Republic
of the
Supreme
Court
FIRST DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - MARCOS SABADLAB y NARCISO @ Bong Pango, Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 186392 Present: Chairperson, LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, BERSAMIN, DEL
CASTILLO, and VILLARAMA,
JR., JJ. Promulgated: January
18, 2012 |
x-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, J.:
This is an
appeal assailing the Decision[1]
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 02690 dated July 31, 2008,
which affirmed the Decision[2]
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati convicting accused-appellant Marcos
Sabadlab y Narciso of violation of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as
the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
On September 22, 2006,
accused-appellant was charged with violation of Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act
No. 9165, as follows:
CRIMINAL
CASE NO. 06-1837:
The
undersigned Prosecutor accuses MARCOS SABADLAB y NARCISO @ BONG PANGO of the
crime of Violation of Section 5 of R.A. 9165, committed as follows:
That on
or about the 21st day of September, 2006, in the City of Makati, Philippines
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without
being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously sell, distribute and transport Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride,
weighing zero point zero two (0.02) gram, which is a dangerous drug, in
consideration of five hundred [sic] (Php300.00) pesos, in violation of the
above-cited law.[3]
CRIMINAL
CASE NO. 06-1838:
The
undersigned Prosecutor accuses MARCOS SABADLAB y NARCISO @ BONG PANGO of the
crime of Violation of Section 11 of R.A. 9165, committed as follows:
That on
or about the 21st day of September, 2006, in the City of Makati, Philippines
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
not being lawfully authorized to possess or otherwise use any dangerous drug and
without the corresponding license or prescription, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, direct custody
and control Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu) weighing zero point zero
two (0.02) gram, which is a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited
law.[4]
Trial ensued, during which the prosecution presented Police Officer (PO) 3
Eusebio Lowaton, Jr. (PO3 Lowaton) and Makati Anti-Drug Abuse Council (MADAC)
Operative Miguel Castillo (MADAC Castillo).
PO3 Lowaton, a police officer in the Makati Central Police Station assigned
to the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs-Special Operation Task Force (SAID-SOTF),
testified that at around 9:00 a.m. on September 21, 2006, an informant came to
their office, together with operatives from the MADAC. The informant and the operatives reported
that a certain Bong was engaged in delivering and selling shabu.
The informant told PO3 Lowaton that he personally bought shabu from said Bong. The SAID-SOTF officers went through their
records and learned that said Bong had a previous record related to illegal
drug activities. SAID-SOTF coordinated
with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) through fax by sending a Pre-operational
Report/Coordination Sheet, stating that it received information that one
Narciso Sabadlab is engaged in illegal drug trade.[5] PDEA, in turn, sent SAID-SOTF a Certificate
of Coordination[6]
for an operation in Dapitan Street, Bgy. Guadalupe Nuevo, Makati City, with one
Narciso Sabadlab as target. [7] A team composed of PO3 Lowaton and three
other police officers, some MADAC operatives, and the informant, was formed to
conduct a buy-bust operation. In
preparation, the team leader marked three one hundred-peso bills to be used in
the operation with the initials ATS, standing for Angel T. Sumulong.[8]
Before alighting at the area of the operation at Dapitan Street,
Guadalupe Nuevo, Makati City, the informant told PO3 Lowaton that the person
standing at the corner was their subject.
The informant introduced PO3 Lowaton to accused-appellant as the
buyer. The accused-appellant, who was
carrying his son at the time,[9]
asked PO3 Lowaton how much he was going to buy.
PO3 Lowaton replied that he will buy P300.00 worth. The accused-appellant took a plastic sachet
from his pocket and gave it to PO3 Lowaton.
PO3 Lowaton handed P300.00 to accused-appellant. PO3 Lowaton reversed his cap to signal the
completion of the transaction. He
thereafter introduced himself as a police officer, arrested the
accused-appellant, and informed him of his constitutional rights and nature of his
arrest.[10]
PO3 Lowaton instructed his back-up MADAC personnel to conduct a body
search on the accused-appellant. The P300
in marked money and another plastic sachet was recovered from the
accused-appellant. PO3 Lowaton marked
the sachet sold to him and the one recovered from the accused-appellant with
EBL-1 and EBL-2, respectively.[11]
The accused-appellant was then brought to SAID-SOTF, while the two plastic
sachets were turned over to the Scene of the Crime Operation (SOCO) for
laboratory examination. PO3 Lowaton
prepared an Acknowledgment Receipt[12]
turning over the two plastic sachets, the marked money and another P60
recovered from accused-appellant to a certain PO2 Castillo.[13] The sachets marked EBL-1 and EBL-2 were
forwarded to the PNP Crime Laboratory for laboratory examination.[14] Forensic Chemist Police Senior Inspector
Abraham Verde Tecson prepared Physical Science Report No. D0649-06S reporting
his finding that EBL-1 and EBL-2, each weighing 0.02 grams, gave positive
results for methylamphetamine hydrochloride.[15] This report was admitted with no objection
from the defense.[16]
MADAC Castillo, another member of the team that conducted the buy-bust
operation, corroborated the testimony of PO3 Lowaton. MADAC Castillo testified that he, together
with certain persons named PO3 Ruiz, PO2 Julius Lique, MADAC Dezer, MADAC
Balote and MADAC Ruben Salandanan, acted as back-ups of PO3 Lowaton in the
operation, which was led by a certain female police officer called Waje.[17] PO3 Lowaton acted as the poseur-buyer. While he was still around 20-25 meters away
from the scene of the crime, MADAC Castillo observed that there was an
exchange of something. MADAC Castillo then
saw PO3 Lowaton reversing his cap, so he went near the place of transaction,
where he was ordered by PO3 Lowaton to conduct a body search on the
accused-appellant. MADAC Castillo told
accused-appellant to empty his pocket.
When the accused-appellant refused to do so, MADAC Castillo frisked him
and recovered a plastic sachet, the marked money worth P300.00 (three P100
bills), and another P60.00 (three P20 bills) in his front right
pocket.[18]
Only the accused-appellant testified for the defense. According to the accused-appellant, he was
arrested on September 21, 2006 by PO3 Lowaton and his men in front of his house
in Dapitan Street, Guadalupe Nuevo, Makati City. He was with his three children at this time,
the eldest of which was five years old. Eight
to ten men in civilian clothes alighted from their vehicle and were looking for
a certain Minyong. When he told them
that he does not know said person, they started to force him to go with
them. He asked them why they were taking
him, but they did not reply and instead brought him to the SAID-SOTF
office. In said office, he learned that
he was being charged for drug peddling.
He was forced to give a urine sample and was thereafter brought to the
Ospital ng Makati.[19]
The accused-appellant testified that PO3 Lowaton had already previously
arrested him and three others for playing cara
y cruz on September 16, 2006 and was released when he paid PO3 Lowaton a
total of P2,000.00. The
accused-appellant denied the charges against him. His brother, Reymundo Sabadlab, his sister,
Myrna Capco, and his wife, Edna Militar, are all undergoing trial for
drug-related offenses.[20]
On December 8, 2006, the RTC rendered its Decision finding
accused-appellant guilty. The
dispositive portion of the Decision states:
WHEREFORE, it appearing that the guilt of accused
MARCOS SABADLAB y NARCISO was proven beyond reasonable doubt, as principal,
with no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, for violation [of] Section[s]
5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act 9165, he is hereby sentenced:
1. In
Criminal Case No. 06-1837, to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of
P500,000.00;
2. In
Criminal Case No. 06-1838, to suffer imprisonment for an indeterminate term of
twelve [12] years and one [1] day, as minimum, to fourteen [14] years, and
eight [8] months, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P300,000.00; and
3. To pay the costs.
Let the two [2] plastic sachets each containing 0.02
gram of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride be turned over to the PDEA for proper
disposition.[21]
Accused-appellant appealed. The
case was raffled to the Thirteenth Division of the Court of Appeals and was
docketed as CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 02690.
On July 31, 2008, the Court of Appeals rendered its Decision affirming
that of the RTC. Hence, the present
recourse, where accused-appellant assigns the following errors:
I
THE
COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE
PROSECUTION WITNESSES.
II
THE
TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT FOR VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 5 AND 11, ARTICLE II, R.A. NO. 9165.[22]
Whether
accused-appellants guilt was established beyond reasonable doubt
The accused-appellant denied
ownership of the methylamphetamine
hydrochloride allegedly recovered by the police officers in the
operation. He claimed that there was no
legitimate buy-bust operation since the pre-operation report from the Makati
Police Station and the Certificate of Coordination from the PDEA did not carry
his name and instead mentions a certain Narciso Sabadlab. The accused-appellant argued that the
prosecution was not able to establish that he and this Narciso Sabadlab were
the same person. The accused-appellant
added that the absence of a prior surveillance rendered suspect the genuineness
of the alleged buy-bust operation.
Finally, accused-appellant asserted that it was contrary to human nature
and experience for him to have carried his child while engaged in such
nefarious activity.[23]
In the recent case of People v. Tion,
[24]
this Court had the opportunity to discuss the weight given to testimonies of
members of buy-bust teams in drug-related cases:
Unless there is clear and
convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any
improper motive or were not properly performing their duty, their testimonies
on the buy-bust operation deserve full faith and credit. Settled is the rule that in cases involving
violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution
witnesses who are police officers, for they are presumed to have performed
their duties in a regular manner, unless 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. x x
x.[25]
Similarly, in another case, [w]e
have invariably viewed with disfavor the defenses of denial and frame-up for
such defenses can easily be fabricated and are common ploy in prosecutions for
the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. In order to prosper, such defenses must be
proved with strong and convincing evidence.[26]
In the case at bar,
accused-appellant failed to prove his allegation of denial and frame-up by
strong and convincing evidence. He, in
fact, presented no evidence to prove the same, and instead relied on the alleged
irregularity in the buy-bust operation brought about by the inexact name
mentioned in the Pre-operation Report from the Makati Police Station and the
Certificate of Coordination from the PDEA.
On this matter, the accused-appellant argued that the buy-bust operation
was illegal as it was made without a close coordination with PDEA. The accused-appellant was apparently
referring to 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.)
As this Court held in People v. Berdadero,[27] the
foregoing provision, as well as the Internal Rules and Regulations implementing
the same, is silent as to the consequences of the failure on the part of the
law enforcers to seek the authority of the PDEA prior to conducting a buy-bust
operation x x x. [T]his silence cannot be interpreted as a
legislative intent to make an arrest without the participation of PDEA illegal
or evidence obtained pursuant to such an arrest inadmissible.[28] In the case at bar, even if we assume for the
sake of argument that Narciso Sabadlab and accused-appellant Marcos Sabadlab y Narciso alias Bong Pango could have been
different persons, the established fact remains that it was accused-appellant
who was caught in flagrante delicto
by the buy-bust team. Following the
aforementioned jurisprudence, even the lack of participation of PDEA would not
make accused-appellants arrest illegal or the evidence obtained pursuant
thereto inadmissible.
Neither is prior surveillance a
necessity for the validity of the buy-bust operation. Thus, in People
v. Padua,[29]
this Court held:
A prior
surveillance is not a prerequisite for the validity of an entrapment or
buy-bust operation, the conduct of which has no rigid or textbook method. Flexibility is a trait of good police work. However the police carry out its entrapment
operations, for as long as the rights of the accused have not been violated in
the process, the courts will not pass on the wisdom thereof. The police officers may decide that time is
of the essence and dispense with the need for prior surveillance.[30]
As regards accused-appellants
allegation that he would not knowingly expose his son to peril by having him
around while he is engaged in his drug peddling activity, suffice it to say
that accused-appellants testimony as to his own good moral character was
self-serving and cannot be given credence.
In People v. Doria,[31]
this Court laid down the objective test in evaluating buy-bust operations:
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. Criminals
must be caught but not at all cost. At
the same time, however, examining the conduct of the police should not disable
courts into ignoring the accused's predisposition to commit the crime. If there is overwhelming evidence of habitual
delinquency, recidivism or plain criminal proclivity, then this must also be
considered. Courts should look at all
factors to determine the predisposition of an accused to commit an offense in
so far as they are relevant to determine the validity of the defense of
inducement.[32]
The testimony of PO3 Lowaton showed
the complete details of the transaction: the initial contact between him and
accused-appellant,[33]
the offer to purchase shabu,[34]
the delivery of the dangerous drug and payment with the marked money,[35]
and the eventual arrest of accused-appellant.[36] We carefully examined said testimony and found
ourselves in agreement with the Court of Appeals that the same was
straightforward and clearly established the elements of the crime of illegal
sale of drugs, namely: (1) the identity
of the buyer and the seller, the object and consideration; and (2) the delivery
of the thing sold and payment therefor.[37] Likewise, the testimony of PO3 Lowaton[38]
and MADAC Castillo[39]
as regards the sachet seized from accused-appellant also sufficiently
established the elements of the crime of illegal possession of illegal drugs,
which 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.[40]
It is furthermore a fundamental
rule that the determination by the trial court of the credibility of
witnesses, when affirmed by the appellate court, is accorded full weight and
credit as well as great respect, if not conclusive effect.[41] The trial court, which had the opportunity to
observe the demeanor of PO3 Lowaton and MADAC
Castillo, on one hand, and accused-appellant, on the other, was in a
better position than this Court to determine which of them is telling the
truth.
Propriety of the
penalty imposed on accused- appellant
For the
crime of illegal sale of a dangerous drug in Criminal Case No. 06-1837, the
trial court imposed the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00. This is correctly within the period and range
of the imposable fine provided for in Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165:
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.
For the
crime of illegal possession of a dangerous drug in Criminal Case No. 06-1838,
the trial court imposed the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate term
of twelve years and one day, as minimum, to fourteen years and eight months, as
maximum, and a fine of P300,000.00.
Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 provides:
Section
11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. - 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 possess any dangerous drug in the
following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof:
x x x x
(5) 50
grams or more of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu";
x x x x
Otherwise,
if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties
shall be graduated as follows:
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.
The fine
of P300,000.00 is clearly within the range of the imposable fine for
possession of less than 5 grams of methamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu
under Section 11. As regards the penalty
of imprisonment, the Court should take into consideration the Indeterminate
Sentence Law[42] and provide
for an indeterminate sentence, the
maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the
minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same.[43] The minimum (12 years and 1 day) and maximum
(14 years and 8 months) of the indeterminate term imposed by the trial court
are likewise correctly within the terms (12 years and 1 day to 20 years)
prescribed under Section 11.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C.
No. 02690 dated July 31, 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. 2-15; penned by Associate
Justice Amelita G. Tolentino with Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao and
Sixto C. Marella, Jr., concurring.
[2] CA rollo, pp. 41-45.
[3] Records, p. 2.
[4] Id. at 4.
[5] Id. at 12.
[6] Id.
at 14.
[7] TSN, October 20, 2006, pp. 1-5; 13.
[8] Id. at 8-9.
[9] Id.
at 18.
[10] Id. at 5-7.
[11] Id. at 7-8.
[12] Id. at 10.
[13] Records,
p. 58, Exhibit J.
[14] Id. at 50, Exhibit C.
[15] Id. at 51, Exhibit D.
[16] Id. at 72.
[17] TSN, October 25, 2006, pp. 7-8.
[18] Id. at 4-9.
[19] TSN, November 15, 2006, pp. 2-6.
[20] Id. at 7-11.
[21] CA rollo, p. 45.
[22] Id. at 34.
[23] Id.
at 35-37.
[24] People v. Tion, G.R. No. 172092,
December 16, 2009, 608 SCRA 299.
[25] Id.
at 316-317.
[26] People v. Gonzaga, G.R. No. 184952, October 11, 2010, 632 SCRA 551, 569.
[27] G.R. No. 179710, June 29, 2010, 622 SCRA 196.
[28] Id.
at 207.
[29] G.R.
No. 174097, July 21, 2010, 625 SCRA 220.
[30] Id. at 239.
[31] G.R. No. 125299, January 22, 1999, 301 SCRA 668.
[32] Id. at 698-699.
[33] TSN,
October 20, 2006, pp. 2-6.
[34] Id.
at 6.
[35] Id.
[36] TSN,
October 20, 2006, pp. 6-8.
[37] People v. Araneta, G.R. No. 191064, October 20, 2010, 634 SCRA 475, 485.
[38] TSN,
October 20, 2006, pp. 6-7.
[39] TSN,
October 25, 2006, pp. 3-5.
[40] People v. Tan, G.R. No. 191069, November
15, 2010, 634 SCRA 773, 788.
[41] People v. Mayingque, G.R. No. 179709,
July 6, 2010, 624 SCRA 123, 140.
[42] Act No. 4103 as amended by Act No. 4225 and Republic Act No. 4203.
[43] Section 1. Hereafter, in imposing a prison sentence for an offense
punished by the Revised Penal Code, or its amendments, the court shall sentence
the accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be
that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed
under the rules of the said Code, and the minimum which shall be within the
range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense;
and if the offense is punished by any other law, the court shall sentence
the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not
exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the
minimum term prescribed by the same. (Emphasis supplied.)