SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 202869. April 3, 2013.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. TOMMY ARDIENTE, appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 03 April 2013 which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 202869 — (People of the Philippines v. Tommy Ardiente). — We resolve the appeal filed by accused Tommy Ardiente (appellant) from the January 26, 2011 decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00878.
In a decision dated July 20, 2007, 2 the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 13, Cebu City, convicted the appellant of illegal sale of shabu under Section 5 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165. 3 The RTC gave full credence to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Senior Police Officer 1 Alex Flores Avila, Police Officer 3 Melvin Segamata and Forensic Chemical Officer Myrna P. Areola, and rejected the appellant's self-serving defenses of denial and alibi. It sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment, and to pay a fine of five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) and the costs of suit.
On intermediate appellate review, the CA affirmed the RTC's ruling. The CA agreed with the RTC in giving weight to the testimonies of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation and who positively identified the appellant as the seller of the seized shabu. It belied the appellant's claim that he was actually an "asset" of the police and was merely apprehended because he was not able to produce a drug pusher for the police officers to arrest.
We now rule on the final review of the case.
Our Ruling
We dismiss the present appeal.
After a review of the CA ruling and the attached records, we find no reason to reverse the RTC's finding, as affirmed by the CA. In a prosecution for illegal sale of shabu, "[w]hat is material . . . is . . . proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti." 4 In the present case, the collective testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, coupled with the documentary evidence presented in court, provided a detailed picture of the events leading to the consummation of the crime. Forensic Chemical Officer Areola of the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory confirmed that the white crystalline substance contained in the two (2) heat-sealed plastic packets confiscated from the appellant was positive for methamphethamine hydrochloride or shabu. 5 ICTcDA
In his appeal, the appellant raised as issues the absence of a warrant for his arrest and the non-presentation of the police informant in court.
A "buy-bust operation" is a valid form of entrapment where the idea to commit a crime comes not from the police officers but from the accused himself. 6 The accused is caught in the act and must be apprehended on the spot without the need of a warrant, as such warrantless arrest is justified under Section 5 (a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, where a police officer may, without a warrant, arrest a person when in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.
As for the non-presentation of the police informant in court, there is sound and solid legal basis behind the accepted practice of leaving out a confidential informant from the prosecution's roster of witnesses. We held "that the presentation of an informant . . . is not essential for conviction nor is it indispensable for a successful prosecution because his testimony would merely be corroborative and cumulative." 7 "More importantly, . . . informants are by and large not presented as witnesses in court as there is a need to conceal their identity and protect their important service to law enforcement." 8
We thus affirm the penalty the CA imposed as it is within the range provided by law. Under Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165, illegal sale of dangerous drugs is punishable by life imprisonment to death 9 and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00).
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we AFFIRM the decision dated January 26, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00878.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
*Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. was designated as Acting Member in lieu of Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, per Special Order No. 1437 dated March 25, 2013.
1.Penned by Associate Justice Socorro B. Inting, and concurred in by Executive Justice Portia A. Hormachuelos and Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon; rollo, pp. 3-14.
2.Penned by Judge Meinrado P. Paredes; CA rollo, pp. 45-47.
3.Otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
4.People v. Ulama, G.R. No. 186530, December 14, 2011, 662 SCRA 599, 605. See also People v. Zapata, G.R. No. 184054, October 19, 2011, 659 SCRA 691, 693.
5.Per Chemistry Report No. D-1458-2003.
6.People v. Villamin, G.R. No. 175590, February 9, 2010, 612 SCRA 91, 108.
7.People v. Peñaflorida, Jr., G.R. No. 175604, April 10, 2008, 551 SCRA 111, 121.
8.People v. Capco, G.R. No. 183088, September 17, 2009, 600 SCRA 204, 212.
9.The imposition of the death penalty has been proscribed with the effectivity of R.A. No. 9346, otherwise known as "An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines."