|
RUEL
AMPATUAN Alias RUEL, Petitioner, |
G.R. No. 183676
|
|
- versus - PEOPLE OF
THE Respondent. |
Present: CORONA, C. J.,
Chairperson, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, PEREZ,
and Promulgated: June 22, 2011 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
PEREZ, J.:
For review
through this appeal[1] is the Decision[2] dated 25 June 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C.
No. 00343 which affirmed the conviction of herein accused-appellant RUEL
AMPATUAN Alias Ruel under Section 4[3] of
Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 as
amended by Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002. The dispositive portion of the
assailed decision reads:
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the assailed Judgment of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
11th Judicial Region, Branch 4,
The facts as presented by the
prosecution before the appellate court, follows:
On 13 October 1997, at around 10:00
a.m., police operatives PO1 Arnel Micabalo (PO1 Micabalo) and PO2 Francisco S.
Caslib (PO2 Caslib) together with around fifteen (15) to sixteen (16) police
members belonging from the Philippine National Police (PNP) Compound in Tagum
City and Panabo Police Station were given a briefing by their team leader, a
certain SPO1 Derrayal, regarding a buy-bust operation they would later conduct
that day against a certain suspected drug pusher by the name of Totong Ibrahim
(Ibrahim) who lives near the Coca-Cola warehouse at Barangay Cagangohan, Panabo City, Davao del Norte.[5]
The buy-bust operation was
conducted at around 1:00 p.m. of the same day.
Police officers PO1 Micabalo and PO2 Caslib, prepared marked money in
the amount of P500.00[6]
and went to the house of Ibrahim posing as buyers. The rest of the team positioned themselves at
the grassy area nearby awaiting for the pre-arranged signal from PO1 Micabalo
and PO2 Caslib. The policemen saw the
accused-appellant Ruel Ampatuan (Mr. Ampatuan) and his wife Linda, at the gate
of the fence.[7] They talked to the couple and pretended to
buy for a party, marijuana worth P500.00.[8] The couple told them to wait outside the
fence and then went inside the house. Several minutes later, the couple came
out with another man identified as Maguid Lumna (Lumna). Mr. Ampatuan asked for the payment. The poseur-buyers
handed the marked money to Mr. Ampatuan, who in turn handed it to his wife,
Linda. Mr. Ampatuan then showed the
police officers the marijuana
contained in one pack. This was placed
inside a black bag and given to the poseur-buyers. The pre-arranged signal of talking aloud was
made and the rest of the police officers proceeded to the scene. The couple and Lumna were arrested and
brought to the Panabo Police Station.[9]
On 23 October 1997, the confiscated
object was turned over by the Panabo Police Station to Forensic Chemist Noemi
Austero (Austero) of the PNP Crime Laboratory of Davao City.[10] Upon examination, the sample taken yielded
positive result for the presence of marijuana.
The total weight of the confiscated specimen
as testified by Austero was approximately 1.3 kilos.[11]
The version of the defense is:
On 13 October 1997, Mr. Ampatuan,
his wife Linda and bodyguard Lumna went to the house of one Arnulfo Morales
(Morales) in
Upon boarding a bus going to
An Information was filed against
Mr. Ruel Ampatuan, Linda Ampatuan and Maguid Lumna dated 17 March 1998 which
reads:
The
undersigned accuses RUEL AMPATUAN alias Ruel, LINDA AMPATUAN alias LINDA
and MAGUID LUMNA of the crime of violation of Section 4 of Republic Act 6425,
otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended by BP 179 and
further amended by Section 13 of Republic Act 7659, committed as follows:
That
on or about October 13, 1997, in the Municipality of Panabo, Province of Davao,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one
another, without being authorized by law, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously sell, deal and distribute two (2) packs of dried Marijuana leaves weighing one (1) kilo
and three hundred fifty nine & 3/100 grams.[14]
Upon arraignment, the couple and
Lumna entered a plea of not guilty.
On 31 January 2002, the trial court
found Mr. Ampatuan guilty but acquitted Linda and Lumna of the offense charged.
The dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE,
the Court finds accused Ruel Ampatuan alias Ruel GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime charged and hereby sentences him to Reclusion Perpetua and
to pay a fine of P500, 000.00 pursuant to law.
Accused Linda Ampatuan alias Linda and accused Maguid Lumna are
ACQUITTED for reasons of reasonable doubt.
The two packs of dried marijuana
leaves weighing a total of 1.3 kilos are ordered confiscated in favor of the
government and to be destroyed in accordance with law. Costs de
oficio.[15]
On appeal, the Court of Appeals
agreed with the judgment of the trial court.[16] The appellate court ruled that the prosecution
proved the requisites for illegal sale of prohibited drugs under Section 4 of
the Dangerous Drugs Act, to wit: (1) that the accused sold and delivered the
prohibited drugs to another, and (2) that the accused knew that what was sold
and delivered was a dangerous drug.[17] It noted that the prosecution presented as
evidence in court the corpus delicti.
Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari.
In this petition, the accused-appellant
Mr. Ampatuan raised two assignments of errors:
First, Whether or not there was a correct
application of the law and jurisprudence by the lower courts on the matter;
and,
Second, Whether or not the conclusions
drawn by the lower courts leaning on the guilt of petitioner beyond reasonable
doubt are correct.[18]
The accused-appellant questions the
regularity of the performance of duties of the police officers related to his
apprehension. He likewise invokes denial
of any knowledge and ownership of the black bag which contained the marijuana samples and asserts that he
was mauled by the police officers to admit the ownership thereof and of the
purported illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
The Courts Ruling
In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous
drugs, the following elements must be proven: (1) that the transaction or sale
took place; (2) that the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was
presented as evidence; and (3) that the buyer and seller were identified.[19] The
presence of these elements is sufficient to support the trial courts finding
of appellants guilt.[20] What is material is the proof that the
transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court
of the prohibited or regulated drug. The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the
marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping
officers and the accused.[21] The presentation in court of the corpus
delicti the body or substance of the crime establishes the fact that a
crime has actually been committed.[22]
As per record of the case, this
Court is convinced that there was complete compliance with all the requisites under
the law.
The prosecution established that at
1 p.m. of 13 October 1997, a buy-bust operation was conducted by the members of
the police force to entrap a drug pusher named Ibrahim. However, despite his absence in the target
area, the entrapment operation ensued within the same place between the police
officers who acted as poseur-buyers
and the accused-appellant Mr. Ampatuan. This
was shown in the direct testimony[23]
of PO2 Caslib:
Q: So what did you do with the money when they
asked for it?
A:
I gave the money personally and then the
other person gave to us the marijuana.
Q:
When you said the other person, is that
male or female?
A:
He is male, sir.
Q:
You said you handed the money, to whom did you hand the money?
A: I handed it to Ruel.
Q:
Now tell us, if this Ruel and Linda that
you mentioned are in court, will you able to identify them?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Please point to the court this Ruel Ampatuan.
A: That man, sir.
(Witness is pointing to a person
wearing maong pants and maroon long sleeves and when asked, identified himself
as Ruel Ampatuan.)
x
x x x
Q: After you handed the money to Ruel Ampatuan,
what did you do next, if any?
A: I handed the money to Ruel and then he gave
it to his wife.
Q: And after he gave the money to his wife, what
happened next?
A: He gave us the item.
Q: Where did this item come from?
A: It came from the black bag, from the house of
Totong Ibrahim.
Q: Why, where were you exactly talking with the
two accused?
A: We were in front of the house of Totong
Ibrahim.
x
x x x
Q: You mentioned that he got this bag of marijuana, what did the accused do with
it? Where did he bring it?
A: He brought it outside.
Q: After bringing it outside, what did he do
with it next?
A: He got some marijuana and gave it to us.
Q: After getting the marijuana, what did you do, if any?
A: We identified ourselves that we are police
operatives conducting buy-bust operation.
Q: What happened next?
A:
We apprehended the two (2) and then our back-up companions also identified
themselves.
We find credit to the
straight-forward testimony of PO2 Caslib.
Absence of any ill-will on the part of the prosecution witnesses who
were the best witnesses in prosecution for illegal sale of drugs, we sustain
the findings of the lower courts.
Further, the accused-appellant
challenges the regularity of the performance of duties of the police officers
in the purported transaction of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. He argues that the police officers forced him
to admit the ownership of the marijuana
samples due to their failure to apprehend their real target, Ibrahim.
A buy-bust operation is a
form of entrapment whereby ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of
trapping and capturing the lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan.[24] In this jurisdiction, the operation is legal
and has been proved to be an effective method of apprehending drug peddlers,
provided that due regard to constitutional and legal safeguards is undertaken.[25]
In cases
involving violations of Dangerous Drugs Act, credence should be given to the
narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses especially when they are
police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular
manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary. Moreover, in the absence of proof of motive to
falsely impute such a serious crime against the appellant, the presumption of
regularity in the performance of official duty, as well as the findings of the
trial court on the credibility of witnesses, shall prevail over appellants
self-serving and uncorroborated denial.[26]
Prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely
on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation.[27] It is a fundamental rule that findings of the
trial courts, which are factual in nature and which involve credibility, are
accorded respect when no glaring errors; gross misapprehension of facts; or
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 Court of Appeals.[28]
Further,
the testimonies of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust are generally
accorded full faith and credit, in view of the presumption of regularity in the
performance of public duties. Hence,
when lined against an unsubstantiated denial or claim of frame-up, the
testimony of the officers who caught the accused red-handed is given more
weight and usually prevails.[29] In
order to overcome the presumption of regularity, jurisprudence teaches us that
there must be clear and convincing evidence that the police officers did not
properly perform their duties or that they were prompted with ill-motive.[30]
As to the corpus
delicti of the case, Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of Republic Act
No. 9165 provides for the custody and disposition of the confiscated illegal
drugs, to wit:
(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;
This rule was elaborated in Section 21(a), Article
II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165, viz:
a) 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: 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. (Emphasis ours)[31]
The following are the links that must be established
in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug
recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending
officer to the investigating officer; third,
the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic
chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth,
the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic
chemist to the court.[32]
As testified by PO2 Caslib, the marijuana came from the black bag and
was handed by Mr. Ampatuan to them.
The marijuana was eventually
turned over to the police station. It
was positively identified by PO2 Caslib in open court.
Q: After bringing it outside, what did he do
with it next?
A: He got some marijuana and gave it to us.
Q: After getting the marijuana, what did you do,
if any?
A:
We identified ourselves that we are police operatives conducting buy- bust
operation.[33]
x x x x
Q: I am showing to you a bag here which was
earlier marked as Exhibit F, tell us what relation had this to the bag that
you mentioned?
A: That is the bag, sir.
Q: How do you know that this is the one?
A: Because it is somewhat an old bag.
Q: Were you able to look at the contents of this
bag on that day?
A: Yes, during our arrival at the police
station.
Q: Do you mean to say that that was your first
time to look at the contents of this bag?
A: We saw the content of the bag at the house of
Totong Ibrahim and we removed everything at the police station.
Q: Who opened the bag at the house of Totong
Ibrahim?
A: It was Ruel Ampatuan.
Q: When Ruel opened this, what was the content?
A: Marijuana, sir.
Q:
Can you tell us how they were arranged or how they were packed inside?
A: They were arranged by files, sir.
Q: How many files if you can remember?
A: it is wrapped with cellophane.
Q: I will open this bag and show its contents to
you. Tell us what relation has this
marijuana to the marijuana which you purchased from the accused?
Q: This is the one, sir.[34]
The corpus delicti of the crime which was the illicit drug was tested
by Forensic Chemist Austero who later testified[35]
and confirmed that the sales confiscated during the sale was marijuana.
Q:
Now, you mentioned that you were the one who conducted the examination, tell us
what kind of examination was this?
A:
The examination was qualitative, Sir.
That is to determine the presence of the sought for substance. So in this case, it is alleged to be marijuana. It is the determination of the presence of marijuana on these specimens submitted.
Q: Now, briefly, how is your examination done,
can you describe it?
A:
A sample is treated with a duquenois-levine
reagent and if the purple color appears, it indicates the presence of marijuana plant.
Q: Now, by the way, how much was the quantity of
the marijuana handed to the
laboratory?
A:
The first which I marked as A, the
weight is 774.5 grams and the one which I marked as B, weighed 584.8 grams.
Q: Now, how much sample from A did you use for
your examination?
A: Sir, I did not weigh the samples that were
taken from the specimens.
Q:
Now, by the way, what was the result of this examination that you conducted?
A:
Both specimens gave positive result to the test for the presence of marijuana, Sir.
Q: Did you reduce your report into writing?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: Do you have a copy with you.
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: Where in your report [indicates] that the
result was positive?
A: Under findings, Sir.
Q:
How much, by the way, was the total weight of the entire specimens that were
handed to your office?
A: The total weight of the specimens Sir was 1,
359.3 grams.
Q: In terms of kilos, how will you convert that?
A: 1.3 kilos.
Q:
Now, in this report of yours, there is a signature over the typewritten name on
the right side, whose signature is that?
A: That is my signature, Sir.
Pros. dela Banda:
At
this point, Your Honor, may we request that this Chemistry Report No. D-200-97
be marked as Exhibit J in accordance with the pre-trial, Your Honor. This is the original also, Your Honor.
Indeed, in every prosecution for illegal sale of
prohibited drugs, the presentation in evidence of the seized drug, as an
integral part of the corpus delicti,
is most material. Thus, it is vital that
the identity of the prohibited drug be proved with moral certainty. The fact that the substance bought or seized
during the buy-bust operation is the same item offered in court as exhibit must
also be established with the same degree of certitude. It is in this respect that the chain of
custody requirement performs its function. It ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning
the identity of the evidence are removed.[36]
Petitioner likewise asserts denial
of any knowledge relating to the transaction and invoked that he and his
companions were merely visitors of Ibrahims wife.
Denial and alibi are defenses invariably viewed by the Court with
disfavor, for they can easily be concocted but difficult to prove, and they are
common and standard defense ploys in most prosecutions arising from violations
of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act.[37]
Unfortunately, the accused-appellant failed to
present any evidence to prove that there was indeed irregularity in the
performance of duties or there was an improper motive on the part of the police
officers. His mere testimony alone
cannot be considered by this court as a clear and convincing evidence to rule
otherwise for the same is self-serving on his part. This Court finds the version of facts of the
prosecution more credible to sustain than the version of facts of the
accused-appellant denying any knowledge of the illegal sale.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The 25
June 2008 Decision
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No.
00343, affirming the Decision of the
Regional Trial Court of Panabo City, Branch 4, finding accused-appellant Ruel
Ampatuan guilty of violation of Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6425[38], as
amended by Section 13, Republic Act No. 7659, as further amended by Section 5,
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty
of Reclusion Perpetua and to pay a
fine of P500,000.00 is hereby AFFIRMED.
Costs
against the appellant.
SO ORDERED.
|
JOSE
Associate Justice |
|
|
WE CONCUR: RENATO C.
CORONA Chief Justice Chairperson |
|
|
TERESITA
J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
MARIANO C. Associate Justice |
|
JOSE CATRAL 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 Courts Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
[1] Via notice of appeal, pursuant to Section 2(c) of Rule 122 of
the Rules of Court.
[2] Penned by Associate
Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion with Associate Justices Edgardo A. Camello and
Edgardo T. Lloren, concurring. Rollo, pp. 34-45.
[3] Section 4.
Should a prohibited drug involved in any
offense under this Section, be the proximate cause of the death of a victim
thereof, the penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from
twenty thousand to thirty thousand pesos shall be imposed upon the pusher.
[4] Court of Appeals Decision. Rollo,
p. 44.
[5] Testimony of PO2 Francisco S. Caslib. TSN, 8 March
2000, pp. 5-8.
[6] Broken
down to five (5) P100.00 bill.
[7] Testimony
of Arnel Micabalo. TSN, 10 March 1999,
p. 6.
[8] Decision
of the Court of Appeals. Rollo, p. 36.
[9] Testimony of PO2 Francisco S. Caslib. TSN, 8 March
2000, pp. 9-13.
[10] Testimony of Forensic Chemist Noemi Austero. TSN, 19 January 2000, pp. 5-19.
[11]
[12] Testimony
of Ruel Ampatuan. TSN, 15 August 2001,
pp. 4-6.
[13] Decision
of the Court of Appeals. Rollo, pp. 37-38.
[14] Records, p. 1.
[15]
[16] Decision
of the Court of Appeals. Rollo, p. 44.
[17]
[18] Petition.
[19] People
v. Orteza, G.R. No. 173051, 31 July 2007, 528 SCRA 750, 757
citing People v. Bandang, G.R. No.
151314, 3 June 2004, 430 SCRA 570, 579.
[20] People
v. Miranda, G.R. No. 174773, 2 October 2007, 534 SCRA 552,
567.
[21] People
v. Nazareno, G.R. No. 174771, 11 September 2007, 532 SCRA 630,
636-637 citing People v. Orteza,
supra note 16 at 758 citing further People
v. Zeng Hua Dian, G.R. No. 145348, 14 June 2004, 432 SCRA 25, 34.
[22] People v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 179213, 3 September 2009, 598
SCRA 92, 101 citing People v. Del Mundo, G.R. No. 169141, 6 December
2006, 510 SCRA 554, 562.
[23] Direct
testimony of PO2 Francisco S. Caslib. TSN,
8 March 2000, pp. 11-13.
[24] People v. De Leon, G.R. No. 186471, 25 January 2010, 611 SCRA 118, 135; Cruz v. People, G.R. No. 164580, 6 February 2009, 578 SCRA 147, 152.
[25] People
v. De
[26] People v.
Llamado, G.R. No. 185278, 13 March 2009, 581 SCRA 544, 552
[27] People v. Villamin, G.R. No. 175590, 9 February 2010, 612 SCRA 91, 106; People v. Macatingag, G.R. No. 181037, 19 January 2009, 576 SCRA 354, 366 citing People v. Hajili, 447 Phil. 283, 295-296 (2003).
[28] People v. Villamin, id. at 106-107 citing People v. Macatingan, id. at 366 citing further People v. Bayani, G.R. No. 179150, 17 June 2008, 554 SCRA 741, 752-753.
[29] People v.
Roa, G.R. No. 186134, 6 May
2010, 620 SCRA 359, 367-368.
[30]
[31] People
v. Presas, G.R. No. 182525, 2 March
2011.
[32] People v. Magpayo, G.R. No. 187069, 20 October 2010, 634 SCRA 441, 451
citing People v. Kamad, G.R. No.
174198, 19 January 2010, 610 SCRA 295, 307-308.
[33] Testimony
of PO2 Arnel Micabalo. TSN, 8 March
2000, p. 12.
[34]
[35] Direct
Testimony of Forensic Chemist Noemi Austero. TSN, 19 January 2000, pp. 8-9.
[36] People
v. Quiamanlon, G.R. No. 191198, 26 January
2011.
[37] People v. De Leon, supra note 21 at 136; People v. Isnani, G.R. No. 133006, 9 June 2004, 431 SCRA 439, 454 citing People v. Ganenas, 417 Phil. 53, 68 (2001) citing further People v. Uy, 392 Phil. 773, 788 (2000).
[38] Section
4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425
or the THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972 provides in part:
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 sell, x x x, any prohibited drug, or shall act
as a broker in any such transactions. x x x.