THIRD DIVISION
PEOPLE OF
THE
Appellee,
Present:
*CARPIO
MORALES, J., Chairperson,
**BRION, Acting
Chairperson,
BERSAMIN,
-
versus - ***ABAD,
VILLARAMA,
JR., and
SERENO,
JJ.
Promulgated:
ROMEO
DANSICO y MONAY
a.k.a. “Lamyak” and AUGUSTO
CUADRA y
ENRIQUEZ, February
23, 2011
Appellants.
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I ON
BRION, J.:
We review in
this Rule 45 petition the decision[1]
of the Court of Appeals[2]
(CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00645.
The CA decision affirmed the decision[3]
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 30,
The Information and
Plea
The appellants were charged under the
following Information dated
That sometime on P5,000.00) to the prejudice of the Government.
ACTS CONTRARY TO
LAW.[4]
With the
assistance of their counsel, the appellants pleaded not guilty to the charge.
In the pre-trial, the appellants admitted their identities and the existence of
the booking sheet and the arrest report against them. Trial on the merits
thereafter ensued.
The Prosecution’s Case
The prosecution established its case
by presenting the testimonies of three (3) witnesses[5]
and the supporting documentary evidence.[6]
The prosecution’s account showed that the appellants were caught and arrested
for selling marijuana during a
buy-bust operation.
The prosecution’s evidence shows that
on the basis of reports that the appellants were engaged in peddling marijuana, the members of the Camarines
Narcotics Provincial (NARGROUP)
Office, P5,000.00 as buy-bust money.[7]
On P5,000.00 worth of marijuana.
Paz handed the buy-bust money to the appellants who left in a motorcycle to
get the marijuana.[8]
After three hours, more or less, the
appellants returned with a brick, allegedly marijuana,
wrapped in a newspaper. Appellant Dansico took the brick from appellant
Cuadra and gave it to Paz. At this point, Paz gave the pre-arranged signal for
P/Insp. Vargas and the buy-bust team to approach. The team immediately apprehended appellant
Dansico, while appellant Cuadra resisted by throwing stones at and grappling
with P/Insp. Vargas. Paz turned the seized marijuana
to P/Insp. Vargas and the group proceeded to the Tigaon Police Station.[9]
The arrest of the appellants, the
recovery of the suspected marijuana and
the confiscation of the appellants’ motorcycle were entered in the police
blotter of the Tigaon Police Station. Afterwards, the buy-bust team (with the
appellants in tow and with the confiscated items) proceeded to the NARGROUP Office where P/Insp. Vargas prepared a booking
sheet and the arrest report. The confiscated brick of marijuana was placed inside a plastic bag and marked “
The Case for the Defense
The defense denied
the charges and countered that the appellants were victims of frame-up and
police extortion. The defense presented six (6) witnesses[17]
(including the two appellants) and the documentary evidence. Appellant Dansico
admitted that the marijuana presented
in court was the same marijuana shown
to him at the Tigaon Police Station.
According to
the defense, appellant Dansico had a farm where appellant Cuadra worked. In the
afternoon of
SPO4 Paterno Boncodin, a local Tigaon
policeman, was presented to corroborate the appellants’ story. SPO4 Boncodin
claimed that he saw P/Insp. Vargas and appellant Cuadra grappling with each
other. He was then informed by the
confidential informant that appellant Cuadra was being arrested for the illegal
sale of marijuana. SPO4 Boncodin
claimed that after appellant Cuadra was subdued and taken to the police
station, P/Insp. Vargas returned to appellant Dansico’s farm and arrested
appellant Dansico. Thereafter, the appellants were charged with selling marijuana.
In its decision,
the RTC found the appellants guilty of illegal sale of marijuana and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with the
corresponding accessory penalties. The RTC also ordered them (a) to pay a fine
in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00); (b) to
return or reimburse Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) representing the
unrecovered buy-bust money; and (c) to pay the costs.[18]
The CA, on appeal, affirmed the RTC
decision. The CA sustained the convictions of the appellants, finding the
prosecution’s version more credible in the absence of any improper motive
established against the prosecution witnesses. The CA also relied on the
presumption of regularity that attended the conduct of the buy-bust operation
which led to the arrest of the appellants.
The Issue
In their Brief,[19]
the appellants seek their acquittal based on the following arguments. First, the two (2) elements of the crime
– the sale and delivery of the marijuana,
and the knowledge of the sale of marijuana
– were not established in evidence. Second, the evidence failed to establish
the existence of the buy-bust operation; for the first time on appeal, the
appellants argue that they were instigated into selling marijuana. The other arguments relate to the disregard by the lower
courts of the defenses of denial and frame-up, and the claim of police
extortion raised by the appellants.
The Office of the Solicitor General[20]
(OSG) contends that the evidence
sufficiently established the sale and delivery of marijuana by the appellants during the buy-bust operation conducted
by the team of P/Insp. Vargas. That an actual buy-bust operation took place was
even testified to by defense witness SPO1 Roberto Caña and supported by the
police blotter. The OSG also contends that the appellants’ defenses of frame-up
and extortion were not properly substantiated. On the instigation claim, the
OSG stresses that this claim was only raised for the first on appeal. By this
argument, the appellants in fact actually admitted having sold and delivered marijuana to the team of P/Insp. Vargas.
The Court’s Ruling
We find no reversible error committed by the RTC and the CA in
appreciating the presented evidence and, therefore, deny the petition for lack
of merit.
First, to
convict an accused of illegal sale of marijuana,
the prosecution must establish these essential elements: (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.[21]
All these elements were duly proven
during the trial. The fact that an actual buy-bust operation took place involving
the appellants is supported not only by the testimonies of Paz (as the poseur-buyer) and P/Insp. Vargas, but
also by the presented documentary evidence consisting of (a) the photocopy of
the serial numbers of the marked money used in the buy-bust operation,[22]
(b) the Tigaon Police Station police blotter showing the arrest of the
appellants on September 7, 1998 and the cause of their arrest by the group of
P/Insp. Vargas,[23]
(c) the booking sheet and arrest report against the appellants prepared by
P/Insp. Vargas,[24]
and (d) the Joint Affidavit of Arrest executed by P/Insp. Vargas and Eduardo
Buenavente, another civilian volunteer.[25]
Second,
the testimonies of Paz and P/Insp. Vargas on the buy-bust operation and the
identities of the appellants as the sellers of the marijuana were positive and straightforward; they were consistent
with one another with respect to the events that transpired before, during, and
after the buy-bust operation that led to the appellants’ arrest. We consider,
too, the testimonies of Paz and P/Insp. Vargas to be in accord with the
physical evidence showing in detail the process undertaken by P/Insp. Vargas
and the police officers immediately after the appellants’ arrest and the
confiscation of the marijuana. We also take into account that no improper
motive was ever successfully established showing why the buy-bust team would
falsely accuse the appellants.
Third, the defenses of denial, frame-up, and police
extortion only become weighty when inconsistencies and improbabilities cast
doubt on the credibility of the prosecution evidence. We do not see these
inconsistencies and improbabilities in the presented evidence. Besides, the failure
of the appellants to file appropriate criminal and administrative cases against
the concerned police officers in light of their allegations highly indicates
that the appellants’ claims are mere concocted afterthoughts.
Fourth,
the records show that the defenses of denial, frame-up, and police extortion
were even contradicted by the appellants’ own conduct during the appeal to the
CA. By raising instigation as a defense, the appellants effectively admitted
that they sold marijuana; they only now
question the circumstances of the sale, with the claim that they were led into
it by the police.
Fifth, the evidence on record belies that the appellants
were instigated to sell marijuana.
Instigation means luring the accused into a crime that he, otherwise, had no
intention to commit, in order to prosecute him.[26]
On the other hand, entrapment is the employment of ways and means in order to
trap or capture a lawbreaker.[27]
Instigation presupposes that the criminal intent to commit an offense
originated from the inducer and not the accused who had no intention to commit
the crime and would not have committed it were it not for the initiatives by
the inducer.[28]
In entrapment, the criminal intent or design to commit the offense charged
originates in the mind of the accused; the law enforcement officials merely
facilitate the apprehension of the criminal by employing ruses and schemes.[29]
In instigation, the law enforcers act as active co-principals. Instigation leads to the acquittal of the accused, while entrapment does not bar
prosecution and conviction. [30]
To determine whether there is
instigation or entrapment, we held in People
v. Doria[31]
that the conduct of the apprehending officers and the predisposition of the
accused to commit the crime must be examined:
[I]n buy-bust operations demands that the details of the purported
transaction must be clearly and adequately shown. This must start from the
initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase,
the promise or payment of the consideration until the consummation of the sale
by the delivery of the illegal drug subject of the sale. The manner by which the initial contact was made, whether or not
through an informant, the offer to purchase the drug, the payment of the
"buy-bust" money, and the delivery of the illegal drug, whether to
the informant alone or the police officer, must be the subject of strict
scrutiny by courts to insure that law-abiding citizens are not unlawfully
induced to commit an offense. Criminals must be caught but not at all cost. At
the same time, however, examining the conduct of the police should not disable
courts into ignoring the accused's predisposition to commit the crime. If there
is overwhelming evidence of habitual delinquency, recidivism or plain criminal
proclivity, then this must also be considered. Courts should look at all
factors to determine the predisposition of an accused to commit an offense in
so far as they are relevant to determine the validity of the defense of
inducement.[32]
In the present case, Paz testified to
his initial contact with the confidential informant, on one hand, and with the
appellants, on the other. Acting as the poseur-buyer, Paz asked the appellants
if they had P5,000.00 worth of marijuana
which the appellants told him was equivalent to one (1) kilo. Paz and the
appellants initially haggled over the price before the appellants left to get
the marijuana after receiving payment.
The appellants were immediately arrested by the group of P/Insp. Vargas after
the marijuana
was handed to Paz.
The appellants’ conversation with Paz
best illustrates that they were not at all instigated to sell marijuana, but were, in fact, engaged in
the business of selling marijuana. In
his testimony, Paz testified:
Q: Now, after the brief introduction and your
purpose was mentioned to the accused, tell us what happened if any?
A: Lamyak [appellant Dansico] asked from me
the money and I asked him how much.
Q: And what was the response of the accused
if any?
A: As of now the ranning [sic] price for one
(1) kilo is P5,000.00.[33]
During
cross-examination, Paz also related:
Q: But you will agree with me that Lamyak
said he does not have marijuana in
that safehouse, is that correct?
A: Yes, sir.
x x x
Q: All he said is that he has no marijuana?
A: He said that he has no marijuana in that place and that he will
get.[34]
In addition to this testimony,
appellant Dansico admitted that his brother-in-law sells marijuana in
The Penalty
The guilt of the appellants for
selling marijuana having been proven
beyond reasonable doubt, the appellants are liable to suffer the penalty
provided under Section 4, Article II, in connection
with Section 20 of R.A. No. 6425, as amended, which provides:
Sec.
4.
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:
x x x
5. 750 grams or more of Indian
hemp or marijuana[.]
P/Sr. Insp. Razonable testified that
the quantity of marijuana taken from
the appellants weighed 878.80 grams. Accordingly, we affirm the ruling of the
RTC and the CA imposing the penalty of reclusion
perpetua and a fine of P500,000.00, as these are the penalties provided
for by law. In lieu of merely ordering the return of the P5,000.00 buy-bust
money, the appellants are ordered to pay P5,000.00 as reimbursement for
the unrecovered buy-bust money.
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, we hereby DENY the
appeal of appellants Romeo
Dansico y Monay a.k.a. “Lamyak” and Augusto Cuadra y Enriquez. The decision dated
February 27, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00645, finding
Romeo Dansico y Monay a.k.a. “Lamyak” and Augusto Cuadra y Enriquez guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of marijuana
under Section 4, Article
II of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the
appellants are ordered to pay P5,000.00
as reimbursement for the unrecovered buy-bust money.
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
(ON WELLNESS LEAVE)
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate
Justice Associate Justice
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. MARIA
Associate Justice 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.
ARTURO
D. BRION
Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Acting Chairperson’s Attestation, it is
hereby certified 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
* On Wellness Leave.
** Designated
Acting Chairperson of the Third Division effective
***
Additional Member per Special Order No. 926 dated
[1]
Dated
[2] Penned by CA Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, with the concurrence of CA Associate Justices Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos and Mario L. Guariña III.
[3]
Dated
[4] CA rollo, p. 8.
[5] They are (1) P/Insp. Dennis A. Vargas, (2) Willie Paz, and (3) P/Sr. Insp. Ma. Julieta Razonable.
[6] It consists of the following: (1) Request for Laboratory Examination (Exh. A with submarking); (2) Chemistry Report No. D-104-98 (Exh. B, with submarkings); (3) report and sketch (Exh. C, with submarkings); (4) the plastic bag with the subject marijuana with a mark Julieta G. Razonable (Exh. E, with submarkings); (5) the letter-request of P/Insp. Dennis Vargas to the Crime Laboratory (Exh. F, with submarking, and Exh. G, with submarkings); (6) the photocopy of the Police Blotter Entry and the Memo (Exh. H, with submarking, to Exh. I, with submarking); (7) the Booking Sheet for Augusto Cuadra and Romeo Dansico (Exh. J, with submarking, and Exh. K, with submarking); (8) the respective pictures of Augusto Cuadra and Romeo Dansico (Exh. L, with submarkings, to Exh. M, with submarkings); (9) the picture of the motorcycle (Exh. N, with submarkings); (10) the Certificate of Initial Field Test (Exh. O, with submarkings); (11) the Joint Affidavit of Arrest (Exh. P, with submarkings); and (12) the Medical Certificate issued to P/Insp. Dennis Vargas.
[7] CA Decision, supra note 1, at 4-5.
[8]
[9]
TSN,
[10]
TSN,
[11]
TSN,
[12] Records, p. 180.
[13]
TSN,
[14]
[15]
[16]
TSN,
[17] The other three witnesses were SPO3 Edgar Latam, SPO1 Roberto Caña and Elena Sora.
[18] Rollo, p. 7.
[19] CA rollo, pp. 59-70.
[20]
[21]
People v. Tion, G.R. No. 172092,
[22] Records, p. 235.
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
See People v. Bayani, G.R. No. 179150,
[27]
[28] Ibid.
[29] Ibid.
[30]
[31]
G.R. No. 125299,
[32]
[33]
TSN,
[34]
TSN,
[35]
TSN,