THIRD DIVISION
|
THE PEOPLE OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, -
versus - MADS SALUDIN MANTAWIL,
MAGID MAMANTA and ABDULLAH TOMONDOG, Accused-Appellants. |
G.R. No. 188319 Present: CARPIO MORALES, J., Chairperson, BRION, BERSAMIN, VILLARAMA, JR., and SERENO, JJ. Promulgated: June 8, 2011 |
x- - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - -x
DECISION
VILLARAMA,
JR., J.:
Before
us is an appeal from the
The
information against appellants reads:
That on or about
CONTRARY TO LAW.[5]
At the trial,
the prosecution presented as witnesses P/C Insp. Arthur V. Bisnar (Bisnar), SPO3
Rolando Sayson (Sayson), SPO1 Rodolfo Gonzales (Gonzales), and P/Insp. Ma.
Luisa David. Their testimonies presented the following factual scenario:
On June
2, 1999 at around 10:00 in the morning, the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime
Task Force (PAOCTF) buy-bust operations team composed of P/Supt. John Lopez
(Lopez), Bisnar, Sayson, Gonzales and other PAOCTF operatives, conducted a
briefing to discuss a buy-bust operation with a confidential informant. The confidential informant revealed that he
was able to confirm a drug deal with a drug dealer named Mads Ali for 1 kilos
of shabu worth P900,000.00.
The deal would be consummated at the Quirino Grandstand,
Together
with the confidential informant, the buy-bust team boarded four unmarked
vehicles bearing confidential security plates of the PAOCTF and proceeded to
the designated place, arriving thereat around
Around
After
thirty (30) minutes, Mantawil returned on board the same FX taxi. The FX taxi parked about five meters away
from Bisnars car. Mantawil alighted and
approached Bisnars car. He demanded to
see the money. When Bisnar insisted on
seeing the shabu first, Mantawil waved to his two companions who were
inside the FX taxi. Magid Mamanta
(Mamanta) and Abdullah Tomondog (Tomondog) alighted from the FX taxi and
approached Bisnar.[9]
Mamanta then handed a light blue Bench plastic bag to Bisnar through the
car window. Inside the bag was a
self-sealing transparent plastic bag containing white crystalline substance,
which Bisnar suspected to be shabu.
After seeing the contents of the plastic bag, Bisnar handed the boodle
money to Mantawil and immediately made the pre-arranged signal for the arrest
by switching on the hazard lights of his car.
The PAOCTF team then rushed to Bisnars car and arrested the appellants.[10]
After apprising appellants of their
constitutional rights, the buy-bust team brought appellants separately to
At
At the PNP
Crime Laboratory, P/Insp. Ma. Luisa David, Forensic Chemist I, conducted a quantitative
and qualitative examination of the specimen. The Initial Laboratory Report, as
well as the Final Report, showed that the white crystalline substance, weighing
1,316.5 grams, tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.[19]
On the other
hand, the appellants, testifying on their own behalf, denied the charges and
claimed that they were framed-up by the policemen. They also presented two
other witnesses, Teddy Ziganay (Ziganay) and Solaiman Casan (Casan), to
corroborate their defense. The testimony of the other defense witness, Atty.
Rowaisa M. Pandapatan, was dispensed with as the parties stipulated that
Tomondog was indeed an FX taxi driver.
Taken
together, the defense witnesses testimonies present the following version of
the incident:
On P150.00 for the service, Mantawil agreed. The women, however, did not see the person
they were supposed to meet in Luneta so they all returned to Quiapo. Mantawil then went back to selling cigarettes.[20]
Around P250.00.[21]
As they
were about to leave the terminal, Mamanta, a sidewalk vendor, came and asked
Tomondog to take him to San Andres Bukid. Tomondog acceded but he proceeded
first to Quirino Grandstand.[22]
At the
Quirino Grandstand, Mantawil and the woman alighted from the FX taxi while
Mamanta remained inside. Tomondog also alighted but only to pour water into the
taxis radiator. Mantawil testified that
he then saw the woman talk to two unidentified persons in a Honda Civic car. After that, appellants were surprised when several
unidentified men in civilian clothes suddenly poked their guns at appellants and
handcuffed them. They were brought to
Ziganay,
a cigarette vendor, corroborated Tomondog and Mamantas story. Ziganay testified
that while he was resting near the Quirino Grandstand that afternoon on
The RTC
found the appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 15,
Article III of R.A. No. 6425, as amended. The dispositive portion of the RTC decision
reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding the three accused, MADS SALUDIN MANTAWIL @ Mads Ali, MAGID MAMANTA and ABDULLAH TOMONDOG guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Section 15, Article III, Republic Act No. 6425 and sentence them to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua.
SO ORDERED.[25]
The RTC held that the version of the prosecution was a
standard entrapment story. Thus, it gave
credence to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses, noting
that they were officers of the law who enjoyed the presumption of regularity in
the performance of their duties, absent any evidence to the contrary.
As regards appellants defense, the trial court held that frame-up, like
alibi, is generally considered with disfavor, for it is easy to concoct but
difficult to disprove. The trial court
noted that in admitting that they went to Quirino Grandstand twice, Mantawil corroborated
the testimony of the prosecutions witnesses that appellants first arrived at
the place to look at the money then left and returned with the shabu. The
trial court noted that no credible reason was given by the appellants why they
were at the Quirino Grandstand, Luneta at the time and date of the drug deal.
No motive was also given by the appellants why the police officers would
fabricate a grave offense against them if it was not true.[26]
Aggrieved,
appellants filed a notice of appeal to the CA.[27]
In their brief, appellants faulted the
RTC for giving weight and credence to the evidence of the prosecution and
totally disregarding their defense.
Appellants contended that the prosecution failed to prove the
indispensable element of the corpus
delicti since the arresting officers failed to mark the shabu
immediately after the seizure, thus creating reasonable doubt as to whether the
shabu presented in court were seized from them.[28]
The CA,
however, affirmed the decision of the RTC. The dispositive portion of the CA
decision reads:
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the assailed decision of the RTC of Manila City, Branch 41
dated
SO ORDERED.[29]
In affirming
appellants conviction, the appellate court held that the prosecution was able
to establish all the elements of the crime of illegal sale of shabu. Bisnar positively identified the seller as
Mantawil who sold the drugs to him for P900,000.00. Appellants contention
that the prosecution failed to establish an essential link in the chain of
custody of the seized item was untenable. The CA noted that appellants were with the
members of the PAOCTF when they were brought to
Thus, the
case is now before us for final review.
Appellants
raise the following assignment of errors:
I.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS OF THE CRIME CHARGED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
II.
THE
Appellants
posit that the prosecution utterly failed to prove the indispensable element of
the corpus delicti of the crime. They point that the arresting officers did not
immediately mark the seized item after its seizure and that the markings were
admittedly made only in
The Office of
the Solicitor General, on the other hand, argues that the chain of custody of
the shabu was not broken. Appellants were with the arresting officers
when they were brought to
We
affirm the verdict with respect to appellants Mantawil and Mamanta, but find
reasonable doubt as to the guilt of Tomondog.
In People v. Cervantes,[34] we explained:
In every prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drug, what is crucial is the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and its consideration, the delivery of the thing sold, and the payment for it. Implicit in these cases is first and foremost the identity and existence, coupled with the presentation to the court of the traded prohibited substance, this object evidence being an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime of possession or selling of regulated/prohibited drug. There can be no such crime when nagging doubts persist on whether the specimen submitted for examination and presented in court was what was recovered from, or sold by, the accused. Essential, therefore, in appropriate cases is that the identity of the prohibited drug be established with moral certainty. x x x[35]
The chain of custody requirement, set
forth in Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 3, Series of 1979,[36] performs this function in that it ensures
that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.[37]
The said regulation reads:
Subject: Amendment of Board Regulation No. 7, series of 1974, prescribing the procedure in the custody of seized prohibited and regulated drugs, instruments, apparatuses, and articles specially designed for the use thereof.
x x x x
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.[38]
In Malillin
v. People,[39]
we laid down the chain of custody requirements that must be met in proving that
the seized drugs are the same ones presented in court: (1) testimony about
every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it
is offered into evidence; and (2) witnesses should describe the precautions
taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and
no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the item.
After a
meticulous scrutiny of the records, we are satisfied that there is no broken
chain in the custody of the confiscated shabu, contrary to appellants
claim.
After
the arrest, the confiscated shabu remained with Bisnar inside his car as
the team and the appellants travelled separately back to
A physical
inventory of the confiscated items was also made by Bisnar at
After
conducting a physical inventory, Bisnar, accompanied by Gonzales, delivered the
seized shabu to the PNP Crime Laboratory.[44]
At the PNP
Crime Laboratory, P/Insp. Ma. Luisa David received the seized shabu together
with the laboratory request form. She testified that:
Atty. Villacorta:
Q When
you examined, who received this specimen?
A I
personally received the specimen, [S]ir.
Q Why?
Is it a procedure that you should be the one to receive that (sic)?
A I
am the duty chemist (sic), [S]ir and it [was]
Q You
have no clerk at that time?
A I
am the only one present at (sic) the laboratory, [S]ir.
Q So,
when this stuff was examined, you were the [only] one present?
A Yes, [S]ir. But prior to my examination, the requesting parties were
present, [S]ir.
Q Did
you put that in your report?
A No,
[S]ir. But they counter[-]sign[ed] on the page which I took. They [were]
present when I weighed the specimen, [S]ir.
x
x x x
Atty. Mancao:
By
the way, in your examination of this specimen, did you not ask for an
assistance of another chemist?
A No,
[S]ir.
Q So
that you can have a better result?
A No,
[S]ir. Because we were already trained to perform such examination on our own,
[S]ir.
Q You
want to tell this Honorable Court that you [were] the only one who conducted this
examination and no other?
A Yes,
[S]ir.
Q That
because of this examination, you believe that such (sic) contain
metha[m]phetamine hydrochloride?
A Yes,
[S]ir.[45]
Appellants
anchor their argument on the PAOCTF teams failure to mark the confiscated shabu
while they were still at the crime scene. This is, however, untenable. The
buy-bust teams failure to immediately mark the seized drugs will not
automatically impair the integrity of the chain of custody as long as the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items have been preserved.[46]
Moreover,
we have explained in People v. Salak,
While it
appears that the buy-bust team failed to comply strictly with the procedure
outlined above, the same does not overturn the presumption of regularity in the
performance of their duty. A
violation of the regulation is a matter strictly between the Dangerous Drugs
Board and the arresting officers and is totally irrelevant to the prosecution
of the criminal case since the commission of the crime of illegal sale of a
prohibited drug is considered consummated once the sale or transaction is
established and the prosecution thereof is not undermined by the arresting
officers inability to conform to the regulations of the Dangerous Drugs Board.
Further, the integrity of the evidence is
presumed to be preserved, unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or
proof that the evidence has been tampered with.[47]
It is worthy to note that appellants never alleged that
the drugs presented during the trial have been tampered with. Neither did
appellants challenge the admissibility of the seized items when these were
formally offered as evidence. In the course of the trial, the seized shabu were duly marked, made the subject
of examination and cross-examination, and eventually offered as evidence, yet
at no instance did the appellants manifest or even hint that there were lapses
in the safekeeping of the seized items as to affect their admissibility,
integrity and evidentiary value. It
was only during their appeal that appellants raised the issue of non-compliance
with the said regulation. Settled is the rule that objections to the
admissibility of evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a
party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the
form of objection. Without such objection, he cannot raise the question for the
first time on appeal.[48]
However, as
to Tomondog, the Court entertains nagging doubts as to his guilt considering
that his participation to the transaction was not established. According to the
three PAOCTF officers, Tomondog alighted from the FX taxi and went to Bisnars
car after Mantawil motioned to him. The
prosecution, however, offered no further evidence as to his participation in
the illegal transaction. It was not shown that he acted as guard nor that he had
possession of the shabu at anytime.
Neither was it shown that Tomondog knew that the other appellants had shabu
in their possession at that time. In
fact, it was even made clear from the testimonies of the witnesses, and even in
the stipulation of the parties, that Tomondog was a simple FX taxi driver. Hence, the fact that he alighted and approached
Mantawil after the latter motioned to him could very well have been due to a
mistaken belief that Mantawil motioned to him so he could get his P250
payment. Whatever the reason, his mere presence
in the vicinity when the illegal transaction took place should not be taken as
participation in a conspiracy to commit the crime. To be guilty as a
conspirator, the accused needs to have done an overt act in pursuit of the
crime indubitably showing a community of purpose and design.[49]
Here, the prosecution presented no proof
tending to show that Tomondog knew of the criminal intentions of the other
appellants, much less that he adopted the same.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated
With costs against appellants Mads Saludin Mantawil and Magid Mamanta.
SO
ORDERED.
|
|
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
|
WE
CONCUR: CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice Chairperson |
|
|
ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice |
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
|
MARIA 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
Courts Division.
|
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice Chairperson, Third Division |
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the 1987 Constitution and the Division Chairpersons 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
Courts Division.
|
|
RENATO C. CORONA Chief Justice |
[1] Rollo, pp. 2-10. Penned by Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon and concurred in by Associate Justices Portia Alio-Hormachuelos and Noel G. Tijam.
[2] CA rollo, pp. 44-50. Penned by Judge Vedasto B. Marco.
[3] SEC. 15. Sale,
Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Transportation and Distribution of
Regulated 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 sell, dispense,
deliver, transport or distribute any regulated drug.
x x x x
[4] Amended by R.A. No. 7659 or The Death
Penalty Law.
[5] Records, Vol. I, p. 1.
[6] TSN,
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11] TSN,
[12]
[13] Records, p. 213, Exhibit I.
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19] TSN
[20] TSN
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24] TSN,
[25] CA rollo, p. 50.
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29] Rollo, p. 9.
[30]
[31] CA rollo, p. 60.
[32]
[33]
[34] G.R. No. 181494,
[35]
[36] As amended by Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 2, Series of 1990.
[37] Malillin v. People, G.R. No. 172953,
[38] As cited in People v. Salak, G.R.
No. 181249, March 14, 2011, p. 9, citing People
v. Kimura, G.R. No. 130805, April 27, 2004, 428 SCRA 51, 69; and People v. Magat, G.R. No. 179939,
September 29, 2008, 567 SCRA 86, 95-96.
[39] Supra note 37 at 632-633 as cited in People v. Barba, G.R. No. 182420, July 23, 2009, 593 SCRA 711, 718-719.
[40] TSN,
Q In going back to your office at
Witness:
Mads Ali with Chief Insp. Bisnar, Magid Mamanta was with SPO1 Gonzales who
transferred to car No. 3 with another security man while Tomondog was with me
with another security man, Maam.
Pros.
Macapagal:
How about that blue plastic bag which
was then being carried and handed by Magid Mamanta to either the C.I. or Major
Bisnar, where was it?
A It was inside the car of Chief Insp.
Bisnar, Maam.
Q And in going to
A Chief Insp. Bisnar, Maam.
[41] TSN,
[42] TSN,
[43] Records, p. 213.
[44] TSN,
[45] TSN,
[46] People v. Morales, G.R. No. 188608, February 9, 2011,
p. 11, citing People v. Resurreccion, G.R.
No. 186380, October 12, 2009, 603 SCRA 510, 518-519.
[47] Supra note 38 at 10. Emphasis supplied.
[48] People v. Araneta, G.R. No. 191064, October 20, 2010,
p. 13 and People v. Domado, G.R. No. 172971, June 16, 2010, 621
SCRA 73, 84, citing People v. Hernandez,
G.R. No. 184804, June 18, 2009, 589 SCRA 625, 645.
[49] See Aquino
v. Paiste, G.R. No. 147782,