THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 196054. November 6, 2017.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. RANDY CALAYO y LAGASCA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 6, 2017, which reads as follows: EcTCAD
"G.R. No. 196054 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RANDY CALAYO y LAGASCA, Accused-Appellant). — The accused appeals the decision promulgated on October 11, 2010, 1 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the joint decision rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 164, in Pasig City in Criminal Case No. 14155-D and Criminal Case No. 14156-D finding and pronouncing him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violations of Section 5 and Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) as charged. 2
The CA found the following facts to be duly established, to wit:
On June 29, 2005 at around 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon, while PO2 JOSEPH R. BAYOT, a member of the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Force ("SAID-SOTF") of the Philippine National Police (PNP), Pasig City was on duty, he received a telephone call from a concerned citizen regarding the alleged illegal drug-peddling activities of one @RANDY CALAYO at Urbano Velasco, Pinagbuhatan, Pasig City. Upon receipt of said information, PO2 BAYOT, accompanied by a confidential informant ("CI"), proceeded to Pinagbuhatan where he instructed the CI to verify whether there was anyone selling shabu in front of the PCP-3 ("police community precinct"). After having confirmed the same, they returned to the office where the station commander, P/INSP. DONALD SABIO, immediately organized a buy-bust team composed of PO2 TOMAS CULIAT, PO2 DANILO PACURIB, PO1 ANTHONY BIBIT, PO1 JONEL NIPALES, and PO2 BAYOT, who was designated as the poseur-buyer and to whom was handed two (2) pieces of P100-peso bills marked with his initials "JRB" as buy-bust money.
PO1 BIBIT coordinated the intended buy-bust operation with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). Thereafter, the buy-bust team, together with the CI, proceeded to the target area, where PO2 BAYOT and the CI instantly saw the suspect standing in front of the PCP-3, about 15 meters away from them. PO2 BAYOT and the CI approached the suspect while the rest of the team stayed a good distance behind.
After the CI introduced PO2 BAYOT to accused-appellant as someone who wanted to buy shabu, the suspect led them to a small alley a short distance away from the PCP-3 where he asked PO2 BAYOT how much shabu he wanted to buy. PO2 BAYOT replied "two hundred" and handed the marked money to the suspect. In exchange, the latter handed over one (1) plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance, which PO2 BAYOT pocketed.
The transaction having been completed, PO2 BAYOT gave the pre-arranged signal to his back-up team by scratching his head. As the rest of the buy-bust team rushed to the scene, PO2 BAYOT held the suspect, later identified as herein accused-appellant RANDY CALAYO y LAGASCA, introduced himself as a police officer, informed him that he was being arrested for selling shabu, and apprised him of his constitutional rights. PO2 BAYOT confiscated the buy-bust money and recovered another plastic sachet also containing white crystalline substance from accused-appellant's pockets, as well as some cash amounting to P520.00.
PO2 BAYOT marked the confiscated plastic sachets with accused-appellant's and his own initials, and the date of the arrest, "RCC JRB 06/29/05." Accused-appellant was subsequently brought to the police headquarters, where PO2 BAYOT executed a Sinumpaang Salaysay relative to the incident.
Upon laboratory examination, both plastic sachets recovered from accused-appellant, containing 0.06 and 0.10 gram of white crystalline substance each, yielded positive for metamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
Consequently, accused-appellant was charged with violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 in two (2) separate Informations which read:
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 14155-D
"On or about June 29, 2005 in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, not being lawfully authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and give away to PO1 Joseph R. Bayot, a police poseur buyer, one (1) pc. of heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.06 gram of white crystalline substance, which was found positive to the test for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of the said law.
Contrary to law." HSAcaE
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 14156-D
"On or about June 29, 2005 in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and under his custody and control one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.10 gram of white crystalline substance, which was found positive to the test for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of the said law.
Contrary to law."
xxx xxx xxx
During trial, the prosecution dispensed with the testimony of P/INSP. LOURDELIZA G. CEJES, Forensic Chemist of the PNP Crime Laboratory, upon the following stipulations: the due execution and authenticity of the Physical Science Report No. D-0467-2005E dated June 30, 2005, marked as Exh. "C" for the prosecution; that the specimens described thereat are the same as the prosecution's Exhs. "J" and "K," with sub-markings, or the two (2) plastic sachets seized from accused-appellant; that upon examination, the plastic sachets tested positive for metamphetamine hydrochloride; that the items described in the request for laboratory examination marked as Exh. "B" for the prosecution are the same as Exhs. "J" and "K" and submarkings; and that P/INSP. CEJES was the forensic chemist who conducted the laboratory examination on the subject specimens.
Similarly, the testimony of P/INSP. DONALD SABIO was dispensed with upon the following stipulations: that P/INSP. SABIO was the team leader of the buy-bust operation in the conduct of which accused-appellant was arrested; that he prepared and signed a request for laboratory examination dated June 29, 2005, as well as the drug dependency test; and that he signed the pre-operation report dated June 29, 2005. 3
In his turn, the accused denied the charges. He maintained that on the date and time in question, he was at home when four armed men had forcibly entered his house; that he was then holding his small child; that when the men poked a gun at him and ordered him to lay on the ground, he had complied; that they wanted to know where his gun and the shabu were, but he denied having any gun or shabu in his possession; that they then searched his house, taking a cellphone and cash; that despite not finding either a gun or shabu in his house, they still handcuffed him; and that they brought him to the Pariancillo police office in Pasig City, where they demanded money in exchange for his release. 4
Calvin Calayo, the son of the accused, corroborated his father's version. He recalled that four men had approached him to ask where the accused lived; that he had accompanied the men to his father's house; and that he had witnessed how the men kicked the door of the house to gain entry inside. 5
After trial on the merits, the RTC convicted the accused as charged, holding that the Prosecution had established the elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs; and that the defense of denial had no probative value in view of the direct and straightforward testimony of poseur-buyer PO2 Joseph R. Bayot.
The accused elevated his convictions to the CA, which ultimately affirmed them, thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed judgment of conviction is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 6
In his appeal, the accused continues to maintain his innocence. He points to the Prosecution witnesses' material inconsistencies on what had really transpired during the non-existent buy-bust operation. He specifies the contradictions on the mode of communication by which the confidential informant had supposedly relayed information on his illegal activities, i.e., personally or through telephone, the time of the surveillance, and the actual buy-bust operation.
Ruling of the Court
The appeal lacks merit.
The essential requisites for the successful prosecution of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu, are: "(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and consideration of the sale; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor." 7 On the other hand, to successfully prosecute the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the State must establish the following requisites, namely: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. 8 HESIcT
The Prosecution successfully discharged its burden of establishing the foregoing requisites of both crimes.
Anent the illegal sale of shabu, the Prosecution established that the accused had sold the dangerous drugs to PO2 Bayot, the poseur-buyer; and that the former received the marked P200.00 buy-bust money as payment for the drug. There is no question that "[t]he delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummate[d] the buy-bust transaction." 9
Similarly, the essential elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs were proven. After the consummation of the sale of illegal drugs and the apprehension of the accused for that crime, PO2 Bayot frisked his person and found another plastic sachet containing what was later on confirmed to be shabu. The article was later marked "RCC JRB 06/29/05" during the trial. 10 In respect of the last element of the accused having freely and consciously possessed the dangerous drug, jurisprudence is already settled that the mere possession of the dangerous drug constitutes prima facie evidence of animus possidendi sufficient to convict the possessor in the absence of any satisfactory explanation from him. 11
It is worthy to mention that the dangerous substance itself represents the corpus delicti of the offense of illegal sale of the substance or illegal possession thereof. To sustain a judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt, the State must prove the existence of the dangerous substance, and must further prove that the substance presented in court was the very same drug recovered from the accused. The latter condition should preclude any doubt or uncertainty as to the identity of the seized drug and its integrity as evidence.
A crucial point for proving the guilt of the accused is to clearly and convincingly establish the chain of custody of the dangerous substance; without the chain of custody being shown to be unbroken, the State's case would fail. The Court concedes that although the chain of custody should ideally be perfect, it has become impossible to obtain an unbroken chain in most cases. The limitations on chain of custody are explicitly recognized. Nonetheless, Section 21 of the implementing rules and regulations (IRR) for R.A. No. 9165 states that the non-compliance with the requirements for the chain of custody may be excused upon justifiable grounds provided the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized substance are properly preserved by the apprehending officer. The non-compliance, if justified, shall not invalidate the seizure and custody of the contraband. In resolving drug cases, the court has repeatedly stressed that "what is essential is 'the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.'" 12
Herein, the Prosecution successfully established not only the corpus delicti of the offenses charged but also clearly and convincingly proved the chain of custody of the illegal substances. Section 21 (a) of the IRR requires that immediately after seizure and confiscation the apprehending officer/team having initial custody of the drugs shall physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or of the person or persons from whom such items were confiscated or seized, but nonetheless clarifies that a deviation from the requirement under circumstances duly explained will not be considered a fatal flaw as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the items were duly preserved by the buy-bust team.
After PO2 Bayot confiscated the plastic sachets from the accused, he marked the seized sachets right away with his initials, the initials of the accused, and the date. He kept the sachets in his custody until the team brought the accused to the police station. He personally delivered the confiscated items to the PNP Crime Laboratory with the written request for the laboratory examination that had been prepared and signed by P/Insp. Donald Sabio. Physical Science Report No. D-0467-2005E, 13 which was prepared by forensic chemist P/Insp. Lourdeliza G. Cejes, indicated that the items which were the same as those described in the request for laboratory examination had tested positive for the presence of shabu. In court, the Prosecution presented and identified the items as Exhibit J and Exhibit K.
Based on the foregoing, there is no doubt that the chain of custody of the corpus delicti was preserved. Every link in the chain, from the time the illegal drugs had been confiscated up to the time they were offered as evidence, was properly recorded. Details as to every person who had touched the drugs, how and from whom the drugs were received, where the drugs were at any point in the custody, and what happened to the drugs in the various stages of their possession, the relative condition in which the drugs were received, and the state in which the drugs were delivered from one link to the next, were given and are now part of the records of the trial.
Lastly, the Court has consistently viewed with disfavor the defense of denial due to its being easily fabricated. Such defense has been noted as the common ploy of those charged with the illegal sale or the illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Denial, to succeed, must be supported by strong and convincing proof. 14 Denial fails in the face of credible and firm affirmative evidence given by police officers who took part in the entrapment of the suspects. In that regard, it is the trial courts that ascertain matters of credibility of witnesses, and once their ascertainment is affirmed by the CA, the Court can only respect it. caITAC
The accused complains that the evidence against him reeked of material inconsistencies. However, the inconsistencies adverted to, even supposing that they did occur, were immaterial to the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. They obviously did not relate to the elements of the offenses. In this regard, the appreciation of the testimonies, and of the credibility of the witnesses by the trial and intermediate appellate courts was not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of any fact of consequence or influence; hence, the appreciation is accorded great weight, and is conclusive and binding on the Court. 15
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on October 11, 2010 by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC. No. 03959; and ORDERS the accused to pay the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-12; penned by then Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe (now a Member of this Court), with the concurrence of Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes (a former Member of this Court) and Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybañez.
2. CA rollo, pp. 19-25.
3.Rollo, pp. 3-7.
4. CA rollo, pp. 22-23.
5.Id. at 23.
6.Rollo, p. 11.
7.People v. Gandawali, G.R. No. 193385, December 1, 2014, 743 SCRA 405, 412; citing People v. Remigio, G.R. No. 189277, December 5, 2012, 687 SCRA 336, 347.
8.People v. Climaco, G.R. No. 199403, June 13, 2012, 672 SCRA 631, 641; citing People v. Roble, G.R. No. 192188, April 11, 2011, 647 SCRA 593, 603.
9.People v. Guiara, G.R. No. 186497, September 17, 2009, 600 SCRA 310, 323.
10.Rollo, p. 4.
11.People v. Quiamanlon, G.R. No. 191198, January 26, 2011, 640 SCRA 697, 716; Buenaventura v. People, G.R. No. 171578, August 8, 2007, 529 SCRA 500, 513.
12.People v. Torres, G.R. No. 191730, June 5, 2013, 697 SCRA 452, 466.
13.Rollo, p. 4.
14.Portuguez v. People, G.R. No. 194499, January 14, 2015, 746 SCRA 114, 125; People v. Gonzaga, G.R. No. 184952, October 11, 2010, 632 SCRA 551, 569.
15. See People v. Garcia, G.R. No. 200529, September 19, 2012, 681 SCRA 465, 477.