FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 196429. April 21, 2014.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CRISANTO ALARCIO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 21, 2014which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 196429 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Crisanto Alarcio, Accused-Appellant.
Before the Court is the appeal of accused-appellant Crisanto Alarcio from the Decision dated October 29, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 03694, which affirmed the Joint Decision dated November 4, 2008 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 35, Iriga City, in Criminal Case No. IR-6382, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, defined and penalized under Article II, Section 5 of Republic (Rep.) Act No. 9165.
Accused-appellant was initially arrested and charged for illegal possession of drug paraphernalia and illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Sections 12 and 5, respectively, of Article II of Rep. Act No. 9165. The Informations filed against him before the RTC read:
[Criminal Case No. IR-6381]
That on or about 6:30 in the evening of March 13, 2003 in the house of one Rodolfo R. Almelor at San Roque, Iriga City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this honorable Court, the above-named accused without any authority of law have in his possession and under his control one (1) glass water pipe, one (1) disposable lighter, one (1) piece aluminum foil as dangerous drug paraphernalia used in taking drugs, knowing the same to be prohibited under the provision of law.
[Criminal Case No. IR-6382]
That at around 6:30 in the evening of March 13, 2003 at San Roque, Iriga City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without having been authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to one PO2 VIRNEL LLONA, who acted as poseur-buyer, two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu weighing more or less 0.2 grams including its plastic wrapper for two (2) pieces of P100.00 peso bill marked money with SN Nos. KH796324 and FX533283, knowing the same to be a prohibited drug under the provision of the above-cited law. ScCDET
When arraigned, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges.
During trial, the prosecution presented the testimonies of seven witnesses: Senior Police Officer (SPO) 3 Andrew Belleza, the leader of the buy-bust team; Police Officer (PO) 2 Virnel Llona, the poseur-buyer; PO2 Abdunahir Asari and PO2 Ireneo Andalis, members of the buy-bust team; PO3 Liza Jane Alteza and PO2 Edrian Lauta, the officers who received and transmitted the two heat-sealed sachets of suspected shabu, allegedly bought from accused-appellant, to the crime laboratory for examination; and lastly, Police Inspector (P/Insp.) Josephine M. Clemen, Forensic Chemist of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Regional Crime Laboratory Office V (RCLOV) in Legazpi City, who conducted the forensic examination of the contents of the two sachets and determined that the same tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The prosecution likewise presented object and documentary evidence consisting of the Special Order dated July 11, 2003 of the Police Chief Superintendent of the PNP-Provincial Regional Office (PRO) V, Camp Simeon Ola, Legazpi City, directing the composition of the buy-bust team; a copy of the entry in the police blotter logbook of the Iriga City Police Station recording accused-appellant's arrest as a result of the buy-bust operation; two heat-sealed sachets of shabu marked APB-1 and APB-2, representing SPO3 Belleza's initials; the marked P100 bills used as buy-bust money; the drug paraphernalia confiscated from accused-appellant; the Request for Laboratory Examination of the contents of the sachets, signed by the Chief of Police of Iriga City; the Chemistry Report No. D-41-2003 issued by Police Senior Inspector (PS/Insp.) Maria Cristina Nobleza of the PNP Camarines Sur Provincial Crime Laboratory Office (CSPCLO) in Naga City, stating the result of the initial forensic analysis that the submitted specimens tested positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride; a second Request for Laboratory Examination of the same specimens by PS/Insp. Alfredo Payne Lopez of the PNP-CSPCLO in Naga City; and the Chemistry Report No. D-122-2003 issued by P/Insp. Clemen stating the result of the final forensic analysis that the same specimens again tested positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride.
The prosecution's evidence is summarized as follows:
On March 13, 2003, SPO3 Belleza, a member of the Intelligence Section and Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Force of Iriga City, conducted a briefing at the Iriga City Police Station for a buy-bust operation against accused-appellant at San Roque, Iriga City. SPO3 Belleza headed the buy-bust team and his members included, among other police officers, PO2 Llona, PO2 Asari, and PO2 Andalis. PO2 Llona was designated to be the poseur-buyer, while PO2 Asari and PO2 Andalis served as PO2 Llona's reinforcements. During the briefing, the buy-bust team discussed their strategic positions, the handling of the marked money, and the pre-arranged signal for the consummation of the sale.
At around 6:30 in the evening, PO2 Llona proceeded to San Roque, Iriga City, near the railways where the buy-bust transaction was to take place. There he met the informant. The other members of the buy-bust team followed. Upon reaching the house of a certain Rodolfo Almelor, the informant introduced PO2 Llona to accused-appellant as a "scorer" who wanted to buy shabu. Accused-appellant asked how much PO2 Llona was buying, and the latter replied that he wanted to buy P200-worth of shabu. Accused-appellant then handed to PO2 Llona two heat-sealed plastic sachets of suspected shabu. PO2 Llona, in turn, paid accused-appellant with the marked money. After the exchange, PO2 Llona immediately introduced himself as a police officer and apprehended accused-appellant. Accused-appellant resisted the arrest prompting PO2 Llona to draw his gun and simultaneously ordering accused-appellant to drop his chest to the ground. Accused-appellant obeyed. It was at that point when PO2 Llona shouted "positive" as a signal for aid from his team members. The rest of the buy-bust team rushed in and arrested accused-appellant. SPO3 Belleza apprised accused-appellant of his constitutional rights. HISAET
Incidental to his arrest, accused-appellant was bodily frisked by PO2 Andalis, and the latter recovered the marked money paid by PO2 Llona. PO2 Andalis submitted the marked money to SPO3 Belleza. PO2 Llona likewise surrendered to SPO3 Belleza the two heat-sealed sachets of suspected shabu that was sold to him by accused-appellant. In furtherance of the operation, the buy-bust team searched Almelor's house, during which, they found and confiscated drug paraphernalia consisting of a glass water pipe, aluminum foil, and disposable lighter. Thereafter, accused-appellant was immediately taken to the Iriga City Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Station.
At the PDEA Station, SPO3 Belleza marked his initials APB on the two heat-sealed plastic sachets. SPO3 Belleza then placed the said specimens inside a bigger plastic sachet which he also marked with his initials APB. Finally, SPO3 Belleza prepared the Request for Laboratory Examination of the specimens, which was signed by the Chief of Police of Iriga City. The said Request and the specimens were received by PO2 Alteza for transmittal to the crime laboratory for initial examination.
On March 18, 2003, PO2 Alteza delivered the Request for Laboratory Examination and the specimens subject thereof to the PNP-CSPLO in Iriga City where they were received by PS/Insp. Nobleza. PS/Insp. Nobleza conducted the initial examination of the specimens, which tested positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride.
On March 24, 2003, PO2 Lauta transmitted the specimens, together with another Request for Laboratory Examination signed by PS/Insp. Lopez of the PNP-CSPCLO and addressed to the PNP-RCLOV in Legazpi City. P/Insp. Clemen of PNP-RCLOV conducted a three-step examination consisting of a physical test, a chemical test, and a confirmatory test on the submitted specimens. The samples again tested positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride. This finding was contained in P/Insp. Clemen's Chemistry Report No. D-122-2003. P/Insp. Clemen finally turned over the specimens to the evidence custodian who kept the same until the said specimens were presented as evidence at the trial.
During his turn at the trial, accused-appellant testified in his own defense.
Accused-appellant recounted that in the afternoon of March 13, 2003, he went to the house of his neighbor, Almelor, to return a flat iron. When he was about to leave, some police officers came, poked a gun at him, and ordered him to lie facing the ground. The police officers then brought accused-appellant to the police station where he was detained.
The RTC promulgated its Joint Decision on November 4, 2008. The RTC acquitted accused-appellant of the charge in Criminal Case No. IR-6381 for illegal possession of drug paraphernalia, because the drug paraphernalia were found and seized from inside the house owned by Almelor, and not from the physical possession of accused-appellant; and that no proof to establish that the seized drug paraphernalia actually belong to accused-appellant. The RTC though convicted accused-appellant in Criminal Case No. IR-6382 for illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The RTC decreed, thus:
WHEREFORE, finding accused CRISANTO ALARCIO not guilty beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. IR-6381 for violation of Sec. 12, Article II of R.A. 9165 (possession), he is ACQUITTED.
However, finding the same accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 6382 for violation of Sec. 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 (selling), he is sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P500,000.00) pesos. The accused is credited to the full extent of his confinement if Art. 29 of the Revised Penal Code is applicable. cCaATD
Accused-appellant appealed his conviction before the Court of Appeals with the following assignment of errors:
1. The trial court gravely erred in convicting the accused-appellant despite non-compliance with the requirements for the proper custody of seized dangerous drugs under R.A. No. 9165;
2. The trial court gravely erred in giving full weight and credence to the prosecution's evidence notwithstanding its failure to prove the integrity of the seized drug; and
3. The trial court gravely erred in convicting the accused-appellant based. solely on PO2 Virnel Llona's testimony.
In its Decision dated October 29, 2010, the Court of Appeals denied accused-appellant's appeal and affirmed the RTC judgment of conviction.
Hence, the instant appeal, which the Court finds to be without merit.
In every case of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution is obliged to establish the following essential elements: (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 its payment. What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence. The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction. 1
Both the RTC and the Court of Appeals found evidence beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant sold two heat-sealed sachets of shabu to PO2 Llona for P200.00 during the buy-bust operation conducted on March 13, 2003. Accused-appellant's uncorroborated denial cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of police officers who planned and executed the buy-bust operation. The ruling of the Court in David v. People2 finds application herein:
It is a settled rule that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary. It must be emphasized that their testimonies in open court are considered in line with the presumption that law enforcement officers have performed their duties in a regular manner. In the absence of proof of motive to impute falsely a crime as serious as violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, as well as the findings of the trial court on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, shall prevail over petitioner's self-serving and uncorroborated denial. Moreover, the factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are conclusive and binding on this Court.
In People v. Posing, 3 the Court did not give credence to the accused's denial of the crime charged, for courts generally view the defense of denial with disfavor due to the facility with which an accused can concoct it to suit his or her defense. As evidence that is both negative and self-serving, this defense cannot attain more credibility than the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses who testify clearly, providing thereby positive evidence on the various aspects of the crime committed.
It is conceded that the police herein was not able to strictly comply with the procedure laid down in Article II, Section 21 (1) of Rep. Act No. 9165 on the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized, or surrendered dangerous drugs, i.e., there was no physical inventory or photograph of the seized items made immediately after, seizure and confiscation, the seized dangerous drugs were marked at the PDEA station and not at the place of arrest. However, non-compliance with said procedure does not necessarily render the arrest illegal or the items seized inadmissible. What is essential is that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved which would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. 4 The chain of custody requirement performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. 5 The chain of custody rule was described in Mallillin v. People, 6 as follows:
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. CAHaST
In the case at bar, the prosecution was able to establish an unbroken chain of custody by presenting testimonial, documentary, and object evidence that trace each possession and turnover of the two plastic sachets of shabu, from the moment they were handed by accused-appellant to PO2 Llona, the poseur-buyer, during the buy-bust operation, until the very same dangerous drugs were presented as evidence during trial. SPO3 Belleza, leader of the buy-bust team, marked the two plastic sachets of shabu with his initials at the PDEA station, where the accused-appellant was brought right after his arrest, thus, making said dangerous drugs easily identifiable as the ones seized from accused-appellant.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated October 29, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 03694, which affirmed in toto the Decision dated November 4, 2008 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 35, Iriga City, in Criminal Case No. IR-6382, is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. People v. Pascua, G.R. No. 194580, August 31, 2011, 656 SCRA 629, 636-637.
2. G.R. No. 181861, October 17, 2011, 659 SCRA 150, 161-162.
3. G.R. No. 196973, July 31, 2013.
4. People v. Aneslag, et al., G.R. No. 185386, November 21, 2012, 686 SCRA 150, 163.
5. People v. Almodiel, G.R. No. 200951, September 5, 2012, 680 SCRA 306, 324.
6. 576 Phil. 576, 587 (2008).