Republic of the
SUPREME COURT
FIRST DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee,
- versus - TEOFILO RAGODON
MARCELINO, JR. alias Terence and alias TEOFILO MARCELINO y RAGODON, Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 189325 Present: VELASCO, JR., J., Acting
Chairperson,* LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, BERSAMIN,** PEREZ, JJ. Promulgated: June 15, 2011 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
VELASCO,
JR., J.:
On appeal is the Decision[1]
dated July 14, 2009 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03172,
which affirmed the September 27, 2006 Decision[2] in
Criminal Case No. 13727-D of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 164 in Pasig
City. The RTC found accused Teofilo Marcelino, Jr. guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Facts
An Information was filed against accused, as follows:
On or about September 18, 2004, in Pasig City,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, not being
lawfully authorized by law, did there and then willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, sell, deliver and give away to PO2 Peter V. Sistemio, a police
poseur-buyer, one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing fourteen
(14) decigrams (0.14 gram) of white crystalline substance, which was found
positive to the test for methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in
violation of said law.
Contrary
to law.[3]
Upon
arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge against him. After
the pre-trial conference, the trial on the merits ensued.
During
the trial, the prosecution presented as evidence the testimonies of Police Officer
2 Peter V. Sistemio (PO2 Sistemio), Senior Police Officer 1 Arnold Yu (SPO1 Yu),
and Police Chief Inspector Jaime O. Santos (P/CInsp. Santos), all members of
the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), Special Enforcement Service.
On
the other hand, the defense presented, as witnesses, the accused; his sisters, Carmen
and Maritess, both surnamed Marcelino; and Nelson M. Derilo.
The
parties stipulated that the white crystalline substance of suspected methylamphetamine
hydrochloride contained in the heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet, marked
as Exhibit A PVS. 09/18/04, was the same specimen mentioned in Exhibits C[4] and D,[5]
thereby dispensing with the testimony of Police Senior Inspector Miladenia
Origenes-Tapan (P/SInsp. Origenes-Tapan), Forensic Chemical Officer, Crime
Laboratory, Philippine National Police,
The Prosecutions Version of Facts
On
September 18, 2004, at around 6:00 a.m., a confidential informant arrived at
the office of the PDEA, Special Enforcement Service in Barangay Pinyahan,
The
informant arranged a meeting with alias Terence at McDonalds restaurant in
San Joaquin,
P/CInsp.
The
team arrived at the target place at around 9:45 a.m. Thereafter, PO2 Sistemio
and the informant entered McDonalds, followed by SPO1 Yu, who sat about seven to
nine meters away from PO2 Sistemio and the informant. The rest of the team
positioned themselves outside the restaurant.
After
about five minutes, alias Terence arrived and shook hands with the informant,
who then introduced PO2 Sistemio as an interested buyer of shabu. PO2 Sistemio introduced himself as Peter and offered to buy PhP
1,000 worth of shabu. There and then,
alias Terence brought out from his pocket a heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet
of white crystalline substance. PO2 Sistemio handed alias Terence the marked
PhP 100 bill tied with the boodle money. As soon as alias Terence placed the marked
money in his right-hand pocket, PO2 Sistemio tapped Terences shoulder as the
pre-arranged signal that the transaction was consummated. He then introduced himself as a PDEA agent.
SPO1
Yu approached and informed alias Terence that he was under arrest. After reading alias Terence his
constitutional rights, SPO1 Yu frisked him and recovered the PhP 100 marked
money from his right-hand pocket. He was then brought to the PDEA Office in
At
the PDEA Office, PO2 Sistemio marked the sealed sachet subject of the buy-bust operation
with the date 09/18/04 and his initials PVS, and turned it over to the team
leader, P/CInsp. Jaime O. Santos.[10]
The
subject sachet was then personally delivered by P/CInsp. Santos, accompanied by
PO2 Sistemio and SPO1 Yu, to the Crime Laboratory at
Version of the Defense
Accused interposed the defense of denial.
He
averred that, on September 18, 2004, accused and his siblings, Carmen and Maritess, were in the San Joaquin, Pasig City
market area about 25 meters from McDonalds, looking for a cellular phone
housing, when he was approached by two persons who asked if he was alias Terence.
Though he answered in the negative, he was handcuffed and forced to go with them
inside a Tamaraw FX where two (2) other passengers were waiting. One of the
persons frisked the accused and placed something in his pocket.
The
men left with the accused onboard the Tamaraw FX, thus, prompting his sisters
to go home and report the incident to their mother. Meanwhile, the accused was
brought to the PDEA Office in
Defense
witness Nelson Derilo, a cigarette vendor at the San Joaquin,
Ruling of the Trial Court
After
trial, the RTC convicted the accused. The dispositive portion of its September
27, 2006 Decision reads:
WHEREFORE,
the court finds the accused Teofilo Ragodon Marcelino, Jr. alias
Terence and alias Teofilo Marcelino y Ragodon
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 5, Article II of
R.A. 9165 and hereby impose upon him the penalty of life imprisonment and a
fine of Five Hundred Thousand (Php 500,000.00) Pesos with the accessory penalties provided for under Section 35 of
the said law.
The
plastic sachet containing shabu is
hereby ordered confiscated in favor of the government and turned over to the
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for destruction.
With costs
against accused.
SO
ORDERED.[12]
Accused
appealed to the CA, arguing that the trial court failed to prove his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.
Ruling of the Appellate Court
On
July 14, 2009, the CA affirmed the judgment of the RTC. It ruled that the
prosecution was able to establish beyond reasonable doubt the elements of
illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
Citing
People vs. Yang,[13] among
other cases, the CA held that in an illegal sale of drugs, the crime is
committed as soon as the sale transaction is consummated. It is sufficient to
show that the illicit transaction took place and that the corpus delicti is presented in court as evidence.
Accused-appellant
timely filed a notice of appeal of the CA Decision; thus, We have this appeal.
Accused-appellant puts forth the following errors:
I.
The Court of Appeals erred in giving
full credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses even if they were
marred with inconsistencies.
II.
The Court of Appeals erred in
finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable ground of the crime
charged.
Accused-appellant contends that the trial
court erred in convicting him beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation
of Sec. 5 of RA 9165 despite the inconsistencies in the testimonies of
prosecution witnesses. First,
accused-appellant points out that P/CInsp. Santos testified that only four (4)
team members of the buy-bust team went to McDonalds, while SPO1 Yu averred
that there were more than four (4) members in the team. Second, PO2 Sistemio and SPO1 Yu maintained that the informant was
with them waiting for alias Terence; while P/CInsp.
Our Ruling
The appeal is bereft of merit.
RA 9165 provides:
Section
5.
For the prosecution of illegal sale of
drugs to prosper, the following elements must be proved: (1) the identities of
the buyer and the seller, the object and consideration; and (2) the delivery of
the thing sold and its payment. The
presence of these elements was proved by the trial court and later affirmed by
the appellate court in the present case.
The delivery of the illegal drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by
the seller of marked money successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction.[15]
PO2 Sistemio narrated the arrest in a
straightforward manner. He testified that on September 18, 2004 at around 6:00
a.m., a confidential informant arrived at the PDEA Office in
They arrived at the area at around 9:45
a.m. PO2 Sistemio and the informant waited inside McDonalds, while SPO1 Yu was
seated about seven to nine meters away. After
waiting for about five minutes, alias Terence approached their table and
shook hands with the informant who then introduced him to PO2 Sistemio as the
one interested in buying shabu. PO2
Sistemio introduced himself as Peter and offered to buy PhP 1,000 worth of shabu. Alias Terence took from his
pocket a heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet and showed PO2 Sistemio its
contents. Thus, PO2 Sistemio testified in court:
Q: x x x [W]hat did you do?
A: Then I said to alias Terence, bakit
konti yata?
Q: What was the reply if any?
A: Then alias Terence replied, sa krisis
ngayon, mataas ang presyo, kukunin mo ba ito? alias Terence told me.
Q: What did you tell him?
A: And I said, oo. Kukunin ko. Then after
that alias Terence handed me the transparent plastic sachet containing white
crystalline substance suspected shabu,
then after that, sir, I accepted that. Alias Terence, sir, demanded the money.
x x x x
Q: Now what did Terence do after you
confirmed that you were buying indeed the shabu which was shown to you inside
the transparent plastic sachet?
A: Sir, he handed to me the plastic sachet.
Q: What did you do after in return?
A: Sir, after that, alias Terence demanded for the payment. I handed to him the marked
money together with the boodle money.
Q: And where did you place the marked
buy-bust money together with the boodle money?
A: Sir, inside his pocket.
Q: Which pocket?
A: Right pocket, sir.
x x x x
Q: Now, after you obtained one (1) plastic
sachet containing white crystalline substance which was suspected as shabu and you gave the buy-bust money to
alias Terence and who in turned [sic]
kept it or placed it inside his right pocket, what happened next?
A: Sir, I tapped the shoulder of alias
Terence.
Q: Which shoulder, left or right?
A: Right, sir.
Q: So what happened after you tapped his
shoulder?
A: After that, SPO1 Arnold Yu rushed
towards us and effect the arrest of alias Terence.[16]
In corroboration, police back-up and
arresting officer SPO1 Yu testified[17]
that the moment he saw PO2 Sistemio tap the shoulder of accused-appellant to
indicate the consummation of sale, he immediately approached their table to
announce the arrest and apprised accused-appellant of his constitutional
rights. As he testified:
Q: How would you know as an immediate back up of Sistemio, if
the buy-bust operation was consummated already?
A: By
tapping his shoulder, sir.
Q: That
was the pre-arranged signal?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: Tapping
the shoulder of whom?
A: Teofilo,
sir.
Q: Now going back to the time you saw the three of them
conversing, what happened next, or what did you see?
A: Noong nag-uusap sila sir, noong medyo matagal nang nag-uusap
sila, siguro mga fifteen (15) minutes, tinap ni Sistemio yung balikat nito kaya
lumapit na ako, ineffect ko na yung arrest.
Q: After about fifteen (15) minutes, you finally saw Sistemio
tapped the shoulder of alias Terence?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: And after that pre-arranged signal, you immediately rushed to
where they were?
A: Yes,
Sir.
Q: And
you announced the arrest of alias Terence?
A: Yes,
sir.
x x x x
Q: Where
was the object of the sale at that point, if you know?
A: It
was in the possession of Peter Sistemio, sir.
Q: How
did you know that it was with Sistemio?
A: Terence
handed it to Sistemio, sir.
Q: When for the first time did you see, Mr. Witness yung pag
about [sic]
A: When
we were inside, sir.
Q: You mean to say that while you were 7 to 9 meters away from
them, you actually saw the transaction, the handing over of the object to
Sistemio?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: What was that which you saw the accused handing over to
Sistemio?
A: Naka
plastic po kasi yon, sir, yung inabot sa kanya,
Q: Did
you see whats inside the plastic?
A: No,
sir.
x x x x
Q: How
did you know that that was a plastic sachet inside?
A: When we went to the headquarters because the poseur buyer
was examining it to determine if it was positive x x x.
x x x x
Q: How about the money used by Sistemio in buying the object,
did you see the buy-bust money?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: When
did you see it?
A: In
our office, sir.
Q: When
you went back or prior to the operation?
A: Before,
sir, na pumunta kami sa operation.
Q: During the operation when you went to arrest the accused,
where was the buy-bust money at that point, if you know?
A: I
recovered it from the right side pocket of alias Terence, sir.
Q: Why, how were you able to take possession of the buy-bust
money from the right side pocket of the accuseds pants?
A: Noong
maposasan namin siya, sir, ako yung naghanap.
Q: You
effected the frisking of the person?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: Did
he allow you to do so or did he resist?
A: No,
sir, he did not resist.
Q: And can you describe the buy-bust money which you confiscated
from the possession of the accused?
A: P100.00
with marking PVS.
x x x x
Q: Showing you the one P100.00 bill with Serial No. PR996327,
examine this and tell us if that is the same buy-bust money you saw at the
office and in the possession of the accused after the operation
A: Yes, sir, this is the buy-bust money given by Major Santos to
Peter Sistemio.
x x x x
Q: Do you know who brought the object of the sale from the scene
of the incident or the arrest to the headquarters?
A: Peter Sistemio, sir.[18]
Generally, in cases involving
violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, the testimonies of prosecution witnesses,
who are police officers, are given credence for they are presumed to have
performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the
contrary.[19] In the
present case, the testimonies of the arresting officers as to what happened
during the day the buy-bust was conducted were candid and expressed in a
straightforward manner; thus, in the absence of any improper motive, said
statements are given full faith and credit.[20]
Accused-appellant has made much of
what he perceived as inconsistencies in the testimonies of the members of the
buy-bust team. It must be pointed out, however, that the alleged discrepancy is
to be expected. It is doctrinally settled in a long line of cases that minor
discrepancies or inconsistencies do not impair the essential integrity of the
prosecutions evidence.[21] To
note, the testimony of P/CInsp.
In the present case, the prosecution
was able to prove that upon seizing the white crystalline substance, PO2
Sistemio had custody of the substance until it was marked at the station with
his initials and personally turned over to the crime laboratory for qualitative
evaluation. Thereafter, P/SInsp. Origenes-Tapan stated in her laboratory report
that the plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance, weighing 0.14
gram, was positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride. When the Court asked why
the marking was done in the PDEA Office instead of in the crime scene, PO2
Sistemio explained that it was their standard operation procedure to mark the
seized items in the PDEA Office. He further testified that he was not carrying
any pen at the time the buy-bust operation was conducted.[23] Thereafter,
the parties stipulated that the white crystalline substance presented in court
was the same substance specified in the request for laboratory examination and
report.
Sec. 1(b) of the Dangerous Drugs Board
Resolution No. 1, Series of 2002, implementing RA 9165, defines chain of custody
as the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or
controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory
equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in
the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for
destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include
the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the
seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the
course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition.[24]
In People
v. Kamad,[25] We
acknowledged that the following links 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.
It was proved in court that at the
PDEA Office, PO2 Sistemio marked the sealed sachet subject of the buy-bust
operation with the date 09-18-04 and
his initials PVS and turned it over to their Chief, P/CInsp.
During cross-examination, PO2 Sistemio
further testified that the marking of the evidence was witnessed by the team
leader, P/CInsp.
P/SInsp.
Origenes-Tapan stated in her Chemistry Report[27]
that the plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance weighing 0.14
gram was positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as shabu.
As
per Order dated November 11, 2004 of the RTC, P/SInsp. Origenes-Tapans testimony
was dispensed with after the parties stipulated that the heat-sealed
transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance of suspected
methamphetamine hydrochloride was the same as the specimen presented in court
as Exhibits C and D. Thus, all things taken together, the PDEA officers
were able to establish the chain of custody from the time the shabu was confiscated up to the time it
was presented in court for identification.
In
People v. Antonio,[28]
this Court consistently emphasized that the findings of the trial court, in the
absence of any glaring error, gross misapprehension, arbitrary and unsupported
conclusion of facts, are given great weight, because it is in a better position
to observe the deportment and manner of witnesses during trial. We shall also
observe this ruling here.
Under Sec. 5, RA 9165, the selling of shabu, regardless of the quantity and
quality, is punishable by life imprisonment to death and a fine of PhP 500,000
to PhP 10,000,000. However, with the effectivity of RA 9346, otherwise known as
An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the
WHEREFORE, the
appeal is hereby DENIED. The CA Decision
in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03172 finding accused-appellant guilty of the crime
charged is AFFIRMED IN TOTO.
SO ORDERED.
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN MARIANO C.
Associate
Justice Associate Justice
JOSE
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
* Per Special Order No. 1003 dated June 8, 2011.
** Additional member per Special Order No. 1000 dated June 8, 2011.
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia and concurred in by Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Magdangal M. De Leon.
[2] Penned by Judge Librado S. Correa.
[3] CA rollo, p. 12.
[4] Request for laboratory examination.
[5] Initial laboratory request.
[6] Records, p. 30, Order dated November 11, 2004.
[7] CA rollo, 13.
[8]
[9] TSN, November 18, 2004, Direct Examination of PO2 Sistemio.
[10]
[11] TSN, August 3, 2006.
[12] CA rollo, pp. 17-18.
[13] G.R. No. 148077, February 6, 2004, 423 SCRA 82.
[14]
[15] People v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 143805, April 11, 2002, 380 SCRA 689.
[16] TSN, November 18, 2004, pp. 11-13.
[17] TSN, November 25, 2004, pp. 13-17.
[18]
[19] People v.
[20] People v. Lim, G.R. No. 187503, September 11, 2009, 599 SCRA 712.
[21] People v. Caco, G.R. Nos. 94994-95, May 14, 1993, 222 SCRA 49.
[22] People v. Pagkalinawan, G.R. No. 184805, March 3, 2010; People v. Naquita, G.R. No. 180511, July 28, 2008, 560 SCRA 430; People v. Mateo, G.R. No. 179036, July 28, 2008, 560 SCRA 375.
[23]
[24] See People v.
Capuno, G.R. No. 185715, January
19, 2011 and People v. Lorena, G.R.
No. 184954, January 10, 2011.
[25] G.R. No. 174198, January 19, 2010, 610 SCRA 295, 307-308.
[26] TSN, November 18, 2004, p. 18.
[27] Chemistry Report No. D-621-04, Exhibit L.
[28] G.R. No. 128900, July 14, 2000, 335 SCRA 646.