SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 206371. June 29, 2016.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EVELYN BRILLANTES y DELA CRUZ, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 29 June 2016 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 206371 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, v.EVELYN BRILLANTES y DELA CRUZ, accused-appellant. — We resolve the appeal of accused-appellant Evelyn Brillantes y Dela Cruz (Brillantes) assailing the August 30, 2012 decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04903. The CA decision affirmed the February 2, 2011 decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 23, Manila, in toto.
The Case
In two (2) separate Informations both dated December 23, 2009, Evelyn Brillantes was formally charged with illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs defined separately with corresponding penalties under Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
At her arraignment, Brillantes pleaded not guilty to both charges.
The evidence of the prosecution reveals that on December 18, 2009, Police Chief Inspector Grace Ibañez (PCI Ibañez) received information from a confidential informant that Brillantes was selling illegal drugs along Pacheco Street in Manila. In response, PCI Ibañez formed a buy-bust team consisting of SPO2 Marion Bautista (SPO2 Bautista), PO3 Joel Sta. Maria (PO3 Sta. Maria), and PO3 Rodelio Salvador (PO3 Salvador) who was designated as the poseur-buyer. After the pre-marked buy-bust money was handed to PO3 Salvador, the buy-bust team, along with the confidential informant, proceeded to Pacheco Street.
At around 6:00 p.m., the buy-bust team immediately spotted Brillantes who approached the confidential informant and PO3 Salvador and asked if they were interested in buying shabu. At about the same time, another person suddenly appeared behind them and said he also wanted to buy shabu. Brillantes told him to wait for his turn. She then took out a plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance and handed it to PO3 Salvador. In turn, PO3 Salvador gave the accused the buy-bust money and took off his bull cap, signaling his back-up to come in and help arrest Brillantes.
Brillantes was arrested at that point. PO3 Salvador informed her of her constitutional rights and of her violation of the law. PO3 Salvador also asked her to empty her pockets which revealed another plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance.
PO3 Salvador held on to the two (2) plastic sachets he confiscated from Brillantes and subsequently turned them over to PO3 Elymar Garcia (PO3 Garcia), the investigating officer, at the police station. PO3 Garcia, in turn, marked the sachet PO3 Salvador had purchased and the other sachet he recovered after arresting Brillantes as "DAID-1" and "DAID-2," respectively. ATICcS
After preparing the physical inventory and the request for laboratory examination on the confiscated items, PO3 Garcia brought the confiscated items to the crime laboratory. The request for laboratory examination was duly received by the crime laboratory, which issued Chemistry Report No. D-952-09 stating that the contents of the two (2) plastic sachets confiscated from Brillantes tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
Brillantes denied the accusation against her and claimed that she was sleeping in the evening of December 18, 2009, when police officers barged into her home. She said that she was brought downstairs while the police officers searched her entire house.
On the way to the police station, the police officers showed Brillantes a plastic sachet containing shabu. She denied knowledge and ownership of these items.
Finally, she alleged that the police officers tried to extort money from her but she failed to produce the amount they asked for.
In its February 2, 2011 decision, the RTC found Brillantes guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. It held that the prosecution successfully proved all the elements of each crime, including the corpus delicti, by establishing the essential links in the chain of custody rule. It likewise disregarded Brillantes' denial for being an inherently weak defense and found absent any intent on the part of the police officers to falsely impute such crimes against her.
Accordingly, the RTC sentenced Brillantes to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, and imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and nine (9) months of reclusion temporal for illegal possession of the same. She was likewise ordered to pay a fine of P500,000.00 and P300,000.00 for the two crimes.
On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC's decision and upheld Brillantes' conviction. Hence, Brillantes appealed her case before this Court.
Our Ruling
We AFFIRM Brillantes' conviction.
In the sale of illegal drugs pursuant to a buy-bust operation, the details of the purported transaction must clearly and adequately show: (1) the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, (2) the offer to purchase, (3) the payment of consideration, and (4) the delivery of the illegal drug. 3 Here, Brillantes approached PO3 Salvador and the confidential informant and asked them if they wanted to buy shabu — establishing the initial contact and the offer to purchase. Although the delivery of the shabu came before the payment in consideration thereof, Brillantes still handed the illegal drug to PO3 Salvador who, in turn, paid for it. We have held that the delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummates the buy-bust transaction. 4 From these facts, the required stages for a valid buy-bust operation were met and the elements of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs were duly established. TIADCc
On the other hand, for the successful prosecution of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following essential elements must be established: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object that is identified to be a prohibited or dangerous drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. 5 First, the other plastic sachets containing shabu was found in Brillantes' pocket after a search on her person following her arrest in flagrante delicto for the illegal sale of shabu. It must be remembered that a person lawfully arrested may be searched without a warrant for anything which may have been used or may constitute proof in the commission of an offense. 6 Second, Brillantes did not adduce evidence showing her legal authority to possess the shabu. Third, the intent to possess the drug freely or consciously, or the animus possidendi, can be presumed from the fact that the other plastic sachet was found in Brillantes' pocket. 7 Verily, we affirm that she was correctly charged and convicted separately for illegal possession of shabu.
However, for the successful prosecution of both illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs, the existence of the corpus delicti, or the existence of the illegal drugs themselves, must likewise be proved with moral certainty. The existence of the corpus delicti heavily relies on whether the chain of custody over the confiscated drugs has been preserved. cSEDTC
After a careful evaluation of the testimony of PO3 Salvador, considered in relation to the stipulations of the parties, we also find that the chain of custody over the four (4) plastic sachets of shabu was shown to be unbroken.
Based on his testimony, PO3 Salvador confiscated two (2) plastic sachets of shabu one (1) bought while the other recovered from Brillantes after her arrest. On the way to the police station, PO3 Salvador held both sachets. Upon arriving at the police station, PO3 Salvador turned over the confiscated drugs to PO3 Garcia, who marked them on the spot and prepared the physical inventory. We have held that marking upon immediate confiscation contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team. 8 Thus, the alleged failure to mark the confiscated items at the place where the sale took place does not negate Brillantes' liability for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. After making the necessary documentation, PO3 Garcia personally delivered the confiscated items to the crime laboratory as evidenced by the request for laboratory examination, which the parties stipulated to have been duly received. Lastly, the parties likewise stipulated that the confiscated items duly turned over to the crime laboratory were the same items presented in court.
As for Brillantes' defense of alibi and frame-up, we find that it cannot stand in the face of proof beyond reasonable doubt of the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. Allegations of alibi and extortion by police officers are common and standard defenses in most drug cases. 9 Thus, absent substantial proof showing any irregularity on the part of the police officers, we view these defenses with disfavor because they can easily be fabricated.
Finally, we uphold the penalty imposed by the lower courts for illegal sale but modify the penalty imposed for illegal possession. The trial court sentenced Brillantes to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of "twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to fourteen (14) years and nine (9) months of reclusion temporal as maximum" for illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165, however, provides that if the quantities of the dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams, the penalty imposed is "imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years." While the penalty imposed by the trial court was well within the period prescribed by R.A. No. 9165; in relation to the Indeterminate Sentence Law, we find it necessary to delete the phrase "of reclusion temporal" as this was not provided under the law and to differentiate illegal possession as a crime punished under a special penal law and not under the Revised Penal Code.
WHEREFORE, the August 30, 2012 decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04903 is AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATION: for her conviction of the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs punished under Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165, Brillantes is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to fourteen (14) years and nine (9) months as maximum, and to pay a fine of P300,000.00.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
* Del Castillo, J., on leave.
1. Rollo, pp. 2-14; penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, and concurred in by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Associate Justice Leoncia R. Dimagiba.
2. CA rollo, pp. 14-19; by Presiding Judge Caroline Rivera-Colasito.
3. See People v. Jocson, 565 Phil. 303, 311 (2007) and People v. Doria, 361 Phil. 595, 621 (1999).
4. People v. Gonzales, 430 Phil. 504, 513 (2002) and People v. Jocson, Id. at 310-311.
5. See People v. Tuan, G.R. No. 176066, August 11, 2010, 628 SCRA 226, 241.
6. RULES OF COURT, Rule 126, Section 13.
7. See People v. Unisa, G.R. No. 185721, January 30, 2009, 658 SCRA 305-306.
8. People v. Resurreccion, G.R. No. 186380, October 12, 2009, 603 SCRA 510, 520, citing People v. Gum-Oyen, G.R. No. 182231, April 16, 2009, 585 SCRA 668.
9. People v. Laylo, 669 Phil. 111, 121 (2011), citing Quinicot v. People, G.R. No. 179700, June 22, 2009, 590 SCRA 458. See also People v. Darisan, G.R. No. 176151, January 30, 2009, 577 SCRA 486, 491.