SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 214536. January 11, 2016.]
MEDEL CORONEL y SANTILLAN, RONALDO PERMEJO y ABARQUEZ, NESTOR VILLAFUERTE y SAPIN, and JOANNE OLIVAREZ y RAMOS, plaintiff-appellees vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 11 January 2016 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 214536: MEDEL CORONEL y SANTILLAN, RONALDO PERMEJO y ABARQUEZ, NESTOR VILLAFUERTE y SAPIN, and JOANNE OLIVAREZ y RAMOS v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
This court resolves the Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assailing the Decision of the Court of Appeals Eleventh Division, which affirmed the Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 231. The Regional Trial Court found accused-appellants Medel Coronel y Santillan, Ronaldo Permejo y Abarquez, Nestor Villafuerte y Sapin, and Joanne Olivarez y Ramos guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Article II, Sections 7 and 15 of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). The Regional Trial Court found: HTcADC
[a] [A]ccused MEDEL CORONEL Y SANTILLAN, RONALDO PERMEJO Y ABARQUEZ, NESTOR VILLAFUERTE Y SAPIN and JOANNE OLIVAREZ Y RAMOS a.k.a. JOANNE OLIVARE, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charge of Violation of Section 15, Article II, Republic Act [No.] 9165 in Criminal Case No. R-PSY-10-02058-CR and are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of six (6) months rehabilitation in a government center;
[b] [A]ccused MEDEL CORONEL Y SANTILLAN, RONALDO PERMEJO Y ABARQUEZ, NESTOR VILLAFUERTE Y SAPIN and JOANNE OLIVAREZ Y RAMOS a.k.a. JOANNE OLIVARE, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charge of Violation of Section 7, (Visitors of Den, Dive or Resort) of Republic Act No. 9165 in Criminal Case No. R-PSY-10-02059-CR and are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to fourteen (14) years as maximum and for each of them to pay a fine of one hundred thousand pesos (Php100,000) with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. 3
The Court of Appeals dismissed the Appeal and affirmed 4 the ruling of the trial court in CA-G.R. CR No. 35399 dated April 29, 2014. 5
According to two Informations filed before the Regional Trial Court, 6 on or about May 19, 2010, Coronel, Permejo, Villafuerte, and Olivarez were caught knowingly and illegally visiting a drug den and using methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) at No. 1734 F. Muñoz Street, Tramo Street, Barangay 43, Zone 6, Pasay City. 7
Prosecution's version of events
On May 19, 2010, at around 11:00 a.m., IO2 Randy Paragasa, then the Special Enforcement Group Team Leader of the Metro Manila Regional Office — Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, held a briefing with his team regarding the implementation of a search warrant 8 covering a building located at No. 1734 F. Muñoz Street, Tramo Street, Barangay 43, Zone 6, Pasay City. 9 In that briefing, IO2 Daniel Discaya was designated as the seizing officer, while IO1 Jake Edwin Million and IO1 Jayson Albao were assigned as the arresting officers. In compliance with procedural requirements, the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency team prepared the following documents: a) pre-operations report form, b) coordination form, c) authority to operate, and d) inventory of seized property/items form. 10
In lateral coordination with a team from the Philippine National Police — Southern Police District, the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency team arrived at the building at around 2:00 p.m. 11 They knocked on the door and announced to the persons inside that they were armed with a search warrant. No one opened the door. A Philippine Drug Enforcement Agent then shouted, "May tumalon sa bintana" (Somebody jumped out of the window). IO2 Discaya forced the door open with a battering ram, while IO1 Million and IO1 Albao ran after the persons who had jumped out of the window. 12
Inside the building were three (3) persons identified as Erlinda Fetalino, Joanne Olivarez, and Benjie Guday. 13 The prosecution alleged the three (3) to be patrons of the drug den. IO2 Discaya read to them the search warrant. 14
Meanwhile, Coronel, Permejo, and Villafuerte tried to escape by jumping out of a window and sustained injuries. IO1 Million and IO1 Albao, with the help of the perimeter team, apprehended the three (3) and brought them back to the building, where the search warrant was read to them. 15
At that point, the Barangay Kagawad Oga Hernandez and Herald Santos, Assistant City Prosecutor of Pasay City Angel Marcos, and DZAR Sunshine Radio Reporter Jimmy Mendoza arrived. 16 In their presence, the team conducted the search. 17
The following were recovered from the crime scene:
1. One (1) self-sealing transparent plastic sachet marked [as] EXH-A D.D.D. 5-19-10 containing
a. nineteen (19) aluminum foils marked as EXH-A D.D.D.-1 5-10-10 to EXH-A D.D.D.-19 5-19-10 18
2. One (1) medicine box (light blue) containing white crystalline substance . . . marked as EXH-B D.D.D. 5-19-10 and further containing
a. one (1) transparent plastic sachet marked as EXH-B-1 D.D.D. 5-19-10 19
3. One (1) self-sealing transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance . . . marked as EXH-C D.D.D. 5-19-10 and further containing
a. one (1) heat-sealed transparent sachet containing white crystalline substance . . . marked as EXH-C-1 D.D.D. 5-19-10 20
b. one (1) heat-sealed transparent sachet containing white crystalline substance . . . marked as EXH-C-2 D.D.D. 5-19-10 21
c. one (1) heat-sealed transparent sachet containing white crystalline substance . . . marked as EXH-C-3 D.D.D. 5-19-10 22
d. one (1) heat-sealed transparent sachet containing white crystalline substance . . . marked as EXH-C-4 D.D.D. 5-19-10 23
e. one (1) heat-sealed transparent sachet containing white crystalline substance . . . marked as EXH-C-5 D.D.D. 5-19-10 24
f. one (1) heat-sealed transparent sachet containing white crystalline substance . . . marked as EXH-C-6 D.D.D. 5-19-10 25
g. one (1) heat-sealed transparent sachet containing white crystalline substance . . . marked as EXH-C-7 D.D.D. 5-19-10 26
4. One (1) plastic tray (black) containing white powdery residue. . . marked as EXH-D D.D.D. 5-19-10 27
5. One (1) improvised aluminum foil tooter marked as EXH-D-1 D.D.D. 5-19-10 28
6. Two (2) disposable lighter[s] marked as EXH-D-2 D.D.D. 5-19-10 to EXH-D-3 D.D.D. 5-19-10 29
7. Two (2) improvised plastic scoop[s] marked as EXH-D-4 D.D.D. 5-19-10 to EXH-D-5 D.D.D. 5-19-10 30
8. One (1) rectangular metal pencil case marked as EXH-E D.D.D. 5-19-10 and further containing
a. one (1) transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance . . . marked as EXH-E-1 D.D.D. 5-19-10
b. one (1) improvised aluminum foil tooter marked as EXH-E-2 D.D.D. 5-19-10 31
c. one (1) improvised plastic pipe marked as EXH-E-3 D.D.D. 5-19-10 32
9. Five (5) disposable lighter[s] marked as EXH-E-4 D.D.D. 5-19-10 to EXH-E-8 D.D.D. 5-19-10 33
10. One (1) self-sealing transparent plastic sachet marked as EXH-F D.D.D. 5-19-10 containing Five Hundred Eighty (Php580.00) of assorted bills 34
11. One (1) self-sealing transparent plastic sachet marked as EXH-G D.D.D. 5-19-10 [containing] One Hundred Sixty-Five (Php165.00) of assorted coins 35
12. [O]ne (1) metal rectangular cash box (blue) containing white crystalline substance . . . marked as EXH-H D.D.D. 5-19-10 and further containing
a. one (1) heat-sealed transparent sachet containing white crystalline substance . . . marked as EXH-H-1 D.D.D. 5-19-10 36
b. one (1) heat-sealed transparent sachet containing white crystalline substance . . . marked as EXH-H-2 D.D.D. 5-19-10 37
c. one (1) digital weighing scale marked as EHX-H-3 D.D.D. 5-19-10 38
13. One (1) rectangular transparent medicine kit (plastic) containing five (5) pcs. of rectangular [cardboard] and white crystalline substance . . . marked as EXH-I-D.D.D. 5-19-10. 39
Coronel, Permejo, Villafuerte, and Olivarez were arrested and apprised of their constitutional rights. 40 The confiscated items were also inventoried, photographed, and marked in their presence and in the presence of the barangay officials, the Department of Justice representative, and the media representative. 41 They were brought to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency Headquarters for investigation and mandatory drug testing. 42 The seized items were further subjected to laboratory examination. 43
Coronel, Permejo, Villafuerte, and Olivarez all tested positive for shabu. 44 The white crystalline substance found in the seized objects was also identified as shabu. 45
The prosecution submitted the following in its formal offer of evidence:
1) Search Warrant No. 4680 (10); 2) Joint Affidavit of the Arresting Officers; 3) Pre-Operation Report dated May 19, 2010; 4) Authority to Operate dated May 19, 2010; 5) Certificate of Coordination; 6) Certification from the Barangay; 7) Inventory of the Seized Property/Items and Receipt of property seized; 8) Pictures of the incident; 9) Request for Laboratory Examination; 10) Request for Drug Test dated May 19, 2010; 11) Chemistry Report N[o]. PDEA-DT010-148 to 153; 12) Booking Sheets and Arrest Reports of [petitioners]; 13) strips of aluminum foil; 14) medicine box with white residue; [15]) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance; [16]) improvised white plastic scoops; [17]) metal rectangular cash box containing traces of white crystalline substance; [18]) improvised plastic pipes; [19]) plastic sachets; [20]) plastic tray containing traces of white crystalline substance; and [21]) silver card boards. 46
Defense's version of events
The defense presented only the testimonies of Coronel, Permejo, Villafuerte, and Olivarez. 47
According to Coronel, he did not know Permejo, Villafuerte, and Olivarez. He argued that on May 19, 2010 at around 2:00 p.m., he was looking for a certain Rommel Yabut, whom he had planned to invite for the christening of his child. He was allegedly unsuccessful in finding Yabut in Tramo, Pasay. Suddenly, there was a commotion, and a man wearing a shirt with a Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency label pointed a gun at him and asked if he was among those being arrested. Coronel said that he was just looking for someone. A man who appeared to be the leader of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency team told the man holding the gun that Coronel should be brought with them. Coronel was handcuffed and brought to the drug den. 48 He denied being at the drug den out of his own volition. aScITE
Likewise, Permejo argued that he did not know Coronel, Villafuerte, and Olivarez. He narrated that during the incident, he was walking along Tramo, Pasay, having just come from his cousin's place in Zapanta. Just as he was about to reach the basketball court, two armed men approached him and brought him to another alley where he was handcuffed. After about an hour, he was made to board a van, which brought him to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency office. 49
According to Villafuerte, he knew only Olivarez. During the incident, he and Olivarez were walking along Tramo when two men wearing Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency shirts approached them. They were forced into an alley where he saw other persons handcuffed, and was told to stay put. He and Olivarez were eventually handcuffed and made to board a van. Upon reaching the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency office, Villafuerte alleged that they were all made to sign documents and then brought to their detention cells. 50
The Decision of the Regional Trial Court
The trial court found Coronel, Permejo, Villafuerte, and Olivarez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Article II, Sections 7 and 15 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. The dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
a) ACQUITTING the accused BENJIE GUDAY Y MANTILLA, FIDEL BALBOA Y MEMORACION and ERLINDA FETALINO Y BATICA of the charge of Violation of Section 7, of Republic Act 9165 in Criminal Case No. R-PSY 10-02059-CR for failure of prosecution's evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt;
b) Finding accused MEDEL CORONEL Y SANTILLAN, RONALDO PERMEJO Y ABARQUEZ, NESTOR VILLAFUERTE Y SAPIN and JOANNE OLIVAREZ Y RAMOS a.k.a. JOANNE OLIVARE, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charge of Violation of Section 15, Article II, Republic Act 9165 in Criminal Case No. R-PSY-10-02058-CR and are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of six (6) months rehabilitation in a government center; [and]
c) Finding accused MEDEL CORONEL Y SANTILLAN, RONALDO PERMEJO Y ABARQUEZ, NESTOR VILLAFUERTE Y SAPIN and JOANNE OLIVAREZ Y RAMOS a.k.a. JOANNE OLIVARE, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charge of Violation of Section 7, (Visitors of Den, Dive or Resort) of Republic Act No. 9165 in Criminal Case No. R-PSY-10-02059-CR and are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to fourteen (14) years as maximum and for each of them to pay a fine of one hundred thousand pesos (Php100,000) with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
The Officer-in-[C]harge is hereby directed to transmit the shabu, evidence in these cases to the PDEA for its proper disposition.
SO ORDERED.51 (Emphasis in the original)
During the preliminary conference, the prosecution and defense stipulated, inter alia, on the following: (a) the competency and qualifications of Richard Allan Mangalip, the forensic chemist who examined the specimen subject of this case, and his testimony regarding the examination he conducted on it and its corresponding results, with the qualification that he had no personal knowledge of the origin of the specimen and its ownership; and (b) that the specimen subject of this case marked as Exhibit "D" for the prosecution was the same item subject of a request for laboratory examination dated April 16, 2009 marked as Exhibit "B," and that the same specimen was examined by the forensic chemist as reported in the Physical Science Report No. D-192-09S marked as Exhibit "C." 52
The Decision of the Court of Appeals
The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal of Coronel, Permejo, Villafuerte, and Olivarez, and affirmed the trial court's decision.
Before the Court of Appeals, they alleged that the prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt, considering that none of the persons enumerated or listed in the search warrant were arrested and that none of them were listed or referred to in the search warrant. 53 In holding that this argument had no merit, the Court of Appeals held that:
a search warrant is considered as valid and sufficient if the same particularly describe the place to be searched and the things to be seized. What is controlling is that the body of the warrant . . . particularizes the place to be searched and the things to be seized, and specifies the offense involved. 54 (Citation omitted)
The Court of Appeals also held that the positive and credible testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses, as well as the object and documentary evidence presented before the trial court, prevailed over the unsubstantiated defense of denial by Coronel, Permejo, Villafuerte, and Olivarez. 55 As for the issue of chain of custody, the Court of Appeals held that: (a) the prosecution proved that the requirements of the law were sufficiently complied with; 56 (b) the lower court was in a better position to judge the credibility of the witnesses presented to show regularity in the performance of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency's duties; 57 and (c) the non-presentation of the forensic chemist in illegal drug cases is an insufficient cause for acquittal because the corpus delicti in dangerous drugs cases is the dangerous drug itself, and not the testimony of the laboratory analyst. 58 The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals' decision reads:
Finally, considering that the penalties imposed upon accused-appellants are all in accord with the provisions of R.A. No. 9165, more so since they never questioned the same in their Brief, this Court affirms the imposition of said penalties by the court a quo.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Appeal is DISMISSED. The Joint Decision dated 30 October 2012 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 231 in Criminal Case Nos. R-PSY-010-02059-CR and R-PSY-010-02058-CR is AFFIRMED. HEITAD
SO ORDERED.59 (Emphasis in the original)
This court's ruling
Petitioners bring forth the same arguments raised in their Appeal before the Court of Appeals, all of which had been properly settled by the Court of Appeals. This Petition must be denied for lack of merit.
Petitioners argue that in failing to present the forensic chemist during trial, the prosecution likewise failed to prove the existence of an unbroken chain of custody. Furthermore, they argue that the prosecution failed to produce the corpus delicti. This is unmeritorious. Article II, Section 21, paragraph 1 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act states:
(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, and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
Section 21 (a) of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act's Implementing Rules and Regulations states:
a) The apprehending officer/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: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizure; Provided, further, that 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. (Emphasis supplied)
The Court of Appeals correctly emphasized that during trial, the requirements of the law were sufficiently complied with. The testimonies of the members of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency team, found by the trial court to be credible, established that there was physical inventory, marking, and taking of photographs of the seized items. During the process, the following were found present: (a) Barangay Kagawad Oga Hernandez and Herald Santos, (b) Assistant City Prosecutor of Pasay City and Fiscal Angel Marcos, (c) media representative Jimmy Mendoza, and (d) petitioners themselves. 60 The inventory of seized properties/items bore the signature of these witnesses, and was presented and formally offered as evidence. 61 The defense did not present any evidence to controvert the case of the prosecution.
It is a well-settled rule that the findings of the trial court regarding the credibility of witnesses are accorded great respect, especially if the findings are affirmed by the Court of Appeals. 62 This is founded upon the recognition that trial courts are able to observe the demeanor of the witnesses as they testify. 63
The non-presentation of the forensic chemist is also of no moment.
First, the defense agreed during the preliminary conference to stipulate on: (a) the competency and qualifications of Richard Allan Mangalip, the forensic chemist who examined the specimen subject of this case, and his testimony regarding the examination he conducted on it and its corresponding results, with the qualification that he had no personal knowledge of the origin of the specimen and its ownership; and (b) that the specimen subject of this case marked as Exhibit "D" for the prosecution was the same item subject of a request for laboratory examination dated April 16, 2009 marked as Exhibit "B," and that the same specimen was examined by the forensic chemist as reported in the Physical Science Report No. D-192-09S marked as Exhibit "C." 64
Second, in People of the Philippines v. Mali,65 as properly referred to by the Court of Appeals:
the failure of the forensic chemist to testify in court did not undermine the case for the prosecution. The non-presentation of the forensic chemist in illegal drug cases is an insufficient cause for acquittal. This is because the corpus delicti in criminal cases on prohibited drugs has nothing to do with the testimony of the laboratory analyst. ATICcS
The corpus delicti in dangerous drugs cases constitutes the dangerous drug itself. To sustain conviction, its identity must be established in that the substance bought during the buy-bust operation is the same substance offered in court as exhibit. The chain of custody requirement performs this function as it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. 66 (Citation omitted)
Petitioners' version also interposes the defense of denial and frame-up. 67 This is generally viewed by this court with disfavor since:
it can easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in prosecutions for violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act. In order to prosper, the defense of denial and frame-up must be proved with strong and convincing evidence. In the case before us, appellants miserably failed to present any evidence in support of their claims. Aside from their self-serving assertions, no plausible proof was presented to bolster their allegations. 68 (Citation omitted, emphasis supplied)
After an evaluation of the records of the case, this court ADOPTS the finding of fact and conclusions of law of the Court of Appeals and affirms its Decision dated April 29, 2014.
WHEREFORE, this court resolves to DENY this Petition for lack of merit. Petitioners Medel Coronel y Santillan, Ronaldo Permejo y Abarquez, Nestor Villafuerte y Sapin, and Joanne Olivarez y Ramos a.k.a. Joanne Olivare, are GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the following:
a) violating Article II, Section 15 of Republic Act No. 9165 in Criminal Case No. R-PSY-10-02058-CR and are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of six (6) months of rehabilitation in a government center; and
b) violating Article II, Section 7 of Republic Act No. 9165 in Criminal Case No. R-PSY-10-02059-CR and are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to fourteen (14) years as maximum and for each of them to pay a fine of P100,000.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 13.
2.Id. at 71-86.
3.Id. at 85-86.
4.Id. at 112-127. The decision was penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion and concurred in by Associate Justice Vicente S.E. Veloso and Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela of the Court of Appeals Eleventh Division.
5.Id. at 112.
6. The decision was penned by Presiding Judge Divina Gracia Lopez Peliño of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 231.
7.Rollo, pp. 71-72.
8. The search warrant was issued by Judge Fernando T. Sagun on May 15, 2010.
9.Rollo, p. 116.
10. Id.
11. Id.
12. Id.
13. The Regional Trial Court acquitted Fetalino and Guday for the prosecution's failure to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
14. Rollo, p. 116.
15. Id.
16. Id.
17. Id.
18. Id. at 114.
19. Id.
20. Id.
21. Id.
22. Id.
23. Id.
24. Id.
25. Id.
26. Id.
27. Id.
28. Id.
29. Id. at 115.
30. Id.
31. Id.
32. Id.
33. Id.
34. Id.
35. Id.
36. Id.
37. Id.
38. Id.
39. Id.
40. Id. at 116.
41. Id.
42. Id.
43. Id.
44. Id.
45. Id.
46. Id. at 117.
47. Id.
48. Id. at 117-118.
49. Id. at 118.
50. Id.
51. Id. at 85-86.
52. Id. at 75.
53. Id. at 119.
54. Id.
55. Id. at 123.
56. Id. at 125.
57. Id. at 126.
58. Id.
59. Id.
60. Id. at 125.
61. Id. These were marked as Exhibits H, H-1, and H-2.
62. People of the Philippines v. Hernandez, et al., 607 Phil. 617 (2009) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division].
63.Id. at 635.
64. Rollo, p. 75.
65. People of the Philippines v. Mali, G.R. No. 206738, December 11, 2013, 712 SCRA 776 (2013) [Per J. Reyes, First Division].
66. Id. at 795.
67. Rollo, p. 36.
68. People of the Philippines v. Hernandez, et al., 607 Phil. 617, 635-636 (2009) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division].