FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 238871. June 10, 2019.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.AMANODIN AMPASO y MACAPOGI @ "SALDO", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 10, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 238871 (People of the Philippines v. Amanodin Ampaso y Macapogi @ "Saldo")
This is an appeal from the January 25, 2018 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01472-MIN, which affirmed the September 24, 2015 Omnibus Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court of Butuan City, Branch 4 (RTC), finding accused-appellant Amanodin Ampaso y Macapogi @ "Saldo" (appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of having violated Section 5 of Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, for the illegal sale of one sachet of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) weighing 0.0257 gram.
After perusal of the records, the Court finds no cogent reason to reverse the ruling of the CA.
The well-settled rule is that the findings and conclusion of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect because the trial courts have the advantage of observing the demeanor of witnesses as they testify. 3 The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals, 4 as in this case.
For the successful prosecution of offenses involving the illegal sale of drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the following elements must be proven: (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. 5 What is material to the prosecution of the illegal sale of dangerous drugs is proof that the illicit transaction took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence. 6
In the present case, there is no doubt that the prosecution successfully established all the elements of illegal sale of drugs. Intelligence Officer 2 Simplicio C. Bautista, Jr. (IO2 Bautista), the poseur-buyer, categorically testified on the buy-bust operation from the time he was introduced by the informant to appellant as the buyer of the shabu, to the time the plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance was handed to him for a consideration of P1,000.00 until the appellant was apprehended.
IO2 Bautista testified that, upon receipt of the report from the informant about the illegal drug activities of appellant, the PDEA verified the information and, thereafter, formed a team to conduct a buy-bust operation where he was assigned to act as the poseur-buyer. After the briefing, the informant, IO2 Bautista, and the rest of the buy-bust team proceeded to the target area. When they arrived, the informant introduced IO2 Bautista to appellant as the person interested to buy shabu. Appellant asked for the payment of the drugs. After the marked money was handed to him, appellant went inside his house and when he came back, he gave IO2 Bautista a plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance. Appellant was henceforth arrested and was informed of his constitutional rights. 7
During the trial, IO2 Bautista positively identified appellant as the seller of the confiscated shabu. He also identified the plastic sachet containing the drug as the object sold to him and the buy-bust money, which were both recovered from appellant during the buy-bust operation. Based on the Chemistry Report No. D-128-2010, the plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance was examined and yielded positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. 8
The Court finds no compelling reason to reverse the findings of the trial court and the CA. The testimonies of the police officers should be given full faith and credence vis-à-vis the principle on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty. 9 As ruled by the Court in the case of People v. Llamado, 10 "[I]n the absence of proof of motive to falsely impute such a serious crime against the appellant, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, as well as the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, shall prevail over appellant's self-serving and uncorroborated denial." 11
As regards the issue of noncompliance with Section 21 (a) of R.A. No. 9165, the Court finds the same unfounded.
Section 21 (1) of RA No. 9165 mandates:
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(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 (DOJ), 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 Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 further provides:
SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(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 seizures; 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.
Undeniably, the implementing rules offer some flexibility, when a proviso was added that noncompliance 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. 12 What is important is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the appellant. 13
The case of Mallillin v. People14 is instructive. The Court held that:
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. 15
WHEREFORE, the Court ADOPTS the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the January 25, 2018 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01472-MIN and AFFIRMS said decision finding accused-appellant Amanodin Ampaso y Macapogi @ "Saldo" guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 for which he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).
SO ORDERED."Carandang, J., on official leave.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-12; penned by Associate Justice Edgardo A. Camello with Associate Justices Perpetua T. Atal-Paño and Walter S. Ong, concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 31-49; penned by Judge Godofredo B. Abul, Jr.
3.People v. Jocson, 565 Phil. 303, 309 (2007).
4.People v. Macatingag, 596 Phil. 376, 388 (2009).
5.People v. Campomanes, 641 Phil. 610, 620 (2010).
6.People v. Villahermosa, 665 Phil. 399, 415 (2011).
7. CA rollo, pp. 33-34.
8.Id. at 36.
9. See People v. Araneta, et al., 648 Phil. 672, 684 (2010).
10. 600 Phil. 591 (2009).
11.Id. at 600.
12.People v. Rosialda, 643 Phil. 712, 727 (2010), citing People v. Rivera, 590 Phil. 894, 913 (2008).
13.People v. Macatingag, 596 Phil. 376, 392 (2009).
14. 576 Phil. 576 (2008).
15.Id. at 587.