Republic
of the
Supreme
Court
FIRST
DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - CHITO
GRATIL y GUELAS, Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 182236 Present: Chairperson, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, PEREZ, and MENDOZA,* JJ. Promulgated: June
22, 2011 |
x-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
This
is an appeal of the Decision[1]
dated October 15, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 02338, entitled
People of the Philippines v. Chito Gratil
y Guelas, which affirmed with
modification the Decision[2]
dated September 25, 2003 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 53,
in Criminal Case No. 97-159609, finding appellant Chito Gratil y Guelas guilty
beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 15, Article II in relation to
Section 20, Article IV of Republic Act No. 6425 (The Dangerous
Drugs Act of 1972), as amended, and imposing upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
The
conflicting versions of the events which led to the arrest and detention of the
appellant were summarized by the trial court, to wit:
Culled from the prosecutions evidence, at around
8:00 oclock in the morning of said day, a confidential informant arrived at
the PNP Central Narcotics Office at EDSA, Quezon City and talked to P/Insp.
Nolasco Cortez in the presence of SPO2 Manglo, SPO2 Welmer Antonio, and PO1
Roger Molino regarding the alleged illegal drug activity of one Chito Gratil
who is a resident of 765 Agno Bataan, Malate, Manila. Immediately, P/Insp.
Cortez formed a team for the purpose of conducting a buy bust operation. SPO2
Manglo was designated as poseur buyer and was given a P500 bill the serial
number of which he took and which he also marked with his initial on the side
of the face of the person on the bill and also a dot on the nose (Exh. K, K-1,
K-2 and K-3). The genuine P500 bill was put on top of boodle money.
At
11:40 oclock of that same morning, SPO2 Manglo and the confidential informant
proceeded to the house of accused Chito Gratil at Agno Bataan, Malate,
That
afternoon, the team composed of P/Insp. Cortez, PO1 Molina, SPO2 Antonio, and
SPO2 Manglo together with the confidential informant proceeded to the house of
accused Gratil on board a vehicle. At around 4:30 p.m. they reached the
vicinity of Bataan, Malate, P500
bill on top was put in and showed it and then handed it to the accused. After
accused Gratil received the bag and before he could start counting the money,
SPO2 Manglo introduced himself as a NARCOM policeman and then he pulled out his
Icom radio which was tucked behind his back and called for back up. Accused
Gratil was momentarily shocked by the disclosure of the poseur buyers true
identity and when he recovered his wits and attempted to escape, the back up
police officers who were positioned just 15 meters away from the house had
arrived in response to the radio call of SPO2 Manglo. Accused Gratil was
arrested for selling shabu to a
poseur buyer by the team of policemen and in the process SPO2 Antonio recovered
from the accused the marked money. SPO2 Manglo turned over the Mercury Bag
containing the four heat sealed plastic bags with crystalline substance to
P/Insp. Cortez even before they left the house of the accused. From there, they
brought the accused together with the shabu
and the marked money back to the Central Narcotics Command where the apprehending
policemen executed their affidavit of arrest and other related documents in
relation to the apprehension of the accused as a consequence of the buy bust
operation. To identify the shabu that
he purchased from the accused, SPO2 Manglo placed his initials on the plastic
bags and after which the letter request for laboratory examination was
prepared. The specimen were immediately forwarded to the PNP Crime Laboratory
for examination on the same day.
P/Insp. Mary Leocy Jabonillo, a
Forensic Chemist of the PNP Crime Laboratory at
Exh.
A-1a 96.82 grams;
Exh.
A-1b 97.02 grams;
Exh.
A-1c 96.49 grams;
Exh.
A-1d 97.21 grams.
(Exhibit
C)
After
weighing the specimen, she proceeded to take representative samples from each
of the plastic bags which she used in performing a Chemical examination,
otherwise known as the color test or screening test. Using the representative
samples which she treated with an organic solvent, the specimen reacted with a
positive result for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a regulated drug. After
conducting the chemical examination, she performed the Confirmatory examination
using the Chromatographic technique. Again, the Confirmatory examination showed
the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a regulated drug. Immediately
after conducting the aforedescribed examinations, she reduced the results into
writing which are contained in Chemistry Report No. D-2182-97 (Exh. C) and in
the Physical Sciences Report (Exh. G).
On
the other hand, accused Gratil and Imelda Redolvina testified for the defense.
In his defense, accused Gratil gave this version. On August 24, 1997 as early
as 8:00 oclock in the morning, he and his brothers Ricardo, Victor, Norberto,
and Armando Gratil were repairing their mothers house at 765 Agno Bataan,
Malate, Manila. In the afternoon of the same day, at around 4:00 to 5:00
oclock, accused Gratil was on his way to his cousins house to claim a bareta which was borrowed by said
cousin. As he walked towards his
cousins house, he saw people running at an alley (eskinita) going towards him. Suddenly someone grabbed him by the
collar and told accused Gratil: Putangina
mo sama ka. Accused Gratil asked: Bakit po? And the man holding him said:
Imelda
Revoldina testified that on August 24, 1997 between the hours of 4:00 and 5:00
in the afternoon she and others were undergoing training for soap making business
in front of the Alay Kapwa center. The center was located at the corner of Agno
Bataan, Malate,
The
Information[4]
dated August 27, 1997 charging appellant with violation of Section 15, Article
III, in relation to Section 2(e), (f), (m), and (o), Article I of Republic Act No.
6425, as amended, reads:
That
on or about August 24, 1997, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said
accused, not having been authorized by law to sell, dispense, deliver,
transport or distribute any regulated drug, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously sell or offer for sale One (1) white bag labeled
Mercury Drug containing four (4) heatsealed
transparent plastic bags each weighing ninety[-]six point eighty[-]two (96.82)
grams, ninety[-]seven point zero two (97.02) grams, ninety[-]six point forty[-]nine (96.49)
grams and ninety[-]seven point twenty[-]one (97.21) grams, respectively, or a
total of three hundred eighty[-]seven point fifty[-]four (387.54) grams of
white crystalline substance known as SHABU containing methamphetamine
hydrochloride, which is a regulated drug.
Upon arraignment on October 23,
1997, appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge leveled against him.[5]
Thereafter, trial commenced.
In its Decision dated September 25,
2003, the trial court convicted appellant of violation of Section 15, Article
III in relation to Section 21, Article I of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended. The dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is
hereby rendered finding accused Chito Gratil GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for
violation of Section 15, Article III in relation to Section 21, Article I of
Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, and is hereby sentenced to Reclusion Perpetua and to pay a fine
in the amount of P500,000.00.
Costs against the accused.[6]
On appeal, the Court of Appeals, in
its Decision dated October 15, 2007 affirmed the ruling of the trial court but
modified the incorrect reference to Section 21, Article I in the dispositive
portion of the trial court decision, as follows:
WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision dated September 25,
2003 is affirmed, subject to the correction of the cited Section of RA 6425 as
follows:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is
hereby rendered finding accused Chito Gratil GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for
violation of Section 15, Article III in relation to Section 20, Article IV
of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, and is hereby sentenced to Reclusion
Perpetua and to pay a fine in the amount of P500,000.00.
Costs against the accused.[7]
Hence, the present appeal where
appellant puts forward a single assignment of error, to wit:
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF VIOLATION OF SECTION 15, ARTICLE III, REPUBLIC ACT NO.
6425 DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO OVERTHROW THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE IN HIS FAVOR.[8]
Appellant argues that the evidence on
record does not fully sustain the trial courts findings and conclusions. He maintains that his guilt has not been
proven beyond reasonable doubt because of the alleged failure of the
prosecution to establish the identity of the prohibited drugs which constitute
the corpus delicti of the charges
against him, since the proper procedure for taking custody of the seized
prohibited drugs was not faithfully followed.
The argument fails to persuade.
In prosecutions involving the
illegal sale of drugs, what is material is proof that the transaction or sale
actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited
or regulated drug as evidence. For conviction of the crime of illegal sale of
prohibited or regulated drugs, the following elements must concur: (1) the
identities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and
(2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it.[9]
A perusal of the records would
reveal that the foregoing requisites are present in the case at bar. The proof of the shabu transaction was established by prosecution witness Senior
Police Officer (SPO) 2 William Manglo, the poseur-buyer, who made a positive
identification of the appellant as the one who gave him the Mercury Drug bag
and to whom he gave the marked money during the buy-bust operation. The following are the pertinent portions of
his testimony made in court:
q: Will
you tell us how did you happen to have buy bust operation against Chito Gratil
on August 24, 1997?
a: On
August 24, 1997 according to a confidential agent at 8:00 in the morning the
confidential agent told us that he has a contact with alias Chito who is
residing at 765 Agno Bataan, Malate, Manila, sir.
Court
q: This
is the residence of Chito Gratil?
a: Yes,
sir.
Fiscal Formoso
q: You
said that it was Pol. Inspector Nolasco who receive the claim from the
confidential informant?
a: We
were present when he was about to receive that message, sir.
q: How
was that received?
a: He
came personally in the office, sir.
q: And
when he went did he talk personally with Nolasco Cortez with
the presence of who?
a: SPO2
Welmer Antonio, PO1 Roger Molino and myself, sir.
q: What
time was that when your confidential informant went to your
office and talk to Cortez?
a: August
24 at 8:00 in the morning, sir.
q: After
your confidential informant told Police Inspector Cortez that there is a
certain person by the name of Chito Gratil to sell shabu, what did he do?
a: Chief
Nolasco organized a team for operation to conduct operation against Chito
Gratil, sir.
q: What is your specific
role as member of the team?
a: As poseur buyer, sir.
q: What did you do as poseur
buyer?
a: I was given money to use
for our operation, sir.
q: What is the denomination
of that money?
a: P500.00 bill, sir.
q: What did you do with the
money?
a: I
kept it with me together with the original of the boodle money, sir.
q: I made a mark on the
original of the P500.00 bill, sir.
q: What part of the P5[0]0.00
bill?
a: I
affixed initial on the side of the face of the person and a dot on the nose,
sir.
q: Aside
from making this point on the nose and initial on the face of the person, what
else did you do?
a: I took the serial number,
sir.
q: You took the serial
number?
a: Yes, sir.
q: If you will see that
money again, will you be able to recognize it?
a: Yes, sir.
x x x x
q: You
said you place a mark or point on the nose, will you tell us where is that
point or tuldok?
Interpreter
Witness pointing at the tip of the nose of the person and also the
initial near the collar of the person.
x x
x x
q: Where is the initial that
you placed?
a: Here it is, sir.
q: What is the initial?
a: WEM, sir.
x x x x
q: After you were able to
mark this money, what else did you do?
a: At
about 11:50 in the morning the confidential informant and myself went to the
house of the accused, sir.
q: You
and the confidential informant were the one who went to the house of Gratil?
a: Yes, sir.
x x x x
q: When you reached the
place what did you do there?
a: We proceeded at Bataan,
Malate,
Court
q: Did you find him there?
a: Our
confidential informant went inside the house and he was just standing at the
street, sir.
Fiscal Formoso
q: What happened after that?
a: My
confidential informant told me that we will be meeting at Mcdonalds
q: What time did you report
by the way at Mcdonald Harrison?
a: Almost 11:40 or 11:45
a.m., sir.
q: What time did this Chito
Gratil arrive?
a: After five minutes about
11:50 a.m., sir.
q: When Chito Gratil
arrived, what happened?
a: Our
confidential informant and this alias Chito were talking to each other that the
money to buy shabu is available, sir.
q: Were you present when
this Chito Gratil were talking?
a: I was about 2 meters,
sir.
q: Were you able to hear
what these two (2) were talking about?
a: Yes, sir.
q: What did you hear?
a: Our
confidential informant said that the money is ready, sir for shabu and alias
Chito Gratil said that you come to my house at 4:00 oclock in the afternoon
and to get avail of the shabu because at that time he will be going to Bulacan,
sir.
q: After
this was told by Chito that you have to go in his house did you go there?
a: After
that conversation she went back to our office and I reported them to our team
leader P/Insp. Nolasco Cortez, sir.
x x x x
q: What happened next?
a: He
told me that it is first class shabu and he told me to wait for a while because
he will get the shabu and he returned for around 10 minutes, sir.
q: Where did he go?
a: He went out of the house,
sir.
q: Were there other persons
present when you talked to the accused?
a: No, sir.
q: You
mean to say that only the three (3) of you went inside the house?
a: Yes, sir.
q: After 10 minutes he
returned?
a: Yes,
sir, and he has with him with the logo of Mercury and handed to me and told me
that that is the 400 grams of shabu, sir.
q: Then what did you do?
a: So,
when I opened the mercury bag I noticed that there is something that is wrapped
in a Chinese newspaper and I opened and examined the contents and I found that
it is shabu, sir.
Court
q: What did you see when you
opened the newspaper?
a: Shabu
in four (4) plastic bag and wrapped in a Chinese newspaper, sir.
q: How big is this?
a: Ordinary about 3 by 5
inches, sir.
q: How many bags?
a: Four (4), sir.
q: And these bags are
transparent?
a: Yes, sir.
q: So,
it was handed to you this shabu by the accused, what did you do next?
a: He
asked for the payment, so, what I did is to open the bag and handed to him the
money, sir.[10]
A comparison with the Joint Affidavit
of Arrest[11]
executed earlier by SPO2 Manglo, SPO2 Wilmer Antonio and Police Officer (PO) 1
Roger R. Molino and the foregoing testimony, would reveal that both aver the
same narrative with regard to the arrest of appellant. The pertinent portions of the said affidavit
read as follows:
That on 24 Aug 97, at around 8:00 oclock in the
morning, our male Confidential Informant appeared in our Office and reported to
POL INSPECTOR NOLASCO V. CORTEZ PNP that he was able to get in contact with a
certain Alyas CHITO of 765 Agnoo-Bataan, Malate, Manila and managed to order
four hundred (400) grams of shabu in the amount of four hundred thousand (P400,000.00)
pesos. That he further stressed that the stuff will be available in the
afternoon of the same date. That relative to this report, POL INSP NOLASCO V.
CORTEZ PNP organized a team composed of herein affiants with SPO2 Wilmer G. Antonio
PNP and PO1 Roger R. Molino PNP as back-up/arresting officer and SPO2 William
E. Manglo PNP as the poseur-buyer and furnished with one (1) five hundred (P500.00)
peso bill (marked money) with serial number AT485382 and the rest as boodle
money representing the amount of Four Hundred Thousand (P400,000.00)
pesos to be used in the buy-bust operation;
x x
x x
x x x That upon arrival at the house of Alyas
CHITO, I (SPO2 Manglo) was introduced by our CI as the buyer of shabu. Aka
CHITO then asked me how much quantity of shabu I am going to purchase. That I
told him that I am in need of at least four hundred (400) grams of shabu. That
Aka CHITO told me that the price of 400 grams of shabu is four hundred
thousand (P400,000.00) pesos. That I acknowledged his offer and informed
him that I am willing to purchase only 400 grams of shabu, if it is already
available. That Aka CHITO stated that he had 400 grams of shabu available and
he asked me if I have with me the money as payment for said stuff, that at this
juncture, I opened my bag and showed to him the bundle of buy-money (boodle
money) consisting of one (1) genuine five hundred (P500.00) peso bill
placed at the top of the bundle of boodle money. When Aka CHITO saw the said
bundle of purported money, I asked him if I could also examine the shabu before
I made the payment and he gave me assurance that his stuff was of good quality,
then Aka Chito went out of his house to get the stuff while SPO2 Manglo
together with the CI stayed inside of the house and after a few minutes, Aka
CHITO returned back to his house and immediately without further hesitation,
handed one (1) white bag (labeled Mercury Drug) containing four (4) heatsealed
transparent plastic bag each with brownish crystalline substance wrapped in a
Chinese newsprint and informed the undersigned poseur-buyer that the content of
said heatsealed transparend plastic bag is 400 grams of shabu and after
examining the content of it, which turn out to be shabu, I took hold of it and
Aka CHITO demanded the payment. That I handed the buy-bust money (boodle) to
him and at this juncture, I introduced to him that I am a Police Officer
and before he could get outside of the house in attempting to elude arrest, I
called the back-up/arresting officer thru a handheld who responded and effected
the arrest of the suspect and SPO2 Antonio recovered from him (Aka CHITO)
custody/possession and control the buy-bust/boodle money.
x x
x x
x x x That the suspect was brought to our Office
together with the confiscated/seized evidence for proper disposition. (Emphasis
supplied.)
Furthermore, the alleged procedural
infirmity pointed out by appellant does not prove fatal to the prosecutions
case. Section 1 of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 3, Series of 1979, as
amended by Board Regulation No. 2, Series of 1990, which was cited by appellant
as the rule of procedure which the arresting police officers did not strictly
observe, provides that all prohibited and regulated drugs shall be physically
inventoried and photographed in the presence of the accused who shall be
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof, to
wit:
Section 1. All prohibited and regulated drugs,
instruments, apparatuses and articles specially designed for the use thereof
when unlawfully used or found in the possession of any person not authorized to
have control and disposition of the same, or when found secreted or abandoned,
shall be seized or confiscated by any national, provincial or local law
enforcement agency. Any apprehending team having initial custody and control of
said drugs and/or paraphernalia, should immediately after seizure or
confiscation, have the same physically inventoried and photographed in the
presence of the accused, if there be any, and/or his representative, who shall
be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
Thereafter, the seized drugs and paraphernalia shall be immediately brought to
a properly equipped government laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative
examination.
The apprehending team shall: (a) within forty-eight
(48) hours from the seizure inform the Dangerous Drugs Board by telegram of
said seizure, the nature and quantity thereof, and who has present custody of
the same, and (b) submit to the Board a copy of the mission investigation
report within fifteen (15) days from completion of the investigation.[12]
However, the failure to conduct an
inventory and to photograph the confiscated items in the manner prescribed
under the said provision of law applicable at the time of appellants arrest
and which is now incorporated as Section 21(1) of Republic Act No. 9165 (The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002)[13]
that repealed Republic
Act No. 6425 cannot be used as a ground
for appellants exoneration from the charge against him.
In People v.
De Los Reyes,[14]
a case which also involved an objection regarding the non-compliance with the
chain of custody rule, we held that:
The failure of the arresting police officers to comply with said DDB Regulation
No. 3, Series of 1979 is a matter strictly between the Dangerous Drugs Board
and the arresting officers and is totally irrelevant to the prosecution of the
criminal case for the reason that the commission of the crime of illegal sale
of a prohibited drug is considered consummated once the sale or transaction is
established (People v. Santiago, 206
SCRA 733[1992]) and the prosecution thereof is not undermined by the failure of
the arresting officers to comply with the regulations of the Dangerous Drugs
Board.[15]
Moreover, in People v. Agulay,[16] we held that:
Non-compliance with [Section 21, 19 Article II of
Republic Act No. 9165] is not fatal and will not render an accused's arrest
illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. In People v. Del Monte, this Court held
that what is of utmost importance 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. x x x.[17]
The ponente of Agulay would
further observe in a separate opinion that the failure by the buy-bust team to
comply with the procedure in Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing
Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165,[18] which replicated Section 21(1) of Republic
Act No. 9165, did not overcome the presumption of regularity accorded to police
authorities in the performance of their official duties, to wit:
First, it must be made clear that in several cases
decided by the Court, failure by the buy-bust team to comply with said section
did not prevent the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty from
applying.
Second, even prior to the enactment of R.A. 9165, the
requirements contained in Section 21(a) were already there per Dangerous Drugs
Board Regulation No. 3, Series of 1979. Despite the presence of such regulation
and its non-compliance by the buy-bust team, the Court still applied such
presumption. x x x.[19]
(Citations omitted.)
Notwithstanding the minor lapse in
procedure committed by the police officers in the handling of the illegal drugs
taken from appellant, the identity and integrity of the evidence was never put
into serious doubt in the course of the proceedings of this case. In fact, SPO2 Manglo categorically testified
that the confiscated plastic sachets of shabu
were marked, turned- over to the police headquarters for investigation, and
subjected to laboratory examination. To
quote the relevant portion of the transcript:
q: Kindly
examine carefully these separate plastic sachet containing shabu if that is the
plastic sachet containing shabu that you bought from the accused Chito Gratil?
a: Yes,
this is the plastic of shabu that I bought from the accused, sir.
q: Kindly
tell us your distinguishing mark?
a: My
initial, sir.
q: Kindly
point to us you initial in these four (4) plastic bags?
Interpreter
Witness
pointing to his initial appearing in each four (4) bags which previously marked
as Exhibits A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4.
x x x x
q: What
did you do then in order to identify the shabu the subject of your sale and in
order to identify the seller of the shabu?
a: What
we [did] after the sale consummated we placed the marking our initial on the
shabu that we bought and we made the corresponding request for the examination
in the laboratory where we indicate the name and source of the shabu or the
name of the one selling the shabu.
q: Aside
from this referral letter where else did you place the name of the accused?
a: In
the documents prepared by our investigator such as the Booking sheet and Arrest
Report, sir.[20]
The marking, turn-over, and laboratory
examination of the evidence of illegal drugs were all done on the same day the
shabu transaction at issue
occurred, as indicated in the Memorandum[21]
dated August 24, 1997 signed by Police Superintendent Pedro Ongsotto Alcantara
PNP who was then the Chief of the Central Narcotics District Office, EDSA,
Quezon City. The said memorandum
contained a request by P/Supt. Alcantara to the Philippine National Police (PNP)
Criminal Investigation Service in
Likewise, SPO2 Manglos testimony
was corroborated by Police Inspector Mary Leocy Jabonillo, a forensic chemist
of the PNP Crime Laboratory Office in
q: Will
you tell us if what is that specimen which was referred to you for examination?
a: We
received a plastic bag labeled Mercury Drug, sir, containing newspaper and four
(4) plastic with white bags containing yellowish substance with the following
weights:
Exhibit A-1-A 96.82 grams
Exhibit A-1-B 97.02 grams
Exhibit A-1-C 96.49 grams
Exhibit A-1-D 97.21 grams
with
a total of 387.54 grams, sir.
Fiscal Formoso
q: How
was this specimen referred to you for examination?
a: There
was a letter request from the Chief of Narcotics Drug Division, Office,
x x x x
Fiscal Formoso
q: Now,
will you tell this Honorable Court if what did you do after you received the
specimen?
a: I
put my markings on the specimen, sir.
q: Where
is that specimen that you received?
Interpreter
Witness is opening the mercury bag and brings out
specimen in four (4) separate plastic bags and wrapped in Chinese newspaper.
Fiscal Formoso
q: Will
you tell this honorable court if that was the very condition of this specimen
when you received it?
a: Yes,
sir.
q: And
it was already marked when you received it?
a: Yes,
sir, and I have also my own markings.
x x
x x
Fiscal Formoso
q: Now,
when you received these four (4) plastic bags, what did you do then?
a: After
putting my marking, I got a sample and proceeded to physical examination, Your
Honor, and after conducting that physical examination all specimen gave
positive result, sir, for methamphetamine hydrochloride.[22]
In
response to the accusation leveled against him, appellant only managed to set
up the defense of bare denial. According
to his version of the story, appellant maintains that he was forcibly abducted
while on his way to a cousins house and was later thrown inside a vehicle
where he was beaten up and threatened with execution before he was brought to
the police station. In short, appellant
insists that he was a victim of frame-up.
As
we have time and again held, the defense of denial or frame-up, like alibi, has
been invariably viewed with disfavor for it can easily be concocted and is a
common defense in most prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.[23]
Charges of extortion and frame-up are
frequently made in this jurisdiction. Courts
are, thus, cautious in dealing with such accusations, which are quite difficult
to prove in light of the presumption of regularity in the performance of the
police officers duties. To substantiate
such defense, which can be easily concocted, the evidence must be clear and
convincing and should show that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired
by any improper motive or were not properly performing their duty. Otherwise,
the police officers testimonies on the operation deserve full faith and
credit.[24]
In
the case at bar, no clear and convincing evidence to support the defense of
frame-up was put forward by appellant. Neither
was there any imputation or proof of ill motive on the part of the arresting
police officers. Even the testimony of defense witness Imelda Revoldina failed to
establish any irregularity in the conduct of the apprehending police officers
in this case. In fact, her neutral
testimony that she saw the police officers hold the collar of appellant while
leading him into a vehicle tended to support the prosecutions assertion that
appellant was arrested in plain view as a consequence of his act of selling
illegal drugs.
As
appellant failed to show any reversible error on the part of the lower courts
in the resolution of this case, his conviction must be upheld.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated October 15, 2007 of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 02338 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
Chief Justice
Chairperson
|
MARIANO C. Associate Justice
|
JOSE Associate Justice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JOSE
CATRAL Associate Justice |
|
* Per Special Order No. 1022 dated June 10, 2011.
[1] Rollo, pp. 2-16; penned by Associate
Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta with Associate Justices Edgardo P. Cruz and
Normandie B. Pizarro, concurring.
[2] CA
rollo, pp. 17-21.
[3]
[4]
[5] Records,
p. 28.
[6] CA rollo, p. 21.
[7] Rollo, p. 15.
[8] CA
rollo, p. 78.
[9] People v.
[10] TSN,
April 15, 1998, pp. 6-24.
[11] Records,
pp. 9-10.
[12] Cited in People v. Gonzaga, G.R. No. 184952, October 11, 2010; People v. Kimura, 471 Phil. 895, 918 (2004).
[13] (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.
[14] G.R.
No. 106874, January 21, 1994, 229 SCRA 439.
[15]
[16] G.R.
No. 181747, September 26, 2008, 566 SCRA 571.
[17]
[18] (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 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.
[19] People v. Agulay, supra note 16 at
622-623.
[20] TSN, August 29, 2001, pp. 6-16.
[21] Records,
p. 192.
[22] TSN, April 2, 1998, pp. 3-7.
[23] People v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 177777,
December 4, 2009, 607 SCRA 377, 390.
[24] People v. Capalad, G.R. No. 184174, April
7, 2009, 584 SCRA 717, 727.