THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 212821. March 9, 2016.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOEL CALIMLIM Y BALJO @ "NANO", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated March 9, 2016, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 212821 (People of the Philippines vs. Joel Calimlim y Baljo @ "Nano"). — This is an appeal filed by Joel Calimlim y Baljo (accused-appellant) from the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated November 22, 2013 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04744 which affirmed the Joint Decision 2 dated September 21, 2010 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dagupan City, Branch 41, finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Ruling of the RTC
The RTC found the accused-appellant guilty of illegal sale and illegal possession of marijuana leaves penalized under Sections 5 and 11, respectively, of R.A. No. 9165 while the accused-appellant's co-accused, Freddie Bañez (Bañez), was acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt.
The accused-appellant's defense was rejected by the RTC as it held that the defense of denial cannot prevail over the testimony of the prosecution witness, Police Officer 3 Christian Carvajal (PO3 Carvajal), which was positive, clear and straightforward. 3 Moreover, there was no indication that PO3 Carvajal was impelled by any improper motive to testify against the accused-appellant. 4 PO3 Carvajal was the designated poseur-buyer in the buy-bust operation conducted on March 28, 2009 at the back of Lyceum Northwestern University General High School in A.B. Fernandez Avenue, Dagupan City pursuant to a confidential report received by the Dagupan City Police Station, leading to the arrest of the accused-appellant and Bañez. The accused-appellant sold ten (10) plastic sachets of marijuana leaves to PO3 Carvajal, while another 23 plastic sachets of dried marijuana leaves were recovered from him after a body search was conducted by the police officers. 5
For violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the RTC sentenced the accused-appellant to suffer life imprisonment, and to pay a fine of P500,000.00. For violation of Section 11 of the same law, the trial court sentenced him to suffer imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00). 6
Ruling of the CA
On appellate review, the CA affirmed the RTC decision in toto. The CA agreed with the findings of the RTC and held that the positive identification by PO3 Carvajal prevails over the accused-appellant's defense of denial that he did not know anything about the charges against him. 7 The CA also held that the records show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved. 8
Hence, this appeal.
In a Resolution 9 dated July 30, 2014, the Court required the parties to submit their respective supplemental briefs. However, both parties manifested that they are adopting the briefs they submitted before the CA. 10
Ruling of the Court
The appeal lacks merit.
The accused-appellant argued that the acquittal of Bañez is enough proof that the testimony of PO3 Carvajal is not credible. 11 He also contended that the custodial chain is broken because no one from the buy-bust team marked the seized items. 12
With regard to the credibility of the witnesses of the prosecution, this Court has held that "the determination by the trial court of the credibility of witnesses, when affirmed by the appellate court, is accorded full weight and credit as well as great respect, if not conclusive effect." 13 In the absence of compelling reasons, these findings of fact are binding upon this Court. 14 CAIHTE
Nevertheless, it is worthy to note that Bañez was acquitted not because the RTC believed that they were framed up as what the accused-appellant suggested had happened to them, 15 but because the prosecution failed to prove that Bañez conspired and confederated with the accused-appellant in selling marijuana. 16 "[T]here is nothing irregular with the acquittal of one of the supposed co-conspirators and the conviction of another. Generally, conspiracy is only a means by which a crime is committed as the mere act of conspiring is not by itself punishable. Hence, it does not follow that one person alone cannot be convicted when there is a finding of conspiracy. As long as the acquittal of a co-conspirator does not remove the basis of a charge of conspiracy, one defendant may be found guilty of the offense." 17
"The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti." 18 In this case, the prosecution established all the elements of the offense. PO3 Carvajal testified that as the designated poseur-buyer, he gave the marked money to the accused-appellant who sold to him ten (10) plastic sachets of marijuana. PO3 Carvajal then gave the pre-arranged signal of ringing the cellular phone of their team leader Police Inspector Leo Llamas. 19 Thus, the transaction of illegal sale of marijuana was consummated. "The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction between the entrapment officers and the accused." 20
The Court also finds the accused-appellant guilty of the charge of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. In a prosecution for illegal possession, it must be shown that "(1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug." 21 The foregoing elements were proven when another twenty-three (23) plastic sachets containing dried marijuana leaves were recovered from the accused-appellant when he was frisked upon arrest. 22
The chain of custody was likewise established by the prosecution. Both the RTC and the CA found that after PO3 Carvajal confiscated a total of thirty-three (33) plastic sachets of suspected marijuana from the accused-appellant, PO3 Carvajal immediately marked the seized items with his initials "CAC". The police officers took photographs of the seized items together with the accused-appellant. The inventory of the seized items was thereafter made by PO3 Carvajal and signed by Barangay Treasurer Regidor Dioquino. A Request for Laboratory Examination of the seized items was submitted by PO3 Carvajal to Police Senior Inspector Myrna Malojo (PS/Insp. Malojo) of the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory on March 19, 2009. PS/Insp. Malojo testified that upon examination and analysis, she found the seized items to be positive for the presence of marijuana, a dangerous drug. 23 The marked items were offered in evidence as Exhibits "H" to "H-9" and Exhibits "H-10" to "H-32". 24 aScITE
As to the penalties imposed, they are in accord with Sections 5 and 11 of R.A. No. 9165.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated November 22, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04744 is hereby AFFIRMED." (Jardeleza, J., no part in view of his participation in the Office of the Solicitor General; Leonen, J., designated additional Member per Raffle dated November 3, 2014.)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Michael P. Elbinias, with Associate Justices Isaias P. Dicdican and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela concurring; CA rollo, pp. 134-149.
2. Issued by Judge Emma M. Torio; id. at 18-26.
3. Id. at 23.
4. Id. at 24.
5. Id. at 19-20.
6. Id. at 26.
7. Id. at 142.
8. Id. at 145.
9. Rollo, pp. 23-24.
10. Id. at 26-31, 33-37.
11. CA rollo, p. 84.
12. Id. at 85.
13. People v. Castro, G.R. No. 195777, June 19, 2013, 699 SCRA 252, 264-265.
14. People v. Clarite, 682 Phil. 289, 296 (2012).
15. CA rollo, p. 84.
16. Id. at 24.
17. People v. Arlalejo, 389 Phil. 131, 138 (2000).
18. People v. Ulama, 678 Phil. 861, 869 (2011), citing People v. Morales, et al., 657 Phil. 623, 629 (2011).
19. CA rollo, p. 20.
20. People v. Encila, 598 Phil. 165, 181 (2009).
21. People v. Partoza, 605 Phil. 883, 890 (2009).
22. CA rollo, p. 20.
23. Id. at 23, 145-146.
24. Id. at 16-17.