (3) staple-sealed transparent plastic bags, each containing dried suspected marijuana fruiting tops with the following markings and recorded net weights:
A- (JJF-BB/10-18-01)=5.41 grams
B- (JJF-BB1/10-18-01) = 6.13 grams
C- (ACF-R1/10-18-01) = 5.84 grams
2. One (1) plastic bag colored yellow and marked as D containing one (1) brick of dried suspected marijuana fruiting tops with markings ACF-R1/10-18-01, and, marked as D-1 weighing 942.8 grams.
x x x x
FINDINGS:
Qualitative examination conducted on the above-stated specimen gave POSITIVE result to the tests for Marijuana, a prohibited drug.[5]
Appellant
denied the accusation against her. She testified that around
The
testimony of Alejandro Lascano, appellant's husband, was dispensed with after
the parties admitted that said witness would purely corroborate appellant's
testimony.
Defense
witness Emmanuel Celestino testified that he was having coffee in the alley
when he saw men open appellant's door by means of a screw driver, after which
four persons entered the house with one left at the door. He tried to follow, but another person held
his arm. He saw appellant being dragged
outside of her house to the main road and was forced to board an owner type-jeep.
Magdalena
Sabenal corroborated Celestino's testimony and added that she followed
appellant to the police station where they were told to wait for appellant's
relatives to arrive; and that the police would not release appellant unless
Putol would show up.
After
trial, a Decision[6]
was rendered finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes
charged, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Evangeline
Lascano y Velarde guilty as charged in these cases and she is hereby condemned
to suffer the prison term of Reclusion
Perpetua in Crim. Case No. 25582-MN
for illegal possession of prohibited drug/marijuana involving a total of 948.64
grams, and to pay a fine of P500,000.00.
In Crim. Case No. 25583-MN for drug pushing (Section 4, Art. II, RA 6425, as amended by RA 7659), in the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance, and applying the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, accused Lascano is also sentenced to a prison term ranging from SIX (6) MONTHS of arresto mayor, as minimum, to TWO (2) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS, and ONE (1) DAY of prision correccional, as maximum.
The sachets of marijuana fruiting tops and the brick of marijuana fruiting tops subjects of these cases are hereby forfeited in favor of the government to be disposed under rules governing the same. For this purpose, Branch Clerk of Court Atty. Magnolia P. Gonzales is hereby ordered to turn over the sachets with marijuana fruiting tops to the National Bureau of Investigation for further disposition. The custody of brick of marijuana fruiting tops having been retained by Inspector Grapete (sic) of the PNP Crime Laboratory, let the said remain with said PNP Crime Laboratory for further disposition.
In both cases, costs against the accused.
SO ORDERED.[7]
In so ruling, the RTC gave credence to the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses regarding the buy-bust operation as well as the
confiscation of sachets of marijuana and a brick of marijuana. The RTC brushed
aside the defenses of denial and evidence-planting put up by appellant saying
that (1) appellant's denial cannot prevail over the positive and credible
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses; (2) the defense of evidence-planting
does not deserve serious consideration, since it was a usual defense invoked by
drug pushers and that the law enforcers
were presumed to have performed their duties regularly in the absence of proof
negating the same; and (3) planting evidence against someone was usually
resorted to by reason of extreme hatred which the appellant did not claim was
the motive of the police for doing so.
Appellant filed her appeal with us.
On
After the submission of
the respective pleadings of the parties and pursuant to our ruling in People v. Mateo,[10]
we referred the case to the CA for appropriate action and disposition.[11]
On
In
affirming appellant's convictions, the CA upheld the RTC’s findings which
accorded credence to the testimonies of the police officers who conducted the
buy-bust operation.
The CA rejected appellant's
claim that no drug pusher in her right mind would bring a large amount of
marijuana when the transaction was only for two sachets worth P200.00, saying that drugs dealers are
known to sell their goods even to strangers and even ply their wares wherever
prospective customers may be found. The CA also brushed aside appellant's
defense of frame up as she failed to present convincing evidence to overcome
the presumption that the arresting officers regularly performed their official
duties.
As
to appellant's claim that doubts exist as to the items examined by Drapete as
the same could not have been the same items seized from her, the CA said that
appellant was caught red-handed, or in
flagrante delicto, selling and in
possession of prohibited drugs and the incriminatory evidence on record
adequately established her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Dissatisfied,
appellant appealed the CA decision.
On
The
issue for resolution is whether the prosecution was able to prove beyond
reasonable doubt the crimes charged against appellant.
The
appeal is not meritorious.
Well
settled is the rule that findings of trial courts, which are factual in nature
and which involve the credibility of witnesses, are to be respected when no
glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts and speculative, arbitrary and
unsupported conclusions can be gleaned from such findings.[14]
Such findings carry even more weight if they are affirmed by the Court of
Appeals,[15]
as in the instant case.
We
find no error in the CA's affirmance of the RTC’s findings that appellant is
guilty of illegal sale of marijuana.
The
essential elements to be established in the prosecution of illegal sale of
marijuana are as follows: (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 the payment therefor.[16] 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.[17]
We find these elements duly proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.
Appellant
was arrested in a buy bust operation conducted by the Malabon Police DEU.
Prosecution witness PO1 Joel, a member of the buy-bust team and the poseur-
buyer, clearly and positively identified appellant as the one who possessed and
sold two plastic sachets of dried marijuana fruiting tops to him for the amount
of P100 each. PO1 Joel narrates the incident as follows:
Q. Did
you report for work on
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where is your office located?
A. DEU,
Malabon Police Station,
Q. While in your office on said date, was there anything unusual that happened?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was that unusual incident?
A. Our confidential informant called our office and informed us that he
has closed a deal with a certain Belen for the sale of marijuana for P100 for two sachets.
Q. Who talked with the confidential informant on the phone?
A. It was Allan first, sir, then after that I also talked to the informant.
Q. And what did the confidential informant and you talk?
A. He confirmed that he had a close deal with alias Belen and said that she is “malakas magbenta, pamangkin ni Litong Putol.”
Q. Then what happened afterwards?
A. We informed our superior, Insp. Lasquite, and he immediately formed a team.
Q. Who was designated as poseur-buyer ?
A. It was me, sir.
Q. Were you given money to be used as buy-bust?
A. Yes,
sir, Two P100 bills.
Q. Then what happened?
A. We first recorded the planned buy-bust in the blotter and dispatch and also the buy-bust money and then we proceeded to the area.
Q. Where is that place where the buy-bust operation will take place?
A.
Tugatog,
Q. Who were with you when you proceeded to the area?
A. PO1 Allan Fernandez acted as my back-up, sir, with our chief and
other team members, who positioned themselves at a gasoline station along
Q. What about the confidential informant? Was he with you?
A. No,
sir. He met us at
Q. Then what happened?
A. When we saw the confidential informant, I walked with him into an
alley near the Epifanio delos
Q. Was Allan with you?
A. No, sir. The confidential informant and I walked ahead of him at the
corner of
Q. Then where did you proceed?
A. When we were in the alley, we reached the back of a house, where our confidential informant introduced me to a female person?
Q. And who is this female person?
A. Alias Belen.
Q. And did you come to know what is the name of this alias Belen?
A. Evangeline Lascano, sir.
Q. The accused in these cases?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And after you were introduced to this alias Belen, then what happened?
A. We talked for a while and then Belen, or Evangeline Lascano, demanded for the money.
Q. And did you give the money to her?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then what happened after you gave the money to Belen?
A. She took the money and then she handed to me two transparent plastic sachets which she took from a transparent color yellow plastic bag.
Q. After that what happened?
A. I gave the pre-arranged signal that the transaction was positive.
Q. When you gave the pre-arranged signal, what happened next?
A. PO1 Allan Fernandez immediately responded and arrested the suspect.
Q. Did you recover the buy-bust money?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What else?
A. Also the yellow transparent plastic bag containing one transparent plastic sachet which contains dried flowering tops of suspected marijuana leaves and a brick of marijuana wrapped in masking tape.[18]
The testimony of
poseur-buyer PO1 Joel was corroborated by PO1 Allan, who acted as the former's
back-up. PO1 Allan testified that he saw PO1 Joel and the confidential
informant enter an alley going to appellant’s house and saw them talking with
appellant; that, after a while, he saw appellant receive something from PO1
Joel and appellant in turn gave something to the latter.[19] After such exchange, PO1 Joel then gave the
pre-arranged signal by holding the back of his head, thus, he (PO1 Allan)
immediately approached them and was able to recover from appellant the buy-bust
money,[20] which
was also presented in court.
The
testimonies of these prosecution witnesses had clearly established that a sale
of marijuana took place between appellant and poseur-buyer PO1 Joel. The delivery of the illicit drug to the
poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully
consummated the buy-bust transaction.[21]
PO1
Joel had also established in court the identity of the two plastic sachets of
dried marijuana fruiting tops which appellant had sold to him. He testified
that he marked the two plastic sachets,[22]
i.e., with his initials as well as
the date of the buy-bust operation, and were then turned over to Police Investigator
Vicente Mandac. Together with the
request for a laboratory examination signed by Inspector Lasquite, the two
plastic sachets of marijuana subject of the illegal sale, as well as the other
plastic sachet of dried marijuana fruiting tops and a brick of marijuana
recovered by PO1 Allan from appellant, were brought by investigator Mandac to
the Crime Laboratory where it was duly received. Upon examination conducted by Drapete
on the specimens submitted, he found them all positive for marijuana, a
prohibited drug, which finding was contained in his Physical Science Report No.
D-1312-01 and which he testified on during the trial.
We,
likewise, affirm appellant's conviction for illegal possession of marijuana. In the prosecution of such crime, the
following facts must be proven with moral certainty: (1) that the accused is in
possession of the object identified as prohibited or regulated drug; (2) that
such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) that the accused freely and
consciously possessed the said drug.[23]
Prosecution witness PO1 Allan testified that after the
illegal sale of marijuana was consummated and the pre-arranged signal was given
by PO1 Joel, he immediately approached and arrested appellant.[24]
He was also able to recover from appellant one plastic sachet of dried marijuana
fruiting tops and a brick of marijuana[25]
wrapped in masking tape which were both contained in a yellow plastic bag
carried by appellant during the bust-buy operation. The fact that appellant
consciously possessed the said drugs was further bolstered by PO1 Joel's
testimony that appellant had also taken the two plastic sachets of marijuana
sold to him from the same yellow plastic bag.[26]
PO1 Allan testified that he placed markings on the plastic sachet of marijuana
and the brick of marijuana before they were given to Investigator Mandac. These items, as we said, were found to be
positive for marijuana and were properly identified in court.
Appellant claims that she was framed-up, because of her
failure to divulge the whereabouts of her uncle Litong Putol, a drug pusher. We
are not convinced.
Frame-up is a defense that has been
invariably viewed with disfavor for it can easily be concocted but difficult to
prove and is a common and standard line of defense in most prosecutions arising
from violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act.[27] We find no convincing evidence presented by
appellant to prove such defense. Appellant's
claim that her arrest was to make Litong Putol come out is unbelievable
considering that she admitted not knowing where Putol resides;[28]
that Putol was not a frequent visitor in their house or had met with him
anywhere,[29]
and that she had no communications with him.[30] Thus, it would be futile for the police to
arrest appellant just to make Putol come out when appellant herself admitted
that she had no communication with Putol long before her arrest. Hence, in the absence of proof of motive of the
police officers to falsely impute such serious crimes against appellant, the
presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and the findings
of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses shall prevail over
appellant’s claim of having been framed.[31]
Appellant
contends that Drapete testified that he ended his duty at 9 a.m. of October 19,
2001, thus, showing that he was no longer working at the time the specimens
were received by his office at 1:40 p.m. of October 19, 2001; that such
discrepancy created a reasonable doubt as to whether the items received by
Drapete, and which he identified as the marijuana fruiting tops during his
testimony in the trial court, were the same items seized from appellant.
We
find the argument not meritorious.
The
question propounded on direct examination to Drapete was what time did he
report for work on October 18, 2001 to which he replied that he reported at 9
a.m. to 9 a.m. also of October 19, 2001,[32] thus,
making appellant conclude that Drapete
was no longer working at the time he received the specimens in the afternoon. There was no evidence showing that Drapete
did not, and could not, have worked in the afternoon of
Appellant
also claims that both PO1 Allan and Drapete admitted that there was no marking
on the yellow plastic bag which contained the brick of marijuana, thus,
creating a serious doubt on the identity of such substance.
We
are not persuaded.
While
PO1 Allan admitted on his cross-examination that he failed to make any marking
on the yellow plastic bag which contained the confiscated plastic sachet of
marijuana and the brick of marijuana wrapped in masking tape, such failure had
no effect on the integrity of the seized items since the contents of the yellow
plastic bag were separately marked.
Drapete's testimony also established that it was the yellow plastic bag
which did not contain any markings.
Finally,
appellant claims that after her conviction by the RTC, a certain Ma. Nonie
Villaester confessed that she was the one who made a strip search on the body
of appellant but failed to find marijuana; and that marijuana was only planted
to force her to admit the whereabouts of her uncle, Litong Putol. Notably, such claim was embodied in the Sinumpaang Salaysay of Villaester which appellant attached in
her Motion for New Trial[35] filed with us. We denied the motion, finding that it should
have been filed in the trial court. Thus,
we find no basis to consider Villaester's statement.
As to the imposable penalty, Sections 4 and 8, Article II, in
relation to Section 20, of RA No. 6425, as amended by R.A. No. 7659,
respectively provide:
Sec. 4.
Sec. 8. Possession
or Use of Prohibited Drugs. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred
thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person, who,
unless authorized by law, shall possess or use any prohibited drug subject to
the provisions of Section 20 hereof.
x x x x
Sec. 20. Application of Penalties, Confiscation and Forfeiture of the Proceeds or Instruments of the Crime. - The penalties for offenses under Sections 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 of Article II and Sections 14, 14-A, 15 and 16 of Article III of this Act shall be applied if the dangerous drugs involved is in any of the following quantities:
5. 750 grams or more of Indian hemp or marijuana; x x x
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalty shall range from prision correccional to reclusion perpetua depending upon the quantity.
We find the
penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed
by the RTC on appellant for illegal possession of marijuana with a total weight
of 948.64 grams proper, since they exceeded 750 grams. We, likewise, affirm the fine of P500,000.00 imposed by the RTC since it is the minimum of the range of fines
imposed under Section 4.
We
also affirm the penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to two (2) years, four (4) months, and one (1) day of prision
correccional, as maximum imposed by the RTC on appellant for the illegal
sale of 11.54 grams of marijuana. In People v. Simon,[36]
and People v. De Lara,[37] we clarified the proper penalties to be
imposed for drug-related crimes under R.A. No. 6425, as amended by R.A. No.
7659. With regard to marijuana, the appropriate penalty is reclusion perpetua if the quantity of the drug weighs 750 grams or
more. If the marijuana involved is below 250 grams, the penalty to be imposed
is prision correccional; from 250 grams to 499 grams, prision mayor; and, from
500 grams to 749 grams, reclusion
temporal.
Since the quantity recovered from appellant was only 11.54
grams, the maximum penalty to be imposed is prision
correccional in its medium period in the absence of any mitigating or
aggravating circumstance. And applying
the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum sentence should be within the range
of arresto mayor, the penalty next
lower to prision correccional, which
is the maximum range we have fixed.[38]
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated
SO ORDERED.
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
ANTONIO T. CARPIO ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice Associate Justice
Chairperson
JOSE CATRAL
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
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
Second Division, Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
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