THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 236841. June 28, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. ALFONSO ABANIL y LILOC, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated June 28, 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 236841 (People of the Philippines v. Alfonso Abanil y Liloc). — This is an appeal 1 filed by Alfonso Abanil y Liloc (Abanil), challenging the May 17, 2017 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01476-MIN that affirmed the November 6, 2015 Judgment 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Medina, Misamis Oriental, Branch 26. The RTC found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165) or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Antecedents:
Abanil was charged with illegal sale and possession of prohibited drugs in two Informations that read:
Criminal Case No. 2025-M (2014):
That on or about the 13th day of March 2014, in Barangay San Alonzo, Balingoan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously and knowingly deliver to SO2 Beil C. Pabilona, posing as a buyer, for and in consideration of Php1,000.00, one (1) plastic sachet containing 0.2636 grams of white crystalline substance which when subjected to laboratory examination gave positive result for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO and in violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). 4
Criminal Case No. 2026-M (2014):
That on or about the 13th day of March 2014, in Barangay San Alonzo, Balingoan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have in the possession, custody, and control of Alfonso Abanil y Liloc EIGHTEEN (18) transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance with a total weight of 7.3865 grams which when subjected to laboratory examination gave positive result for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO and in violation to Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). 5
Abanil pleaded not guilty to both charges. Joint trial ensued after the conclusion of the pre-trial. The prosecution presented the following witnesses, namely, Senior Officer 2 Neil C. Pabilona (SO2 Pabilona), intelligence agents Rodolfo de la Cerna, Jr. (Agent De la Cerna) and Vincent Cecil M. Orcales (Agent Orcales), Police Colonel Danilo S. Espero (PCol. Espero), Larry C. Mercado (Mercado), and Mary Ann Ancheta (Ancheta), the forensic chemist of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). On the other hand, the defense presented Lourdes E. Abanil (Lourdes), Pedrito M. Liloc (Liloc), and Abanil himself. 6
Version of the Prosecution:
SO2 Pabilona testified that their confidential informant (CI) reported a drug activity involving Abanil in Balingoan, Misamis Oriental on March 12, 2014. A buy-bust operation was planned by their regional director, where SO2 Pabilona and Agent De la Cerna were designated as poseur-buyer and arresting officer, respectively. On March 13, 2014, a buy-bust operation was jointly conducted by the PDEA and the Balingoan Philippine National Police. 7 The team prepared two pieces of P500.00 bills as marked money for the buy-bust operation. 8
Around 6:30 p.m. of March 13, 2014, the buy-bust team positioned themselves strategically along the highway in Balingoan. Agent De la Cerna positioned himself at the back of Abanil's house 9 while SO2 Pabilona and the CI proceeded to Abanil's house. After he was introduced by the CI to Abanil as the buyer, SO2 Pabilona gave to Abanil the two pieces of P500.00 marked bills. In turn, Abanil took out a plastic transparent sachet containing white crystalline substance from the left side pocket of his shorts and gave it to SO2 Pabilona. After the sale, SO2 Pabilona executed the pre-arranged signal for the consummation of the transaction. 10 Thereupon, Agent De la Cerna and the rest of the buy-bust team rushed toward Abanil's house through the back door. 11 When Abanil saw the team, he ran toward the highway while throwing away other sachets containing white crystalline substance. 12 Abanil failed to escape as the buy-bust team's service vehicles cornered him along the highway.
Immediately after the arrest of Abanil, the buy-bust team marked and inventoried the sachet containing white crystalline substance inside Abanil's house. 13 The marking and inventory were witnessed by Abanil himself, Agent De la Cerna, Col. Espero, and representatives from the media and barangay, who all signed the inventory. 14
Agent De la Cerna further testified that he recovered the following from Abanil, namely, (a) a cellphone; (b) two P500.00 peso bills, the marked money; (c) cash amount to P320.00; and (d) a big rectangular transparent plastic sachet and five small transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance. He also recovered 12 medium transparent plastic sachets thrown by Abanil while evading his arrest. The aforementioned items were accordingly marked and inventoried in the presence of the same witnesses. 15 After the marking, inventory, and taking of photographs, the buy-bust team returned to Cagayan De Oro for the preparation of the blotter report and case documentation. Agent Orcales signed the request for laboratory examination of the confiscated items and for Abanil's urine test. 16
Forensic chemist Ancheta testified that she conducted the laboratory examinations per Agent Orcales' request letter on March 14, 2014. Her Chemistry Report No. PDEA No. DD-2014-026 17 reflected that the 19 heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance were positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. 18
Version of the defense:
Abanil, a tricycle driver, denied his involvement in the alleged sale of illegal drugs. He claimed that he was framed-up. 19
He narrated that he had just parked his tricycle around 6:00 p.m. of March 13, 2014 when a group of individuals approached him. One held his right hand, while another held his left hand. The rest pushed him out of his tricycle. 20 He was hit at the back, forced inside his yard, and handcuffed when he resisted. While in handcuffs, a certain police officer Ipan placed a cellophane inside his front pocket and inserted a small pack in his back pocket. 21 Abanil shouted for help and asked his wife Lourdes to inspect his pockets. Subsequently, he was brought inside their living area, where his wife, sister, mother, seven children, and son-in-law were also present. Police officer Ipan then emptied the contents of a green bag, saying that those would be used as evidence against him. 22
Lourdes also denied that a PDEA agent bought shabu from Abanil. She insisted that Abanil was working as a tricycle driver in Buko, Kinoguitan at that time. 23
Lourdes testified that her children informed her about a commotion involving certain police officers outside their house. She then heard Abanil shouting for help. She claimed that an individual, who identified himself as Agent De la Cerna, entered through their back door and prevented Lourdes from helping Abanil. After a while, Abanil told her to inspect his pockets. 24 The officers who apprehended Abanil then brought out drug paraphernalia and asked Lourdes about it but she denied any knowledge. Lourdes also saw police officer Ipan frisk Abanil and insert something in his front pocket. 25 However, she admitted that she could not identify the object. She did not also see what transpired outside their house when Abanil was apprehended, 26 and if shabu was recovered by Agent De la Cerna from Abanil's pocket. 27
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:
The trial court found Abanil guilty of illegal sale of shabu weighing 0.2636 grams in Criminal Case No. 2025-M (2014) but acquitted him of illegal possession of prohibited drugs in Criminal Case No. 2026-M (2014). 28
The trial court held that the buy-bust operation conducted by the police operatives was valid and legal. 29 It did not give credence to Abanil's contention of frame-up. It upheld the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties, there being no showing that the police officers were actuated by ill motive or malice in conducting the buy-bust operation. 30
The trial court found that the prosecution satisfactorily established all the elements of the crime. As to the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration, it found that SO2 Pabilona, the poseur-buyer, positively identified Abanil as the individual caught in flagrante delicto while selling shabu during the buy-bust operation. Regarding the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor, the trial court found that Abanil gave one sachet of white crystalline substance to SO2 Pabilona after the latter handed the marked money to him. The sachet weighing 0.2636 grains tested positive for shabu. When Abanil handed over the sachet of shabu to SO2 Pabilona and when the latter paid for and received the same, the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs had been consummated. 31
As mentioned earlier, the trial court acquitted Abanil from the charge of illegal possession of prohibited drugs. 32
The dispositive portion of the trial court's Decision provides:
WHEREFORE, in Criminal Case No. 2025-M (2014) for selling of the prohibited drug weighing 0.2636 grams, the accused is adjudged GUILTY and he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay the fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00). In Criminal Case No. 2026-M (2014), for illegal possession of prohibited drug, the accused is ACQUITTED.
xxx xxx xxx
SO ORDERED. 33
Abanil filed an appeal with the CA.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
The appellate court denied Abanil's appeal. 34 It similarly found that the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt all the elements for the illegal sale of prohibited drugs. It emphasized that this offense is consummated upon delivery of the prohibited drugs particularly when the poseur-buyer receives the prohibited drugs, from the seller. The appellate court gave credence to SO2 Pabilona's testimony that he handed over the marked money to Abanil and the latter gave him one sachet of shabu in exchange thereof. 35
The appellate court likewise affirmed the trial court's findings that the defense failed to adduce proof of ill motive on the part of the police officers. It upheld the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties and accorded the trial court's findings on the credibility of witnesses with great respect. 36 It observed that Abanil's bare denial and defense of frame-up remained uncorroborated. 37
Moreover, the appellate court brushed aside Abanil's averment that the prosecution should have presented the CI to validate the buy-bust operation. It clarified that the presentation of the informant is not required during the trial and the testimony of the CI is rather corroborative and not indispensable to establish the offense. The appellate court found the detailed testimony of SO2 Pabilona rendered the CI's testimony unnecessary. 38
The fallo of the CA's Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is hereby DENIED. The Judgment dated November 6, 2015, of the Regional Trial Court, 10th Judicial Region, Branch 26, Medina, Misamis Oriental, finding accused-appellant Alfonso Liloc Abanil, guilty beyond reasonable doubt in Crim. Case No. 2025-M (2014) for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 39
Both the prosecution and the defense manifested that they would no longer be filing their supplemental brief as they had already exhaustively discussed their arguments before the appellate court. 40
Our Ruling
The appeal lacks merit.
Abanil essentially contends that the rulings of the courts below were not supported by evidence, and that he should be accorded the presumption of innocence. He further asserts that there was no probable cause for his arrest. Consequently, he claims that the accompanying search and seizure were illegal and the evidence gathered inadmissible. 41 Abanil also assails the credibility of SO2 Pabilona. 42
Conversely, the prosecution argues that the wisdom of the courts below should be accorded with great respect. 43
The issues on the presence of probable cause and the credibility of witnesses are questions of fact settled by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court. In general, this Court entertains only questions of law. Thus, the trial court's factual findings, including its assessment of the credibility of witnesses, are given high regard, and which this Court leaves undisturbed especially when the appellate court affirms the same. 44
This Court, however, is not unmindful of the long-standing principle in criminal cases that an appeal throws the entire case open for review. People v. Estonilo45 instructs that the reviewing tribunal may correct unassigned errors, reverse the trial court's decision on the ground other than those interposed by the parties, examine the records, increase the penalty, revise the judgment, and cite proper penal provision.
After a careful perusal of the records, We find that the resolution of the trial court, as affirmed by the appellate court, was in order and supported by evidence. While it is true that an accused is presumed innocent until proven otherwise, 46 We hold that the prosecution adequately established the elements of the illegal sale of prohibited drugs.
The absence of a warrant of arrest
Abanil also argues that the evidence proffered by the prosecution are not admissible because the entry of police officers into his house was illegal. He alleges that they only acted based on SO2 Pabilona's pre-arranged signal and not on their personal knowledge that a crime had been committed or that Abanil was committing a crime. 47 Moreover, Abanil maintains that he was not committing any crime or doing any suspicious act as he was just alighting from his tricycle at the time of the arrest. Hence, there was no probable cause for the police officers to arrest him without warrant. 48
Abanil's contention is without merit. A buy-bust operation is a sanctioned entrapment procedure, where a drug peddler may be apprehended without a warrant of arrest. It is an operation to trap and capture drug peddlers and distributors in flagrante delicto. 49 Hence, a buy-bust team may conduct a surveillance, plan and execute their entrapment operation, and then arrest a drug peddler caught in the act of selling prohibited drugs absent a warrant. The confiscated prohibited drugs following the buy-bust operation are admissible in evidence as they were seized pursuant to a valid entrapment procedure. Unless the buy-bust operation was a sham, these evidence may be used against the drug peddler. Besides, Abanil has already waived his right to question the validity of his arrest when he failed to object thereto before his arraignment. 50
The elements of Section 5, Article
The conviction under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 necessitates the existence of two elements, namely, (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. It is essential that the sale transaction is consummated and that the corpus delicti or the prohibited drugs recovered from the accused are untampered until presented as evidence in court. 51 What perfects and consummates said offense is the delivery of the prohibited drugs to the poseur-buyer and the seller's receipt of the marked money. 52
In this case, SO2 Pabilona positively identified Abanil as the person who sold to him the prohibited drugs for P1,000.00. There is no doubt that the sale transaction happened and that Abanil indeed sold a sachet containing shabu to SO2 Pabilona in exchange for two pieces of P500.00 bill.
On the issue concerning the CI, their non-presentation as a witness is not fatal to the case, unless the CI acted as poseur-buyer. 53 To prove the sale transaction, it is significant that the poseur-buyer, not necessarily the CI, takes the witness stand to testify on said illegal sale. Case law dictates to such effect:
Andaya recognized that not presenting the informant was different from not presenting the poseur-buyer. As held in prior cases, there was no need to present the confidential informant since the testimony would merely corroborate the testimonies of those who actually witnessed the transaction. The case is different, however, if the confidential informant and the poseur-buyer were one and the same person. 54 (Citations Omitted)
Here, the prosecution presented SO2 Pabilona, the poseur-buyer, to testify on the illegal sale transaction with Abanil, among other matters. Since the poseur-buyer had taken the witness stand, the presentation of the CI is no longer necessary.
The chain of custody as provided
Abanil hinges on the doubtful chain of custody of the confiscated shabu from him. He questions the seemingly vague detail as to who among the members of the buy-bust team recovered the sachets thrown away when he tried to escape. He also finds it irregular that the markings of the confiscated sachets of shabu happened inside his house and not where he was apprehended. Abanil cites the equipoise rule, which provides that when the evidence in a criminal case is balanced, the presumption of innocence takes primacy. 55
On the other hand, the People avers that proper chain of custody of the confiscated illegal drugs was observed. 56 It also asserts that the marking of the confiscated illegal drugs inside Abanil's house was justified and such fact was not fatal to the case of the prosecution since what is significant is that the integrity of the corpus delicti had been preserved in the process. Moreso, it was justified considering that other drug paraphernalia were found inside Abanil's house. 57 The People emphasizes that a slight deviation from the tenor of the law is permissible so long as it could be proven that the integrity of the corpus delicti has been preserved. 58
In narcotics cases, We emphasize that the prohibited drug constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense, and its existence and integrity are critical factors in the prosecution of the offense. The chain of custody should be unbroken and untarnished to avoid suspicion of planting, switching, or tampering of evidence. Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 states that the seized items must be inventoried and photographed immediately after seizure and confiscation. Moreover, People v. Tanes59 explains that —
[T]he phrase "immediately after seizure and confiscation" means that the physical inventory and photographing of the drugs were intended by the law to be made immediately after, or at the place of apprehension. It is only when the same is not practicable that the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. 9165 allow the inventory and photographing to be done as soon as the buy-bust team reaches the nearest police station or the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team.
In this case, the police officers marked and inventoried the seized items inside Abanil's house where he was apprehended. We note that the police officers put up a chase because Abanil tried to escape. He threw other sachets along the way and other drug paraphernalia were also found in his house. The law does not require that the marking and inventory be made exactly at the place where the accused was handcuffed or restrained. Under the present circumstances, the marking and taking of inventory and photographs were properly done inside Abanil's house where his initial apprehension was made. It would have been impractical to mark and inventory the confiscated illegal drugs at three different places, namely (1) along the road where he was apprehended, (2) the place where he had thrown other sachets while trying to escape, and (3) inside his house where other illegal drugs were found.
A close perusal of the inventory shows that the items seized and confiscated from Abanil were correctly listed and said inventory was signed by the witnesses required by law. 60 Pictures were likewise taken by the police officers. 61 Upon return to Cagayan De Oro, the police officers prepared a request for laboratory examination and turned over the confiscated drugs to the forensic chemist who found them positive for shabu. These efforts and diligence as may be gleaned from the testimonies of the police officers satisfy the requisite chain of custody for the preservation of the corpus delicti's integrity.
In sum, the elements of Section 5 and the procedure laid down in Section 21 of RA 9165 have been satisfied and complied with accordingly. Hence, We affirm Abanil's conviction for illegal sale of prohibited drugs.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed May 17, 2017 Decision 62 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01476-MIN is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 13-14.
2.Id. at 3-12; penned by Associate Justice Oscar V. Badelles and concurred in by Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Perpetua T. Atal-Paño.
3. CA rollo, pp. 44-54; penned by Judge Dan R. Calderon.
4. Records, p. 1.
5.Id. at 395-396.
6.Id. at 80.
7. TSN, July 10, 2014, pp. 7-8.
8.Id. at 10-11.
9. TSN, August 7, 2014, p. 12.
10. TSN, July 10, 2014, p. 20.
11. TSN, August 7, 2014, p. 14.
12.Id. at 6.
13. TSN, July 10, 2014, p. 21.
14.Id. at 25-27. See also TSN, November 13, 2014, p. 11.
15. TSN, August 7, 2014, p. 21.
16. TSN, January 15, 2015, pp. 7-8.
17. Records p. 16.
18. TSN, July 3, 2014, pp. 7-8.
19. TSN, August 13, 2014, pp. 295-313.
20. TSN, June 11, 2015, pp. 4-6.
21.Id. at 7-8.
22.Id. at 11-13.
23.Id. at 14.
24.Id. at 6-7.
25.Id. at 10-11.
26.Id. at 21-22.
27.Id. at 17.
28. CA rollo, pp. 44-54.
29. Records, p. 401.
30.Id. at 402.
31.Id. at 402-403.
32.Id. at 404.
33.Id. at 404-405.
34.Rollo, pp. 3-12.
35.Id. at 8.
36.Id. at 10.
37.Id. at 9.
38.Id.
39.Id. at 11.
40.Id. at 22-23 and 28-29.
41. CA rollo, p. 34. See also CA rollo, p. 37.
42.Id. at 37.
43.Id. at 75-76.
44.People v. Maghuyop, G.R. No. 242942, October 5, 2020.
45. G.R. No. 248694, October 14, 2020.
46.People v. Lumikid, G.R. No. 242695, June 23, 2020.
47. CA rollo, p. 38.
48.Id.
49.People v. Claudel, G.R. No. 219852, April 3, 2019.
50.Lapi v. People, G.R. No. 210731, February 13, 2019.
51.Tolentino v. People, G.R. No. 227217, February 12, 2020.
52.People v. Dejos, G.R. No. 237423, October 12, 2020, citing People v. Hong Yeng E, 701 Phil. 280-288 (2013).
53.People v. Comoso, G.R. No. 227497, April 10, 2019, citing People v. Andaya, 745 Phil. 237 (2014).
54.Id.
55. CA rollo, p. 36.
56.Id. at 70.
57.Id. at 72.
58.Id. at 73.
59. G.R. No. 240596, April 3, 2019.
60. Records, p. 298.
61.Id. at 299.
62.Supra note 1.