FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 197369. August 5, 2015.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROBERT CAMPOS y MILCA and RAMEL ARTILLERO y CALDO, accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 5, 2015 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 197369 — (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROBERT CAMPOS y MILCA and RAMEL ARTILLERO y CALDO, Accused-Appellants).
This is an appeal from the Court of Appeals Decision 1 dated 20 October 2010 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03633, affirming the Regional Trial Court 2 (RTC) Decision 3 dated 22 October 2008 in Criminal Case No. Q-05-134581, convicting herein appellants Robert Campos y Milca (Campos) and Ramel Artillero y Caldo (Artillero) for Violation of Section 5 (illegal sale of dangerous drugs), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
Appellants were charged in an Information 4 dated 24 May 2005, the accusatory portion of which reads:
That on or about the 21st day of May, 2005 in Quezon City, Philippines, the said [herein appellants], not being authorized by law to sell, dispense, deliver[,] transport or distribute any dangerous drug, did then and there, wil[l]fully and unlawfully sell, dispense, deliver, transport, distribute or act as broker in the said transaction, zero point twenty (0.20) gram of white crystalline substance containing MethylamphetamineHydrochloride otherwise known as "shabu" a dangerous drug. 5 (Emphasis supplied)
When arraigned, both appellants pleaded NOT GUILTY to the crime charged. 6 Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
The prosecution presented the following witnesses: Police Officer 3 Jerry Villamor (PO3 Villamor), the designated poseur-buyer; PO3 Hector Hernandez (PO3 Hernandez), the investigator in this case; and Police Chief Inspector Filipinas Francisco Papa (P/Chief Insp. Papa), the Forensic Chemical Officer of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Central Police District Crime Laboratory. The respective testimonies of PO3 Hernandez and P/Chief Insp. Papa were, however, dispensed with per agreement of the parties. 7
The defense, on the other hand, presented as witnesses appellants Campos and Artillero; Jo Anne Castro, the carinderia owner where appellant Campos is a regular customer and who witnessed the arrest of the latter; 8 and Zuphany Zobel de Ayala, who considered appellant Artillero as her adopted son and with whom the latter allegedly inquired on the night of the incident where they could find some pick-up girls. 9
The respective versions of the prosecution and the defense of the events that gave rise to this controversy were adequately summarized by the Court of Appeals as follows:
On [21 May 2005], a confidential informant went to the District Anti-Illegal Drugs, Special Operations Task Force (DAID, SOT[F]), Camp Karingal, Sikatuna Village, Quezon City[,] and reported two (2) male persons were actually engaged in selling illegal drugs. Pursuant to said [i]nformation, the police operatives conducted a buy-bust operation against [herein] appellants. However, before the police jumped off to the operation, a short briefing was conducted. A buy-bust team was organized. It was composed of [Police] Chief Inspector [Arnold] Abad [P/Chief Insp. Abad], [Police Officer 2] Emeterio Mendoza [PO2 Mendoza] 10 and PO3 Noel Magcalayo [PO3 Magcalayo] and PO3 Jerry Villamor [PO3 Villamor], who was designated as the poseur-buyer. PO3 Villamor was given [P]500.00 as buy-bust money which he marked with "JV." Thereafter, they proceeded to the target area along Quezon Avenue corner Examiner at about 3:00 a.m. of the same day, using two (2) vehicles — a Toyota Revo and Toyota Corolla. PO3 Villamor drove the Revo[,] together with the confidential informant[,] while the rest of the team rode in the Corolla. aScITE
When the police operatives reached the target area, they found appellants standing along Quezon Avenue, and accordingly, they parked their vehicles alongside them. The confidential informant made an initial contact with appellant Artillero, who was with appellant Campos. He (confidential informant) asked [appellant] Artillero if he had the stuff with him, saying "My kumpadre is buying." [Appellant] Artillero then circled around PO3 Villamor and asked him, "How much would you get?" to which PO3 Villamor replied [P]500.00. PO3 Villamor then gave the [P]500.00 buy-bust money to [appellant] Artillero, who after receiving the money, showed it to [appellant] Campos. The latter then handed four (4) plastic sachets containing suspected shabu to [appellant] Artillero, who gave the same to PO3 Villamor. PO3 Villamor looked at the sachets closely and told [appellant] Artillero that he was not getting his money's worth because the stuff was small, to which the latter replied that "Shabu is quite expensive now and that is the going rate." After having acquired the sachets, PO3 Villamor immediately apprehended [appellant] Artillero and introduced himself as a police officer. When he subjected him to a body search, he recovered from his possession and control the buy-bust money. When PO2 Mendoza spotted the signal executed by PO3 Villamor, the former immediately responded and apprehended [appellant] Campos, from whose possession, he recovered three (3) small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing suspected shabu.
At their office, PO3 Villamor marked the seized items, photographed them and thereafter turned them over to the Duty Desk Officer for proper investigation and disposition, and then executed an inventory of the recovered items. The seven (7) plastic sachets of shabu recovered from appellants were brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. The examination yielded to a positive result for methylamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu.
To abbreviate the proceedings, the parties entered into stipulations of facts with regard to the proposed testimonies of PO3 [Hernandez] and [P/Chief Insp. Papa].
As regards the proposed testimony of PO3 Hernandez, the parties stipulated that he was the investigator in this case; that during the course of his investigation, he prepared the Joint Affidavit of Arrest of PO3 Villamor and PO[2] Mendoza, the Request for Laboratory Examination of the object evidence dated [21 May 2005] and Investigation Report dated [22 May 2005] serving likewise as the Referral [L]etter referring the case to the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City; that during the investigation, the arresting officers handed to him the buy bust money.
As regards the proposed testimony of [P/Chief Insp.] Papa, the parties stipulated that she is the Forensic Chemist who conducted the laboratory examination on the object evidence by virtue of a Request for Laboratory Examination of the PNP, DAID dated [21 May 2005]. 11 Thereafter, she prepared Chemistry Report No. D-430-[05] in which she stated that the seven (7) specimens she examined gave positive result to the test for methylamphetamine hydrochloride. It was also stipulated that if she were presented at the witness stand, she would be able to identify the object evidence she examined.
On the other hand, [appellant Campos] declared that he [had] just finished working at Tongyan Seafoods Restaurant at around 2:15 a.m., when he was arrested by said persons in a canteen and was brought to [C]amp Karingal as he was suspected of selling shabu.
[Appellant Artillero] declared that he was working as a parking boy attendant near National Bookstore on [21 May 2005] around 11:00 p.m., when police officers parked their car and asked for girls, he told them that there is none here but along Pantranco, there is. That he accompanied them and when he showed some girls, the girls [ran] away but he was arrested and brought to [C]amp Karingal. He was charged with violation of the anti-drugs law. 12
In a Decision dated 22 October 2008, the trial court rendered judgment convicting appellants for Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The fallo of the trial court decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds each of the [appellants] ROBERT CAMPOS y MILCA and RAMEL ARTILLERO y CALDO GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of SECTION 5, ARTICLE II of REPUBLIC ACT [NO.] 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. HEITAD
Each of them is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00), Philippine Currency, plus the costs of suit.
The dangerous drug and drug paraphernalia submitted as evidence in this case are hereby ordered to be transmitted to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper destruction/burning pursuant to the provision of the law, and its implementing rules and regulations. 13
In arriving at its decision, the trial court held that the prosecution has established with moral certainty all the elements necessary in every prosecution for the illegal sale of shabu. The trial court further stated that the prosecution also proved that a valid buy-bust operation was conducted to entrap the appellants. As to the points raised by the defense, i.e., the investigator's failure to sign the Inventory Receipt, the markings placed in the plastic sachets were not reflected in the said Inventory Receipt and the non-inclusion of the appellants in the Pre-Operation Report, the trial court declared that the aforesaid refer to trivial matters that have no bearing on the elements of the crime. These are peripheral matters that do not detract from what the prosecution has established by credible evidence. In the same way, the trial court found implausible the allegation that the police officers framed-up the appellants in the said buy-bust operation to extort money and that they were arrested for no reason whatsoever. The records were bereft of any evidence to prove ill-motive on the part of the police officers to do those things and to impute a serious offense on the appellants. As such, the presumption that public officers regularly performed their public duty remains undisturbed. 14
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed appellants' conviction.
Hence, the instant recourse raising this lone assignment of error:
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE [HEREIN APPELLANTS] GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME CHARGED. 15
In the main, appellants assail the credibility of PO3 Villamor and insist that there was no buy-bust operation conducted against them, but, instead, an attempt to extort money.
Appellants further allege that the buy-bust team committed serious lapses in the handling and custody of the confiscated drugs, i.e., the investigator's failure to sign the inventory receipt and the failure to reflect in the inventory receipt the markings placed in the plastic sachets.
A thorough and careful review of the present case leads this Court to DISMISS appellants' appeal and, thus, SUSTAIN their conviction.
Essentially, the findings of fact of the trial court, particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding upon this Court, save only for certain compelling reasons, 16 which in this case there was none.
Further, in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers on the ground that they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner. The exception is when there is evidence to the contrary suggesting ill motive on the part of the police officers or deviation from the regular performance of their duties. 17 Here, the only evidence of ill motive on the part of the buy-bust team is appellant Campos' own testimony of extortion, which is a very common defense in dangerous drugs cases. Such defense, however, is viewed with disfavor, for it can be easily concocted. To substantiate such a defense, therefore, the evidence must be clear and convincing. 18 In this case, not even appellant Campos' co-appellant corroborated his accusation of extortion on the part of one of the members of the buy-bust team.
This Court also finds preposterous appellants' contention that no buy bust-operation happened. Appellants insist that it is contrary to human reason and experience for the buy-bust team to park their vehicles beside their very target persons without arousing suspicion on the part of the latter that something unusual and ominous was about to happen. It must be noted that there is no rigid or textbook method of conducting buy-bust operations. The choice of effective ways to apprehend drug dealers is within the ambit of police authority. Police officers have the expertise to determine which specific approaches are necessary to enforce their entrapment operations. The courts' duty in these cases is to ensure that the rights of the accused have not been violated during buy-bust operations. 19
Moreover, the prosecution, through PO3 Villamor, adequately established all the elements of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. Here, we quote the findings of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed that of the trial court: ATICcS
We disagree with [herein appellants'] contention that there was no buy[-]bust operation. Records reveal that there was a legitimate buy[-]bust operation when PO3 Villamor, the poseur buyer categorically testified that appellants sold to him shabu. His positive identification of appellants and how the transaction was completed is clear, the prosecution has established with moral certainty all the elements necessary in every prosecution for the illegal sale of shabu, namely: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and consideration, and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. Regarding the object and consideration of the sale, the illegal drugs (shabu) was duly presented before the trial court and the prosecution through the testimony of PO3 Villamor who was able to present in a clear and convincing manner how the sale transaction took place. Furthermore, the delivery of the shabu by [appellant Campos] to his [co-appellant Artillero] and later the handing over thereof to PO3 Villamor, as well as the latter's payment therefor, were also sufficiently established and corroborated.
xxx xxx xxx
. . . The testimony of the poseur-buyer, PO3 Villamor clearly established that the sale of shabu by [appellants] was consummated. The corpus delicti, which is the shabu, was presented in court. Said witness acknowledged that they were the same drugs purchased from the [appellants] during the incident in question. So that as long as the sale of dangerous drugs is adequately proven and the drug itself was presented as evidence in court, the [appellants] can already be convicted on the basis thereof. 20 (Emphasis supplied)
Appellants' asseveration that the buy-bust team committed serious lapses in the handling and custody of the confiscated drugs, i.e., the investigator's failure to sign the inventory receipt and the failure to reflect in the inventory receipt the markings placed in the plastic sachets, deserves scant consideration.
Sec. 21 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act No. 9165 states:
SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof; Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures;Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items. . . . . (Emphasis supplied).
It is clear from the language of Section 21 of the IRR of Republic Act No. 9165 that the failure of the law enforcers to comply strictly with it is not fatal. It does not render appellants' arrest illegal nor the evidence adduced against them inadmissible. 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." 21
In the case under consideration, records revealed that there was substantial compliance with the law and that the integrity of the drugs seized from appellants was preserved. The chain of custody of the drugs subject matter of the case was shown not to have been broken. The factual milieu of the case clearly showed that after PO3 Villamor seized and confiscated the dangerous drugs, subject of the sale, appellants were immediately arrested and brought to their office at DAID, SOTG, Camp Karingal, Sikatuna Village, Quezon City, for investigation. PO3 Villamor was the custodian of the seized drugs from the time of recovery up to the time they were turned over to the Duty Desk Officer. Prior thereto, PO3 Villamor appropriately marked the seized drugs. PO3 Villamor even explained that the same were not marked at the place of arrest because they failed to bring the materials for marking. PO3 Villamor likewise took photographs of the seized drugs, the buy-bust money and the appellants. Upon turning them over to the Duty Desk Officer, PO3 Villamor made an inventory thereof. Immediately thereafter, the confiscated substance, with a letter of request for examination, was submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory for laboratory examination to determine the presence of any dangerous drug. 22 Per Chemistry Report No. D-430-05 dated 21 May 2005, 23 the specimen submitted yielded positive results for the presence of methylamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu, a dangerous drug. The said examination was conducted by P/Chief Insp. Papa. With the foregoing, it is beyond any cavil of doubt that there was an unbroken chain in the custody of the illicit drug purchased from appellants. TIADCc
In comparison to the overwhelming evidence of the prosecution, appellants could only muster the defense of denial. It is well-settled that denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is a self-serving assertion that deserves no weight in law. Between the categorical and positive assertions of the prosecution witness and the negative averments of the appellants, which are uncorroborated by reliable and independent evidence, the former indisputably deserve more credence and are entitled to greater evidentiary weight. 24
Going to the criminal liability of the appellants, the rule is that conspiracy must be alleged, not merely inferred, in the information. Absence of a particular statement in the accusatory portion of the charge sheet concerning any definitive act constituting conspiracy renders the indictment insufficient to hold one accused liable for the individual acts of his co-accused. Thus, each of them would be held accountable only for their respective participation in the commission of the offense. 25 In the instant case, while it is true that conspiracy was not alleged in the information, the individual acts of the appellants constituted the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The facts evidently proved that at the time PO3 Villamor and the confidential informant arrived at the target area, both appellants were there. During the sale transaction, after PO3 Villamor gave the P500.00 buy-bust money to appellant Artillero as consideration for the shabu, the latter, upon receiving the money, showed the same to appellant Campos. Appellant Campos then handed the P500.00-peso worth of shabu to his co-appellant Artillero, who, in turn, handed the same to PO3 Villamor. Hence, even in the absence of an allegation of conspiracy in the information, appellants are still culpable for the crime charged inasmuch as their individual participation satisfied the elements thereof. 26
All told, the prosecution ably proved appellants' guilt for Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, beyond reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court of Appeals Decision dated 20 October 2010 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03633, is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Justice Ruben C. Ayson with Associate Justices Amelita G. Tolentino and Normandie B. Pizarro, concurring; rollo, pp. 2-18.
2. Quezon City, Branch 78.
3. Penned by Presiding Judge Fernando T. Sagun, Jr.; CA rollo, pp. 40-52.
4. Id. at 9-10.
5. Id. at 9.
6. Per RTC Order and Certificate of Arraignment both dated 2 May 2006; records, pp. 68-69 and 71.
7. Per RTC Orders dated 30 October 2006 and 18 December 2006, respectively; id. at 92 and 97-98.
8. Testimony of Jo Anne Castro, TSN, 22 August 2008, pp. 5-18.
9. Testimony Zuphany Zobel de Ayala, TSN, 22 August 2008, pp. 20-30.
10. The first name of Mendoza is spelled as "Emiterio" and not "Emeterio" and his rank is Police Officer 2 and not Police Officer 1 as stated in the Pre-Operation Report/Coordination Sheet dated 20 May 2005; records, p. 8.
11. Records, volume I, p. 14.
12. CA Decision, dated 20 October 2010; rollo, pp. 4-8.
13. CA rollo, pp. 51-52.
14. Id. at 46-47 and 50.
15. Brief for the Accused-Appellants dated 10 June 2009; id. at 72.
16. People v. Clarite, G.R. No. 187157, 15 February 2012, 666 SCRA 306, 313.
17. Id.
18. Id.
19. People v. Hajili, 447 Phil. 283, 305 (2003).
20. CA Decision, dated 20 October 2010; rollo, pp. 9 and 11.
21. People v. Pagkalinawan, 628 Phil. 101, 118 (2010), citing People v. Concepcion, 578 Phil. 957, 971 (2008).
22. Testimony of PO3 Villamor, TSN, 8 June 2006, pp. 16-17 and 22-27; Testimony of PO3 Villamor, TSN, 28 August 2006, pp. 10-13.
23. Records, p. 6.
24. People v. Hilet, 450 Phil. 481, 490-491 (2003).
25. People v. Tampis, 455 Phil. 371, 383-384 (2003).
26. Id. at 383-384.