FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 200338. April 7, 2014.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ELOVIN BACSA Y SAGAD, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated April 7, 2014 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 200338 (People of the Philippines v. Elovin Bacsa y Sagad). — Before this Court is an appeal from the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision 1 dated 31 May 2011, which affirmed the Decision 2 issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City, Branch 123, finding appellant guilty of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. 9165) for selling 0.04 gram of the prohibited drug methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
Briefly, the prosecution established the following facts: On 02 March 2007, a team from the Anti-Illegal Drugs Operation Unit of the Caloocan Police conducted surveillance and buy-bust operations in Diamante and Sapphire Streets, Caloocan City, in response to complaints of residents about the rampant sale of drugs in their area. On the eve of the operation, the team prepared pre-operation and coordination sheets and the buy-bust money consisting of a P200 bill with serial number AP 186408. Also held was a briefing of the buy-bust team, composed of Police Officer (PO)2 Jose Martinez (Martinez), PO1 Eugene Amaro, PO2 Celso Santos and PO1 Renen Malonzo (Malonzo).
Accordingly, at 9:30 p.m. of 2 March 2007 the team and an informant proceeded to the target area. Malonzo and the informant went to appellant's house at Sapphire Street, while the others positioned themselves nearby. When the two came up to appellant, the informant told him, "Tropa ko, byahero," referring to Malonzo. Appellant then asked, "Magkano ba, tol"? Malonzo replied, "Kasang dos lang," while handing him the buy-bust money. Appellant placed the money in his right pocket and went inside the house. After a few minutes, he came out and handed to Malonzo a plastic sheet containing shabu. The latter scratched his head to signal to the team that the transaction had been consummated, and he then held appellant. Thereafter, the rest of the team arrived and arrested appellant. Martinez handcuffed him and apprised him of his constitutional rights, while Malonzo marked the plastic sheet containing shabu with the words "Binbin 03-02-07" and recovered the buy-bust money from appellant. 3
Thereafter, the buy-bust team brought appellant to the police station. Since there was no available investigator, Malonzo placed the seized drug in a bigger plastic sachet, which he marked "SAID SOU EVIDENCE." He prepared a letter addressed to the Philippine National Police crime laboratory in Camp Crame requesting an examination of the specimen. Then he brought the letter and the seized drug to the crime laboratory and personally handed them to the forensic chemist, Police Senior Inspector Mirza Samson (Samson). 4 Samson recorded the items in their log book at 12:45 a.m., 3 March 2007, and conducted the examination forthwith. As indicated in her Chemistry Report No. D-51-07, the specimen tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride. 5ASDCaI
On the other hand, appellant's version of the incident on that fateful evening was as follows: He and his wife were sleeping when they were awakened by knocks on their door. When his wife opened the door, two police officers barged in and held them at gunpoint, while others searched their house. Since the search yielded nothing, he and his wife were subjected to frisking but it was also fruitless. The police officers then brought him to a police station in Vicas, Caloocan City. There the arresting officers told him that he was in their Order of Battle, but he was not told for what offense. His wife and his mother followed him to the Vicas police station, but he was soon transferred to the Sangandaan police headquarters. Allegedly, he was detained for two or three days at Sangandaan before he was brought before a prosecutor, who finally informed appellant that he was being charged with the selling of shabu.6
The RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165. It sentenced him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P1million. 7 The trial court held that all elements of the crime and the chain of custody of the seized drugs had been sufficiently proven by the prosecution. It further held that it was inconsequential that the police officer who acted as poseur-buyer also acted as the investigator, since the prosecution successfully proved the actual sale of illegal drugs and presented the corpus delicti in court. 8 Moreover, it noted that the testimonies of all defense witnesses — appellant, his wife and his mother — were riddled with inconsistencies. Hence, it rejected his defenses of denial and frame-up for lack of credible corroborative evidence. 9
On appeal, the CA sustained the findings of the RTC and affirmed the latter's Decision. 10 The CA ruled that the testimonies of Malonzo and Samson had properly presented and identified the crucial link in the chain of custody of the seized drug. It also ruled that their testimonies left no shadow of doubt on the integrity and evidentiary value of the drug presented in court as evidence. 11 Moreover, it sustained the trial court's rejection of appellant's defense of frame-up, as the defense had failed to show any ill motive on the part of the arresting officers or any evidence sufficient to disprove the evidence presented by the prosecution. 12
The sole issue presented before the Court is whether the prosecution has successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt appellant's guilt over the illegal sale of the prohibited drug methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
Appellant claims that Malonzo's account of the events that transpired on 2 March 2007 is highly incredible because it goes against common experience; i.e., there is a police investigator on duty in any police station at any given time and a further search of the location of the sale is usually conducted in a successful buy-bust operation. 13 Further, appellant capitalizes on the failure of the buy-bust team to conduct a physical inventory and to photograph the seized drug and thus maintains that those omissions warrant his acquittal. 14EDIHSC
After a careful review of the records of this case and the parties' submissions, the Court finds no cogent reason to disturb the CA Decision. The only elements necessary to consummate the crime of illegal sale of narcotics is proof that the illicit transaction took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the dangerous drug seized as evidence. 15 Both were satisfactorily done in this case. As duly noted by the RTC and the CA, appellant's claim of frame-up completely lacks credible basis. Since it was the trial court that had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor and deportment while testifying, the rule is that the trial court's assessment of their credibility is entitled to great respect, and even finality, unless facts of weight and substance bearing on the elements of the crime have been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied. This rule especially holds true when, as in this case, the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court. 16
Mere substantial compliance with the procedural aspect of the chain of custody rule does not necessarily render the seized drug items inadmissible. As long as the prosecution proves, as in this case, that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items have been preserved, noncompliance with the procedural requirements under R.A. 9165 and its implementing rules relative to the custody, photographing, and drug-testing of the apprehended persons is not a serious flaw that can nullify the seizure and custody of drugs in a buy-bust operation. Thus, although the Court finds that the police officers failed to conduct a physical inventory of the seized drug and to photograph it as required under Section 21, Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 9165, their noncompliance did not affect the evidentiary weight of the drugs seized from the accused, because the chain of custody of the evidence was shown to be unbroken under the circumstances of the case. 17
WHEREFORE, the Court of Appeals Decision dated 31 May 2011 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03207 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 2-11; penned by Associate Justice Florito S. Macalino with Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Ramon M. Bato, Jr. concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 13-22; penned by Judge Edmundo T. Acuña.
3. Id. at 13-14.
4. Id. at 14.
5. Rollo, p. 5.
6. CA rollo, p. 15.
7. Id. at 22.
8. Id. at 16-18.
9. Id. at 19.
10. Rollo, p. 11.
11. Id. at 7-8.
12. Id. at 10.
13. CA rollo, pp. 55-57.
14. Id. at 57-62.
15. People v. Salonga, G.R. No. 194948, 2 September 2013.
16. See People v. Mondejar, G.R. No. 193185, 12 October 2011, 659 SCRA 770.
17. See People v. Cardenas, G.R. No. 190342, 21 March 2012, 668 SCRA 827.