Republic
of the
Supreme
Court
FIRST DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - ARNEL CLARITE y SALAZAR, Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 187157 Present: Chairperson, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BERSAMIN, VILLARAMA,
JR., JJ. Promulgated: February
15, 2012 |
x-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, J.:
This is an appeal from the Decision[1]
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00932 dated May 9, 2008,
affirming with modification the conviction of accused-appellant Arnel Clarite y
Salazar for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.
The Amended Information, dated July 25, 2002, reads:
That on or about 11 July 2002, in the City of Naga,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, without authority of law, did then and there, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously sell, dispense, deliver and/or distribute four (4)
plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance, tested and found out to
be Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu, a regulated drug weighing 45.8712
grams to NBI poseur-buyer, for and in consideration of P50,000, a marked
money bill, Philippine currency.[2]
The evidence of the prosecution, which included the testimonies of National
Bureau of Investigation (NBI) special investigators Alfredo Romano, Jr.
(Romano), Felipe Jessie Jimenez (Jimenez) and Rommel Dizon (Dizon), as well as
P/Insp. Josephine Macura Clemen (Clemen) and Alejandro Cedeo (Cedeo), tended
to establish the following:
On July 8, 2002, Romano received information from his asset, Cedeo, that
a certain Arnel, a supplier of illegal drugs from Cavite, is looking for a
buyer of shabu.[3] Romano directed Cedeo to negotiate the sale.[4]
Cedeo communicated with accused-appellant, and the latter agreed that he
would be arriving in Naga City in the morning of July 11, 2002. Accused-appellant would be carrying 50 grams
of shabu, which will be sold to
Cedeos financier for P45,000.00.[5] With the authority of Atty. Jose Doloiras,
the immediate superior of Romano, the NBI special investigators devised a plan
to entrap said Arnel. Romano and Jimenez
prepared what they called budol [boodle] money, counterfeit notes made out of
photocopied P1000 and P500 bills.
The counterfeit bills, representing a total value of P50,000.00,
were dusted with fluorescent powder at the Philippine National Police (PNP)
Regional Crime Laboratory, Camp Simeon Ola, Legaspi City. On July 10, 2002, Romano was able to confirm
with Cedeo that said Arnel was definitely arriving the following day at 8:00
a.m. at the Central Business District (CBD) terminal, Naga City.[6]
On July 11, 2002, Romano again confirmed with Cedeo that said Arnel
would be coming at 8:00 a.m. At around 6:00
a.m., Romano, Jimenez and Dizon were at the NBI Office. It was at this time that Dizon was informed
of the operation. Before 8:00 a.m., Romano,
Jimenez, Dizon and Cedeo proceeded to the CBD terminal where they posted
themselves in strategic locations. Dizon
was posted at a parking space, while Romano and Jimenez were near each other,
close to a Dunkin Donut shop housed inside the building at the terminal.[7]
While Romano and Cedeo were talking to each other in front of the Dunkin
Donut shop, accused-appellant arrived, carrying a small bag.[8] The informant introduced Romano to
accused-appellant. Romano asked for the shabu.
When said shabu was handed to
Romano, accused-appellant asked for the money.
This was when accused-appellant noticed that the money was fake. Romano then removed his sunglasses to signal
the completion of the transaction to Jimenez and Dizon.[9]
The NBI investigators arrested and handcuffed accused-appellant, and
thereafter brought the latter to the NBI Office in Naga City. Therein, accused-appellant was booked,
fingerprinted and photographed.
Accused-appellant was then brought to the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory
at Camp Simeon Ola, Legaspi City. P/Insp.
Clemen examined the dorsal and palmar areas of accused-appellants hands, as
well as the plastic sachets handed by him to Romano. Both hands of accused-appellant were found
positive for the presence of bright orange ultraviolet fluorescent powder. The plastic sachets, which had a total weight
of 45.8712 grams, were positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.[10]
Only accused-appellant was able to testify for the defense. He narrated that on July 10, 2002, at around
6:00 p.m., he was sent by Mrs. Fely Gutierrez, his employer, to go to Naga City
to deliver 100 grams of shabu to a
certain Ching Lo. He was told that Ching
Lo lived near the Sky Cable office and the Naga City Civic Center. On that day, he also wanted to fetch his
mother-in-law from Ponong, Magarao, Camarines Sur in order that the latter may
help her wife in taking care of her two children.[11]
Accused-appellant testified that per his employers strict instruction,
someone would approach him at the Naga City Civic Center. He was supposed to give the shabu to said person in exchange for P110,000.00. He stressed that he was then carrying 100
grams of shabu, not 45.87 grams as
reported by the prosecution witnesses.[12]
Accused-appellant denied that the buy-bust operation took place. Instead, he narrated that he was aboard a tricycle
at 6:00 a.m. on July 11, 2002, on his way to the Civic Center, when Romano and
Jimenez apprehended him, forced him into their car and blindfolded him. While still blindfolded, Romano and Jimenez
brought him to a hotel. He was told to
contact his employer through a cellular phone and inform her of his arrest and
that the arresting officers needed money to pay for their hotel bills. The NBI operatives were extorting money
equivalent to the value of 50% of the 100 grams of shabu. After the
accused-appellant was able to speak briefly with his employer, the latter
turned off her phone and cannot be contacted again. The NBI operatives, showing him the marked
money, threatened that a drug case would be filed against him. The NBI operatives told him to hold the
marked money, but he refused and was not able to hold it. Accused-appellant was brought to the NBI
Office in Naga City, then to Camp Ola in Legaspi City, where he was subjected
to a paraffin test. Accused-appellant
was later brought back to the NBI Office when someone told him that his
employer was sending money to settle his case.
Accused-appellant admitted that since October 2001, he accompanied his
employer around five or six times to deliver shabu to the aforementioned Ching Lo.[13]
On March 18, 2004, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Naga City rendered
its Decision[14]
finding accused-appellant guilty. The
dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing disquisition,
judgment is hereby rendered finding accused, ARNEL CLARITE y Salazar, guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of violation of Sec. 5, Article II of RA
9165, and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment.
Considering that the accused has been undergoing
preventive detention during the pendency of the trial in this case, let the
same be credited in the service of his sentence.[15]
On May 9, 2008, the Court of Appeals rendered its Decision affirming with
modification the RTC Decision:
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the Regional
Trial Court of Naga City (Branch 25) is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that in
addition to the penalty of life imprisonment imposed on accused-appellant, he
is sentenced to pay a fine in the sum of P500,000.00.[16]
Hence, this appeal, where accused-appellant adopts the same lone
assignment of error it raised before the Court of Appeals:
THE
TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
FOR VIOLATION OF SECTION 11, ARTICLE II, R.A. NO. 9165 DESPITE THE
INADMISSIBILITY OF THE EVIDENCE OBTAINED THROUGH AN UNLAWFUL SEARCH.[17]
Accused-appellants main contention is that he was arrested while he was
riding a tricycle and not while he was supposedly selling shabu. Thus, since he was
not caught in flagrante delicto, he
can only be arrested with a warrant. Consequently,
according to accused-appellant, the search conducted upon him cannot be deemed
to have been incidental to a lawful arrest, thus, making the evidence obtained
therefrom inadmissible. In making such
argument, accused-appellant challenges the findings of fact of the trial court
and the Court of Appeals which both accepted the version of the prosecution.
The present appeal must fail.
Unfortunately for accused-appellant, findings of fact of the trial court,
particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding upon this Court,[18]
save only for certain compelling reasons.[19] We perused the records of the case at bar and
found no reason to disturb the findings of the courts a quo.
In cases involving
violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution
witnesses who are police officers on the ground that they are presumed to have
performed their duties in a regular manner.
The exception is when there is evidence to the contrary suggesting ill
motive on the part of the police officers or deviation from the regular
performance of their duties.[20] In the case at bar, accused-appellants only evidence of ill motive on the part of the NBI
operatives is his own testimony of frame-up and extortion, a very common
defense in dangerous drugs cases. We
have held that such defense is viewed with disfavor, for it can be easily
concocted. To substantiate such a defense, therefore, the evidence must be
clear and convincing.[21]
The trial court, which had the opportunity to observe the demeanor and
conduct of Romano, Jimenez and Dizon, on one hand, and that of
accused-appellant, on the other, was thoroughly convinced of the version of the
prosecution in this matter. Furthermore,
accused-appellants admission in open court of being a drug courier for his
employer, though not conclusive evidence of the specific act of selling shabu on the date and under the
circumstances specified in the complaint, nevertheless constitutes
circumstantial evidence of the same. By
admitting the previous sales of shabu,
accused-appellant in effect attested to his own proclivity to do such an act,
as well as the accessibility to him of the object of his alleged illegal trade.
Jurisprudence holds
that the elements of the crime of illegal sale of drugs are the following: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller,
the object and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and
payment therefor.[22]
The testimonies of Romano, corroborated by his fellow NBI investigators
Jimenez and Dizon and informant Cedeo established the sale and delivery by
accused-appellant Clarite to Romano of what was initially believed to be 50
grams of shabu in four plastic
sachets, in exchange for what Clarite thought was P50,000.00. Romano positively identified
accused-appellant Clarite as the person who sold the plastic sachets of shabu to him. As for the sale itself, Romanos account was
simple and clear:
PROS. SAEZ:
Q As
has been admitted by the defense, you stated in your affidavit that you were
able to successfully have a transaction with Arnel Clarite at CBD terminal on
July 11, 2002, in the morning, using boodle money in the amount of P50,000.00. Now, can you tell the Court how did you
introduce yourself to Mr. Clarite that morning?
A I was
introduced by my informant, sir, my asset.
PROS. SAEZ:
Q Where?
A In
front of the terminal. I dont know
exactly the place. It was in front of
the terminal in Dunkin Donuts.
Q So,
when you were introduced by your asset, where was Mr. Clarite then?
A He
was in front of us, sir.
Q By
the way, if Mr. Clarite is in court, can you point to him?
A Yes,
sir, the one wearing yellow t-shirt, sir.
PROS. SAEZ:
Will
the defense admit that the one wearing a yellow shirt is Mr. Clarite?
ATTY. BOTOR:
Yes,
your honor.
PROS. SAEZ:
Q Now,
when you were introduced by your asset to Mr. Clarite, what transpired next?
A After
the introduction, we went on [with] the transaction. I asked for the shabu and he asked for the money, sir.
Q Now,
which transpired first, who gave first?
A The shabu, sir.
Q He
gave first the shabu?
A Then,
I gave the money. Upon handing him the
money, he noticed that it was boodle.
But, it was too late, I already gave the signal to my companions who
were still there.
Q How
can you say that Mr, Clarite was able to notice that what you gave him was
boodle money?
A He
told me, What is this? Because it was obvious by merely looking at the bundle
of money, you can detect that it was boodle.
But, I admit that since the government has no fund, we used in our
buy-bust operations the show money or the money to be used in the purchasing of
illegal drugs, we used our initiative to reproduce or use boodle money in every
buy-bust operation.[23]
The trial court was very careful in considering the testimony of Romano
and even asked very inquisitive questions apparently designed to test his
credibility. Romano, however, remained
steadfast:
COURT: The
Court has still few questions to ask.
Q By the
way, you testified awhile ago upon question by the Court that it was your team
which arrived first at the meeting place, how long did your team wait for the
accused?
A Several
minutes, your honor.
Q Around?
A Before
8:00 oclock, sir, around, lets say 15 minutes.
Q What
time did the team go to the CBD for the purpose of waiting?
A 7:30,
your honor.
Q And
you waited for around 15 minutes?
A Yes,
sir.
Q Now,
being a poseur-buyer, what did you and the accused talk about after he was
introduced to you by the informant?
A I
asked him to show me the sachets of shabu
and he asked for the money.
Q Did
you and the accused agree regarding the quantity of the sachets of shabu you were to buy from the accused?
A Beforehand,
your honor, we already agreed that we are going to buy 50 grams of shabu worth P50,000.00.
COURT:
Q Now,
did you ask from the accused whether he already had that 50 grams of shabu?
A Yes,
your honor, I asked him and he showed it to me.
He took it from his small bag.
Q And,
did the accused also ask for the money?
A Yes,
your honor, I handed him the boodle money.
Q You
said awhile ago that it was with accused who handed first to you the four
sachets of shabu and after which, you
also handed to him the boodle money.
Now, did the accused not ascertain first for himself to show him first
the money before parting away the four sachets?
A Yes,
your honor, after I showed it to him, I knew that he would notice that it was
boodle, I already handed it to him.
Q But
that was not the point which this Court would want to get from you, what this
Court wants to know from you is whether the accused gave to you the shabu whether he first ascertained from
you whether you have already the money with you?
A He did
not, your honor.
Q Meaning,
the accused did not ask from you, show to me first the money before I give you
the shabu?
A He did
not, your honor, I asked him to show me the shabu
because I was introduced by my informant as a good buyer. That is why he gave me first the shabu.[24]
It was likewise clear from the evidence on record that P/Insp. Clemen examined
the contents of the plastic sachets sold to Romano, and confirmed that they
contained methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu),
even though the total weight was only 45.8712 grams. P/Insp. Clemen was also able to verify that both
hands of accused-appellant were positive for the presence of bright orange
ultraviolet fluorescent powder, thus, corroborating the testimonies of the NBI
investigators that he received the counterfeit money which were dusted with
such powder. This also belies the
testimony of accused-appellant that he never held the marked money.[25]
As for accused-appellants argument that he would not have sold shabu in a crowded place, we find the
same unconvincing. We have already held
in Ching v. People[26]
that:
This Court observed in many cases that drug pushers
sell their prohibited articles to any prospective customer, be he a stranger or
not, in private as well as in public places, even in the daytime. Indeed, drug pushers have become increasingly
daring, dangerous and, worse, openly defiant of the law. Hence, what matters is not the time and venue
of the sale, but the fact of agreement and the acts constituting sale and delivery
of the prohibited drugs.[27]
Accused-appellant also claims that the alleged buy-bust operation was
conducted without the authorization of or coordination with the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency (PDEA), in violation of Section 86 of Republic
Act No. 9165, which provides:
Section 86. Transfer,
Absorption, and Integration of All Operating Units on Illegal Drugs into the
PDEA and Transitory Provisions. The Narcotics Group of the PNP, the
Narcotics Division of the NBI and the Customs Narcotics Interdiction Unit are
hereby abolished; however they shall continue with the performance of their
task as detail service with the PDEA, subject to screening, until such time
that the organizational structure of the Agency is fully operational and the
number of graduates of the PDEA Academy is sufficient to do the task
themselves: Provided, That such
personnel who are affected shall have the option of either being integrated
into the PDEA or remain with their original mother agencies and shall,
thereafter, be immediately reassigned to other units therein by the head of
such agencies. Such personnel who are transferred, absorbed and integrated in
the PDEA shall be extended appointments to positions similar in rank, salary,
and other emoluments and privileges granted to their respective positions in
their original mother agencies.
The
transfer, absorption and integration of the different offices and units
provided for in this Section shall take effect within eighteen (18) months from
the effectivity of this Act: Provided,
That personnel absorbed and on detail service shall be given until five (5)
years to finally decide to join the PDEA.
Nothing
in this Act shall mean a diminution of the investigative powers of the NBI and
the PNP on all other crimes as provided for in their respective organic laws: Provided, however, That when the
investigation being conducted by the NBI, PNP or any ad hoc anti-drug task force is found to be a violation of any of
the provisions of this Act, the PDEA shall be the lead agency. The NBI, PNP or
any of the task force shall immediately transfer the same to the PDEA: Provided, further, That the NBI, PNP and the Bureau of Customs shall maintain close
coordination with the PDEA on all drug related matters. (Emphasis
supplied.)
Accused-appellants assertion has
no merit. This Court has already held
that the silence of the foregoing provision as to the consequences of the failure
on the part of the law enforcers to seek the prior authority of the PDEA cannot
be interpreted as a legislative intent to make an arrest without such PDEA
participation illegal or evidence obtained pursuant to such an arrest
inadmissible.[28]
The trial
court imposed the penalty of life imprisonment upon accused-appellant. While this penalty is within the period provided
for in Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, the same omitted the fine that
should likewise be imposed:
Section
5. Sale, Trading, Administration,
Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs
and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. - The penalty of life
imprisonment to death and a fine
ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00)
shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell,
trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute,
dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all
species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall
act as a broker in any of such transactions. (Emphasis added.)
Thus, the Court of Appeals correctly modified the penalty by including
therein a fine in the sum of P500,000.00.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00932 dated May 9, 2008 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
Chief Justice
Chairperson
|
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice
|
MARIANO C. Associate Justice
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate
Justice |
|
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-13; penned by Associate
Justice Edgardo P. Cruz with Associate Justices Rosmari D. Carandang and
Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr., concurring.
[2] Records,
p. 23.
[3] TSN,
October 1, 2002.
[4] TSN,
April 11, 2003, p. 6.
[5] Id.
at 5-6.
[6] TSN, October 1, 2002.
[7] TSN,
December 10, 2002, pp. 6-8; TSN, November 13, 2002, pp. 8-9; TSN, October 1, 2002,
p. 53.
[8] TSN,
October 1, 2002, p. 29.
[9] Id.
at 16-18.
[10] TSN,
January 7, 2003, pp. 2-16.
[11] TSN, January 14, 2004, pp. 4-5.
[12] Id.
at 21-22.
[13] Id. at 6-19.
[14] CA rollo, pp. 57-62.
[15] Id. at 62.
[16] Rollo, p. 12.
[17] CA rollo, p. 43.
[18] People v. Lolos, G.R. No. 189092, August 9, 2010, 627 SCRA 509, 516.
[19] Espinosa v. People, G.R. No. 181071, March 15, 2010, 615 SCRA 446, 454.
[20] People v. Tion, G.R. No. 172092, December 16, 2009, 608 SCRA 299, 316-317.
[21] Zalameda v. People, G.R. No. 183656, September 4, 2009, 598 SCRA 537, 556.
[22] People v. Araneta, G.R. No. 191064,
October 20, 2010, 634 SCRA 475, 482.
[23] TSN, October 1, 2002, pp. 15-17.
[24] Id. at 53-55.
[25] See
TSN, January 14, 2004, p. 10.
[26] G.R. No. 177237, October 17, 2008, 569 SCRA 711.
[27] Id. at 734.
[28] People v. Berdadero, G.R. No. 179710,
June 29, 2010, 622 SCRA 196, 207.