FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 200052. November 22, 2017.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,vs. PEDRO ABINGLAS Y BADKI @ PEDRO, accused.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 22, 2017, which reads as follows: acEHCD
"G.R. No. 200052 (People of the Philippines v. Pedro Abinglas y Badki @ Pedro). — This is an appeal from the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) affirming the Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 61 (RTC), finding appellant guilty of the crime of sale of dangerous drugs.
THE INFORMATION
The undersigned accuses PEDRO ABINGLAS Y BADKI a.k.a. "PEDRO" and RAMON DENGYAS Y ROSENDO a.k.a. "RAMON" for VIOLATION OF SECTION 5 ARTICLE II OF REPUBLIC ACT 9165, committed as follows:
That on or about the 12th day of July, 2008, in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually aiding with one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and/or deliver to IO1 Aaron M. Apiit, a member of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, Cordillera Administrative Region, who posed as buyer, fifteen (15) bricks of dried marijuana fruiting tops, a dangerous drug, each wrapped with newspaper and further wrapped with brown packing tape, with a total weight of 1023.4 grams for P1,500.00 per kilo, without any lawful authority in violation of the aforecited provision of law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Baguio City, Philippines, July 17, 2008. 3
RULING OF THE RTC
In a Decision dated 20 November 2009, the RTC found appellant guilty of the crime of sale of dangerous drugs. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine of P5 million. 4 Co-accused Ramon Dengyas (Ramon) was acquitted, as there was no clear showing of his participation in the commission of the crime.
The RTC found merit in the prosecution's narration of events that led to the arrest of appellant. 5 A civilian informant had approached the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency-Cordillera Administrative Region (PDEA-CAR) on 10 July 2009 to report that appellant was responsible for the proliferation of drugs in Kibungan, Benguet. According to the civilian informant, appellant asked him to look for buyers of marijuana with the promise of a commission in case of a successful sale. Upon instruction of the operatives of the PDEA-CAR, the civilian informant contacted appellant through mobile phone. Together with Intelligence Officer 1 Aaron Apiit (IO1 Apiit), the poseur-buyer, appellant agreed to the delivery of 15 to 20 kilos of marijuana priced at P1,500 per kilo.
The exchange was set around 6:00 p.m. on 12 July 2008 at the Genesis Bus Terminal on Governor Pack Road in Baguio City. Appellant arrived with co-accused Ramon on board a taxicab. After the civilian informant introduced IO1 Apiit as the buyer, the latter asked appellant to show him the merchandise. Appellant instructed Ramon to unload a violet sack bag from the taxicab and to show its contents to IO1 Apiit. After seeing that the bag contained several bricks of dried marijuana leaves, IO1 Apiit removed his ball cap — the prearranged signal to the rest of the PDEA-CAR agents, who rushed in to aid in the arrest of appellant and Ramon. 6
The trial court gave no credence to the version of the defense 7 that appellant and Ramon were suddenly grabbed by PDEA agents on Governor Pack Road in Baguio City. From there, the two men were allegedly brought to the PDEA-CAR Office, where IO1 Apiit informed them that they needed to pay P100,000; otherwise, a case for selling marijuana would be filed against them. 8
The RTC ruled that PDEA had conducted a legitimate buy-bust operation. 9 The trial court also observed that the prosecution was able to prove that appellant had delivered around 20 kilos of dried marijuana fruiting tops to IO1 Apiit, the poseur-buyer, for the price of P1,500 per kilo. The corpus delicti was proven by the presentation of the marijuana bricks in open court. 10
RULING OF THE CA
On 13 June 2011, the CA rendered a Decision affirming that of the RTC. 11 It agreed with the trial court that what took place was a legitimate buy-bust operation, and not a case of instigation as argued by appellant. 12 The appellate court even noted that by raising instigation as a defense, appellant was effectively admitting that he had sold marijuana. It would seem that he was only questioning the circumstances of the sale to which he had allegedly been led by the PDEA agents. 13 At any rate, he did not allege, much less prove, any ill motive on the part of the PDEA agents that would make them falsely testify against him. 14
The CA also found that the prosecution was able to establish the chain of custody of the marijuana bricks from the time of their seizure until their presentation and identification in court. 15 It noted that the apprehending team was able to properly preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized marijuana bricks. 16 As regards the alleged non-presentation of the civilian informant, the buy-bust money, and the SIM card of appellant's mobile phone, the CA ruled that these were not necessary to prove the indispensable elements of a successful prosecution of the sale of dangerous drugs. 17 It emphasized that the commission of the crime of sale of dangerous drugs requires merely the consummation of the selling transaction, which occurs the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller. 18 SDHTEC
Appellant did not raise any objection to the validity of his arrest prior to his arraignment. 19 On the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses regarding the color of the sack bag and the identity of the person who had actually opened it, the CA found that these matters pertained to minor inconsistencies that did not in any way affect the credibility of the witnesses. 20
ISSUE
Whether there is proof beyond reasonable doubt that appellant is guilty of the crime of sale of dangerous drugs.
OUR RULING
In the instant appeal, appellant makes it a point to emphasize that the prosecution was not able to show that he was the person with whom the civilian informant and IO1 Apiit transacted on the phone. 21 Appellant further argues that during the alleged exchange on 12 July 2008, he was empty-handed when he emerged from the taxicab. He never even touched the violet sack bag that contained the marijuana bricks and was later unloaded and opened by Ramon. 22 According to appellant, these facts negate the finding that he was arrested in flagrante delicto through a legitimate buy-bust operation. 23 In fact, it was possible that while he was innocently talking with IO1 Apiit, Ramon just placed the bag containing marijuana bricks in front of the latter and opened it. 24
There is no merit in the contentions of appellant.
Even if we were to assume that appellant was not the same person with whom the civilian informant and IO1 Apiit transacted on the phone, the prosecution was able to prove that appellant had met with them on 12 July 2012 carrying marijuana bricks for sale. The testimony of IO1 Apiit is clear on this point:
PROS. AGUNOS:
Q Did the taxi indeed arrive at the area where you agreed on?
A Yes, Ma'am.
Q What time was that?
A Around 6:20, Ma'am.
Q When the taxi arrived what happened?
A I advised the civilian informant to verify the passengers of the taxi, Ma'am.
Q What did the civilian informant do to verify?
A He recognized the passengers that it was Ramon and Pedro, Ma'am.
Q Where did the taxi stop?
A Just beside the buses of Genesis, Ma'am.
Q When the civilian informant recognized the passengers of the taxi what happened?
A He whispered that it was Pedro and Ramon, Ma'am.
Q After he whispered to you that indeed the passengers of the taxi were the two (2) accused what did you do?
A We approached the taxi, Ma'am.
Q When you approached the taxi what did the two (2) accused do?
A Pedro recognized the civilian informant and he stepped out of the taxi, Ma'am.
Q Who stepped out from the taxi?
A Pedro, Ma'am.
Q And when he stepped out from the taxi what happened?
A The civilian informant introduced me to him as the buyer, Ma'am.
Q What did you talk about?
A I requested to see the items I was about to buy, Ma'am.
Q Where were the items placed?
A Pedro pinpointed at the back portion of the taxi a violet sack bag with drawings of "Winnie the Pooh," Ma'am.
Q What did you do next?
A I requested to see the contents of the bag, Ma'am. AScHCD
Q And were you able to see the contents of the bag?
A Yes after Ramon opened the sack, Ma'am.
Q What did you do next?
A Upon seeing the marijuana bricks covered with newspaper with packing tape I executed the pre-arranged signal, Ma'am.25 (Emphases supplied)
The foregoing testimony of IO1 Apiit highlights the indispensable elements of the crime of sale of dangerous drugs: the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and the delivery of the thing sold and its payment. 26
Prosecutions involving dangerous drugs depend largely on the credibility of the law enforcement officers who conducted the buy-bust operation. 27 In appeals like the instant case, the evaluation of their testimonies by the trial court is accorded respect, since it had the opportunity to observe their deportment and manner of testifying during trial. 28 The RTC gave full faith and credit to the testimony of IO1 Apiit, and its assessment was sustained by the CA in this case.
We have no reason to find otherwise. After all, appellant advances mere denials and weak alternative scenarios against the foregoing positive testimony that he brought 15 bricks of dried marijuana fruiting tops to the Genesis Bus Terminal on 12 July 2008 in anticipation of its exchange for money from a prospective buyer.
Indeed there was no longer an occasion for IO1 Apiit to hand over the buy-bust boodle money prepared for the entrapment of appellant. The former immediately executed the prearranged signal after confirming the existence of the marijuana bricks. Nevertheless, the fact that IO1 Apiit did not hand over the money to, appellant did not mean that no transaction took place between them.
We have had occasion to enunciate that in buy-bust operations, there is no rule of law that requires that there be a simultaneous exchange of money and dangerous drug between the poseur-buyer and the seller. 29 Furthermore, in People v. Concepcion, 30 we ruled that a charge under Section 5 31 of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9165 is not limited to selling. R.A. 9165 also punishes the mere act of delivering a dangerous drug after the entrapping officer's offer to buy it has been accepted by the seller.
Notably, the Information charging appellant clearly states that he did "sell and/or deliver" 15 bricks of dried marijuana fruiting tops to IO1 Apiit, the poseur-buyer.
Based on the foregoing, we find no error on the part of the RTC or the CA in finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of sale of dangerous drugs. We likewise find that the trial court correctly imposed on him the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P5 million pursuant to Section 5 of R.A. 9165.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 04250, finding appellant PEDRO ABINGLAS y BADKI @ "PEDRO" guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of sale of dangerous drugs, is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-30. The Decision dated 13 June 2011 issued by the Court of Appeals Second Division in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 04250 was penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo, with Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Michael P. Elbinias concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 21-26; Penned by Presiding Judge Antonio C. Reyes in Criminal Case No. 28530-R dated 20 November 2009.
3. Records, p. 2.
4.Id. at 239.
5.Id. at 237.
6.Id. at 237-238.
7.Id. at 239.
8.Id. at 236.
9.Id. at 238.
10.Id. at 238-239.
11. CA rollo, pp. 161-162.
12.Id. at 148-156.
13.Id. at 161.
14.Id. at 156-157.
15.Id. at 157-158.
16.Id. at 158.
17.Id. at 159.
18.Id. at 147-148.
19.Id. at 158.
20.Id. at 159-160.
21.Rollo, pp. 49-50.
22.Id. at 52.
23.Id. at 55-56.
24.Id. at 55.
25. TSN, 10 March 2009, pp. 18-20.
26.People v. Gonzaga, 647 Phil. 65 (2010); People v. Ara, 623 Phil. 939 (2009); People v. Rivera, 590 Phil. 894 (2008).
27.People v. Villamin, 625 Phil. 698 (2010).
28. Id.
29.People v. Sibunga, 616 Phil. 854 (2009); People v. Concepcion, 578 Phil. 957 (2008); People v. Cadley, 469 Phil. 515 (2004).
30.Supra.
31. Republic Act No. 9165, Section 5, provides:
Section 5.Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) 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, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions. (Emphasis supplied)