Republic
of the
Supreme
Court
THE
PEOPLE OF THE
|
G.R. No. 177771
Present: carpio MORALES, J., Chairperson, BRION, BERSAMIN, VILLARAMA,
JR., and SERENO, JJ. Promulgated: May 30, 2011 |
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
|
|
|
|
|
D
E C I S I O N
|
|
|
|
|
|
BRION, J.: |
|
On
appeal to this Court is the Decision,[1] dated
The Arraignment
and Plea
In Criminal Case
No. 12450-D, the Information charged the appellants of selling shabu, as follows:
the accused, conspiring and confederating together,
and both of them mutually helping and aiding one another, not being lawfully
authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
sell, deliver and give away to PO2 Lemuel Laro, a police poseur-buyer, one (1)
heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing six (6) centigrams (0.06
gram) of white crystalline substance, which was found positive to the test for
methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of the said law.[3]
In Criminal Case No. 12451-D, Dela Vega was charged of possessing shabu under the following Information:
the accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess
any dangerous drug; did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
have in his possession and under his custody and control one (1) heat-sealed transparent
plastic sachet containing ten (10) decigrams (0.10 gram), of white crystalline
substance, which was found positive to the test for methamphetamine
hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of the said law.[4]
Finally, in Criminal Case No. 12452-D, Alivio was charged of possessing drug paraphernalia consisting of two disposable lighters, an improvised tooter and an improvised burner. The pertinent portion of the Information states:
the accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess
paraphernalia or otherwise use any dangerous drug, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession two (2) pcs. of
disposable lighters, one (1) improvised tooter and one (1) improvised burner,
which are all instruments, equipment, apparatus or paraphernalia, fit or
intended for smoking, sniffing, consuming or introducing methamphetamine
hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu, a dangerous drug, in violation of the
said law.[5]
The appellants pleaded not guilty to all the charges and trial on the merits followed.
The Version of the Prosecution
The prosecution’s case relied on the theory that the police apprehended the appellants during a buy-bust operation conducted at Alivio’s residence. During the buy-bust operation, the police found drug paraphernalia at Alivio’s residence while a search on Dela Vega’s person yielded one plastic sachet of shabu which the police seized.
The
prosecution’s evidence showed that at around
Together with SPO3 Lemuel Matias and PO1 Allan Mapula, PO2 Laro and the asset went to the house of Ariel. While the rest of the buy-bust team strategically positioned themselves at the target area, PO2 Laro and the asset met Ariel. The asset introduced PO2 Laro to Ariel who was later on identified as Alivio. The asset told Alivio that they wanted to buy shabu. Alivio asked how much they wanted to buy, to which the asset replied: “dalawang daan lang p’re at saka puwede kaming gumamit d’yan?” The two were ushered into the second floor of the house where they saw dela Vega seated in front of a table with drug paraphernalia. PO2 Laro then gave the buy-bust money to Alivio who handed it to Dela Vega. The latter then took out from his pocket one plastic sachet of shabu which he gave to Alivio who handed it to PO2 Laro. After the exchange, PO2 Laro introduced himself as a police officer and arrested Alivio and Dela Vega. The asset made a signal for the buy-bust team to come inside the house. SPO3 Matias searched Dela Vega and found him in possession of one plastic sachet of shabu. The buy-bust team also retrieved the drug paraphernalia on top of the table, which paraphernalia they correspondingly marked. The buy-bust team took Alivio, Dela Vega and the confiscated items to the police station for investigation. Afterwards, the confiscated items were taken by PO1 Mapula to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. The two (2) plastic sachets tested positive for shabu.
By agreement of the prosecution and the defense, the testimony of forensic chemist P/Insp. Joseph Perdido was dispensed with and they entered stipulations on:
1)
The due execution
and genuineness of the Request for Laboratory Examination dated May 20, 2003
which was marked in evidence as Exhibit “A” and the stamp showing receipt
thereof by the PNP Crime Laboratory as Exhibit “A-1”;
2)
The due execution
and genuineness, as well as the truth of the contents, of Chemistry Report No.
D-940-03E dated May 12, 2003 issued by Forensic Chemist P/Insp. Joseph M.
Perdido of the PNP Crime Laboratory, Eastern Police District, Saint Francis St.,
Mandaluyong City, which was marked in evidence as Exhibit “B”, the finding and
conclusion as appearing on the report as Exhibit “B-1” and the signature of the
forensic Chemist over his typewritten name likewise as appearing on the report
as Exhibit “B-2”;
3)
The existence of
the two (2) plastic sachets and other paraphernalia, but not their source or
origin, contained in an envelope, the contents of which were the subject of the
Request for Laboratory Examination, which where marked in evidence as follows:
as Exhibit “C” (the envelope), as Exhibit “C-1” (the 1st plastic
sachet), as Exhibit “D” (the improvised tooter with markings EXH-E AAO dated
05-20-03), as Exhibit “E” (the improvised burner) and as Exhibits “F-1” &
“F-2” (the two disposable lighters).[6]
The Version of the Defense
The appellants
anchored their defense on denial and frame-up. They denied selling shabu and claimed that they were
together that night drinking at the second floor of Alivio’s residence. They
also claimed that five (5) men (who turned out to be policemen) suddenly barged
in on them looking for a person named “Bon-bon.” When they replied that neither
of them was Bon-bon, the policemen frisked and arrested them. The policemen
took from the appellants their earnings for that day and the P5,000.00
cash they found in the house. The appellants tried to resist arrest and suffered
injuries as a result. [7]
Alivio additionally asserted that he could not have sold shabu to PO2 Laro since he knew him to be a policeman. Alivio claimed that he was a former driver of Atty. Nelson Fajardo whom he used to accompany to the police station where PO2 Laro was assigned.
The Ruling of the RTC
On
WHEREFORE, premises considered,
judgment is hereby rendered, as follows:
In Criminal Case No. 12450-D both accused
Arielito Alivio and Ernesto Dela Vega are hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Violation of
Section 5, Article II, Republic Act 9165 (illegal sale of shabu) and are hereby
sentenced to LIFE IMPRISONMENT and
to solidarily pay a FINE of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos
(PHP500,000.00).
In Criminal Case No. 12451-D accused
Ernesto dela Vega is hereby found GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Violation of Section 11, Article
II, Republic Act 9165 (illegal possession of shabu) and is hereby sentenced to Twelve (12) Years and One (1) Day to Twenty (20) Years and to pay a Fine
of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (PHP 300,000.00).
In Criminal Case No. 12452-D accused
Arielito Alivio is hereby found GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the offense of Violation of Section 12, Article II, of
Republic Act 9165 (illegal possession of drug paraphernalia) and is hereby
sentenced to Six (6) Years and One (1) Day to Four (4) Years and a FINE of
Ten Thousand Pesos (PHP 10,000.00).[8]
The appellants appealed to the CA.
The Ruling of the CA
On
The Issue
The appellants raised the following lone assignment of error:
THE [CA] ERRED IN FINDING THE [APPELLANTS] GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT FOR VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165.[9]
The appellants argue that the lower courts erred in evaluating the testimonial evidence when they placed undue reliance on the presumption of regularity and the absence of improper motive on the part of the police officers to perpetuate the claimed irregularities. The appellants assert that the presumption of regularity cannot take precedence over the presumption of innocence in their favor.
The appellants also fault the lower courts for disregarding the defense’s evidence that showed Alivio’s familiarity with PO2 Laro as a policeman. They emphasize that this evidence was corroborated by the testimony of defense witness Atty. Fajardo.
Finally, the appellants contend that the identities of the subject shabu were not sufficiently proven since the seized items were not marked at the time the appellants were apprehended.
The Court’s Ruling
We find no reversible error committed by the RTC and the CA in convicting
the appellants of the crimes charged.
While the presumption of innocence is the highest
in the hierarchy of presumptions, it remains a rebuttable presumption. In a criminal case, the presumption of
innocence can be overcome by the presumption of regularity when the latter is accompanied
by strong evidence supporting the guilt of the accused.[10] Even without the presumption of regularity, a drug conviction can be
sustained through competent evidence establishing the existence of all the
elements of the crimes charged.
In this case, although the
presumption of regularity did not arise considering the evident lapses the
police committed in the prescribed procedures, we rule that the prosecution’s
evidence sufficiently established all the elements of the three (3) crimes
charged and the identity of the appellants as the perpetrators.
The existence of the buy-bust operation
Prosecutions involving
illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police
officers who conducted the
buy-bust operation. Thus, we generally defer to the assessment on this point by
the trial court as it had the opportunity to
directly observe the witnesses, their demeanor, and their credibility on the witness
stand.[11] Our independent examination of the records shows no
compelling reason to depart from this rule.
First, the
lower courts found the testimonies of PO2 Laro and SPO3 Matias consistent, positive and straightforward. These
testimonies were corroborated by PO1 Mapula who testified that the appellants were
apprehended through a buy-bust operation.
Second, the records reveal the
lack of improper motive on the part of the buy-bust team. Appellant Alivio even admitted that he had no
idea why the police officers filed the present case against him.[12]
Alivio also denied police extortion.[13]
Third, the appellants’ failure to file cases against the buy-bust team for planting evidence undoubtedly supports the prosecution’s theory that the appellants were arrested because they were caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu.
Fourth, the following documentary evidence presented by the prosecution corroborates the existence of an actual buy-bust operation:
(a) The Pre-Opns
Reports, made part of the records, showed that anti-narcotics operations were conducted
on
(b) The existence of the buy-bust money,[15] bearing the marking “3L,” was presented during the trial as part of PO2 Laro’s testimony.[16] According to PO2 Laro, the marking stood for his initials which he placed on the buy-bust money for easy identification.
(c) The Affidavits of Arrest[17] by PO2 Laro and SPO3 Matias executed immediately after the arrest of the appellants showed that the arrests were made pursuant to a buy-bust operation.[18]
Familiarity
The defense failed to sufficiently prove the
alleged familiarity of appellant Alivio with PO2 Laro. The testimony of defense witness Atty.
Fajardo failed to give out specific details on the dates and occasions when he
supposedly talked to PO2 Laro in the presence of Alivio.[19]
Moreover, the evidence also shows a time gap between Alivio’s employment with
Atty. Fajardo (from 2000 to 2001) and the occurrence of the buy-bust operation
(in 2003). As against these sketchy claims, PO2 Laro testified that Alivio
failed to recognize him during the buy-bust operation.[20]
In any event, in Gwyn Quinicot v. People,[21]
we held that it is not the existing familiarity between the seller and the
buyer, but the agreement and acts constituting the sale and delivery of the
illegal drugs, that is crucial in drug-related cases:
What
matters in drug related cases is not the existing familiarity
between the seller and the buyer, but their agreement and the acts constituting
the sale and delivery of the dangerous drug. Besides, drug pushers, especially
small quantity or retail pushers, sell their prohibited wares to anyone who can
pay for the same, be they strangers or not. It is of common knowledge that
pushers, especially small-time dealers, peddle prohibited drugs in the open
like any article of commerce. Drug pushers do no confine their nefarious trade
to known customers and complete strangers are accommodated provided they have
the money to pay.[22]
[Citations omitted]
In this case, the
prosecution’s evidence sufficiently established the exchange of the shabu and the buy-bust money between the
appellants and PO2 Laro.
The
identity of the confiscated shabu
and/or
drug paraphernalia
In ascertaining the identity
of the illegal drugs and/or drug paraphernalia presented in court as the ones
actually seized from the accused, the prosecution must show that: (a) the
prescribed procedure under Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 has been
complied with or falls within the saving clause provided in Section 21(a),
Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165; and (b) there was an unbroken
link (not perfect link) in the chain of custody with respect to the confiscated
items.
Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 — that prescribes
the procedure to be observed by the authorities in handling the illegal drug
and/or drug paraphernalia confiscated — provides:
Section 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;
This provision is elaborated on under Section 21(a)
of the IRR which provides a saving clause in case the prescribed procedure is
not complied with. Under this saving clause, 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.
The
chain of custody rule requires the identification of the persons who handled
the confiscated items for the purpose of duly monitoring the authorized movements
of the illegal drugs and/or drug paraphernalia from the time they were seized
from the accused until the time they are presented in court. Section 1(b) of
Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002 defines the chain of custody rule in the following manner:
b. ‘Chain of
Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of
seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or
laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to
receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for
destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall
include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody [was]
of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody made in the
course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition[.]
In this
case, although the prescribed procedure under Section 21(1), Article II of R.A.
No. 9165 was not strictly complied with, we find that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
seized items were properly preserved by the buy-bust team under the chain of
custody rule.
(a)
The first link – The records show that the
shabu and the drug paraphernalia were
immediately marked at the scene by PO2 Laro and SPO3 Matias before they
proceeded to the police station.[23]
PO2 Laro marked the plastic sachet containing shabu subject of the buy-bust sale, with “AAO
(b) The
second link - The records also disclose that after the respective
markings were made, PO2 Laro and SPO3 Matias turned over the confiscated items
in their custody at the police station for investigation. As may be gathered
from the Request for Laboratory Examination dated
One (1) pc heat sealed transparent plastic sachet
containing undetermined amount of white crystalline substance suspected to be
shabu bought from suspect marked as “EXH A AAO 05-20-03”;
One (1) pc heat sealed transparent plastic sachet
containing undetermined amount of white crystalline substance marked as “EXH B
ECDV
Two (2) pc’s (sic) disposable lighter marked as “EXH
C1 to C2 AAA
One (1) pc improvised burner marked as “EXH D AAO
One (1) pc improvised waterpipe/tooter marked as “EXH
E AAO
(c)
The third link - PO1 Mapula testified that
he was the one who delivered the request for laboratory examination and
the specimens to the PNP Crime Laboratory.[27] He also testified that he
turned over the specimens to one PO1 Chuidan who received them at
(d)
The fourth link - The prosecution and the defense stipulated that the specimens
examined by the forensic chemist, contained in the request for laboratory examination,
were the ones presented in court. PO2 Laro and SPO3 Matias identified and
testified that the shabu and the drug
paraphernalia examined were the items retrieved from the appellants in the
buy-bust operation conducted on
Under the
circumstances, the prosecution’s evidence clearly established an unbroken link
in the chain of custody, thus removing any doubt or suspicion that the shabu and drug paraphernalia had been
altered, substituted or otherwise tampered with. The unbroken link in the chain
of custody also precluded the possibility that a person, not in the chain, ever
gained possession of the seized evidence.[32]
The defenses
of Denial and Frame-up
The appellants
merely denied the buy-bust sale and their possession of the shabu and the drug paraphernalia. They
claimed that they were framed by the police who took their earnings and forcibly
took them to the police station. In light of the positive and credible
testimony and the concrete evidence showing the existence of the buy-bust
operation, these defenses are unworthy of belief. Dela Vega’s injuries alone cannot rebut the
consistent evidence that the appellants were arrested pursuant to a buy-bust
operation. We particularly note in this regard that the participating policemen
denied that they previously knew the appellants and that they entertained
ulterior or illicit motives to frame them.
The Proper Penalties
On the illegal sale of shabu (Criminal Case No. 12450-D), the appellants were caught
and arrested for selling .06 gram of shabu.
The RTC and the CA correctly imposed the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine
of P500,000.00 against the appellants, in accordance with Section 5,
Article II of R.A. No. 9165 which punishes illegal sale of shabu with 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).
On the illegal possession of
shabu (Criminal Case No.
12451-D), dela Vega was caught in possession of .10 gram of shabu and was meted the penalty of
twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years of imprisonment and to
pay a fine of P300,000.00. Section 11, paragraph 2(3), Article II of R.A. No. 9165
provides:
(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 xxx methamphetamine
hydrochloride or “shabu.”
Thus, we sustain the penalties
the RTC and the CA imposed as these are within the range provided by law.
Lastly, illegal possession
of drug paraphernalia (Criminal Case No. 12452-D) is punished under Section 12,
Article II of R.A. No. 9165 that provides a penalty of imprisonment ranging
from six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years, and a fine ranging from
Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00)
to Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00). We thus uphold the penalty of
imprisonment of six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and a fine of P10,000.00
that the RTC and the CA imposed on Alivio.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we AFFIRM
the decision, dated
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO
D. BRION
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
|
|
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
MA.
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I
attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Roberto A. Barrios (deceased), with the concurrence of Associate Justices Mario L. Guariña and Lucenito Tagle (retired); rollo, pp. 2-10.
[2]
Penned by Judge Pablito M. Rojas; dated
[3] CA rollo, pp. 9-10.
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
Medical Certificate, dated
[8] CA rollo, pp. 31-32.
[9]
[10] Dissenting Opinion of Justice Arturo D. Brion in People v. Agulay, G.R. No. 181747, September 26, 2008, 566 SCRA 571, 614-615, and People v. Denoman, G.R. No. 171732, August 14, 2009, 596 SCRA 257, 276.
[11] People v. Concepcion, G.R. No. 178876, June 27, 2008, 556 SCRA 421, 440; and People v. Lim, G.R. No. 141699, August 7, 2002, 386 SCRA 581, 593, citing People v. Errojo, 229 SCRA 49 (1994), and People v. Gomez, 229 SCRA 138 (1994).
[12]
TSN,
[13]
TSN,
[14] Records, p. 10.
[15] Exhibits “G” and “H.”
[16] Records, p. 70.
[17]
Dated
[18] Records, pp. 5-6.
[19]
TSN,
[20]
TSN,
[21] G.R. No. 179700,
[22]
[23]
TSN,
[24]
[25]
TSN,
[26] Records, p. 8.
[27]
TSN,
[28] Ibid.; Records, pp. 7- 8.
[29] Records, p. 8
[30]
[31]
Supra note 24, and TSN,
[32]
Malillin v. People, G.R. No. 172953,