FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 194723. January 29, 2014.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs.GAMORANAO BOLATAN Y ALONTO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated January 29, 2014 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 194723 (People of the Philippines v. Gamoranao Bolatan y Alonto). — This is an appeal from the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) affirming the Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City, Branch 57 (RTC), finding appellant guilty of sale and possession of illegal drugs.
THE INFORMATIONS
Criminal Case No. 03-184
The undersigned Special Counsel accuses GAMORANAO BOLATAN y ALONTO, of the crime of VIOLATION OF SECTION 11, ARTICLE II OF R.A. 9165, committed as follows: aSITDC
That on or about the 5th day of May, 2003, in the City of Angeles, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority whatsoever, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and control one (1) piece of small heat sealed transparent plastic sachet each [sic] containing more or less TWO (2.0) GRAMS of SHABU (Methamphetamine Hydrochloride) which is a dangerous drug, without authority whatsoever.
ALL CONTRARY TO LAW.
Angeles City, Philippines, May 6, 2003. 3
Criminal Case No. 03-185
The undersigned Special Counsel accuses GAMORANAO BOLATAN y ALONTO, of the crime of VIOLATION OF SECTION 5, ARTICLE II OF R.A. 9155 [sic] as amended by R.A. 7659 [sic],committed as follows:
That on or about the 5th day of May, 2003, in the City of Angeles, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and/or deliver to a poseur buyer ONE (1) small transparent plastic sachet containing more or less FIVE TENTHS (0.5) OF A GRAM of SHABU (Methmaphetamine [sic] Hydrochloride) which is a dangerous drug, without authority whatsoever.
ALL CONTRARY TO LAW.
Angeles City, Philippines, May 6, 2003. 4 EcSCHD
RULING OF THE RTC
In a Decision dated 23 October 2008, the RTC found appellant guilty of the sale of shabu,which carried the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000; and possession of shabu,with the penalty of imprisonment of 12 years and one day as minimum to 14 years as maximum of reclusion temporal and a fine of P300,000. 5
The RTC ruled that the lone testimony of Police Officer 3 (PO3) Alfredo Ayco, the poseur-buyer, was complete and could stand on its own to establish all the elements of the sale of shabu committed by appellant. 6 Furthermore, following the consummation of the sale, PO3 Ayco found another sachet of shabu in the possession of appellant upon the latter's arrest.
The trial court gave no credence to the defenses of denial and frame-up proffered by appellant. The RTC found it unbelievable that the police officers would charge him with a crime punishable with life imprisonment only because he had refused to let them borrow DVDs and VCDs, which he used to offer for sale on the sidewalks of Angeles City. 7 SATDHE
RULING OF THE CA
On 28 June 2010, the CA rendered a Decision affirming that of the RTC. 8 The CA found that the guilt of appellant was sufficiently established by the evidence, mainly consisting of the testimony of PO3 Ayco who "testified in a frank, spontaneous, straightforward and categorical manner." 9 It also found no necessity for the presentation of the police asset, because his testimony would merely corroborate that of PO3 Ayco. 10
As regards the defense of appellant, the CA adopted the sentiment of the Office of the Solicitor General regarding the disastrous consequences for law enforcement if the courts would accept in every instance the allegations of denial and frame-up of every accused based on the police officer's purported rotten reputation. 11
ISSUE
Whether there is proof beyond reasonable doubt that appellant is guilty of the crimes of sale and possession of dangerous drugs.
OUR RULING
We deny the appeal.
We find no merit in the contention that only the police asset had personal knowledge of the sale of shabu, and that the testimony of PO3 Ayco on the matter was hearsay. 12 It is clear from the testimony that the police asset merely introduced PO3 Ayco to appellant as a user who wanted to buy P500 worth of shabu. 13 What is important is that appellant handed the plastic sachet to PO3 Ayco, and the latter gave the payment to him. 14 Later, it was found that the plastic sachet contained shabu. 15 The prosecution also presented in evidence five marked P100 bills that were used in the operation. 16
These facts sufficiently establish the elements of the sale of shabu, i.e., (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. 17 EADSIa
Thereafter, PO3 Ayco introduced himself as a police officer and placed appellant under arrest. Upon a search of the latter's person, PO3 Ayco found another plastic sachet in appellant's pocket. This sachet was later also found to contain shabu.
We have ruled that mere possession of a dangerous drug constitutes prima facie evidence of intent to possess and is sufficient to convict the accused absent a satisfactory explanation of his drug possession. 18 With the discovery of this additional plastic sachet containing shabu in his pocket, it was incumbent upon him to prove the absence of intent to possess or, in the alternative, the authority for the possession of the drug. Appellant did none of these things.
Hence, the prosecution was able to establish the following elements of possession of dangerous drugs: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object that is identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug; (2) the possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possesses the drug. 19
Appellant points out that the police officers did not comply with the procedure laid down by Section 21 20 of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). There is likewise no merit in this argument. Exhibit "B" for the prosecution is the inventory of the seized items signed by an elected local official and a representative from the media. Granted that the inventory was not signed by a representative from the Department of Justice and that there were no photographs taken of the seized items, we note that the absence of these elements did not take away from the degree of confidence with which PO3 Ayco identified the plastic sachets in open court, aided by the meticulous markings he had made on the plastic sachets immediately after the arrest of appellant. DIEACH
The failure of the police officers to make a physical inventory and to photograph the sachets of dangerous drugs does not automatically impair the integrity of the chain of custody of the drug. 21 What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, 22 and that the courts are assured that what were presented as pieces of evidence by the prosecution were the same ones that were confiscated from the accused and that tested positive for the presence of a dangerous drug.
In this case, PO3 Ayco testified that at the crime scene, he had marked both plastic sachets confiscated from appellant with the initials "APA/GAB" — APA for Alfredo P. Ayco, and GAB for Gamoranao Alonto Bolatan. 23 He was able to identify which of the plastic sachets was the subject of the charges for the sale and possession of dangerous drugs, because he had also marked the plastic sachets as "Exhibit A" and "Exhibit B." 24 The same markings were reflected in the request for laboratory examination 25 and on the chemistry report. 26
Appellant tries to emphasize that the plastic sachets were "delivered" to the crime laboratory for testing only on "6-4-03" (4 June 2003),or about a month after they were seized from him, as shown by the handwriting on the stamp mark placed on the request for laboratory examination. We are more inclined to believe that this date was inadvertently or mistakenly written, especially because 1) the same stamp mark shows that the plastic sachets were "received" at "1545H 06 MAY '03," and 2) the chemistry report clearly indicates that the crime laboratory received the plastic sachets at 3:45 p.m. and completed the examination at 5:30 p.m. of 6 May 2003. cSEaDA
Based on the foregoing, we find no error on the part of the RTC or the CA in finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of sale and possession of dangerous drugs. We likewise find that the RTC correctly imposed the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000 for the sale 27 of shabu and the penalty of imprisonment of 12 years and one day as minimum to 14 years as maximum and a fine of P300,000 for the possession 28 of shabu.
WHEREFORE,the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03806, finding appellant GAMORANAO BOLATAN y ALONTO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of sale and possession of dangerous drugs, is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo,pp. 2-12. The Decision dated 28 June 2010 issued by the Court of Appeals (CA) Eleventh Division in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03806 was penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, with Associate Justices Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Ricardo R. Rosario concurring.
2. CA rollo,pp. 8-20; in Criminal Case Nos. 03-184 and 03-185 dated 23 October 2008.
3. Records, p. 1.
4. Id. at 10.
5. Id. at 120.
6. Id. at 118.
7. Id. at 119.
8. Rollo,pp. 11-12.
9. Id. at 9.
10. Id.
11. Id. at 10.
12. Supplemental Brief dated 1 April 2011 filed by appellant.
13. TSN, 25 September 2003, pp. 4-5.
14. Id. at 5.
15. Records, p. 86.
16. Id. at 80-84.
17. People v. Dumangay,587 Phil. 730, 739 (2008).
18. People v. Aguilar,G.R. No. 191396, 17 April 2013, 696 SCRA 838.
19. People v. Concepcion,414 Phil. 247 (2001).
20. 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; ...
21. People v. Gani,G.R. No. 198318, 27 November 2013.
22. Marquez v. People,G.R. No. 197207, 13 March 2013, 693 SCRA 468.
23. TSN, 25 September 2003, pp. 11-12.
24. Id. at 12-13.
25. Records, p. 85.
26. Id. at 86.
27. Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transaction.
28. Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. — ...
(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00),if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu," or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy," PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or less than three hundred (300) grams of marijuana.