FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 218693. July 27, 2016.]
WILFREDO BLANCA Y CANALES, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, COURT OF APPEALS-THIRTEENTH DIVISION, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 38 OF DAET, CAMARINES NORTE, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated July 27, 2016 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 218693 (Wilfredo Blanca y Canales v. People of the Philippines, Court of Appeals-Thirteenth Division, Regional Trial Court, Branch 38 of Daet, Camarines Norte) — This case concerns the conviction of petitioner Wilfredo C. Blanca (Blanca) for the crime of illegal delivery of dangerous drugs penalized under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9165, 1 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. Both the Regional Trial Court (RTC) 2 and the Court of Appeals (CA) 3 found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. Petitioner is now before this Court to assail these judgments, insisting that he cannot be held guilty of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, because the prosecution failed to prove the presence of the elements of the crime, and the corpus delicti was not proven with moral certainty.
THE FACTS
According to the prosecution, 4 the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) of the Philippine National Police (PNP) received information from one Lea Vasquez (Vasquez), a suspected drug dealer whom they had previously apprehended, that Blanca was her supplier of shabu. Vasquez then disclosed that they had a pending transaction, and that Blanca would deliver another batch of the illegal drug to her if she were to settle her unpaid accounts with him amounting to P55,000. In light of this information, the CIDG organized a controlled delivery operation, 5 in which Vasquez would pretend to continue her pending transaction with petitioner. The CIDG operatives monitored the mobile phone conversation between the two. During that conversation, petitioner agreed to make another delivery, provided that Vasquez would deposit P35,000 to a designated bank account. They agreed that she would pay the remaining balance upon delivery of the second batch of shabu. She complied with the agreement. Thereafter, petitioner allegedly instructed her to meet him at a gasoline station.
As planned by the CIDG, Vasquez told petitioner that she was sick and would instead send someone else to receive the delivery. CIDG undercover operatives — Senior Police Officer (SPO)1 Reynante Nacario and Police Officer (PO)3 Pablo Salamero — went to the designated gas station. Upon meeting them, petitioner allegedly demanded that they give him the remaining balance; however, SPO1 Nacario insisted on seeing the substance first. Petitioner handed him an envelope, which enclosed a medium-sized, transparent plastic sachet. It contained a white crystalline substance. Upon seeing it, PO3 Salamero gave the prearranged signal to alert the other CIDG members. They immediately rushed to the scene and arrested petitioner and his companions. The team brought them, together with the seized item, to the CIDG office. It was there where the confiscated item was inventoried, marked, photographed, and documented. Thereafter, they sent the substance to the PNP Crime Laboratory, where it was eventually confirmed to be shabu. Consequently, an Information 6 for violation of Section 5, Article II of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, was filed against Blanca, Nestor Magdidig, and Annalisa Alagao. The Information reads as follows: SCaITA
The undersigned inquest prosecutor hereby accuses WILFREDO BLANCA Y CANALES, NESTOR MAGDIDIG Y WATING, and ANNALISA VERGARA ALAGAO for Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), committed as follows:
That on or about 3:30 o'clock in the morning of May 13, 2006 at the vicinity of Caltex Gasoline Station at Vinzons Avenue, Daet, province of Camarines Norte, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping each other, without authority of law, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, dispose, deliver, transport or distribute 16.7 grams of METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE otherwise known as SHABU, a dangerous drugs [sic].
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Petitioner presented a different account. 7 According to him, he was on his way to Iriga City to pick up the furniture of his sister who was transferring to Manila. They made a stopover at a gasoline station to refuel, where petitioner alighted to go to the restroom. As he was heading back to his owner-type jeep, he heard someone shouting, introducing himself and the others as police officers. One of them proceeded to frisk Blanca, whom they accused of selling shabu. Despite his protests, petitioner and his companions were brought to an office where they were investigated for selling shabu.
THE RTC DECISION
The RTC issued a Decision finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the "crime of violation of Section 5 . . . of R.A. 9165." It held that the prosecution was able to sufficiently prove that Blanca was the person who delivered the shabu during the controlled delivery operation. 8 Further, despite the failure of the apprehending team to immediately mark the seized shabu at the scene of the crime and to conduct an inventory of the same while in the presence of Department of Justice (DOJ) and media representatives pursuant to Section 21 (1) of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized shabu were nonetheless preserved. 9 The trial court also noted that an elected official witnessed the conduct of the inventory and affixed his signature to the certificate of inventory. Consequently, it sentenced Blanca to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P5 million. 10 The RTC, however, dropped Annalisa Alagao as an accused and later acquitted Nestor Magdidig.
THE CA RULING
The CA upheld the reasoning of the RTC and affirmed the conviction of Blanca. The appellate court emphasized that while the dispositive portion did not specify that the crime petitioner had committed was illegal delivery of a dangerous drug, the trial court explained in the body of the Decision that his arrest proceeded from a controlled delivery, not a buy-bust, operation. 11 It also discussed that the criminal indictment alleged the crime of delivery of an illegal drug. 12 The CA also agreed with the finding of the RTC that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item was preserved in spite of minor lapses in complying with the procedure laid down by the law, since an unbroken chain of custody was established. Further, it noted that the operation was conducted in the wee hours of the morning, during which the police officers only found a security guard at the DOJ. aTHCSE
Petitioner is now before this Court to assail these judgments. First, he insists that he cannot be found guilty of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, because the prosecution failed to prove that the person who received the bank deposit and the person accused were one and the same; and that there was a consideration for the alleged sale of shabu. Second, he asserts that the prosecution failed to present material pieces of evidence and vital witnesses, which were necessary for his conviction. He maintains that neither the police informant nor the text messages were presented as evidence. Third, he argues that there were inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses, particularly of the arresting officer who acted as buyer. Finally, he avers that the procedure under the law was not strictly followed, thereby casting doubt on the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item.
In its Comment, 13 the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) counters that the issues raised by Blanca are mere questions of fact and reiterations of the issues brought before the CA. Next, the OSG asserts that petitioner is proceeding from a wrong premise, since he was convicted of the delivery, not the sale, of dangerous drugs. Lastly, it maintains that the police officers substantially complied with the requirements of the law.
THE ISSUE
Whether the CA committed a reversible error when it upheld the conviction of Blanca for the crime of delivery of illegal drugs.
OUR RULING
We deny the Petition.
Petitioner is essentially asking this Court to review the trial court's appreciation of the prosecution's evidence and its evaluation of the credibility of the witnesses. It is already a settled rule that this Court is not a trier of facts. 14 Jurisprudence 15 dictates that when the determination of the issues raised hinges on the credibility of witnesses and their respective testimonies, the observations and conclusions of the trial court are given great respect and are often bestowed with finality. This is because the judge who presided over the proceedings had the opportunity and the benefit of observing the witnesses' deportment and manner of testifying — the furtive glances, blushes of conscious shame, hesitations, flippant or sneering tones, calmness, sighs, or the scant or full realization of an oath — which are normally demonstrated and seen only during trial. 16
The trial judge is thus in the best position to weigh conflicting statements and to analyze the truthfulness of testimonies. Consequently the assessments of the trial court must be accorded significant appreciation, especially when sustained by the CA, unless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of the case. As We do not find any cogent reason to depart from this rule, We uphold the findings of the RTC and the CA with respect to the credibility of the witnesses, the sufficiency of the evidence presented, and the identity of the offender. cAaDHT
We also agree with the CA that the prosecution need not show that there was consideration in order to obtain a conviction of the crime charged. We reiterate 17 that an information charging an accused with violation of Section 5, Article II of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, is not limited to the act of selling prohibited drugs. The provision also includes the mere act of delivering them to another. Section 3 (k) of the law defines delivery as the act of "knowingly passing a dangerous drug to another, personally or otherwise, and by any means, with or without consideration." In order to be found guilty of this crime, the following elements must concur: (1) the accused passed on possession of a dangerous drug to another, personally or otherwise, and by any means; (2) the delivery was not authorized by law; and (3) the accused knowingly made the delivery with or without consideration. 18
In the instant case, the Information against Blanca expressly stated that he was being charged with the "violation of Section 5 . . . of R.A. 9165," which covers the prohibition against illegal delivery of dangerous drugs. Both the RTC and the CA convicted him of the crime of illegal delivery, not sale, of dangerous drugs. According to them, Blanca was caught in the act of handing the sachet of shabu to SPO1 Nacario in a controlled delivery operation; petitioner was not authorized by law to deliver shabu; and he voluntarily gave the illicit substance to SPO1 Nacario upon the latter's demand. Since payment for the delivery of the substance is immaterial in the commission of the crime of illegal delivery of dangerous drugs, Blanca's assertion of innocence based on the lack of payment must fail.
We likewise agree with the RTC and the CA that there was substantial compliance with the chain of custody requirement under the law. In dangerous drugs cases, the corpus delicti is the dangerous drug itself. It is therefore imperative that the integrity of the seized dangerous drug be preserved. 19 Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act provides for the manner 20 in which law enforcement officers should handle seized items in order to ensure that the specimen offered in court be the same one confiscated from the accused. 21 However, absolute compliance with the procedure under this provision is not strictly required, provided that the noncompliance is for a justifiable cause, and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item are preserved. 22
The prosecution's marking of the seized item at the CIDG office and failure to secure the appearance of a DOJ representative and a member of the mass media in order for them to witness the inventory 23 are not fatal. The integrity of the seized drugs remains intact, because the phrase "marking upon immediate confiscation" contemplates even the marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team. 24 Moreover, the absence of a DOJ representative and a member of the mass media was warranted, considering that the controlled delivery operation was conducted very early in the morning, when only a security guard was present at the DOJ. They also could not locate a member of the mass media at that time. Nevertheless, there was substantial compliance, because the inventory was witnessed by an elected public official of the barangay.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED for lack of merit. Petitioner Wilfredo Blanca y Canales is hereby found GUILTY of illegal delivery of prohibited drugs punished under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. He is sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine of five million pesos (P5,000,000).
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Section 5 of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9165 provides: "The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine . . . 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 . . . .
2. The RTC Decision dated 3 April 2013 and Order dated 22 May 2013 in Criminal Case No. 12750 were penned by Presiding Judge Roberto A. Escaro. RTC Decision, rollo, pp. 43-56; RTC Order, rollo, pp. 57-60.
3. The CA Decision dated 29 April 2015 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06314 was penned by Associate Justice Pedro B. Corales and concurred in by Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Rodil V. Zalameda. Rollo, pp. 30-42.
4. CA Decision, pp. 3-5, rollo, pp. 32-34; RTC Decision, pp. 2-6, rollo, pp. 44-48.
5. Under Sec. 3 (g), Article I of R.A. 9165, controlled delivery operation is the "investigative technique of allowing an unlawful or suspect consignment of any dangerous drug . . . to pass into, through or out of the country under the supervision of an authorized officer, with a view to gathering evidence to identify any person involved in any dangerous drugs related offense, or to facilitate prosecution of that offense."
6. See Information dated 13 May 2006, RTC rollo, p. 1; CA Decision, p. 2, rollo, p. 31; RTC Decision, p. 1, rollo, p. 43.
7. CA Decision, p. 5, rollo, p. 34; RTC Decision, pp. 6-7, rollo, pp. 48-49.
8. RTC Decision, pp. 8-10, rollo, pp. 50-52.
9. RTC Decision, pp. 10-13, rollo, pp. 52-55.
10. Id. at 14, rollo, p. 56.
11. CA Decision, p. 9, rollo, p. 38.
12. Id.
13. Comment of the Office of the Solicitor General, rollo, pp. 143-160.
14. People v. Azarraga, 675 Phil. 41 (2011) (citing Heirs of Hinog v. Melicor, 495 Phil. 422 [2005]); and Liga ng mga Barangay National v. Atienza, Jr., 465 Phil. 529 (2004).
15. People v. Niegas, G.R. No. 194582, 27 November 2013, 711 SCRA 46; People v. Libnao, 443 Phil. 506 (2003); People v. Claudio, 243 Phil. 795 (1988). See generally: People v. Condes, 659 Phil. 375 (2011); People v. Sapigao, 614 Phil. 589 (2009); People v. Umali, 271 Phil. 519 (1991) (citing People v. Alvarez, 246 Phil. 748 [1988]); People v. Espejo, 146 Phil. 894 (1970); People v. Dorado, 140 Phil. 450 (1969).
16. Id.
17. People v. Carrera, G.R. No. 215731, 2 September 2015; People v. Reyes, G.R. No. 194606 (Resolution), 18 February 2015; People v. Maongco, 720 Phil. 488 (2013); People v. Concepcion, 578 Phil. 957 (2008).
18. Id.
19. People v. Beran, 724 Phil. 788 (2014).
20. Section 21 (1) of R.A. 9165 provides: ". . . 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. . . . ."
21. People v. Catalan, 699 Phil. 603 (2012); People v. Martinez, 652 Phil. 347 (2010); People v. Garcia, 599 Phil. 416 (2009); and Malillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576 (2008).
22. Section 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 9165 provides: ". . . [N]on-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[.]"
23. See Certificate of Inventory, RTC rollo, p. 14.
24. People v. Endaya, G.R. No. 205741, 23 July 2014; Marquez v. People, 706 Phil. 453 (2013).