People v. Balagon y Macaso

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 250135. May 5, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.ROSE BALAGON y MACASO, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMay 5, 2021, which reads as follows: ATICcS

"G.R. No. 250135 (People of the Philippines v. Rose Balagon y Macaso). — The Court NOTES:

(1) accused-appellant's Manifestation in Lieu of Supplemental Brief dated March 10, 2020, stating that she adopts her appellant's brief as her supplemental brief as said brief had adequately discussed all the matters pertinent to her defense;

(2) the letter dated March 10, 2020 of CTSupt. Virginia S. Mangawit, Acting Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for Women, Bureau of Corrections, Mandaluyong City, confirming the confinement therein of accused-appellant since July 28, 2017; and

(3) the Office of the Solicitor General's Manifestation (in Lieu of Supplemental Brief) dated June 4, 2020, stating that it would no longer file a supplemental brief since the legal issues and arguments were exhaustively discussed in its appellee's brief.

This is an appeal from the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated July 11, 2019 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09597, which affirmed the Consolidated Decision 2 of Branch 28 of the Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Criminal Case Nos. 16-324523-24.

The RTC found accused-appellant Rose Balagon y Macaso guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, defined and penalized under Sections 5 and 11, 3 Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

The Factual Antecedents

In two (2) sets of Information dated April 7, 2016, appellant Rose Balagon y Macaso (Balagon) was charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, defined and penalized under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The accusatory portions read as follows:

Criminal Case No. 16-324523

That on or about April 1, 2016 in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, not being then authorized by law to sell, trade, deliver or give away to another any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell to one PO3 HENRY PARAJADO, a police poseur-buyer ONE (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with markings "RMB" containing ZERO POINT ZERO EIGHT EIGHT (0.088) GRAMS of white crystalline substance containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as "SHABU," a dangerous drug.

Contrary to law. 4

Criminal Case No. 16-324524

That on or about April 1, 2016 in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in her possession and under her custody and control FIVE (5) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets with the following markings and recorded net weights:

"RMB-1'' ZERO POINT ZERO SEVEN THREE (0.073) GRAMS

or with a total net weight of ZERO POINT THREE SEVEN FIVE (0.375) GRAMS of white crystalline substance containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as "SHABU," a dangerous drug.

Contrary to law. 5

Upon the prosecution's Motion for Consolidation, the cases were tried jointly. During arraignment, appellant, with the assistance of her counsel, pleaded "not guilty" to the offenses charged. A joint trial on the merits ensued thereafter.

Version of the Prosecution

It was established that, in the morning of March 31, 2016, a confidential informant arrived at the Sampaloc Police Station 4 and reported the rampant illegal drug trade of alias "Rose," later identified as Balagon. The informant also reported that he and "Rose" agreed to meet at around 8:00 in the morning of April 1, 2016 at the Jollibee store located along Legarda Street corner Earnshaw Street, Sampaloc, Manila. Thus, Police Senior Inspector Jeffrey M. Dallo (PSI Dallo) planned a buy-Bust operation. During the briefing, Police Officer III Henry Parajado (PO3 Parajado) was designated as the poseur-buyer who would use a Five Hundred Peso (P500.00) bill that he marked with his initials "HP" at the lower left portion of the serial number. The buy-bust team agreed to the pre-arranged signal that PO3 Parajado would scratch his head upon consummation of the sale transaction. The other members of the buy-bust team were assigned as perimeter back-ups. PO2 Dexter Martin (PO2 Martin) was instructed to coordinate with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). Hence, Control No. 10001-032016-0449 was indicated in the Pre-operation Report and Authority to Operate. 6

At around 7:00 in the morning of April 1, 2016, PO3 Parajado and the informant went to the agreed meeting place. The other members of the team followed them. A few minutes after their arrival, the informant received a call from Balagon, informing him of the change of venue because the area was frequently patrolled by police officers. They agreed to meet at Ronquillo Street, corner Rizal Avenue, Sta. Cruz, Manila. Thereafter, the team and the informant went to the agreed place. While waiting, a tricycle arrived with two passengers, Balagon and a man alias "Ali" (Ali). Balagon waved at the informant instructing him to come near them. The informant approached Balagon and briefly talked to her. Thereafter, the informant signaled for PO3 Parajado to join them. PO3 Parajado went near them and the informant introduced him to Balagon as a buyer who wanted to buy shabu worth P500.00. When Balagon asked for the payment, PO3 Parajado handed the marked money to her. Balagon then took out from the waistline of her jeans a small plastic containing white crystalline substance suspected to be shabu and gave it to PO3 Parajado. Afterwards, PO3 Parajado arrested Balagon and informed her of her constitutional rights. He introduced himself as a police officer and ordered Balagon to empty the contents of her pockets, which led to the seizure of five (5) more plastic sachets of suspected shabu. The other members of the team arrived and PO3 Jason Magbitang (PO3 Magbitang) directed Ali to empty the contents of his pockets, which led to the seizure of two (2) small-heated transparent plastic sachets. Thus, PO3 Magbitang arrested Ali and informed him of his constitutional rights. 7

Subsequently, PO3 Parajado marked the plastic sachet that he bought from Balagon with the initials "RMB" and the five (5) other plastic sachets with "RMB-1," "RMB-2" "RMB-3," "RMB-4," and "RMB-5." PO3 Parajado then placed the plastic sachet he bought from Balagon in his left pocket and the 5 other plastic sachets in his right pocket. PO3 Magbitang also marked the plastic sachets he recovered from Ali with the initials "AZM" and "AZM-1." Later, the police officers proceeded to their office. Upon arrival thereat, PO3 Parajado and PO3 Magbitang turned over the plastic sachets or suspected shabu to the investigator, PO2 Ariel Codon (PO2 Codon). The inventory and taking of photographs were conducted in the presence of Barangay Kagawad Enrique Concepcion (Kagawad Concepcion) and media representative Robert Gamoroso (Gamoroso). PO2 Codon then prepared the Chain of Custody Form and the Request for Laboratory Examination. PO2 Codon submitted the Request and the plastic sachets of suspected shabu to Forensic Chemist Police Chief Inspector Elisa Reyes Arturo (PCI Arturo) of the Manila Police District Crime Laboratory Office (PNP Crime Laboratory). Upon examination, the substance contained in the plastic sachets yielded positive results for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug also known as shabu, as stated in Chemistry Report No. D-303-16. 8

Version of the Defense

For its part, the defense presented the testimony of Balagon. Balagon vehemently denied the accusations against her. She claimed that at past 9:00 in the morning of March 30, 2016, while she was about to alight from a tricycle somewhere along Ronquillo Street, Rizal Avenue, Sta. Cruz, Manila, a man pushed her. When she looked around, she saw three (3) men in civilian clothes whom she later learned to be police officers. They allegedly pointed a gun at her and told her "sumama ka nalang ng maayos," forced her to board the tricycle, and then brought her to Police Station 4. Upon arrival, the men ordered her to bring out her "dala," so she took out her cellphone and wallet. The men got angry and called a woman to conduct a body search on her. The woman brought her to the comfort room, where she was instructed to undress. After conducting a body search, including her private parts, nothing was recovered from her. Thereafter, she was brought to a room where two (2) police officers were lying in bed. One of the police officers talked to her and forced her to admit that she was carrying illegal drugs. She told the police officer that she was not hiding anything and knew nothing. Afterwards, the police officers asked her to contact her relatives to produce P50,000.00 in exchange for her liberty. However, she told them that she did not have money. As a result, she was detained for three (3) days without being informed of her violation. On the night of April 1, 2016, she was brought to the court for inquest proceedings and it was only then that she learned of the accusations against her. 9

Ruling of the RTC

In a Consolidated Decision 10 dated July 12, 2017, the trial court found Balagon guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Sections 5 and 11 (3), Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, with the foregoing, the court finds the accused Rose Balagon y Macaso:

(1) GUILTY in Crim. Case No. 16-324523 for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 or The Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 and she is hereby SENTENCED to life imprisonment and she is ORDERED to pay a fine of P500,000, with subsidiary penalty in case of insolvency; and,

(2) GUILTY in Crim. Case No. 16-324524 for violation of Section 11 (3), Article II of RA 9165 of The Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 and she is hereby SENTENCED to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 12 years and 1 day, as minimum penalty, to 15 years, as maximum penalty. She is likewise ORDERED to pay a fine or P300,000, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

The duration of the period of her preventive imprisonment shall be deducted from her years of serving her sentences, as stated above.

No pronouncement of civil liability ex-delicto.

SO ORDERED. 11

On appeal to the CA, Balagon argued that the trial court erred in convicting her. She claimed the prosecution failed to prove that there was a buy-bust operation and an unbroken chain of custody over the seized illegal drug. 12

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

In its Decision 13 dated July 11, 2019, the CA affirmed Balagon's conviction and emphasized that contrary to her unsubstantiated claim, there was nothing in the records that would otherwise discredit the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses who were police officers. According to the CA, the prosecution sufficiently established an unbroken chain of custody over the seized items from the time they were seized from Balagon up to the time they were presented in court. As to the penalty, however, the CA modified it by deleting the part that imposed subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

WHEREFORE, the Appeal is DENIED for lack of merit. The Consolidated Decision dated July 12, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 28 in Criminal Case Nos. 16-324523 and 16-324524 is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION in that the imposition by the trial court of subsidiary imprisonment in both cases is DELETED.

SO ORDERED. 14

Hence, this appeal.

The Issue

WHETHER THE CA AND THE RTC ERRED IN CONVICTING BALAGON OF VIOLATING SECTIONS 5 AND 11(3), ARTICLE II OF RA NO. 9165

Ruling of the Court

The Court finds no reversible error in the findings of the appellate court in upholding the conviction of Balagan for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA No. 9165, and its imposition of the corresponding penalties.

In order to sustain a conviction for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, defined and penalized under Section 11, Article II of RA No. 9165, the prosecution must establish the following elements by proof beyond reasonable doubt: "[1] that the accused was in possession of dangerous drugs; [2] that such possession was not authorized by law; and [3] the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of dangerous drugs." 15

Meanwhile, to sustain a conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, defined and penalized under Section 5, Article II of RA No. 9165, the following must be established beyond reasonable doubt: First, "the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and its consideration; and second, the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor." 16

The successful prosecution of criminal actions involving dangerous drugs depends in part on the admissibility into evidence of the subject contraband. This is so because, in drug cases, the prohibited articles confiscated from the accused comprise the very corpus delicti of the charges. Accordingly, it is of paramount importance that the prosecution be able to account for each link in the chain of custody and the identity of the seized items be established beyond reasonable doubt. In order to do so, the prosecution must prove that the illicit substance or paraphernalia recovered during the buy-bust operation is exactly the same as that offered in evidence before the court. 17

For this purpose, RA No. 9165 prescribes the manner of authenticating real evidence in drugs cases. 18 Section 21 laid down the procedure that must be observed and followed by police officers in the seizure and custody of dangerous drugs. The chain of custody requirement performs the function of ensuring that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved, so much so that unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the evidence are removed. "To be admissible, the prosecution must show, by records or testimony, the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit at least between the time it came into possession of the police officers and until it was tested in the laboratory to determine its composition up to the time it was offered in evidence." 19

Paragraph I of Section 21 provides the manner by which the seized drugs must be handled. It also enumerates the persons or witnesses whose presence is mandatory, specifically during the inventory and taking of photographs, viz.:

SEC. 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. (Emphasis supplied)

In 2014, RA No. 10640 20 amended R.A. No. 9165, specifically Section 21 thereof, to further strengthen the anti-drug campaign of the government. Paragraph 1 of Section 21 was amended, in that the number of witnesses required during the inventory stage was reduced from three (3) to only two (2):

SEC. 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 dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s for whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected public official AND a representative of the National Prosecution Service OR the media 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, finally, That noncompliance of 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 and custody over said items. (Emphasis supplied)

With this amendment, only two witnesses are required to be present during the inventory and taking of photographs, namely, (1) an elected public official and (2) a representative of the National Prosecution Service/Department or Justice (DOJ) or a representative of the media. These witnesses must be present during the inventory stage. They are likewise required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy of the same, to ensure that the identity and integrity of the seized items are preserved and that the police officers complied with the required procedure. Failure of the arresting officers to justify the absence of any of the required witnesses shall constitute a substantial gap in the chain of custody.

Since the offenses subject of this appeal were committed in 2016, the amendment introduced by RA No. 10640 will apply.

The procedure outlined in Section

Here, the seized items were immediately marked by PO3 Parajado and PO3 Magbitang after they arrested Balagon and informed the latter of her constitutional rights. The two-witness requirement was also complied with as Kagawad Concepcion and Gamoroso both testified that they witnessed the conduct of inventory and thereafter sued the inventory receipt. The absence of a representative from the DOJ did not affect the validity of the seizure because there was an elected public official and a representative from the media present.

A relaxation of the rule insofar as the number of witnesses is concerned was succinctly explained in the case of People v. Mendoza, 21 whereby the Court explained that the logic behind the witness requirement is to preserve an unbroken chain of custody and prevent the possibility of tampering with or planting of evidence, viz.:

"Without the insulating presence of the representative from the media or the [DOJ], or any elected public official during the seizure and marking of the [seized drugs], the evils of switching, planting or contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-busts conducted under the regime of RA No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) again reared their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the [said drugs] that were evidence herein of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused." 22

Moreover, a perusal of the records reveals that from the time of arrest up until the time the seized items were brought to the crime laboratory for proper testing and documentation, the seized drugs remained in the custody and possession of PO3 Parajado, who transmitted the same to PO2 Codon. The latter then prepared the Chain of Custody Form and the Request for Laboratory Examination. PO2 Codon delivered the seized items to PCI Arturo, the forensic chemist, who, after examination, confirmed that they were indeed shabu. During trial, PO3 Parajado positively identified them to be the very same items retrieved from Balagon during the buy-bust operation.

Presumption of regularity in the

Mere denial by Balagon failed to overcome the persuasiveness and credibility of the prosecutions narrative that indeed, she sold and was in possession of dangerous drugs and should be meted out the corresponding sanction imposed by law. The Court, in People v. Tancinco, 23 held that the defense of denial has been and is "viewed with disfavor for it can easily be concocted and is a common defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of RA No. 9165. Denial is a weak form of defense, particularly when it is not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence."

Self-serving assertions, when there is no other evidence to prove that the police officers deviated from the standard conduct of official duty provided for in the law, deserve scant or no consideration at all. "Evidence, to be credible, must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but must be credible in itself as to hurdle the test of conformity with the knowledge and common experience of mankind." 24

Well-settled is the rule that in cases involving violations of R.A. No. 9165, "credence is given to [the testimony of] prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is clear evidence to the contrary." 25 In the absence of any irregularity or proof of ill-motive on the part of the police officers, the Court deems it wise to affirm the findings of the trial court, where the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, more so when it is affirmed by the appellate court. Here, the evidence presented by the prosecution clearly and undoubtedly warrant a judgment of conviction.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated July 11, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 09597 affirming the conviction of ROSE BALAGON y MACASO by the Regional Trial Court of Manila City, Branch 28, for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, is AFFIRMED. cSEDTC

SO ORDERED.

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr., with Associate Justices Ramon A. Cruz and Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin, concurring; rollo, pp. 3-18.

2. Penned by Presiding Judge Jean Marie A. Bacorro-Villena; CA rollo, pp. 41-56.

3. Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. —

x x x if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be graduated as follows:

(1) Life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), if the quantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu" is ten (10) grams or more but less than fifty (50) grams.

4.Rollo, pp. 3-4.

5.Id. at 4.

6.Id. at 5.

7.Id. 5-6.

8.Id. at 6-7.

9.Id. at 7.

10. CA Rollo, pp. 41-56.

11.Id. at 55-56.

12.Rollo, p. 8.

13.Id. at 3-18.

14.Id. at 18.

15.People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 29 (2017), Reyes v. Court of Appeals, 686 Phil. 137, 148 (2012), citing People v Sembrano, 642 Phil. 476, 490-491 (2010).

16.People v. Oliva, G.R. No. 234156, January 7, 2019.

17.Id.

18.People v. Lim, G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018.

19.People v. Rosialda, 643 Phil. 712, 727 (2010).

20. AN ACT TO FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE ANTI-DRUG CAMPAIGN OF THE GOVERNMENT, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE SECTION 21 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE "COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002." Approved on June 9, 2014.

21. 736 Phil. 749 (2014).

22.Id. at 764.

23. 736 Phil. 610, 623 (2014).

24.Zapatos v. People, 457 Phil. 969, 985 (2003).

25.People v. Navarro, 561 Phil. 752, 759 (2007).