FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 241090. January 25, 2023.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.MARVIN CALUMPONG, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJanuary 25, 2023which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 241090 (People of the Philippines v. Marvin Calumpong). — This appeal 1 seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision 2 dated 07 December 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB-CR HC No. 02112, affirming the Judgment 3 dated 04 May 2015 of Branch 30, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dumaguete City, Negros Occidental in Criminal Case No. 2014-22598, finding accused-appellant Marvin Calumpong (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 4 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Antecedents
On 20 November 2014, accused-appellant was charged in an Amended Information, the accusatory portion of which reads:
That at around 9:45 in the morning of November 15, 2014 at Barangay Looc, Municipality of Sibulan, Province of Negros Oriental, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the herein accused, did then and there willfully and illegally sell and deliver to a police poseur buyer zero point zero seven (0.07) grams of crystalline substance known as "shabu" containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride a dangerous drug under R.A. 9165, in consideration of the amount Three Hundred Pesos (Php300.00), without authority of law.
That accused was found positive for Methamphetamine, a dangerous drugs [sic] as reflective in Chemistry Report DT-402-41. 5
Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty. Trial on the merits ensued after the pre-trial conference. 6
Version of the Prosecution
At around 8:30 a.m. of 15 November 2014, a confidential informant walked into the office of the Municipal Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Group of the Sibulan Police Station in Sibulan, Negros Oriental. The informant relayed to Police Officer 2 (PO2) Web Mananquil (PO2 Mananquil) that accused-appellant was engaged in the illegal sale of shabu at Barangay Looc, Sibulan. 7
PO2 Mananquil asked the informant if they could buy shabu from accused-appellant. The informant texted accused-appellant, who replied that they could buy shabu from him. Accused-appellant instructed the informant to meet him along the road leading to the quarry area of Barangay Looc, Sibulan. 8
In coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, the police officers formed a team for the buy-bust operation. PO2 Mananquil was designated as the poseur-buyer, with PO2 Michael Piñero (PO2 Piñero) as back-up. 9
The team then proceeded to the target area. PO2 Mananquil and the informant approached accused-appellant. The informant asked accused-appellant if he had the shabu. Accused-appellant answered in the affirmative and asked how much they wanted to buy. PO2 Mananquil answered that they would buy P300.00 worth of shabu, then gave the marked money to accused-appellant. Accused-appellant put the money on his shorts and handed to PO2 Mananquil one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing suspected shabu. 10 This prompted accused-appellant's arrest.
PO2 Piñero approached accused-appellant and conducted a body search. He was able to recover the marked money, one caliber .38 revolver, and a cellular phone. 11 At the place of arrest, PO2 Mananquil marked the sachet. As relatives and co-workers of the accused started to mill around the area, and fearing for their safety, the team decided to conduct the formal inventory of the items at the Sibulan Police Station. 12
At the station, the seized items were inventoried and photographed in the presence of accused-appellant, a barangay kagawad, a member of the media, and a representative from the Provincial Prosecution Office. 13 Thereafter, the sachet was brought to the crime laboratory, which confirmed that it contained 0.07 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. 14 The laboratory examination of the urine sample taken from accused-appellant also yielded a positive result for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride. 15
Version of the Defense
Accused-appellant denied the occurrence of a buy-bust operation. He claimed that, on 15 November 2014, he was on his way to work when he met police officers PO2 Piñero and Carl Lazalita (Lazalita). Lazalita told accused-appellant that his presence is requested at the police station because SPO4 Ruel Piñero had some inquiries. Accused-appellant and the police officers boarded a motorcycle and went to the police station. 16
At the station, accused-appellant saw a police officer typing at a computer the former's name beside the words RA 9165. Accused-appellant inquired why his name was being typed. The police officer apologized and told him that they need some persons to be reported. He then saw PO2 Mananquil, who also apologized and informed accused-appellant that criminal cases were being filed against him. Accused-appellant was thereafter detained. 17
Archie Jamandron (Jamandron), accused-appellant's co-worker, testified in his favor. Jamandron claimed that, on the date of the alleged buy-bust, he saw accused-appellant on board a motorcycle with Lazalita and one other person. Accused-appellant smiled and waived at Jamandron, then said "you follow me at the police station." Since Jamandron had to go to work, Jamandron did not follow accused-appellant at the police station. However, when he arrived at his workplace, Jamandron grew suspicious. He then called accused-appellant in his cellphone. Accused-appellant answered the call, crying, and begging Jamandron to go to the police station. 18
Ruling of the RTC
In its Judgment 19 dated 04 May 2015, the RTC convicted accused-appellant of the crime charged. The fallo of the Judgment reads:
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the Court hereby finds the accused Marvin Calumpong GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of illegal sale and delivery of 0.07 gram of shabu in violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and is hereby sentenced to suffer a penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).
The one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with markings "MC-BB-11-15-14" containing 0.07 gram of shabu is hereby confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government and to be disposed of in accordance with law.
In the service of sentence, the accused Marvin Calumpong shall be credited with the full time during which he has undergone preventive imprisonment, provided he agrees voluntarily in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners.
SO ORDERED. 20
The RTC gave weight to the testimony of the poseur-buyer, PO2 Mananquil, and the other prosecution witnesses. 21 According to the RTC, the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements for illegal sale of shabu. 22 All the links in the chain of custody were established, and the integrity of the corpus delicti was properly preserved. 23
Accused-appellant's claim that his arrest was illegal for lack of a warrant of arrest was rebuffed by the trial court. Accused-appellant was arrested while committing a crime — a circumstance where warrantless arrest is justified under Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. 24 Moreover, accused-appellant's defenses of denial and frame up were unsupported by credible proof. 25
Ruling of the CA
In a Decision 26 dated 07 December 2017, the CA affirmed the Judgment of the RTC, viz.:
Accordingly, the appeal is hereby DENIED. The Judgment dated 04 May 2015 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 30, Dumaguete City, Negros Occidental, finding accused-appellant Marvin Calumpong guilty of Violation of Section 5, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 in Criminal Case No. 2014-22598 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 27
The CA held that the buy-bust operation was validly conducted. 28 As such, accused-appellant was validly arrested. 29 The CA further ruled that a prior surveillance or test buy is not required for a valid buy-bust operation, as long as the operatives are accompanied by their informant. 30 Moreover, the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of illegal sale of drugs. 31 Accused-appellant's defense of denial cannot prevail over the positive testimony of prosecution witnesses. 32
Hence, this appeal.
Issues
Accused-appellant raises two issues: (1) whether the buy-bust operation was validly conducted; and (2) whether the CA and the trial court erred in finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. 33
Ruling of the Court
The appeal is bereft of merit.
The buy-bust operation was
Contrary to accused-appellant's claim, prior surveillance or verification is not necessary before a buy-bust operation. As correctly held by the CA, prior surveillance is not a prerequisite for the validity of a buy-bust operation especially when, as in this case, the police officer was accompanied by the informant. 34
Moreover, PO2 Mananquil was an operative of the Municipal Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Group, which specialized in the curtailment of illegal drug activities. Since he and his colleagues were more experienced with drug cases, there is nothing irregular or peculiar in the conduct of a buy-bust operation promptly after the receipt of the confidential information, and even without prior surveillance. 35
There is also no merit to accused-appellant's claim that what transpired was instigation, and not entrapment. 36 Instigation means luring the accused into a crime that he, otherwise, had no intention to commit, in order to prosecute him. On the other hand, entrapment is the employment of ways and means in order to trap or capture a lawbreaker. Instigation presupposes that the criminal intent to commit an offense originated from the inducer and not the accused who had no intention to commit the crime and would not have committed it were it not for the initiatives by the inducer. 37
Here, the testimony of PO2 Mananquil shows that the confidential informant merely asked accused-appellant if the latter had shabu. Accused-appellant answered in the affirmative and asked how much PO2 Mananquil and the informant were willing to buy. 38 PO2 Mananquil did not badger or induce accused-appellant to sell and deliver the shabu; accused-appellant voluntarily did so. Notably, the claim of instigation amounts to an admission that, indeed, the sale took place.
Relatedly, accused-appellant was validly arrested without a warrant during the buy-bust operation. An arrest made after an entrapment operation does not require a warrant inasmuch as it is considered a valid warrantless arrest under Section 5 (a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. 39 Any search resulting from a lawful warrantless arrest is valid because accused-appellant committed a crime in flagrante delicto, or in the presence of the arresting officer. 40
For the foregoing reasons, We sustain the legality of the buy-bust operation.
The elements of illegal sale were
To secure a conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following essential elements must be established: (a) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object of sale, and consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. 41 Material in the prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the sale took place, coupled with the presentation of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence. 42 Hence, it must be established that the substance bought during the buy-bust operation is exactly the same substance offered in evidence before the court. 43 In order to obviate any unnecessary doubts on such identity, the prosecution has to show an unbroken chain of custody over the same. 44
In this case, the prosecution was able to establish the elements of illegal sale of shabu through the testimony of the poseur-buyer himself, PO2 Mananquil. PO2 Mananquil positively identified accused-appellant as the person who sold the shabu. 45 PO2 Mananquil also recounted the details of the transaction with accused-appellant, from the discussions on the amount of shabu to be sold, to the delivery of shabu and, in exchange, the marked money. 46
We affirm the findings of the CA and the trial court on the credibility of PO2 Mananquil's testimony. As aptly pointed out by the trial court, only a trustworthy witness would have narrated the incident with such clarity and realism. 47
Further, contrary to accused-appellant's claim, 48 the non-presentation of the confidential informant as a witness did not negate the elements of illegal sale. It is settled that such presentation is not necessary to the success of the prosecution, in view of the need to protect the informant from retaliation. 49 Only when the testimony of the informant is considered absolutely essential in obtaining the conviction of the culprit should the need to protect his security be disregarded. 50
Here, evidence on the initial contact between the confidential informant and accused-appellant is not indispensable. All the elements of illegal sale of drugs were present during the buy-bust operation, which was witnessed by PO2 Mananquil. As mentioned, the offer to sell and acceptance thereof, as well as the delivery of the shabu in exchange for the marked money, were made during the operation.
Moreover, We find that the police officers complied with the procedures laid down in Section 21 of RA 9165, the law in force at the time of the commission of the offense.
First, PO2 Mananquil immediately marked the sachet at the place of seizure and in the presence of accused-appellant. Second, the inventory and taking of photographs were done at the Sibulan Police Station in the presence of accused-appellant, an elected public official, a member of the media, and a representative from the Provincial Prosecution Office. 51 While the inventory and taking of photographs were done at the nearest police station, the same is allowed under the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165. Moreover, the apprehending team justified the same on account of safety issues. Section 21 of the IRR provides that "noncompliance of these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items."
Third, the seized item, enclosed in a sealed evidence envelope, was promptly brought to the crime laboratory and duly marked by the examiner. Fourth, after the seized item tested positive for shabu, and prior to its submission to the court, it was kept in the evidence vault of the crime laboratory which only the examiner had access to. 52 Thus, the courts a quo correctly ruled that the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti were properly preserved through faithful adherence with chain of custody and witness requirements.
On accused-appellant's defenses, denial and frame-up are invariably viewed with disfavor because such defenses can easily be fabricated. 53 In the absence of clear and convincing evidence, these defenses cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. 54 The CA correctly affirmed the RTC's conclusion that accused-appellant failed to adequately substantiate his defenses. Except for accused-appellant's bare allegations, there is no showing that PO2 Mananquil was inspired by ill motives. The testimony of Lazalita that he saw accused-appellant, assuming the same to be true, does not prove the defense of frame-up. CAIHTE
Given the foregoing, accused-appellant's conviction must stand.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. Accordingly, the Decision dated 07 December 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB-CR HC No. 02112 finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 is AFFIRMED. Accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00.
SO ORDERED." Rosario, J., on official leave.
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 20-22.
2. Id. at 4-19; penned by Associate Justice Louis P. Acosta and concurred in by Associate Justices Gabriel T. Ingles and Germano Francisco D. Legaspi.
3. CA rollo, pp. 51-62; penned by Judge Rafael Crescencio C. Tan, Jr.
4. Entitled "AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFORE AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES." Approved: 07 June 2002.
5. Rollo, p. 5.
6. Id.
7. CA rollo, pp. 82-83.
8. Id. at 83.
9. Id.
10. Id. at 83-84.
11. Id. at 84.
12. Id. at 53.
13. Id. at 84.
14. Id. at 85.
15. Id.
16. Id. at 40.
17. Id. at 41.
18. Id.
19. Id. at 51-62.
20. Id. at 61.
21. Id. at 57-58.
22. Id.
23. Id. at 59.
24. Id.
25. Id. at 60.
26. Rollo, pp. 4-19.
27. Id. at 19.
28. Id. at 10.
29. Id. at 11-12.
30. Id. at 12.
31. Id. at 13.
32. Id. at 18.
33. CA rollo, p. 36.
34. People v. Eugenio, 443 Phil. 411, 422-423 (2003).
35. See People v. Eugenio, supra.
36. CA rollo. p. 44.
37. People v. San Miguel, G.R. No. 247956, 07 October 2020.
38. CA rollo, p. 57.
39. Teodosio v. Court of Appeals, 475 Phil. 80, 96 (2004).
40. Id.
41. People v. Suating, G.R. No. 220142, 29 January 2020.
42. People v. Yanson, G.R. No. 238453, 31 July 2019.
43. People v. Bartolini, 791 Phil. 626, 634 (2016).
44. People v. Ching, 819 Phil. 565, 576 (2017).
45. TSN, 03 March 2015, pp. 6-7.
46. Id.
47. CA rollo, p. 60.
48. Id. at 44.
49. People v. Rosauro, 754 Phil. 346, 353 (2015).
50. Id.
51. Notably, the number of witnesses in this case exceeds the requirement under RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, which only require the presence of the accused, an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media.
52. CA rollo, pp. 53-55.
53. People v. Lung Wai Tang, G.R. No. 238517, 27 November 2019.
54. People v. Alberto, 625 Phil. 545, 554 (2010).