Republic of the
Supreme Court
|
PEOPLE OF THE Appellee,
- versus - TEOFILO
HONRADO and ROMULO
HONRADO,
Appellants. |
G.R. No. 182197
Present: CARPIO,
J., Chairperson,
BRION, PEREZ, SERENO, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: February 27, 2012 |
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
|
|
|
|
|
R E S O L U T I O N
BRION, J.:
We
decide the appeal, filed by Teofilo Honrado and Romulo Honrado (appellants), from the
The
evidence for the prosecution showed that sometime in June 1995, SPO3 Rodolfo de
Guzman of the Philippine National Police
(PNP) Narcotics Command, Urdaneta,
Pangasinan, received information from a concerned citizen about the illegal
drug activities in Barangay Carmen
East, Rosales, Pangasinan. Acting on this information, SPO3 De Guzman directed
SPO3 Ruperto Galliguez and PO3 Rolando Garcia to conduct a surveillance in Barangay Carmen East.[5]
SPO3 Galliguez and PO3 Garcia did as instructed, and then reported that two
persons, known as alias Temmy and alias Whity, were engaged in drug pushing
in the area. Afterwards, SPO3 De Guzman formed an entrapment team composed of
himself, SPO3 Galliguez, PO3 Garcia, SPO2 Honorato Natividad, SPO1 Flash
Ferrer, and PO2 Laudencio Gallano.[6]
At
around P500.00 bill
and five P100.00 bills to Romulo, who, in turn, handed them to Teofilo.
PO3 Garcia then made the prearranged signal to his companions. Immediately
after, the other members of the buy-bust team approached the appellants,
identified themselves as police agents, and arrested the appellants. SPO3
Galliguez searched Teofilo and recovered the marked money from his back pocket.[9]
The
appellants told the police that there were other blocks of marijuana hidden in
their house. SPO2 Natividad and SPO3 Galliguez accompanied the appellants to Romulos
house; the appellants entered the house while the police waited outside. The
appellants got four blocks of marijuana from the house, placed them in a bag,
and handed them over to SPO3 Galliguez.[10]
Thereafter, the police brought the appellants and the seized items to the police
station for investigation.[11]
At the police station, the police marked the seized items[12]
and made the corresponding Receipt of
Property Seized.[13]
The
appellants, for their part, interposed the defenses of denial, extortion, and
frame-up.
The prosecution charged the
appellants with violation of Sections 4 and 8 of R.A. No. 6425, as amended,
before the RTC. The RTC found the appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crimes charged, and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each offense. It
also ordered them to pay a P1 million fine.[14]
The
appellants appealed to the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01432. The CA,
in its decision of
The
CA held that PO3 Garcia positively identified the appellants as the persons who
gave him one block of marijuana in exchange for P1,000.00; his testimony
was corroborated by SPO3 De Guzman, SPO2 Natividad and SPO2 Galliguez. It added
that the seized specimens tested positive for marijuana.
The
CA also ruled that the subsequent search and confiscation of the buy-bust money
from Teofilo were justified because they were made as incidents to a lawful
arrest. The appellate court likewise did not give credence to the appellants
claim of extortion for their failure to present any evidence to prove this
allegation. The CA, however, acquitted the appellants for violation of illegal
possession of marijuana under Section 8 of R.A. No. 6425 due to serious
inconsistencies in the testimonies of the police on how they were able to get
hold of the four additional blocks of marijuana.[15]
In
their brief,[16] the appellants claim that
the courts a quo erred in giving
credence to the inconsistent and incredible testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses. They further allege that it was improbable for them to voluntarily
inform the police of the location of the four blocks of marijuana.
For
the State, the Office of the Solicitor General maintains that the prosecution
was able to prove the appellants guilt beyond reasonable doubt.[17]
THE COURTS RULING
We deny the appeal and affirm the appellants conviction for illegal
sale of 1,040 grams of marijuana under Section 4, Article II of R.A. No. 6425,
as amended.
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.[18] The essential elements to be established in the prosecution
of illegal sale of marijuana are as follows: (1) the identity of the buyer and
the seller, the object of the sale and the consideration; and (2) the delivery
of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[19]
What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place,
coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as
evidence.[20]
The
evidence on record showed the presence of all these elements. The witnesses for
the prosecution successfully proved that a buy-bust operation took place and
the block of marijuana subject of the sale was brought to, and duly identified
in, court. PO3 Garcia, the poseur-buyer, positively identified the appellants
as the persons who sold to him one block of marijuana dried leaves wrapped in a
newspaper in exchange for the sum of P1,000.00. PO3 Garcias testimony
was corroborated on material points by his team leader, SPO3 De Guzman, SPO3
Galliguez, and SPO2 Natividad. PNP Forensic Chemist Police Supt. Theresa Ann
Cid examined the items seized and found them to be positive for marijuana.
We
rely on the trial court's assessment of the prosecution witnesses credibility,
absent any showing that certain facts of weight and substance, bearing on the
elements of the crime, have been overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied. We
point out that no improper motive was ever successfully established showing why the
witnesses would falsely
testify against the appellants. The testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses, therefore, clearly established that the sale of marijuana took place between the appellants and the poseur-buyer.
The delivery of the illicit drug to PO3 Garcia and the receipt by the
appellants of the marked money successfully consummated the buy-bust
transaction.[21]
Aside
from the witnesses testimonies, the fact that an actual buy-bust operation took
place was also evidenced by the presented documentary evidence consisting of the
marked moneys used in the operation; the Booking Sheet and Arrest Report
against the appellants prepared by SPO3 De Guzman; and the Joint Affidavit of
Arrest executed by the members of the entrapment team.
We
also find that the totality of the presented evidence leads to an unbroken
chain of custody of the confiscated item from the appellants. 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; 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.[22]
In
the present case, the records reveal that after PO3 Garcia received the block
of marijuana from Romulo, he handed it to SPO3 De Guzman. Afterwards, the
police brought the appellants and the seized items to the police station, and
marked the confiscated items. SPO3 De Guzman listed and recorded the items
confiscated, and made the corresponding Receipt
of Property Seized. This document was signed by the appellants, SPO3 De
Guzman, SPO3 Galliguez, and SPO2 Natividad. Thereafter, SPO3 De Guzman made a
request for laboratory examination addressed to the Regional Chief of the PNP
Crime Laboratory in
In
fine, the prosecution established the crucial link in the chain of custody of
the confiscated items from the time they were first seized until they were
brought in the laboratory for examination and presented in court. The integrity
and the evidentiary value of the marijuana seized from the appellants were duly
proven not to have been compromised.
Finally, we find unmeritorious the
appellants defenses of denial, frame-up, and extortion. Denial is inherently a
weak defense and cannot prevail over the positive identification by the
prosecution. Negative and self-serving, denial deserves no weight in law when
unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence. Corollarily, we have
invariably viewed the defense of frame-up with disfavor, for it can easily be
concocted and, like denial, is a common and standard line of defense in most
prosecutions arising from violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act.[23] We,
likewise, find the appellants charge of extortion to be highly suspect, considering
that the appellants did not file any criminal and/or administrative cases
against the concerned police officers.
The Penalty
Section
4, Article II, in relation to Section 20, of R.A. No. 6425, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, provides:
Section 4.
x x x x
Section 20. Application of Penalties, Confiscation and Forfeiture of the
Proceeds or Instruments of the Crime. - The penalties for offenses under Sections 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 of Article II and Sections 14, 14-A, 15 and 16 of
Article III of this Act shall be applied if the dangerous drugs involved is in
any of the following quantities:
x x
x x
5. 750 grams or more of indian hemp or marijuana[.] [emphases ours.]
In the present case, the appellants were caught selling one
block of marijuana weighing 1,040 grams. Accordingly, we affirm the ruling of
the RTC and the CA imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua and a fine
of P1,000,000.00 as these are the penalties provided for by law.
WHEREFORE, in light of all the
foregoing, we hereby AFFIRM the
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
JOSE
Associate Justice Associate Justice
BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the
above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned
to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief
Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 2-21; penned by Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid, and concurred in by Associate Justice Rodrigo V. Cosico and Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr.
[2] CA rollo, pp. 21-27.
[3]
[4] Possession or Use of Prohibited Drugs.
[5] TSN,
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9] TSN,
[10] TSN,
[11] TSN,
[12] TSN,
[13] TSN,
[14] Supra note 2.
[15] Supra note 1.
[16] CA rollo, pp. 59-74.
[17]
[18] Cruz v. People, G.R. No. 164580,
[19] People of the
[20] See
People v. Lascano, G.R. No. 172605,
[21]
[22] See
Ruel Ampatuan Alias Ruel v. People of
the
[23] See People v. Dulay, 468 Phil. 56 (2004).