SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 248327. September 30, 2020.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ELMA [THELMA] BONGABONG y FULLACAO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 30 September 2020 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 248327 (People of the Philippines v. Elma [Thelma] Bongabong y Fullacao). — After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolves to DISMISS the appeal for failure of Elma (Thelma) Bongabong y Fullacao (accused-appellant) to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed reversible error in rendering its Decision 1 dated June 23, 2017 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08278 affirming the Decision 2 dated April 12, 2016 of Branch 61, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Baguio City finding accused-appellant guilty of violation of Section 5, Article II, Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 in Criminal Case No. 34540-R.
Antecedents
Accused-appellant was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 in an Information which reads as follows:
That on or about the 8th day of June, 2013, in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there knowingly, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously sell, distribute and/or deliver forty-two bricks of dried marijuana weighing more or less 37.8 kilograms, a dangerous drug, for P1,500.00 each to Agent Darriel Baclili, a member of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency who acted as poseur-buyer, knowing fully well that said marijuana is a dangerous drug, in violation of the aforementioned provision of law. 3
On August 5, 2013, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs. 4
Version of the Prosecution
A confidential informant went to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Regional Office in Camp Dangwa, La Trinidad, Benguet and informed Agent Darriel Baclili (Agent Baclili) that accused-appellant was looking for a buyer of marijuana. Coincidentally, while at the PDEA Office, the confidential informant received a phone call from accused-appellant to confirm if he already found a buyer. The confidential informant gave the phone to Agent Baclili, who then pretended to be a buyer of marijuana. During the conversation, accused-appellant offered 42 bricks of marijuana at P1,800.00 each; Agent Baclili negotiated for a lower price of P1,500.00 per brick for all the boxes of marijuana. Accused-appellant acceded, and they agreed to meet at around 12:00 midnight of the same day at Crystal Cave, Baguio City. 5
Immediately thereafter, Commanding Officer Agent Meyrick Calisto (Agent Calisto) conducted a briefing and formed a buy-bust team. Agent Calisto, as the Team Leader, designated Agent Baclili as the poseur-buyer and Agent Serafina Tenenan (Agent Tenenan) as the back-up/arresting officer. Agent Baclili prepared 58 pieces of P500.00 bills to be used as the marked money in the operation. 6
In the evening of the same day, the team, accompanied by the confidential informant, proceeded to the target area. Agent Baclili and the confidential informant waited for about 10 minutes before accused-appellant arrived. Accused-appellant arrived on board a taxi and alighted therefrom with three boxes. She approached Agent Baclili and directly inquired from him if he was the person with whom she spoke to on the phone. Agent Baclili positively responded and requested accused-appellant to open the boxes. Agent Baclili took one brick to verify its contents and then handed the marked money to accused-appellant. Thereafter, he executed the pre-arranged signal by taking off his cap and waiving it in the air to confirm the consummation of the transaction. Agent Tenenan proceeded to the transaction scene, introduced herself as a PDEA agent, arrested accused-appellant, and informed her of her constitutional rights. Agent Baclili proceeded to mark the three confiscated boxes and their contents which consisted of 42 bricks of suspected marijuana. 7
The team then brought accused-appellant and the seized items to Station 10 where Agent Baclili prepared the inventory witnessed by Kagawad Jaime Candido, media representative Jerald Ulep, and Prosecutor Nimia Peralta. 8 Agent Calisto prepared the request for laboratory examination, and Agent Baclili brought the seized items to the PNP Crime Laboratory. 9
Police Chief Inspector and Forensic Chemist Rowena Canlas (PCI Canlas) personally received the seized items from Agent Baclili. She then conducted a qualitative examination on the specimens, which turned out positive for the presence of marijuana, a dangerous drug. 10
Version of the Defense
The defense, through her sole testimony, denied the charge and asserted that she was framed-up. 11
According to accused-appellant, at around 8:00 in the evening of June 7, 2013, she was in a waiting shed a few meters away from her house at Purok 1, Km. 3, Asin Road, Baguio City. She was looking for a ride going to her sister's house. At that point, four men approached and adamantly accused her of ownership of the boxes near her at the waiting shed. She denied the accusation, but then the men handcuffed her at gunpoint and brought her to Station 10 for investigation. 12
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
In the Decision 13 dated April 12, 2016, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165.
The RTC found that the poseur-buyer positively identified accused-appellant as the person from whom he was able to purchase 42 bricks of marijuana weighing about 38 kilos. It gave weight to the statutory presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties of the PDEA agents in the conduct of the buy-bust operation. It further observed that accused-appellant's defense of denial was not corroborated, and there was also no evidence that the arresting officers were improperly motivated to falsely impute a crime against her. 14
Lastly, the RTC opined that the chain of custody of the seized items was observed as shown by the testimony of Agent Baclili, who confiscated, marked, inventoried, and delivered the seized items to the crime laboratory for examination; including that of PCI Canlas who received them from Agent Baclili and confirmed, after examination, the presence of marijuana in the samples taken. 15
The dispositive portion of the Decision provides:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused Elma (Thelma) Bongabong y Fullacao GUILTY beyond any reasonable doubt and she is sentenced to Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of P1,000,000.00.
The accused is ORDERED for TRANSFER to the Women's Correctional Institute in Mandaluyong City, Metro Manila.
The bricks of marijuana subject of this case are hereby ORDERED for destruction unless earlier destroyed, pursuant to law.
SO ORDERED. 16
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
Dissatisfied with the RTC's verdict, accused-appellant appealed to the CA. However, the CA denied the appeal and affirmed the RTC Decision17in toto. 18
The CA ruled that accused-appellant was validly apprehended in flagrante delicto as a result of a buy-bust operation wherein she was caught in the act of selling marijuana in the presence of poseur-buyer Agent Baclili. 19
As to the issue on the chain of custody, the CA found without basis accused-appellant's claim that the 42 bricks of marijuana were not properly marked as the date and signature were not allegedly indicated. 20 According to the CA, the records indeed showed that three boxes seized from accused-appellant were marked immediately upon confiscation at the place of seizure by Agent Baclili by affixing his initials DGB-A on the box containing 18 bricks of marijuana, DGB-B on the box with 14 bricks of marijuana, and DGB-C on the box with 10 bricks of marijuana, including the date and his signature. 21 It further noted that the 42 bricks of marijuana were also individually marked at the place of seizure by Agent Baclili as DGB-1 to 42 with the date and his signature. 22 It also ruled that the absence in the markings of the specific place where the items were confiscated is inconsequential as neither RA 9165 nor its implementing rules require that it must be included in the markings. 23
The CA furthermore found that the non-presentation of PO3 delos Reyes, the officer who took custody of the seized marijuana after the laboratory examination, was not indispensable, and at best, merely corroborative, as the seized drugs were positively identified by Agent Baclili; and the custody of the seized drugs was stipulated upon by the parties during the pre-trial. 24
Hence, the appeal to the Court. 25
The parties adopted their respective Appellant's 26 and Appellee's 27 Briefs filed before the CA as their supplemental briefs before the Court.
The primordial issue brought to the Court for resolution is whether the chain of custody over the seized items was duly observed in accordance with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165.
Our Ruling
The appeal must fail.
Well-settled is the rule that to sustain a conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the following elements must first be established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took place and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence. 28
In the case herein, accused-appellant questions the lower courts' appreciation of the integrity of the corpus delicti and the apprehending officers' compliance with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. Accused-appellant asserts the following: (a) the items which were allegedly the subject of the sale were not marked completely after confiscation at the place of arrest; and (b) the testimony of the person who had custody and safekeeping of the seized items after laboratory examination pending presentation in court was not presented.
In People v. Gonzales, 29 the Supreme Court explained how crucial the marking of evidence is:
The first stage in the chain of custody rule is the marking of the dangerous drugs or related items. Marking, which is the affixing on the dangerous drugs or related items by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his initials or signature or other identifying signs, should be made in the presence of the apprehended violator immediately upon arrest. The importance of the prompt marking cannot be denied, because succeeding, handlers of the dangerous drugs or related items will use the marking as reference. Also, the marking operates to set apart as evidence the dangerous drugs or related items from other material from the moment they are confiscated until they are disposed of at the close of the criminal proceedings, thereby forestalling switching, planting or contamination of evidence. In short, the marking immediately upon confiscation or recovery of the dangerous drugs or related items is indispensable in the preservation of their integrity and evidentiary value. 30
With this in mind, the Court notes that there can be no doubt as to the integrity of the confiscated drugs herein, considering that their whereabouts had been accounted for from the time of confiscation, marking, and examination until their eventual presentation in court. As cogently found by the CA, Agent Baclili clearly testified that he marked the seized drugs at the place of confiscation with his initials DGB-A on the box containing 18 bricks of marijuana, DGB-B on the box with 14 bricks of marijuana, DGB-C on the box with 10 bricks of marijuana, and individually marked each brick with DGB-1 to 42 with the date and his signature. With the corresponding markings, the dangerous drugs evidence had already been set apart from other materials from the moment they were confiscated until the time they were disposed of at the close of the criminal proceedings; and possible switching, planting or contamination of evidence was forestalled.
In the same manner, the last link as to the custody over the seized items after the laboratory examination up to the presentation in court was established by stipulation of the parties during pre-trial. The parties admitted that it was PCI Canlas who personally brought the items subject matter of the case to the RTC. 31 Moreover, PCI Canlas narrated that the seized items were kept at their office by her assistant, PO3 delos Reyes, until the items were delivered to the RTC. 32 With the substantial amount of the confiscated bricks of marijuana dutifully marked individually immediately after their confiscation at the place of arrest, the evidence being readily identifiable, their proper identification in court by Agent Baclili, and the stipulation made by the parties that the seized items subject of the case were examined by PCI Canlas, then the susceptibility of the evidence to alteration, tampering, contamination, substitution, and exchange is implausible.
All in all, the integrity of the confiscated drugs had been preserved; thus the conviction of accused-appellant should be sustained.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated June 23, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08278 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED." (BALTAZAR-PADILLA, J., on leave).
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-22; penned by Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta, with Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion and Justice Victoria Isabel A. Paredes, concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 56-66; penned by Presiding Judge Antonio C. Reyes.
3.Id. at 56.
4.Id.
5.Rollo, p. 4.
6.Id.
7.Id. at 4-5.
8. CA rollo, p. 58.
9.Rollo, pp. 5-6.
10.Id. at 5.
11.Id. at 6.
12.Id.
13. CA rollo, pp. 56-66; penned by Presiding Judge Antonio C. Reyes.
14.Id. at 63.
15.Id. at 63-66.
16.Id. at 66.
17.Id. at 56-66; penned by Presiding Judge Antonio C. Reyes.
18.Rollo, pp. 3-22.
19.Id. at 10-15.
20.Id. at 15.
21.Id.
22.Id. at 15-17.
23.Id. at 17.
24.Id. at 19-20.
25.Id. at 23.
26. CA rollo, pp. 43-55.
27.Id. at 78-86.
28.People v. Lim, G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018.
29. 708 Phil. 121 (2013).
30.People v. Gonzales, supra at 130-131.
31.Rollo, p. 7.
32. CA rollo, p. 58.