FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 201153. October 2, 2013.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs.BONIER ABUBAKAR Y DEDAGEN, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated October 2, 2013 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 201153 (People of the Philippines v. Bonier Abubakar y Dedagen). — We resolve the appeal filed by accused-appellant Bonier Abubakar y Dedagen (Abubakar), from the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated 29 July 2011 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04398. 1 The CA Decision affirmed the conviction of Abubakar for the crime of illegal sale of methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu in violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 2 in Criminal Case No. Q-05-131948. On the other hand, petitioner claims that he was framed, and that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody of the seized drugs as required under Section 21 of R.A. 9165.
The RTC Ruling
In convicting accused-appellant in a Decision 3 dated 29 July 2009, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 95, gave full credence to the testimony of Senior Police Officer (SPO)2 Gerry Abalos (SPO2 Abalos), who had served as the poseur-buyer in the buy-bust operations during which accused-appellant was arrested. The RTC noted that his detailed testimony sufficiently proved the elements of the crime, namely: 1) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor; and 2) the identities of the buyer and the seller, as well as the object and the consideration. IDaEHC
As to the first element, the RTC noted that SPO2 Abalos was clear and straight-forward in narrating that he and other operatives met accused Abubakar and his co-accused Loida Tabaranza (Tabaranza) on 22 January 2005 at the previously agreed place located at Caltex Gasoline Station along Araneta Avenue, Brgy. Tatalon, Quezon City for the transaction. SPO2 Abalos also testified that after the two boarded the operatives' vehicle and sat on the center seat of the vehicle, Abubakar asked the poseur-buyer for the money. SPO2 Abalos then gave the white window envelope containing the buy-bust "boodle" money to Tabaranza upon the instructions of Abubakar who then took out five plastic sachets with shabu and gave them to SPO2 Abalos. 4 His testimony was corroborated by SPO1 Miguel Lapitan (SPO1 Lapitan), another member of the buy-bust team.
On the second element, the RTC noted that SPO2 Abalos and SPO1 Lapitan positively identified Abubakar as the one who sold the seized dangerous drugs to SPO2 Abalos. Furthermore, the RTC emphasized that SPO2 Abalos was able to identify in Court the five transparent plastic sachets of shabu which he purchased from accused-appellant during the buy-bust operation. The trial court made the following finding: SITCcE
Abalos identified in Court the five (5) transparent plastic sachets containing shabu, which he purchased from accused Bonier Abubakar during the buy-bust operation. He identified them to be the same five (5) transparent plastic sachets containing shabu he purchased from accused Bonier Abubakar through the markings "GSA",the date of arrest and his signature he placed thereon.The markings were placed by him immediately after the arrest of the accused. In the Chemistry Report No. D-0095-05 (Exhibit "B"),the five (5) transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance with markings "GSA",the date of arrest and his signature (Exhibit "E" to "I") proved to be positive to the test for the presence of methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a regulated drug, after the laboratory examination. There is no doubt that the five transparent plastic sachets containing shabu presented and marked in evidence as Exhibit "E" to "I" in Court were the very same five (5) transparent plastic sachets containing shabu sold by the accused Bonier Abubakar to poseur-buyer SPO2 Gerry Abalos during the buy bust operation. ....5
Conversely, the RTC rejected Abubakar's defense of frame-up because of his failure to adduce clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that the arresting police officers had performed their duties in a regular and proper manner. 6 Consequently, accused-appellant was sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000. 7
The CA Ruling
The CA affirmed the RTC Decision. 8 The appellate court found no merit in the appeal of Abubakar, who prayed for acquittal on the ground that he was merely framed. It also found that, contrary to appellant's claim, the buy-bust operatives complied with the requirements under Section 21 of R.A. 9165 starting with the inventory of the seized drugs. It also found that the chain-of-custody was established. Additionally, the appellate court held that these issues were not raised before the trial court. In any case, the CA explained that non-compliance with the procedure laid down in Section 21, such as the immediate inventory of the dangerous drugs seized, does not render the items inadmissible as long as their integrity and evidentiary value are preserved, as in this case.
Hence, we now rule on the final review of the case. acCTSE
Our Ruling
We deny the appeal and affirm the assailed CA Decision in all respects.
Firstly, after a careful review of the records of the case, we see no reason to reverse or modify the findings of the RTC on the credibility of the testimonies of the arresting officers, less so in the present case wherein the said findings were affirmed by the CA. We reject accused-appellant's defense of frame-up which is considered a weak defense in any criminal prosecution and is consistently viewed by the courts with disfavor; for while it is easy to concoct, it is difficult to prove. 9 As a rule, it cannot prevail over the affirmative testimony of truthful witnesses. 10 This rule holds all the more so in cases involving buy-bust operations, in which the testimonies of the police officers involved are generally accorded full faith and credit, in view of the presumption of regularity in the performance of public duties. 11 Hence, accused-appellant's unsubstantiated claim of frame-up cannot prevail over the clear and straightforward testimony of SPO2 Abalos especially since the former was not able to show any ill motive on the part of the latter.
Secondly, on the alleged failure of the operatives to immediately make an inventory of the seized drugs after their seizure in Brgy. Tatalon, Quezon City, the CA correctly found that this defense cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. 12 In any case, even accused-appellant's brief admits that an inventory was in fact made. Moreover, such failure would not have been necessarily fatal. We have consistently said that even if procedures laid out in Section 21 are not complied with to the letter, the seized drugs may still be admissible as evidence in Court as long as their integrity and evidentiary value are preserved, as in this case. In the very recent case People v. Aguilar, 13 which similarly involved the alleged non-compliance by the operatives with the inventory requirement, we explained why such failure is not necessarily fatal, thusly:
While a testimony about a perfect and unbroken chain is ideal, such is not always the standard as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain. A perusal of the law reveals, however, that failure to strictly comply with the procedure in Section 21 will not render the arrest illegal or the items seized inadmissible in evidence, provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of such items are preserved since they will be used in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. EDIHSC
Despite the failure of the apprehending officers to make an inventory of and to photograph the items seized from Aguilar, they were nevertheless able to prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence had been preserved,the chain of custody of such items, having been adequately established in the case at bar. ....(Citations omitted; emphasis supplied)
In Aguilar,the Court noted the CA's finding that inspite of the failure to inventory the seized items, they were marked at the crime scene and eventually identified through the markings during trial by the police officer who marked it. Hence, the Court found that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence had been preserved. In the present case, the RTC as affirmed by the CA similarly found that SPO2 Abalos immediately marked the sachets of shabu seized at the crime scene with his initials "GSA",the date of arrest and his signature; turned them over to PO3 Garcia for inventory, and subsequently submitted them to PC/Insp. Tria for laboratory examination. After testing positive for the presence of shabu,these sachets with their identifying marks intact were presented to the RTC. Before the trial court, SPO2 Abalos identified the five transparent plastic sachets containing shabu to be the same ones he had purchased from accused Abubakar through his initials "GSA," the date of arrest, and his signature thereon. The chain of custody of the seized sachets of shabu was therefore established and the integrity of the evidence preserved. TIcAaH
We also said in Aguilar that unless the accused is "able to show that there was bad faith or ill will on the part of the police officers, or tampering with the evidence, . . . the presumption that the integrity of the evidence was preserved remains." 14 In this case, Abubakar failed to rebut the presumption because he failed to adduce evidence that there was bad faith on the part of the police operatives, or that they had tampered with the evidence.
Consequently, we find that the RTC and the CA rightfully convicted accused-appellant of the crime charged. We also uphold the sentence of life imprisonment and fine of P500,000 imposed upon him since the penalty for the illegal sale of any dangerous drug under Article II, Section 5 of R.A. 9165, ranges from life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P500,000 to P10,000,000.
WHEREFORE,the Court of Appeals Decision dated 29 July 2011 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04398 is hereby AFFIRMED.Accused-appellant Bonier Abubakar y Dedagen is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs in violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. He is sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.
SO ORDERED." BERSAMIN, J.,on leave; PERLAS-BERNABE, J.,acting member per S.O. No. 1537 (Revised) dated September 6, 2013. VILLARAMA, JR.,J.,on leave; LEONEN, J.,acting member per S.O. No. 1545 (Revised) dated September 16, 2013.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by CA Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid and concurred in by Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario and Danton Q. Bueser; CA rollo,pp. 135-150.
2. Otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
3. CA rollo,pp. 93-105; penned by Presiding Judge Henri Jean-Paul B. Inting.
4. Id. at 101; RTC Decision dated 29 July 2009, p. 9.
5. Id. at 102; RTC Decision dated 29 July 2009, p. 10.
6. Id. at 103; RTC Decision dated 29 July 2009, p. 11.
7. Id. at 105; RTC Decision dated 29 July 2009, p. 13.
8. Id. at 119; CA Decision dated 29 July 2011, p. 15.
9. People v. Guira,G.R. No. 186497, 17 September 2009, 600 SCRA 310, 333-334.
10. People v. Beruega,430 Phil. 487, 500-501 (2002).
11. People v. Roa,G.R. No. 186134, 6 May 2010, 620 SCRA 359, 367-368.
12. People v. Zapata,G.R. No. 184054, 19 October 2011, 659 SCRA 691, 695; People v. Andres,G.R. No. 193184, 7 February 2011, 641 SCRA 602, 612.
13. G.R. No. 191396, 17 April 2013.
14. Id.