Binatara y Amito v. People

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 251064. July 28, 2021.]

ALEX BINATARA y AMITO alias "MATU", petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 28, 2021, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 251064 (Alex Binatara y Amito alias "Matu,"Petitioner, v.People of the Philippines, Respondent). — The Court resolves to NOTE:

(1) the Compliance dated March 22, 2021, filed by Atty. Rene Q. Pahulayan, counsel for petitioner Binatara, with the Resolution dated December 9, 2020, submitting his updated Integrated Bar of the Philippines Official Receipt No. 150445 issued on January 12, 2021, a machine copy of which is attached thereto as Annex "A"; and

(2) petitioner's Reply dated March 29, 2021, to the Office of the Solicitor General's comment on the petition for review on certiorari.

This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 (petition) seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision 2 dated 01 October 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11770, affirming the Decision 3 dated 26 February 2018 of Branch XI, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Balayan, Batangas, in Criminal Case Nos. 7818 and 7819.

Antecedents

Petitioner was indicted for violation of Sections 5, 4 in relation to Section 26 (b), 5 and 11, 6 Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 7 in two (2) separate Informations, the accusatory portions of which state —

Criminal Case No. 7818 for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165

That on or about the 13th day of December 2015, at about 7:20 o'clock in the evening, at Barangay Tamayo, Municipality of Calaca, Province of Batangas, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, 8 conspiring and confederating together, acting in common accord and mutually helping each other, without authority of law, did then and there willfully and unlawfully sell, deliver and give away two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets each containing methamphetamine hydrochloride commonly known as [shabu] referred to as Specimens A-1 and A-2 ("RS" and "RS-1") in Chemistry Report No. BD-1190-2015, having a total weight of 48.67 grams, a dangerous drug.

Contrary to law. 9

Criminal Case No. 7819 for violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165

That on or about the 13th day of December 2015, at about 7:20 o'clock in the evening, at Barangay Tamayo, Municipality of Calaca, Province of Batangas, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law, did then and there willfully and unlawfully have in his possession, custody and control two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets each containing methamphetamine hydrochloride "[shabu]" referred to as Specimens A-1 and A-2 ("AB" and "AB-1") in Chemistry Report No. BD-1191-2015, having a total weight of 49.28 grams, a dangerous drug.

Contrary to law. 10

Upon arraignment, petitioner entered a plea of "not guilty" to the charges. Thereafter, the cases were consolidated and tried jointly. 11

Version of the Prosecution

On 13 December 2015, a police asset informed PCI Telesforo G. Domingo III, Chief of Police of the Calaca Municipal Police Station, that he was transacting with alias Matu, a big time supplier of shabu, for the purchase of Php85,000.00 worth of shabu. According to the asset, Matu would be driving a white Mitsubishi Strada vehicle (subject vehicle) with Plate No. UKQ-290 and that the meeting place is Diokno Highway, Barangay Tamayo, Calaca, Batangas. As a result, a buy-bust team was organized to entrap Matu. PO3 Ernesto R. Matalog (PO3 Matalog) was designated as poseur-buyer while PO1 Roland B. Sale (PO1 Sale), PO1 Herald D. Collado (PO1 Collado), PO1 Lester Mendoza and PO3 Rodolfo De Villa were the back-ups. 12

The asset contacted anew Matu who confirmed the transaction to sell ten (10) packs, or fifty (50) grams of shabu, at Php8,500.00 per pack. It was agreed that Matu would deliver the shabu between 7 to 7:30 P.M. 13

After notifying the barangay officials, the team proceeded to the target area. Thereat, PO3 Matalog waited in front of a shed while the rest of the team stayed inside a van parked nearby. At around 7:20 P.M., Matu and one alias Rap arrived on board the subject vehicle. PO3 Matalog approached the subject vehicle and told the duo that he was the one sent by the "boss." PO3 Matalog handed the boodle money to Rap who placed the same in his pocket. Matu then gave two (2) plastic packs of suspected shabu to Rap who handed over the same to PO3 Matalog. After the exchange, PO3 Matalog executed the pre-arranged signal. 14

The team members approached the subject vehicle, introduced themselves as police officers and arrested one alias Rap, later identified as accused Raffy Saavedra (Saavedra), and Matu, who was subsequently identified as petitioner. PO1 Sale was able to recover from petitioner two (2) more plastic packs of suspected shabu while PO1 Collado confiscated the marked money from Saavedra. Shortly thereafter, Barangay Captain Domingo Balbacal and Barangay Councilor Becyl Villela, as well a certain media representative, arrived. In the presence of the aforesaid persons, PO3 Matalog marked the two (2) plastic packs sold to him as "RS" and "RS1"; while PO1 Sale marked the two (2) plastic packs recovered from petitioner as "AB" and "AB1." PO1 Collado marked the boodle money as well as the two (2) Php1,000.00 bills as "TAMAYO," "TAMAYO 1" and "TAMAYO 2." Thereafter, an inventory of the items was made which was signed by the aforesaid witnesses. Pictures were also taken during the process. 15

Thereafter, the team returned to the police station where a Request for Laboratory Examination was prepared. The written request, petitioner, Saavedra, and the seized specimens were brought by PO3 Matalog and PO1 Sale to the Provincial Crime Laboratory Office for examination. Chemistry Report Nos. BD-1190-2015 and BD-1191-2015 showed that all the items were found positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. 16

Version of the Defense

Petitioner failed to take the witness stand, 17 hence, the version of the defense was solely based on the testimony of Saavedra. According to Saavedra, at around 2 P.M. of 13 December 2015, petitioner and Saavedra headed to Tagaytay on board the subject vehicle. After some time, they stopped to buy water and cigarettes. When Saavedra approached a man to light his cigarette, somebody grabbed him and held his hands behind his back. He was taken inside a white van where he was bodily searched and asked, "Asan na?" Saavedra replied, "Alin po?" and when somebody said, "Nandito na," his eyes and hands were then taped. Saavedra sensed that another person was brought inside the van and and was asked if he was petitioner to which the latter answered, "Hinde po." The person denied that he was Matu. When the tape was removed from Saavedra's eyes, he saw that petitioner was also in the van. They were brought to the police station where they learned that their abductors were police officers. 18

Sometime later they were brought to an intersection where they saw the subject vehicle. Saavedra saw plastic packs of shabu and cash placed in the rear of the subject vehicle. Photos were taken of them and afterwards, they were taken to the Calaca police station where they were forced to admit that the packs of shabu came from them. However, they vehemently denied the same. Shortly thereafter, barangay officials arrived. 19

Ruling of the RTC

On 26 February 2018, the RTC rendered its Decision, 20 the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

1. In Criminal Case No. 7818 accused Alex Binatara y Amito alias "Matu" and Raffy Saavedra y Ferrer alias "Rap" are found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the [charge] for "Violation of Article II, Section 5 in relation to Section 26(B) of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002),["] and the Court hereby sentences them to suffer the penalty of Life Imprisonment and to pay the Fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00);

2. In Criminal Case No. 7819, the Court finds the accused Alex Binatara y Amito alias "Matu" GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for "Violation of Article II, Section 11, Paragraph 1 of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002)["] and the Court hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of Imprisonment [sic] of Life Imprisonment and to pay the Fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).

Let the confiscated illegal drugs be ordered [disposed of] in a manner provided by law.

SO ORDERED.21

The RTC found that the prosecution was able to establish all the elements of the crimes charged and that it satisfactorily proved an unbroken chain of custody. The RTC also ruled that the police officers conducted a legitimate buy-bust. 22 Aggrieved, petitioner and Saavedra appealed to the CA.

Ruling of the CA

In its Decision, 23 the CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC. It likewise observed that there was ample compliance with the procedure under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. The CA likewise found that the prosecution proved with moral certainty an unbroken chain of custody over the seized items. 24 Hence, this petition was solely filed by petitioner.

Issue

The issue is whether the CA correctly found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the offenses of illegal sale and illegal possession of prohibited drugs under RA 9165.

Ruling of the Court

The Court finds the Petition without merit.

The elements of illegal sale and

The CA and the RTC uniformly held that the prosecution established the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of prohibited drugs, as defined under RA 9165. We see no reason to disturb the united findings of the courts a quo.

For the prosecution of the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the following elements must be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and its consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. 25 In prosecutions for illegal sale of shabu, what is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence. 26

Here, the prosecution was able to establish the elements of illegal sale of the drugs beyond moral certainty. After the asset had arranged for the sale of Php85,000.00 worth of shabu to take place between the police officers and petitioner, the buy-bust team proceeded to the meeting place to await petitioner's arrival. When petitioner and Saavedra finally arrived, PO3 Matalog approached and handed the marked money to Saavedra. Upon seeing the money, petitioner gave two (2) plastic packs of shabu to Saavedra who handed over the same to PO3 Matalog after which the two were arrested. After examination, the plastic packs subject of the sale tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu per Chemistry Report No. BD-1190-2015 issued by the crime laboratory. Clearly, the prosecution was able to show that the sale of an illegal drug actually took place.

On the other hand, when what is involved is a prosecution for the illegal possession of regulated or prohibited drugs, the prosecution must establish the following elements: (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 drug. 27

The evidence for the prosecution showed the presence of all the above elements. PO1 Sale was able to retrieve two (2) plastic packs of shabu from petitioner. The substance in the plastic packs was methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu as confirmed by Chemistry Report No. BD-1191-2015. There is nothing on record to show that petitioner had legal authority to possess the plastic packs of shabu. It has been held in a number of cases that mere possession of a regulated drug per se constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused absent a satisfactory explanation of such possession; the onus probandi is shifted to the accused, to explain the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi. 28

The procedural rules on the chain of

Petitioner's challenge to the custody of the seized shabu is unavailing. Chain of custody is the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized items from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. 29 Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 provides the chain of custody rule, outlining the procedure police officers must follow in handling the seized drugs, in order to preserve their integrity and evidentiary value. 30 Said provision was amended by RA 10640, 31 which was approved on 15 July 2014. Since the offense charged in this case was committed on 13 December 2015, the prescribed procedure under RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, applies. Thus, as part of the chain of custody procedure, the apprehending team is mandated, immediately after seizure and confiscation, to conduct a physical inventory and to photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his/her representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service (NPS) OR the media. The presence of these witnesses safeguards "the establishment of the chain of custody and remove[s] any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence." 32

It is well settled that the following links should be established in the chain of custody of the confiscated item: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court. 33

Both the CA and the RTC aptly found the chain of custody in handling the evidence unbroken. 34 PO3 Matalog marked the two (2) items subject of the buy-bust with "RS" and "RS1" while PO1 Sale marked the two (2) plastic packs confiscated from petitioner with "AB" and "AB1." The marking of the illegal drugs, including their inventory, were witnessed by the media representative, the barangay officials, Saavedra, and petitioner. Photos were taken during the marking, inventory, and the signing of the documents.

Thereafter, the buy-bust team returned to the police station with petitioner and Saavedra. PO3 Matalog was the one who carried the two (2) plastic packs subject of the sale while PO1 Sale brought the other two (2) plastic packs recovered from petitioner. Thereat, PO3 Matalog and PO1 Sale remained in possession of the seized specimens while the police investigator prepared the requests for laboratory examination and drug test, among others.

PO3 Matalog and PO1 Sale afterwards brought the written requests, seized specimens as well as petitioner and Saavedra, to the crime laboratory for examination. The prosecution and defense stipulated that Forensic Chemist PSI Herminia Llacuna received and examined the four (4) plastic packs. 35 As per Chemistry Report Nos. BD-1190-2015 and BD-1191-2015, all the specimens submitted were found positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.

Although PO3 Matalog and PO1 Sale did not turn over the seized specimens, to the investigating officer but remained in custody of the same while at the police station, and released them only to the forensic chemist at the crime laboratory, their actions are not considered a breach in the chain of custody as held in People v. Macaspac36(Macaspac). In Macaspac, the NBI agent who marked and inventoried a plastic pack of shabu weighing 552 grams, also did not turn over the seized item to an investigator at the police station but remained in custody of the same until he turned it over to the forensic chemist.

Based on the records, the Court is likewise convinced that there was an unbroken chain of custody of the seized illegal drugs from the time of their discovery up to their presentation in court. 37

It is not necessary for the police asset

It is petitioner's contention that the illegal sale of dangerous drug was not sufficiently established considering that the police asset was not presented in court. The asset had personal knowledge of the details of the sale such as how the initial contact with petitioner was done, the offer to purchase the shabu, the amount of illegal drugs, and the payment thereof. 38

In People v. Impas, 39 the Court ruled that the presentation of an informant as witness is not regarded as indispensable to the success of a prosecution of a drug-dealing accused. As a rule, the informant is not presented in court for security reasons, in view of the need to protect him/her from the retaliation of the culprit arrested through his/her efforts. Thus, the confidentiality of the informant's identity is protected in deference to his/her invaluable services to law enforcement. Only when the testimony of the informant is considered absolutely essential in obtaining the conviction of the culprit should the need to protect his/her security be disregarded.

We find that it is not necessary for the prosecution to present the asset since a narration of his initial contact with petitioner and how the offer to purchase the shabu was done is irrelevant to the case. With regard to the amount and payment of the shabu, the police officers testified that they prepared the boodle money and went to the place relayed to them by the asset who facilitated the transaction. Clearly, the asset's role was to act as an intermediary or a go-between between the police officers and petitioner. In fact, the asset made it clear to petitioner that he was not the buyer, by describing what the buyer would be wearing, clothes which PO3 Matalog was wearing. It is worth mentioning that petitioner was aware that PO3 Matalog was the buyer or the person he was supposed to do business with. He would have driven away if PO3 Matalog was not wearing the right clothes. And, for that matter, he would have been wary had PO3 Matalog not mentioned the asset. Satisfied that PO3 Matalog is indeed the buyer, petitioner handed over the plastic packs of shabu once the money was given. Considering, therefore, that it was PO3 Matalog who petitioner transacted the sale with, there is no need to present the asset.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED. Accordingly, the Decision dated 01 October 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11770 is AFFIRMEDin toto. We, therefore, sustain the penalties meted upon petitioner Alex Binatara y Amito alias "Matu" as follows:

1) Life imprisonment and to pay the Fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) in Criminal Case No. 7818; and

2) Life imprisonment and to pay the Fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) in Criminal Case No. 7819.

SO ORDERED."(Lopez J., J., designated additional member per Special Order No. 2834.)

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 09-77.

2.Id. at 217-229; penned by Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios with Associate Justices Rafael Antonio M. Santos and Louis P. Acosta, concurring.

3.Id. at 114-121; penned by Presiding Judge Rolando E. Silang.

4. Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals.

5. Section 26. Attempt or Conspiracy. — Any attempt or conspiracy to commit the following unlawful acts shall be penalized by the same penalty prescribed for the commission of the same as provided under this Act:

xxx xxx xxx

(b) Sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution and transportation of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical;

6.Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs.

7. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

8. Referring to petitioner and Raffy Saavedra y Ferrer alias "Rap."

9.Rollo, pp. 218-219.

10.Id. at 219.

11.Id.

12.Id. at 115-116, 219-220.

13.Id. at 116.

14.Id.

15.Id.

16.Id at 117, 221.

17.Id. at 118.

18.Id. at 117.

19.Id.

20.Id. at 114-121.

21.Id. at 120-121.

22.Id. at 118-120.

23.Id. at 217-229.

24.Id. at 228.

25.People v. Pantallano, G.R. No. 233800, 06 March 2019.

26.People v. Alvarado, G.R. No. 234048, 23 April 2018.

27.Padas v. People, G.R. No. 244327, 14 October 2019.

28.People v. Eda, G.R. No. 220715, 24 August 2016; People v. Poncho, G.R. No. 206910, 14 October 2015; People v. Asignar, 772 Phil. 585.

29. Section 1 (b) of the Guidelines on the Custody and Disposition of Seized Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, and Laboratory Equipment, Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1-02; People v. Padua, G.R. No. 239781 (Resolution), 05 February 2020 [Per C.J. Peralta].

30.People v. Alvaro, G.R. No. 225596, 10 January 2018.

31. An Act to Further Strengthen the Anti-Drug Campaign of the Government, Amending for the Purpose Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."

32.People v. Doctolero, Jr., G.R. No. 243940, 20 August 2019.

33.People v. Ubungen, G.R. No. 225497, 23 July 2018.

34.Rollo, pp. 120 and 228.

35.Id. at 227-228.

36. G.R. No. 246165, 28 November 2019 citing People v. Santos, G.R. No. 223142, 17 January 2018.

37.People v. Noah, G.R. No. 228880, 06 March 2019.

38.Rollo, p. 27.

39. 810 Phil. 788 (2017).