SECOND DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - MICHAEL
ANDRES Y
Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 193184 Present: CARPIO, J., Chairperson, NACHURA, PERALTA, ABAD, and MENDOZA, JJ.
Promulgated: February 7, 2011 |
x -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
MENDOZA, J.:
This is an appeal from the January
20, 2010 Decision[1] of the
Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the December 3, 2007 Decision[2] of
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 171, Valenzuela City (RTC), finding
accused Michael Andres y Trinidad (Andres) guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of having violated Section 5 and Section 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.)
No. 9165, otherwise known as the “Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,” for the illegal sale of 0.53 gram of shabu
and illegal possession of 0.43 gram of shabu.
Two (2) separate informations for
violation of Section 5 and Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 were filed
against accused Andres. During
the trial, the prosecution presented two (2) witnesses, namely: Senior Police Officer
2 Lucio Flores (SPO2 Flores) and Police Officer 2 Gaspar Talaue (PO2
Talaue), while the defense presented Andres as its lone witness. The respective versions of the parties were
summarized in the subject decision of the CA as follows:
In the trial that ensued, the prosecution’s
evidence showed that in the
morning of
When the appellant Michael Andres
arrived, he approached PO2 Talaue and the informant. After a short
conversation, accused-appellant asked the poseur-buyer how much he was going to
purchase, to which PO2 Talaue replied, “isang libo lang.” After the
police officer showed accused-appellant the money, the latter took the shabu
from his pocket and handed it to PO2 Talaue. Upon receiving one piece of
transparent plastic sachet containing the suspected shabu, PO2 Talaue gave the
pre-arranged signal and his back-up, SPO2 Flores, approached them and frisked
accused-appellant. As a result of the buy-bust operation, SPO2 Flores recovered
the buy-bust money consisting of two one hundred peso bills with Serial Nos.
BT766967 and JF988321 and one plastic sachet of shabu which was marked by PO2
Talaue with GCT-03-25-03 “B.” On the other hand, the shabu, object of the sale,
was also marked by PO2 Talaue with his initials and date of the arrest with
additional marking “A.”
After his arrest, accused-appellant was
brought to the office of the Barangay Chairperson to whom the alleged
confiscated shabu was shown. When accused-appellant was brought to their headquarters,
the necessary requests for dusting of ultra-violet, medical examination and
drug-testing were made. As stipulated during the pre-trial conference, Forensic
Chemist May Andrea A. Bonifacio conducted a qualitative examination of the
seized items and, thereafter, noted the following findings:
“SPECIMEN
SUBMITTED:
A
(GCT-03-25-03 “A”) = 0.53 gram
B
(GCT-03-25-03 “B”)
FINDINGS:
Qualitative examination conducted on the
above-stated specimens gave POSITIVE result to the tests for the presence of
Methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. Xxx”
Accused-appellant, for his part, denied the charges of
illegal possession and illegal sale of dangerous drugs and insisted that no
buy-bust operation ever took place. He asserted that he was on his way to the
terminal on board his tricycle when somebody on a vehicle motioned him to stop.
When he did, four (4) male passengers in civilian clothes alighted and told him
to get off his tricycle, one of whom accused him of selling illegal drugs which
he denied. When about to be frisked, he asked the police officer to show him
his hands but the latter retorted, “putang ina wala akong ilalagay sa iyo.”
Thus, while in handcuffs, accused-appellant and his tricycle were searched but
the police officers did not find anything. Thereafter, he was dragged to the
car and was forced to put two sachets in his own pocket. He was allegedly told
to admit that these two sachets came from him, otherwise, he would be
“salvaged” upon reaching the barangay outpost. He claimed that he had not been
involved in any drug-related case and that he had no previous encounter with
any of the four men who arrested him.
On
WHEREFORE, in view of
all the foregoing, this Court hereby finds accused MICHAEL ANDRES y TRINIDAD
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of
Republic Act No. 9165, for the illegal sale of 0.53 gram of shabu and illegal
possession of 0.43 gram of shabu as charged in Criminal Case Nos. 341-V-03 and
342-V-03, respectively.
Consequently, for
violating Sections 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the said accused is
hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment plus a fine in the
amount of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00).
For violating Section 11
of Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, accused Andres is further sentenced to
suffer the penalty of imprisonment from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to
fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months and pay the fine in the amount of
Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00).
The penalties herein
imposed on the accused shall be served by him successively and the period
during which the said accused was placed under preventive imprisonment shall be
credited in his favor.
Meanwhile, the Branch
Clerk of Court of this Court is hereby directed to turn over to PDEA the
evidence in these cases for proper disposition of the said office.
SO ORDERED.
The
RTC gave full faith and credit to the testimonies of the arresting officers and
gave no credence to the claim of Andres that he was framed-up for lack of
corroborating evidence.
Aggrieved,
Andres appealed the RTC decision to the CA praying for the reversal and setting
aside of the judgment of conviction anchored on the following
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS:
I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING
THAT THE LAW ENFORCERS REGULARLY PERFORMED THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES.
II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN
CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE PROSECUTION’S LACK OF EVIDENCE TO
PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
On
Hence, this appeal.
ISSUE
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS WAS
CORRECT IN RULING THAT THE ACCUSED MICHAEL ANDRES Y TRINIDAD IS GUILTY BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT OF VIOLATING SECTIONS 5 AND 11, ARTICLE II OF REPUBLIC ACT NO.
9165.
The Position of the Accused
Accused Andres argues that the
presumption of regularity in the performance of duty by the police officers cannot
apply in this case because the alleged sale of illegal drugs was not
established and no buy-bust operation took place. The single testimony of PO2
Talaue proved nothing because it was not corroborated. Moreover, the
confidential informant was not presented in court to corroborate his testimony.
With respect to the custody and disposition of confiscated drugs, Andres claims
that the procedural requirements of Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of RA
No. 9165 were not followed.
The Court’s Ruling
The Court finds no merit in the appeal.
Fundamental is the principle that
findings of the trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve the
credibility of witnesses 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. The rule finds an even more stringent
application where said findings are sustained by the CA.
For the successful prosecution of
offenses involving the illegal sale of drugs under Section 5,
Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the following
elements must be proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, object and
consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment
therefor. What is material to the
prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the
transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court
of evidence of corpus delicti.[3]
In the case at bench, there is no
doubt that the prosecution successfully established all the elements of illegal
sale of drugs prohibited under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
The records show that Andres was
caught in flagrante delicto selling a dangerous drug, methamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu, to PO2 Talaue on
PO2 Talaue testified that, upon receiving a
tip from a police informant about Andres’ illegal drug activities, an
entrapment team was immediately formed and he was assigned to act as
poseur-buyer. The buy-bust team and the informant went to the target area and
positioned themselves for the entrapment. Andres arrived shortly and approached
PO2 Talaue for the sale of the illegal drug. After a brief conversation, the
marked money held by PO2 Talaue and the small plastic sachet of crystalline
substance brought by Andres exchanged hands. After the deal was made, PO2 Talaue gave the
pre-arranged signal. The police back-up
rushed to the scene and immediately arrested Andres. The authorities then brought
Andres to the Barangay Hall of Malinta while the marked money was brought to
the Philippine National Police (PNP)
Crime Laboratory for ultra violet powder dusting.
While on the witness stand, PO2
Talaue positively identified Andres as the seller of the confiscated shabu. He
also identified the confiscated sachet which was marked, preserved as evidence
and laboratory-tested to contain shabu.
SPO2 Flores corroborated the
testimony of PO2 Talaue. He identified himself as a member of the back-up team during
the entrapment operation. He narrated that immediately after the buy-bust
operation, he was able to recover one small plastic sachet of crystalline
substance from Andres which was marked CGT
The clear
and positive testimony of PO2 Talaue, corroborated by that of SPO2 Flores, is more
than sufficient to prove that an illegal transaction or sale of shabu
took place. SPO2 Flores was only about five (5) meters away from PO2 Talaue and
the informant. He was able to give a clear and consistent account of what
transpired during the buy-bust operation especially the fact that illegal drugs
were actually found in the possession of Andres after his arrest.
The Court gives full faith and
credence to the testimonies of the police officers and upholds the presumption
of regularity in the apprehending officers’ performance of official duty. 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.[4]
On
the other hand, Andres failed to present clear and convincing evidence to
overturn the presumption
that the arresting officers regularly performed their duties. Except for his bare allegations, there is no
solid proof whatsoever to support his claim that the police officers were
impelled by improper motives to testify against him. Hence, the veracity of
their testimonies is beyond question.
Neither
was Andres able to prove that he was a victim of a frame-up. The Court has invariably viewed with
disfavor the defenses of denial and frame-up. Such defenses can easily be
fabricated and are common ploy in prosecutions for the illegal sale and
possession of dangerous drugs. In order
to prosper, such defenses must be proved with strong and convincing evidence.[5]
Meanwhile, the non-presentation of the
confidential informant is not fatal to the prosecution’s case. The presentation
of an informant is not a requisite in the prosecution of drug cases. The
failure to present the informant does not vitiate the prosecution’s cause as his
testimony is not indispensable to a successful prosecution for drug-pushing
since it would be merely corroborative of, and cumulative with, that of the
poseur-buyer who was presented in court and testified on the facts and
circumstances of the sale and delivery of the prohibited drug.
At any rate, informants are usually not
presented in court because of the need to hide their identities and preserve
their invaluable services to the police. It is well-settled that, except when the
accused vehemently denies selling prohibited drugs and there are material
inconsistencies in the testimonies of the arresting officers, or there are
reasons to believe that the arresting officers had motives to falsely testify
against the accused, or that the informant himself acted as the poseur-buyer and
the only one who actually witnessed the entire transaction, the testimony of
the informant may be dispensed with as it will merely be corroborative of the
apprehending officers' eyewitness accounts.[6] In
this case, the confidential informant’s testimony was no longer necessary precisely because PO2
Talaue’s detailed testimony was based on his personal knowledge of what
actually happened during the buy-bust operation.
Aside from attacking the rule on the
presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, Andres desperately
argues that the procedural
requirements of Section 21, Paragraph
1 of Article II of R.A. No. 9165[7]
with respect to the custody and disposition of the confiscated drugs were not
followed. Unfortunately, this argument has no leg to stand on.
First, the Court agrees with the CA
that Andres did not raise this as an issue in the trial court.
Second, Andres only made a general
statement in his appeal brief without specifically stating what procedural
requirements were not complied with by the apprehending police officers.
Third, the stipulations[8]
entered into by the parties during the pre-trial conference disprove his claim
that the procedural requirements of Section 21, Paragraph 1 of Article II of
R.A. No. 9165 were not complied with by the police officers. The stipulations
show that the chain of custody of the confiscated drugs was preserved.
WHEREFORE, the January 20, 2010 Decision of the
Court of Appeals, in C.A. G.R. CR–H.C. No. 03504, is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO
ORDERED.
JOSE CATRAL
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice 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.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
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
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 2-16. Penned by Associate Justice
Josefina Guevara-Salonga and concurred in by Associate Justice Sesinando E.
Villon and Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion.
[2] CA rollo, pp. 38-44.
[3] People
v. Joseph Serrano and Anthony Serrano, G.R. No. 179038,
[4] People of the
[5] People
of the
[6] People of the Philippines v. Marilyn
Naquita y Cibulo,
G.R. No. 180511,
[7] (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.
Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165, which implements said provision, reads:
(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; x x x 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.
[8] a) The jurisdiction of the Court over the person of
the accused and the offense;
b) The
identity of the accused-i.e., whenever any of the witnesses mention the name
Michael Andres y Trinidad, they refer to the accused in these cases;
c) P/Sr.
Insp. Paterno C. Panaga was the officer-on-case who received the evidence
marked as Exhibits “B” and “C” from PO2 Gaspar C. Talaue, the poseur buyer and
from SPO2 Lucio R. Flores;
d) That P/Sr.
Insp. Panaga caused the preparation of letter-request for laboratory
examination of the evidence, marked as Exhibit “A”; the letter-request to
conduct dusting of ultraviolet powder on two genuine P100.00 bills; letter-request
to conduct test to determine presence of ultraviolet on the bills recovered;
and the letter-request for drug dependency test, marked as Exhibit “I”; and
letter-request to conduct physical/medical examination on accused, marked as
Exhibit “J”;
e) P/Sr. Insp. Panaga turned over the aforesaid
letter-requests together with the evidence to PO2 Talaue for delivery to the
PNP Crime Laboratory in
f) PO2 Talaue delivered the letter-requests together
with the evidence and the accused to PNP Crime Laboratory in
g) P/Insp. May Andrea A. Bonifacio received the
letter-requests and the evidence at the PNP Crime Laboratory in
h) P/Insp. Bonifacio is a duly qualified Forensic
Chemist assigned at the PNP Crime laboratory in
i) After receiving the letter-request and the
evidence, P/Insp. Bonifacio conducted the requested examination;
j) After examination, P/Insp. Bonifacio found out that
the evidence turned over to her were positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride
(shabu), a regulated drug;
k) P/Sr. Insp. Panaga and P/Insp. Bonifacio have no
personal knowledge as to the source of evidence and the circumstances
surrounding its confiscation custody and safekeeping; and
l) the existence of all the letter-request for
examination.