Borja y Sobremonte v. People

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 236129. March 5, 2018.]

ROLIE BORJA y SOBREMONTE AND JOSELITO NUQUI, JR. y AQUINO, petitioners,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 5, 2018, which reads as follows: aScITE

"G.R. No. 236129 (Rolie Borja y Sobremonte and Joselito Nuqui, Jr. y Aquino vs. People of the Philippines). — This is a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, which seeks to reverse and set aside the March 27, 2017 Decision 1 and October 11, 2017 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08116. There, the CA affirmed with modification the October 13, 2015 Regional Trial Court (RTC) Consolidated Decision in Criminal Case Nos. 10351, 10352 and 10355 finding Rolie Borja (Borja) and Joselito Nuqui, Jr. (Nuqui) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. 9165) or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and Borja for violation of Sec. 11, Art. II of R.A. 9165 and for illegal possession of firearms and ammunition punishable under Sec. 28 of R.A. No. 10591 or the Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act.

The Facts

On April 4, 2014, a confidential informant went to the San Fernando Police Station and reported to PO2 Francisca Munar Bermudez (PO2 Bermudez) that a certain alias "Polly" was engaged in selling illegal drugs in San Fernando City, and was at that time looking for a buyer of shabu. After verifying the information and finding that the said person was included in their watchlist, PO2 Bermudez immediately informed their team leader Intelligence Chief Police Inspector Juanito Buaron (PI Buaron). The informant, upon PI Buaron's instructions, called "Polly" for a transaction. They agreed to meet at Room 5, Crowne Hotel in Barangay Pagudpud. A buy-bust operation was thereafter organized, with PO2 Bermudez as the poseur-buyer.

The team proceeded to the target area in the afternoon of the same day. PO2 Bermudez and the informant went to the hotel room while the rest of the team strategically positioned themselves within the vicinity of the hotel. Upon arriving, the informant knocked on the door. A male person (who was later on identified as Borja) opened it and was introduced by the informant to PO2 Bermudez. At that instance, PO2 Bermudez noticed that Borja was accompanied by another male person inside the room. Borja then asked PO2 Bermudez how much she wanted to buy, to which the latter responded "1,000 Pesos." After she handed the money to Borja, the latter instructed his companion (later identified as Nuqui) to hand her one (1) transparent heat-sealed plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. After examining the sachet, PO2 Bermudez immediately pocketed the same and asked if she could use the restroom. While inside the restroom, she called the cellphone of PO3 Armand Bautista (PO3 Bautista), as this was their pre-arranged signal. HEITAD

After the signal, PO3 Bautista, together with the rest of the team, rushed to the target area. Forthwith, the buy-bust team introduced themselves to Borja and Nuqui, and informed them of their constitutional rights and the nature of their arrest. Prior to placing them in handcuffs, PO3 Bautista frisked the arrested persons and was able to seize additional pieces of evidence from Borja: a weighing scale, six (6) pieces transparent heat-sealed plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance presumably shabu, one (1) caliber .22 firearm, nine (9) live ammunitions, a cell phone and the buy-bust money.

At the place of the incident, PO2 Bermudez marked the seized specimen, while those found in the possession of Borja were marked by PO3 Bautista. Thereafter, the seized items were inventoried and photographed in the presence of the arrested suspects, the Barangay Chairman, a member of the media, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the buy-bust operatives. Borja and Nuqui, as well as the seized items, were brought to the San Fernando City Police Station for booking and request for laboratory examination and drug test. The seized items were then sent to Police Senior Inspector Maria Theresa Amor Manuel (PSI Manuel), who conducted a qualitative examination and found all to be positive for metamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu).

To their defense, Borja and Nuqui claimed that they were at the hotel to attend the despedida party of Nuqui's girlfriend. They were shocked when armed men started to rush towards their room, forcing their way inside by breaking the jalousies of the window. Prior to being hand-cuffed, they were allegedly ordered to drop on the floor face down. According to Borja, it was then that Nuqui saw said armed men plant the incriminating evidence in their room.

In a Consolidated Decision dated October 13, 2015, the RTC convicted Borja and Nuqui as charged. Unfazed, they interposed an appeal before the CA, contending that the prosecution failed to comply with the requirements of Sec. 21 of R.A. 9165 or the Rule on Chain of Custody, and that the testimonies of the police officers were inconsistent.

The Ruling of the CA

In affirming the RTC, the CA ruled that all the evidence presented clearly established the existence of a buy-bust operation. Their claim that no buy-bust operation took place deserves scant consideration as the testimonies of the police officers in dangerous drugs cases carry with it a presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions. More particularly, PO2 Bermudez's testimony was candid, clear and straightforward as she had the most extensive participation in the operation. The same was corroborated by PO3 Bautista, who testified that Borja and Nuqui were apprehended through a buy-bust operation. Their defense of frame-up was also considered self-serving by the court for failure to present evidence in support of such claim.

On the issue of non-compliance with the Rule on Chain of Custody, the court recounted that the evidence on record reflects that the police officers immediately marked the confiscated items, thus preserving its integrity and evidentiary value. Indeed, the prosecution's evidence clearly established the unbroken link in the chain of custody, thus removing any doubt or suspicion that the shabu had been altered, substituted or otherwise tampered with.

The CA, however, modified the RTC ruling, in that instead of imposing the penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to fourteen (14) years and one (1) day as maximum imprisonment and the fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00), it imposed life imprisonment and a fine of Four Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P450,000.00). The CA also ruled that the RTC erred in imposing the indeterminate prison term of seven (7) years and four (4) months of prision mayor as minimum to nine (9) years and four (4) months of prision mayor as maximum on Borja for illegal possession of firearms and ammunition. Taking its cue from the language of Sec. 28 of R.A. 10591, the court deemed it necessary to sentence Borja to an indeterminate penalty of seven years prision mayor as minimum to 15 years reclusion temporal as maximum.

The fallo of the CA Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the Consolidated Decision dated 13 October 2015 of the Regional Trial Court, First Judicial Region, City of San Fernando, La Union, Branch 66, is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS in that in Criminal Case No. 10352, accused-appellant ROLIE BORJA y SOBREMONTE is sentenced to suffer the penalty of Life Imprisonment and to pay the fine of Four Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P450,000.00), and in Criminal Case No. 10355, he is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of (seven) 7 years of prision mayor as minimum to fifteen (15) years of reclusion temporal as maximum.

We uphold the disposition of the court a quo in Criminal Case No. 10351.

SO ORDERED.

A motion for reconsideration was filed but the same was denied in a Resolution dated October 11, 2017. ETHIDa

The Issue

Petitioners filed the present petition, bringing forth the following issues for the Court's consideration:

I. Whether or not the CA erred when it sustained the RTC's finding that the guilt of Petitioners was established beyond reasonable doubt.

II. Whether or not the CA erred in finding that the prosecution has complied with the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. 9165 otherwise known as the Chain of Custody Rule.

The Ruling of the Court

The Court resolves to deny the petition.

It is doctrinal that findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses deserve great weight, as the trial judge is in the best position to assess the credibility of the witnesses, and has the unique opportunity to observe the witness firsthand and note his demeanor, conduct and attitude under grueling examination. Absent any showing that the trial court's findings of facts were tainted with arbitrariness or that it overlooked or misapplied some facts or circumstances of significance and value, or its calibration of credibility was flawed, We are bound by its assessment. 3

Here, other than petitioners' subjective assertion that no buy-bust took place, no other evidence was shown to prove the same. The alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, such as the location where the certificate of inventory was signed, merely refer to inconsequential and frivolous details, which did not at all affect the substance of their testimonies, much less impair their credibility. Witnesses are not expected to remember every single detail of an incident with perfect or total recall. If at all, these minor discrepancies may even serve to strengthen their credibility as they negate any suspicion that their testimonies were rehearsed. 4

On the issue of whether the Rule on Chain of Custody was complied with, the Court finds no cogent reason to reverse the CA's ruling that the prosecution's evidence clearly established an unbroken link in the chain of custody. The witnesses were able to recount what happened from the time of the seized items' confiscation until their examination. It was clear from the testimonies that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved by the buy-bust team. We lay great emphasis to a well-settled ruling that the most important factor to determine whether the Rule on Chain of Custody was observed is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. 5 After all, the Court recognizes that, in reality, it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain. 6

Finally, the Court cannot consider petitioners' defenses of frame-up and alibi. Denial or frame-up, like alibi, has been viewed with disfavor for it can just easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. 7

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The Decision dated March 27, 2017 and Resolution dated October 11, 2017 of the Court of Appeals are hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. Penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao and concurred in by Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante and Associate Justice Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles.

2.Rollo, pp. 64-65.

3.People v. Tamolon and Cabagan, G.R. No. 180169, February 27, 2009.

4.People v. Punzalan, G.R. No. 199807, November 11, 2015.

5.People v. Cardenas, G.R. No. 190342, March 21, 2012.

6.Ambre v. People, G.R. No. 191532, August 15, 2012.

7.Ching v. People, G.R. No. 177237, October 17, 2008.