Republic of the
Supreme Court
FIRST
DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - ROSEMARIE MAGUNDAYAO y ALEJANDRO alias ROSE, Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 188132
Present: CORONA, C.J.,
Chairperson, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BERSAMIN, VILLARAMA, JR., and PERLAS-BERNABE,*
JJ. Promulgated: February
29, 2012 |
x-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
D E C I S I O N
LEONARDO DE CASTRO, J.:
For
review of the Court is the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals dated
December 19, 2008 in CA-G.R. CR. No. 02899, which affirmed the Joint Decision[2] dated June 27, 2007 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 267, in Criminal Case Nos. 14061-D
and 14062-D. In the said cases,
accused-appellant Rosemarie Magundayao y Alejandro alias Rose was found guilty
of the crimes of illegal sale and possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride,
more popularly known as shabu, under Sections
5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
On
April 18, 2005, two separate informations were filed against the
accused-appellant for violations of the provisions of Republic Act No. 9165.
In
Criminal Case No. 14061-D, the accused-appellant allegedly violated the first
paragraph of Section 5,[3] Article II of Republic Act
No. 9165 in the following manner:
That on or about
the 14th day of April, 2005, in the City of Taguig, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not
being authorized by law to sell any dangerous drug, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell, deliver and give away to a
poseur-buyer PO1 Rey B. Memoracion 0.08 gram of white crystalline substance
contained in one (1) heat-sealed transparent sachet, which substance was found
positive to the test for Methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug,
in violation of the above-cited law.[4]
The
accusatory portion of the second information pertaining to Criminal Case No.
14062-D for violation of Section 11,[5] Article II of the same
law, states:
That
on or about the 14th day of April, 2005, in the City of Taguig,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, not being authorized by law to possess or otherwise use
any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have
in her possession, custody and control 0.10 gram of white crystalline substance
contained in one (1) heat-sealed transparent sachet, which substance was found
positive to the test for Methylamphetamine hydrochloride or commonly known as
shabu, a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.[6]
Upon
her arraignment on May 23, 2005, the accused-appellant entered pleas of not
guilty to each of the charges. [7]
Thereafter,
joint trial of the cases ensued.[8]
The
prosecution called to the witnesses stand: (1) Police Officer III (PO3) Danilo
B. Arago and (2) Police Officer II (PO2) Rey B. Memoracion, both members of the
Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Force (SAID-SOTF) of the
Taguig City Police Station. On the other
hand, the defense presented the lone testimony of accused-appellant Rosemarie
Magundayao y Alejandro.
PO3 Danilo
B. Arago testified that on April 14, 2005, at around 5:30 p.m., he was at the
office of the SAID-SOTF when a reliable informant (pinagkakatiwalaang impormante) came in
and gave information about a certain alias Rose who was peddling illegal drugs,
particularly shabu, along P100 bills, and the latter signed the initials RBM on the
upper right hand of the bills. The team also
faxed a pre-coordination report to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
(PDEA).[12]
PO3
Arago related that the team then proceeded to the subject area and arrived
there at 8:30 p.m. They parked their
vehicle along
PO3
Arago stated that he thereafter ran to the place where PO2 Memoracion was
standing. The latter already effected
the arrest of the accused-appellant and ordered her to empty the contents of
her right front pocket. They saw another
plastic sachet, which they believed contained shabu, and the buy-bust money.
PO2 Memoracion told him to place the accused-appellant in handcuffs and
the former marked the evidence obtained.
PO3 Arago said that he was able to see the object of the buy-bust in the
custody of PO2 Memoracion, which was a small plastic sachet containing white
crystalline substance suspected as shabu. He was beside PO2 Memoracion while the latter
was marking the evidence. The marking
RAM-1 was placed at the plastic sachet subject of the buy-bust and the
marking RAM-2 was placed at the other plastic sachet that was also
confiscated from the accused-appellant.
PO3 Arago stated that he saw PO2 Memoracion take custody of the two
plastic sachets and brought the same to the police station. They then turned over the plastic sachets to
the crime laboratory. After the
accused-appellant was arrested, she was brought to the police station.[14]
PO2
Memoracion provided a similar picture of the events that allegedly transpired
in the afternoon of April 14, 2005. He
testified that, at that time, an informant indeed came to their office and told
them about a female individual who was selling illegal drugs at Bagumbayan
corner P100 bills, to the drug peddler. He stated that he was the one who placed the
markings on the money, writing thereon his initials RBM at
the upper right portion of the serial number.
The team submitted a pre-operation report to the PDEA and the latter
gave a certification of coordination. The plan was for the informant to assist him in
buying the illegal drugs from the drug peddler.
Should the sale be consummated, they will immediately arrest the said person. The pre-arranged signal for the arrest was
the act of him removing his cap.[15]
PO2 Memoracion narrated that, after
the preparations were completed, the team headed to Bagumbayan corner P200
worth of shabu. He handed to her the P200 marked money
and she accepted the same. She then
pulled out from her pocket one transparent plastic sachet containing white
crystalline powder and gave it to him.
After he received the plastic sachet, he made the pre-arranged signal of
removing his bull cap.[16]
PO2
Memoracion said that he afterwards saw PO3 Arago, followed by PO3 Reyes, coming
towards his location. He forthwith
informed the accused-appellant that he was a police officer and showed her his
ID. He told her not to run and that he
was arresting her for selling illegal drugs.
When he requested her to bring out the contents of her pocket, she
brought out another plastic sachet with suspected shabu and the buy-bust money, which he both confiscated. He then put markings on the two plastic
sachets. He put therein the initials of
the accused, RAM. The shabu subject of the sale was marked as RAM-1
and the other sachet was marked as RAM-2.
He also appraised the accused-appellant of her constitutional rights. At the scene of the crime, he prepared an
inventory of the items seized, which he and the accused-appellant signed. The accused-appellant was taken to the police
station, along with the plastic sachets and the marked money. Thereafter, the accused-appellant and the
seized items were turned over to the investigator, SPO2 Armando Cay. The police subsequently prepared a request
for laboratory examination. PO2
Memoracion then delivered the request and the suspected drug specimen to the
crime laboratory. The specimen yielded a
positive result for methylamphetamine
hydrochloride.[17] Chemistry Report No. D-234-05 stated thus:
SPECIMEN
SUBMITTED:
Two (2)
heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets each containing white crystalline
substance having the following markings and recorded net weight:
A (RAM-1) = 0.08 gram
B (RAM-2) = 0.10 gram
x x x x
PURPOSE OF
LABORATORY EXAMINATION:
To determine the presence of dangerous
drugs. x x x.
FINDINGS:
Qualitative examination conducted on
the above-stated specimens gave POSITIVE result to the test for
Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. x x x.
CONCLUSION:
Specimen A and B contain
Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.[18]
The
prosecution thereafter adduced the following documentary evidence: (1) Pinagsamang Salaysay ng Pag-aresto at
Paghaharap ng Reklamo o Demanda (Exhibit A);[19]
(2) Request for Laboratory Examination of the specimen suspected to be shabu (Exhibit B);[20]
(3) Initial Laboratory Report, stating that the specimen submitted for
examination tested positive for methylamphetamine
hydrochloride (Exhibit C);[21]
(4) Request for Physical Examination of the accused-appellant;[22]
(5) Request for Drug Test of the accused-appellant;[23]
(6) Physical Examination Report;[24]
(7) Certificate of Inventory (Exhibit G);[25]
(8) Booking and Information Sheet;[26]
(9) Pre-Operation Report/Coordination Sheet (Exhibit I);[27]
(10) Certificate of Coordination (Exhibit J);[28]
(11) Photocopy of the buy-bust money (Exhibit K);[29]
and (12) Chemistry Report No. D-234-05, stating that the specimen submitted for
examination yielded a positive result for methylamphetamine
hydrochloride (Exhibit L).[30]
The
testimony of Police Inspector Alejandro de Guzman, the forensic chemist who examined
the specimen seized from the accused-appellant, was dispensed with by the
parties. The counsel for the
accused-appellant agreed to stipulate that De Guzman indeed examined the
specimen upon the request of the police and, after the requisite examination,
found it positive to the test of methylamphetamine
hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. The
findings were reflected in Chemistry Report No. D-234-05, which was prepared under
oath by De Guzman and approved by his immediate supervisor Police Chief Inspector
Grace M. Eustaquio. The defense counsel
also stipulated that if De Guzman were to be presented as a witness, the latter
would testify to the fact that he turned over to the counsel for the prosecution
the drug specimen and he could identify the same if shown to him. On the other hand, the prosecution stipulated
that the forensic chemist had no personal knowledge from whom the specimen was
taken and under what circumstances the specimen was taken.[31]
Expectedly,
the defense presented an entirely different version of the facts. The accused-appellant claimed that she was
framed by the police.
The
accused-appellant testified that on April 14, 2005, she was at her house at 188
Pazzo Street, Bagong Bayan, Taguig, Metro Manila. At around 6:00 p.m., she was resting when the
door of their house was suddenly opened by five unidentified male persons. They did not introduce themselves to her. They told her that they were looking for a
certain alias Luga but she told the men that she did not know this person. They then ransacked her house for about ten
to fifteen minutes. The men were not
able to find any illegal items at her house and they afterwards brought the
accused-appellant to the Tuktukan jail.
There, the men allegedly asked money from her before they could allow
her to go home. She stated that it was
PO2 Memoracion who tried to extort money from her. Since she did not owe them any debt, she
refused to give them any money.
Afterwards, she was subjected to inquest proceedings. When she was brought to the Tuktukan jail,
she was not shown the evidence that were supposedly taken from her. The accused-appellant further alleged that,
on the afternoon of April 14, 2005, she did not even go out of her house.[32]
The defense formally rested its case
without the presentation of any documentary evidence for the accused-appellant.[33]
On June 27, 2007, the RTC rendered a
Joint Decision, finding the accused-appellant guilty of the offenses charged. The pertinent portions of the judgment
states:
The substance of the prosecutions
evidence is to the effect that accused Rosemarie Magundayao y Alejandro alias
Rose was arrested by the police because of the existence of shabu [s]he sold to PO2 Rey B.
Memoracion as well as the recovery of the buy-bust money from [her] possession,
and the presence of another plastic sachet containing shabu that was also recovered from her person.
To emphasize, the prosecution
witnesses in the person of PO2 Rey B. Memoracion and PO3 Danilo B. Arago positively
identified accused Rosemarie Magundayao y Alejandro alias Rose as the person
they apprehended on April 14, 2005 at
The buy-bust money recovered by the
arresting police officers from the possession of accused Rosemarie Magundayao y
Alejandro alias Rose as well as the shabu
they were able to purchase from the accused sufficiently constitute as the very
corpus delicti of the crime of
Violation of Section 5, 1st paragraph, Article II of Republic Act No.
9165, and the other plastic sachet containing shabu that was recovered from the same accused Magundayao similarly
constitute as the corpus delicti of
the crime of Violation of Section 11, 2nd paragraph, No. 3, Article
II of Republic Act No. 9165. x x x.
The testimony of PO2 Rey B.
Memoracion that was corroborated by PO3 Danilo B. Arago, who have not shown and
displayed any ill motive to arrest the accused, is sufficient enough to convict
the accused of the crimes charged against him. x x x.[34]
As to the defense put
forward by the accused-appellant, the trial court declared that:
Such allegation of the accused that
her apprehension was just a result of a frame-up, as she was not really engaged
in peddling shabu when she was
arrested, cannot be given credence because she was not able to offer and show
proof of any previous disagreement between her and the arresting law enforcers
that may lead the police officers to concoct and hatch baseless accusations
against her, or the presence of any other circumstances that may have fired up
the ire of the police officers against her. x x x.
x x x x
Moreover, there is no evidence in
the record that when the accused was brought to the Inquest Prosecutor for the
requisite inquest of the charge against the accused, the latter never
complained to the Inquest Prosecutor of the framing-up brazenly perpetrated
by the policemen or by the police investigator.
If indeed, the accused complained to the Inquest Prosecutor, surely, the
same could have appropriately acted upon it.
x x x x
To wrap up, the testimonial evidence
presented by the prosecution is sufficient to convict accused Rosemarie
Magundayao y Alejandro alias Rose. There
can be no other prudent conclusion that can be deduced from the circumstances
present in the instant cases. The
evidence presented by the prosecution leads only to one fair and reasonable
conclusion that accused Rosemarie Magundayao y Alejandro alias Rose is guilty
of the offenses charged.[35]
The
RTC, thus, decreed:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing
considerations, the Court finds accused ROSEMARIE MAGUNDAYAO y Alejandro alias
Rose in Criminal Case No. 14061-D for
Violation of Section 5, 1st paragraph, Article II of Republic Act
No. 9165, otherwise known as The Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002, GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, accused
Rosemarie Magundayao y Alejandro alias Rose is hereby sentenced to suffer LIFE
IMPRISONMENT and ordered to pay a fine of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS
(PhP500,000.00).
Moreover, accused ROSEMARIE
MAGUNDAYAO y Alejandro alias Rose is also found GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt in Criminal Case No. 14062-D
for Violation of Section 11, 2nd paragraph, No. 3, Article II of
Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as The Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002. And since the quantity of methylamphetamine
hydrochloride (shabu) found in the
possession of the accused is only 0.10 gram, accused Rosemarie Magundayao y
Alejandro alias Rose is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment ranging from TWELVE
(12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY as minimum to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS and TWENTY[-]ONE
(21) DAYS as maximum. Accused
Rosemarie Magundayao y Alejandro alias Rose is further penalized to pay a fine
in the amount of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (PhP300,000.00).
Accordingly, the Jail Warden of the
Taguig City Jail where accused Rosemarie Magundayao y Alejandro alias Rose is
presently detained is hereby ordered to forthwith commit the person of
convicted Rosemarie Magundayao y Alejandro alias Rose to the Correctional Institution
for Women (CIW), Bureau of Corrections in Mandaluyong City, Metro Manila.
Upon the other hand, the shabu contained in two (2) heat-sealed
transparent plastic sachets with a total weight of 0.18 gram which are the
subject matter of the above-captioned cases, are hereby ordered transmitted
and/or submitted to the custody of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
(PDEA) subject and/or pursuant to existing Rules and Regulations promulgated
thereto for its proper disposition.
Costs de oficio.[36]
On July 17, 2007, the
accused-appellant filed a Notice of Appeal,[37]
which the RTC gave due course to in an Order[38]
dated July 27, 2007.
On December 19, 2008, the Court of
Appeals found no merit in the appeal of the accused-appellant and disposed of
the same, thus:
Wherefore,
premises considered, the instant appeal is denied for lack of merit, and
accordingly, the assailed June 27, 2007 Joint Decision of the trial court
convicting Rosemarie Magundayao of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II
of R.A. No. 9165, including the penalties imposed against her, is hereby
affirmed in toto.[39]
The Court of Appeals found no
compelling reason to overturn the verdict of guilt imposed by the trial court
upon the accused-appellant. The
appellate court upheld the ruling of the RTC that the evidence of the
prosecution clearly established the concurrence of all the elements of the
crimes of illegal sale and possession of prohibited drugs. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses
proved the fact that a buy-bust operation was conducted by the police, which
resulted in the apprehension of the accused-appellant after she was caught in flagrante delicto in the act of
selling shabu and possessing another
sachet thereof. The appellate court
likewise rejected the accused-appellants contention that she was a victim of a
frame-up since there was no evidence of any ill or improper motive on the part
of the police that would have impelled the latter to fabricate grave charges
against the accused-appellant.
Furthermore, the Court of Appeals disregarded the allegation of the
accused-appellant that the non-compliance with the provisions of Section 21(1)[40]
of Republic Act No. 9165 on the part of the police was fatal to the
prosecutions case. Citing People v. Pringas,[41]
the appellate court held that [f]ailure to comply with Section 21 of R.A. No.
9165 will not render the arrest of the accused illegal, nor will it result to
the inadmissibility in evidence against the accused of the illegal drugs seized
in the course of the entrapment. What is
of utmost relevance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value
of the confiscated illegal drugs, for in the end, the same would be the thrust
that shall determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.
The accused-appellant assailed the
above judgment of the Court of Appeals via
the instant appeal before this Court.[42]
In a Resolution[43]
dated July 20, 2009, we required the
parties to file their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desired,
within 30 days from notice. The parties
filed their respective manifestations, stating that they will no longer file
any supplemental brief.[44]
Asserting
her innocence, the accused-appellant avers that:
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING
[HER] WHOSE GUILT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.[45]
The
accused-appellant claims that there exist in the records of the case certain
facts and circumstances that makes doubtful the prosecutions version of
events. She pointed to the allegedly
contradictory statements in the testimonies of PO3 Arago and PO2 Memoracion as
to how their team leader, P/Chief Insp. Paat, received the information disclosed
by the informant. Specifically, PO2
Memoracion testified that the informant himself talked to P/Chief Insp.
Paat. PO3 Arago, however, stated in his
testimony that the information was first given to the other members of their
team and the same was thereafter relayed to P/Chief Insp. Paat.
The
accused-appellant also argues that the inventory of the items seized from the
accused-appellant lacked the requisite signatures of a representative of the
media, the Department of Justice or any elected public official. This procedural lapse was allegedly not
explained adequately by the witnesses of the prosecution. In like manner, the police did not photograph
the confiscated items in the presence of the above-enumerated individuals. These procedural lapses, the
accused-appellant posits, violated the provisions of Section 21(1) of Republic
Act No. 9165, thus proving that the police failed to perform their duty
properly. Accordingly, in praying for
her acquittal, the accused-appellant submits that the presumption of regularity
in the performance of official functions cannot be invoked as a basis for her
conviction given the presence of facts and circumstances tending to negate said
presumption. She concludes that the
presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions cannot
preponderate over the presumption of innocence that prevails if not overthrown
by proof beyond reasonable doubt.[46]
The denial of the appeal is in order.
In People
v. Santos,[47]
the Court ruled as follows:
Fundamental is
the principle that findings of the trial courts which are factual in nature and
which involve the credibility of witnesses are accorded respect when no glaring
errors; gross misapprehension of facts; and 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.[48]
After a thorough review of the records of this
case, we hold that the factual findings and conclusions of the trial court,
which were upheld by the appellate court, are fully supported by the evidence.
The pronouncement in People v. Padasin[49]
quoted below is relevant to the case at bar:
Appellant
rightly argues that the presumption of regularity in the performance of
official duty by law enforcement agents should not by itself prevail over the
presumption of innocence. In fact it is
on this premise that we have laid down the objective test in scrutinizing
buy-bust operations. In People v. Doria, we said:
We
therefore stress that the objective
test in buy-bust operations demands that the details of the purported
transaction must be clearly and adequately shown. This must start from the
initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase,
the promise or payment of the consideration until the consummation of the sale
by the delivery of the illegal drug subject of the sale. The manner by
which the initial contact was made, whether or not through an informant, the
offer to purchase the drug, the payment of the buy-bust money, and the
delivery of the illegal drug, whether to the informant alone or the police
officer, must be the subject of strict scrutiny by courts to insure that
law-abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced to commit an offense.[50] (Emphasis ours.)
In
consonance with the above-stated objective test, the testimony of PO2
Memoracion duly established that the members of the SAID-SOTF of the Taguig
City Police Station properly performed their duties in the conduct of the buy-bust
operation on April 14, 2005. The
testimony of PO2 Memoracion, which was corroborated by the testimony of PO3 Arago,
stated in great detail how his team carried out the buy-bust as follows:
PROSEC.
SANTOS: Was there any incident that
transpired which has relation to your work as [a] drug enforcement officer
during that particular day April 14, 2005?
A: Yes, sir.
PROSEC.
A: A reliable informant in the afternoon of
April 14 came to our office and informed [us] regarding a female individual who
was selling illegal drug at Bagong Bayan corner Paso Street, Taguig City.
PROSEC.
SANTOS: To whom did that informant
talked (sic) during that time?
A: To our chief, sir, P/Chief Insp. Romeo
Paat, sir.
PROSEC.
A: He has a plan, sir, to conduct possible
buy-bust operation, sir during that time.
PROSEC.
A: PO3 Antonio Reyes, PO3 Danilo Arago,
P/Chief Insp. Romeo Paat, reliable informant and I, sir.
PROSEC.
A: To act as the poseur-buyer.
PROSEC. SANTOS:
How about the others, what were [their] assignment?
A: Back up, sir.
PROSEC. SANTOS:
Now, you were assigned as the poseur-buyer in this particular case, was there
anything that you had to buy whatever you want from this alias Rose during that
time?
A: The marked money, sir consisting of two
(2) pieces of one hundred peso bill.
PROSEC.
A: I was the one who put the markings on the
money, sir.
PROSEC. SANTOS:
What kind of markings did you place on this money?
A: My initial, sir, RBM.
PROSEC. SANTOS:
Where was your initial placed on the money?
A: At the upper right portion of the serial
number, sir.
PROSEC.
A: We also prepare[d] the pre-operation
report and the blotter as well as the photocopy of the genuine money and then
the scissor, the masking tape and ballpen, sir.
x x x x
PROSEC. SANTOS:
This pre-operation report is addressed to PDEA, do you know what action did the
PDEA take regarding your pre-operation report?
A: They received our pre-operation report
and simultaneously gave the coordination sheet, sir.
x x x x
PROSEC. SANTOS:
What else was done or plan[ned] regarding this buy-bust operation specially you
designated as the poseur-buyer?
A: We plan that the reliable informant
assisted (sic) me to buy suspected shabu from the accused during that time,
sir.
x x x x
PROSEC.
A: PO3 Antonio Reyes and PO3 Danilo Arago,
sir.
PROSEC.
A: We proceeded to the area, sir.
PROSEC.
A: Bagong Bayan corner
x x x x
PROSEC.
A: The informant and I walk[ed], the back up
members were following us together with the team leader. When the informant saw the accused alias
Rose, they talked and I was introduced as his [friend], that I wanted to buy
shabu.
PROSEC.
A: The informant uttered, Rose, kaibigan
ko, galing probinsya, iiskor ng shabu sayo.
x x x x
PROSEC.
A: None, sir, she just ask[ed] me how much
will I buy.
x x x x
PROSEC.
A: I uttered, dalawang-daan lang.
PROSEC.
A: None, sir, after that, I handed to her
the two hundred pesos.
PROSEC.
A: To the accused, sir.
PROSEC.
A: Yes, sir.
PROSEC.
A: She pulled out from her pocket the one
(1) transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance, and then
she gave it to me, sir.
x x x x
PROSEC.
A: Yes, sir.
PROSEC.
A: I made the pre-arranged signal, sir.
PROSEC.
A: I remove[d] my bullcap, sir.
PROSEC.
A: I saw PO3 Arago followed by PO3 Reyes
coming, I informed alias Rose that I was a policeman and showed her my ID, sir.
PROSEC.
A: I told her not to run, Im a police
officer, I am arresting her for selling illegal drug.
x x x x
PROSEC.
A: I requested her to bring out the contents
of her pocket and the buy-bust money.
PROSEC.
A: Yes, sir.
PROSEC.
A: There was another plastic sachet with
suspected shabu and the buy-bust money, and I confiscated those items.
PROSEC.
A: I put markings on the two (2) plastic
sachets, a suspected shabu.
PROSEC. SANTOS: Nothing more that was done in the very place
where you bought the shabu, confiscated another one and arrested the accused,
was there anything more that was done?
A: I apprise[d] her of her constitutional
rights, sir.
x x x x
PROSEC.
A: I marked the shabu that I bought at the
area, sir.
x x x x
COURT: What about the shabu that you saw?
A: I also marked it, Your Honor.
COURT: After you have marked these items, what
document did you prepare?
A: The request, Your Honor.
x x x x
COURT: After marking, after apprising her, what
else?
A: I placed the recovered items in a plastic
containing suspected shabu and I was holding the buy-bust money and we boarded
Rose in our car.[51]
Clearly gleaned from the above
testimony are the details relating to the initial contact between PO2 Memoracion
and the accused-appellant; the said police officers offer to purchase; the statement
of the amount he was willing to pay; and the consummation of the sale by the
accused-appellants delivery of the shabu
to PO2 Memoracion. On this matter, our
ruling in People v. Agulay[52]
dictates that [a]bsent any proof of motive to falsely accuse [the
accused-appellant] of such a grave offense, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official
duty and the findings of the trial court with respect to the credibility of
witnesses shall prevail over that of the accused-appellant.
In seeking exculpation from the above
charges, the accused-appellant invoked the defense that she was framed by the
police. The Court, however, is not
convinced. We reiterated in People v. Hernandez[53]
that [i]n order to prosper, the defense of denial and frame-up must be proved
with strong and convincing evidence.
In
the instant case, the accused-appellant impugned the prosecutions assertion
that she was arrested after a buy-bust operation was undertaken by the SAID-SOTF operatives. Instead, she claimed that the police merely
barged into her house, forcibly took her to the Tuktukan jail and tried to
extort money from her. Her refusal to
give in to the police officers demand allegedly brought about the filing of
the drugs charges against her. The Court
notes, however, that the accused-appellants contention was without any
corroborative evidence whatsoever.
Neither did she offer any proof to substantiate her allegation of
extortion against the apprehending officers.
The accused-appellant even admitted that, prior to her arrest, she did
not know any of the police officers who arrested her. Moreover, she stated that she did not know of
any reason why the police officers would file a case against her if the same
were not true.[54] Consequently, the accused-appellants claim
of frame-up cannot prevail over the affirmative testimony and the positive
identification made by the witnesses for the prosecution. Hence, the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duties on the part of the police officers in this case
stands.
Anent the offenses charged against the
accused-appellant, the RTC and the Court of Appeals adjudged her guilty of the crimes
of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs.
It
was held in People v. Hernandez[55]
that [t]o secure a conviction for illegal
sale of shabu, the following essential elements must be
established: (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 thereof. People v. Naquita[56]
further adds that [w]hat is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of
dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place,
coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.
The above elements have been
sufficiently established by the prosecution.
PO2 Memoracion was the poseur-buyer and he identified the
accused-appellant as the seller. The
object of the sale was the sachet containing eight centigrams (0.08 grams) of shabu, which bore the marking RAM-1, and
the consideration paid by the poseur-buyer therefor consisted of the P200
marked money. PO2 Memoracion also categorically
stated that the object of the sale was in fact handed to him by the
accused-appellant after he gave her the marked money.
As to the charge of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, People v. Lazaro, Jr.[57]
provides that the elements thereof are: (1) the accused is in possession of an
item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession
is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed
the said drug. That the
accused-appellant knowingly carried the illegal drug shabu without authority was likewise proven in this case. PO3 Arago and PO2 Memoracion both testified
to the fact that after the latter effected the arrest of the accused-appellant,
she was ordered to empty her pocket.
When she did so, she produced another plastic sachet, which PO2
Memoracion marked as RAM-2. The
chemistry report of the forensic chemist P/Insp. De Guzman confirmed that the
said sachet contained ten decigrams (0.10 grams) of shabu.
As
regards the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of PO2 Memoracion and
PO3 Arago, the Court finds the same unpersuasive. People
v. Lazaro[58] states
that [f]or a discrepancy or inconsistency in the testimony of a witness to
serve as basis for acquittal, it must refer to the significant facts vital to
the guilt or innocence of the accused for the crime charged. An inconsistency which has nothing to do with
the elements of the crime cannot be a ground for the acquittal of the accused.
We
quote with approval the following discussion of the Court of Appeals on the
matter:
Whether the
information regarding the identity and illegal drugs activities of Rosemarie
was relayed directly to P/Chief Inspector Romeo Paat, or the tip was otherwise
given initially to some inferior police personnel at the station who thereafter
informed their station chief is a trivial and inconsequential matter. What is of utmost importance was the undisputed
fact that a trusted civilian informant volunteered a tip to the police
authorities, and finding the information reliable, the tip became the basis for
the police to plan an entrapment operation which, true enough, paved the way to
the eventual apprehension of Rosemarie who was caught in flagrante delicto in the act of selling a sachet of shabu, and
subsequently, after further search, for possession of another sachet of the
same prohibited drug.[59]
The
Court likewise finds untenable the contention of the accused-appellant that since
the provisions of Section 21(1), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 were not
strictly complied with, the police officers failed to properly perform their
duties.
Section
21(1), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 reads:
SEC. 21. Custody
and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs,
Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential
Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. - The
PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources
of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized
and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(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[.]
On
the other hand, Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing
Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165, which implements said provision,
stipulates:
(a) The apprehending officer/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: x
x x 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.)
In
People v. Padua,[60]
the Court stated that [c]learly, the purpose of the procedure outlined in the
implementing rules is centered on the preservation of the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items.
Furthermore, we reiterated in People
v. Naquita[61] that
[n]either would non-compliance with Section 21 render an accused's arrest
illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the
preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as
the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of
the accused.
In
the case before us, the chain of custody of the drugs subject matter of the
case, along with the marked money used in the buy-bust, was shown to have been
preserved. The relevant portions of the
testimony of PO2 Memoracion are as follows:
COURT:
At the scene of the crime? May dokumento ba kayong ginagawa?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
COURT: Anong papel yun?
A: Yung inventory po, Your Honor.
PROSEC.
A: I, sir.
x x x x
PROSEC. SANTOS: At the bottom portion of this document, is the
name of the suspect, representative and a purported signature above the name
Rosemarie Magundayao y Alejandro, do you know whose signature is that?
A: Its the signature of Rosemarie, the
accused.
x x x x
PROSEC.
A: We went back to our office, sir.
PROSEC.
A: She was with us, sir.
PROSEC.
A: Its with me, sir.
PROSEC.
A: Its with me, sir.
PROSEC.
A: She was turn[ed] over to the investigator
on case, sir.
x x x x
PROSEC.
A: The two (2) plastic sachets containing
suspected shabu and the buy-bust money.
PROSEC.
A: SPO2 Armando Cay, sir.
PROSEC.
A: We prepare[d] the request for laboratory
examination.
PROSEC.
A: [In front] of us, sir.
x x x x
PROSEC.
A: I, sir.
x x x x
PROSEC.
A: Yes, sir.
PROSEC.
A: It gave positive result to the test of
methylamphetamine hydrochloride.
x x x x
PROSEC.
A: The initial of the accused RAM, sir.
PROSEC.
A: RAM-1 and RAM-2, sir.
PROSEC.
A: Subject of sale, sir.
x x x x
PROSEC.
A: It was turn[ed] over, sir, during the
inquest it was submitted.[62]
The
above statements of PO2 Memoracion were corroborated by the testimony of PO3
Arago, who testified that he saw the former take custody of the two plastic
sachets seized during the buy-bust operation and the said items were turned
over to the crime laboratory.[63] Moreover, the Request for Laboratory
Examination (Exhibit B)[64]
issued by the office of SAID-SOTF of the Taguig City Police Station on April
14, 2005 reflected that the fact that the same was delivered to the crime
laboratory by PO2 Memoracion on even date at 10:00 p.m.
In
fine, the evidence for the prosecution established that during a buy-bust operation,
the accused-appellant was caught in
flagrante delicto in the act of selling a plastic sachet of shabu to a police officer, who acted as
a poseur-buyer, and was thereafter caught in possession of another sachet of shabu. Thus, the guilt of the accused-appellant of
the crimes charged had been proven in the instant case beyond reasonable doubt.
Under
Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the crime of unauthorized sale
of shabu, regardless of the quantity
and purity thereof, is punishable with life imprisonment to death and a fine
ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million
pesos (P10,000,000.00).
Hence, the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 was
correctly imposed by the RTC and the Court of Appeals on the accused-appellant
Rosemarie Magundayao y Alejandro for
illegal sale of shabu.
On
the other hand, in accordance with Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No.
9165, the crime of illegal possession of less than five (5) grams of shabu is penalized with imprisonment of
twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from
Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand
pesos (P400,000.00). Thus, the RTC
and the Court of Appeals properly penalized the accused-appellant Rosemarie
Magundayao y Alejandro with
imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14)
years and twenty-one (21) days, as maximum, as well as a fine of P300,000.00,
since the said penalties are within the range of penalties prescribed by the
above provision.
WHEREFORE,
the appeal is DENIED. The
Decision of the Court of Appeals dated December 19, 2008 in CA-G.R. CR.
No. 02899, which affirmed the Joint Decision dated June 27, 2007 of the
Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 267, in Criminal Case Nos. 14061-D
and 14062-D, is hereby AFFIRMED. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
Chief Justice
Chairperson
|
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice
|
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE Associate Justice |
|
* Per Special Order No. 1207 dated February 23, 2012.
[1] CA rollo, pp. 93-109; penned by Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang with Associate Justices Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. and Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo, concurring.
[2] Id. at 9-19; penned by Judge Florito S. Macalino.
[3] SEC.
5. 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.
[4] Records, p. 1.
[5] SEC.
11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. x x x
x x x x
(3)
Imprisonment of twelve (12)
years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three
hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00),
if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of opium,
morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or
marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu," or
other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy,"
PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and
their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity
possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or less than three hundred
(300) grams of marijuana.
[6] Records, pp. 3-4.
[7] Id. at 28.
[8] The prosecution moved for a joint trial on November 22, 2006 and the same was ordered by the RTC on even date. (TSN, November 22, 2006.)
[9] Also referred to as Pazzo Street and Bagong Bayan, respectively, in other parts of the records.
[10] Records, pp. 52-53.
[11] In the testimony of PO3 Arago (Records, pp. 50-68), PO2 Rey B. Memoracion was referred to as PO1 Memoracion.
[12] Records, pp. 53-56.
[13] Id. at 56-58.
[14] Id. at 59-62.
[15] TSN, November 22, 2006, pp. 5-9.
[16] Id. at 10-13.
[17] Id. at 13-22.
[18] Records, p. 141.
[19] Id. at 131-132.
[20] Id. at 133.
[21] Id. at 134.
[22] Id. at 136.
[23] Id. at 135.
[24] Id. at 13.
[25] Id. at 137.
[26] Id. at 15.
[27] Id. at 138.
[28] Id. at 139.
[29] Id. at 140.
[30] Id. at 141.
[31] TSN, March 12, 2007, pp. 3-5.
[32] Id. at 10-16.
[33] Records, p. 149.
[34] Id. at 213-214.
[35] Id. at 214-215.
[36] Id. at 215-216.
[37] Id. at 219.
[38] Id. at 220.
[39] CA rollo, p. 108.
[40] SEC.
21. Custody and
Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant
Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals,
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. - The PDEA shall
take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous
drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized
and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(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.
[41] G.R. No. 175928, August 31, 2007, 531 SCRA 828.
[42] Rollo, pp. 19-21.
[43] Id. at 24-25.
[44] Id. at 26-30, 33-36.
[45] CA rollo, p. 44.
[46] Id. at 48.
[47] G.R. No. 176735, June 26, 2008, 555 SCRA 578.
[48] Id. at 592.
[49] 445 Phil. 448 (2003).
[50] Id. at 456.
[51] TSN, November 22, 2006, pp. 4-16.
[52] G.R. No. 181747, September 26, 2008, 566 SCRA 571, 599.
[53] G.R. No. 184804, June 18, 2009, 589 SCRA 625, 642.
[54] TSN, March 12, 2007, p. 18.
[55] Supra note 53 at 635.
[56] G.R. No. 180511, July 28, 2008, 560 SCRA 430, 449.
[57] G.R. No. 186418, October 16, 2009, 604 SCRA 250, 267.
[58] Id. at 272.
[59] CA rollo, p. 102.
[60] G.R. No. 174097, July 21, 2010, 625 SCRA 220, 233.
[61] Supra note 56 at 448.
[62] TSN, November 22, 2006, pp. 17-25.
[63] Records, p. 62.
[64] Id. at 133.