THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 209336. September 20, 2017.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. LIZA CAMPOTO y YADAO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated September 20, 2017, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 209336 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LIZA CAMPOTO y YADAO, Accused-Appellant.) — Under review is the decision promulgated on June 3, 2013, 1 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction for violations of Section 5 and Section 11, Article II, of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) of the accused through the decision dated September 13, 2011 rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 120, in Caloocan City. 2
Antecedents
The Office of the City Prosecutor of Caloocan City charged the accused with the violations in separate informations, both dated April 28, 2010, alleging as follows:
Criminal Case No. C-84105
That on or about the 28th day of April 2010 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, sell and deliver to PO3 EDGARDO E. GALANG III who acted as poseur buyer one (1) newspaper wrapper with markings 'EG/LCY-BB-04-20-10' containing one (1) brick of white powder weighing 995.8 grams wrapped in a transparent plastic and packaging tape also with markings 'EG-LCY-BB-04-20-10' and when subjected for laboratory examination it gave positive result for COCAINE a dangerous drug, and without the corresponding license o[r] prescription therefore, knowing the same to be such.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 3
Criminal Case No. C-84106
That on or about the 28th day of April 2010 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, have in his (sic) possession, custody and control one (1) newsprint wrapper with markings 'EG/LCY-R-04-28-10' containing one (1) brick of white powder weighing 217.8 grams wrapped in a transparent plastic and packaging tape also with markings 'EG-LCY-R-04-28-10' and when subjected for laboratory examination it gave positive result for COCAINE a dangerous drug, in gross violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
Evidence for the Prosecution
At approximately 10:30 a.m. of April 26, 2010, PO3 Edgardo Galang III was at the Langaray Office of the District Anti-Illegal Drug-Special Operation Task Group (DAID-SOTG) of the Northern Police District when SPO1 Pabon came into the office with a female informant. The latter informed DAID-SOTG that her kababayan from Eastern Samar had cocaine worth P100,000.00 for sale. PO3 Galang immediately informed Police Chief Inspector (PC/Insp.) Jay Agcaoili, his superior officer, and the latter forthwith directed SPO1 Jonathan Taguba to verify the information. A team made up of PO3 Galang, SPO1 Taguba, SPO1 Pabon, PO3 Lipata, PO2 Mendez and the confidential informant was immediately formed.
In order to verify the information, PO3 Galang and the confidential informant called the accused-appellant to set up a meeting so that the latter could give a sample of the cocaine. At 6:00 p.m. of that same day, PO3 Galang and the confidential informant met with the accused-appellant at Baliuag Litson Manok on M. Naval Street in Navotas. The confidential informant introduced PO3 Galang to the accused-appellant named Liza who was with a female companion. After discussing the price of the cocaine with PO3 Galang and the confidential informant, Liza took out a plastic sachet containing a sample of the cocaine from her pants pocket and handed the same to PO3 Galang, who, in turn, placed the sachet in his pocket. Before the meeting ended, Liza told PO3 Galang to call her when he was ready to order the cocaine.
Upon returning to the office of DAID-SOTG, PO3 Galang gave the sachet to PO3 Ariosto B. Rana, the officer on case, in order to determine if the same contained genuine cocaine. PO3 Rana immediately placed a marking on the sachet, reading "SAMPLE-046-10," and prepared a letter-request dated April 26, 2010 addressed to the PNP Crime Laboratory Service to be signed by PC/Insp. Agacaoili.
The test on the sample was completed in the afternoon of April 27, 2010, and the results were as follows:
PURPOSE OF LABORATORY EXAMINATION:
To determine presence of dangerous drugs. x x x
FINDINGS:
Qualitative examination conducted on the above-stated specimen gave POSITIVE result to the test for the presence of Cocaine, a dangerous drug. x x x
CONCLUSION:
Specimen A contains cocaine, a dangerous drug. x x x 5
Upon receiving the results, PO3 Galang and the confidential informant set another meeting with Liza to take place at Jollibee in Monumento, Caloocan City in the morning of April 28, 2010. PC/Insp. Agcaoili handed PO3 Galang five pieces of P1,000.00 bills, which the latter placed on top of the boodle money to be used in the entrapment of the suspect consisting of photocopies of P1,000.00 bills and bundled together using rubber bands.
At about 10:00 a.m. of April 28, 2010, PO3 Galang and the confidential informant waited for Liza at the agreed place. The rest of the buy-bust team positioned themselves at nearby strategic locations. At approximately 10:45 of that morning, Liza arrived carrying a black and gray backpack. She approached PO3 Galang, and immediately asked him if he had the money. After giving his affirmative answer, he asked if she had the goods, to which she gave her positive response. Liza then unzipped the backpack and took out a brick-like object wrapped in newspaper. She gave the wrapped object to PO3 Galang who handed her the buy-bust money. At that point, PO3 Galang touched his left ear, thereby giving the pre-arranged signal to arrest Liza. He then held Liza by her shoulder and identified himself as a police officer. PO2 Sunny Boy Mendez, his back-up, arrived shortly afterwards. PO3 Galang showed the object wrapped in newspaper to PO2 Mendez and instructed Liza to produce the buy-bust money. She handed the same to him, along with her backpack. PO3 Galang conducted a routine check of the backpack and recovered another brick-like object similar to the one he had bought from Liza. He also recovered a security guard's uniform wrapped in newspaper. In order to avoid confusion between the brick-like objects, PO3 Galang left the second object inside the backpack and took the same in custody.
Upon arriving at the police station, PO3 Galang turned the seized items over to PO3 Rana, the assigned investigator. PO3 Rana compared the serial numbers of the buy-bust bills with those noted in the blotter book to confirm their identity. The team then conducted an inventory of the seized items in the presence of two members of the CAMANAVA Press and of the Assistant City Prosecutor. Photographs were taken during the conduct of the inventory. The brick of cocaine subject of the buy-bust operation was marked by PO3 Galang with the characters "EG/LCY-BB-04-28-10. The second brick was marked "EG/LCY-R-04-28-10" and turned over to PO3 Rana. The backpack and the security guard's uniform were each marked as "EG/LCY-04-28-10" and turned over to PO3 Rana. The request for the laboratory examination of the brick-like objects, dated April 28, 2010, was prepared by PC/Insp. Agcaoili. Another letter was made to request the test for the presence of dangerous drugs in her body. PO3 Rana prepared the written inventory of the seized items dated April 28, 2010, and was signed by PO3 Galang and PO2 Mendez, and witnessed by the representatives of the press and by the Assistant City Prosecutor.
The following day, the PNP Crime Laboratory Service for the Northern Police District released the results of the laboratory examination of the brick-like substances wrapped in newspaper through its Physical Science Report No. B-109-10 dated April 29, 2010, to wit:
FINDINGS:
Qualitative examination conducted on specimen A-1-a and A-2-a gave POSITIVE results to the tests for Cocaine, a dangerous drug. x x x
CONCLUSION:
Specimen A-1-a and A-2-a contain Cocaine, a dangerous drug; x x x 6
Based on the results, the two aforequoted informations were then filed charging the accused-appellant with illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs as aforementioned.
During trial, the State presented PO3 Galang, his back-up PO2 Mendez, case investigator PO3 Rana, and PCI Albert Arturo of the PNP Crime Laboratory Service for the Northern Police District.
Evidence for the Defense
The accused-appellant testified that between 1:00 and 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon of April 26, 2010, she was in Baclaran, near the Redemptorist Church to buy clothes with her aunt, Eva Acosta, when she received a text message from her cousin, Rosalyn Busa, asking to meet her in Bagong Silang, Caloocan City. She asked her cousin if the latter wanted to meet in Baclaran instead because she had a tight schedule. After her cousin arrived at the meeting place, she saw two men and feared that she was going to be held up, but she later on realized that one of the men was a policeman because he was wearing a policeman's uniform. She was not able to read policeman's names. Suddenly, her hands were held by one of the men. She asked: Sir, ano po ang kasalanan namin? They told her to go with them to the station. Meanwhile, the other man held her cousin and aunt. They brought them eventually to the police precinct in Langaray, Caloocan City. The accused-appellant did not anymore see her cousin afterwards.
At the precinct, the policemen informed the accused-appellant's aunt that they had to pay P200,000.00 in exchange for their freedom. Eva replied that they did not have that much money. The policeman then threatened them that upon arrival of the members of the media, they would no longer be able to get out of jail. The policemen also wanted them to contact any relative to produce the money demanded. Eventually, the accused-appellant's sister raised P100,000.00 and sent the money to the policemen through Kwarta Padala. A certain Jun Roada Acosta, allegedly a policeman from Langaray, received the money.
After receiving the money, the policemen told the accused-appellant and her aunt to decide who of them would be released because only half the demanded amount had been paid. The accused-appellant agreed that Eva should go free so that she could raise the remaining P100,000.00 to secure her release. However, Eva was able to raise only P50,000.00 on the following day, and gave the amount to the team leader, called Taguba, and they were informed that the accused-appellant would be released only after three weeks because there was still a balance of P50,000.00.
The accused-appellant recalled that she and her cousin Rosalyn Busa had quarreled in 2000 and were not speaking terms until 2007.
Also testifying was Eva. She corroborated the version of the accused-appellant. She identified the customer's copy of the Kwarta Padala receipt dated April 26, 2010, showing that Gerald Borja Balois from Eastern Samar had sent the amount of P50,000.00, plus a P300.00 charge, to Jun Roada Acosta in Baclaran, Manila.
Judgment of the RTC
On September 13, 2011, the RTC rendered judgment, 7 disposing:
Premises considered, the court finds and so holds the accused Liza Campoto y Yadao GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 and imposes upon her the following:
(1)Crim. Case No. C-84105 the penalty of Life imprisonment and a fine of Ten Million Pesos (Php10,000,000.00); and
(2)Crim. Case No. C-84106, the penalty of Life Imprisonment and a fine of Five Million Pesos (Php5,000,000.00).
The drugs subject matter of these cases weighing 995.8 grams and 217.8 grams of COCAINE are hereby confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government to be dealt with in accordance with law.
SO ORDERED. 8
The accused-appellant appealed to the CA.
Decision of the CA
On June 3, 2013, the CA promulgated the assailed decision, 9 affirming the conviction of the accused-appellant, to wit:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Instant Appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated September 13, 2011, rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 120 in Criminal Case Nos. C-84105 and C-84106, is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 10
Issue
Hence, this appeal, in which the accused-appellant assigns the lone error that:
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE FACT THAT HER GUILT WAS NOT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. 11
Ruling of the Court
The appeal lacks merit.
The accused-appellant argues that the witnesses for the Prosecution gave conflicting accounts as to the markings on the specimens because, on the one hand, PO3 Galang attested that he had placed the markings "EG/LCY-BB-04-28-10" and "EG-LCY-R-04-28-10" on the bricks subject of the buy-bust operation and the recovered specimen from the backpack, respectively, when they reached the police station, but, on the other, PO3 Rana declared that the marking placed on the specimens in his presence was "EG/LY" and PO2 Mendez stated on his part that the marking placed on the cocaine was only "EG."
The discrepancies adverted to related to trivial matters that did not negate the credibility of the evidence of guilt. What was essential was that the witnesses for the Prosecution identified the same items when they were confronted thereon during the trial.
On his part, PO3 Rana specifically testified as follows:
Q: Mr. Witness, these cases for violation of Sections 5 and 11, aside from this Exhibit "N" with submarkings, what else, if any was turned over to you by PO3 Galang.
A: Two (2) pieces of brick form plastic wrapped in newspaper suspected to be cocaine, ma'am.
Q: If it will be shown to you, these pieces of evidence, will you be able to identify them?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: How will you be able to identify the same?
A: Through their markings, 'EG/LY', ma'am.
Q: Who placed these markings?
A: PO3 Galang, ma'am.
Q: How did you come to say that it was PO3 Galang who placed those markings?
A: He marked it in my presence, ma'am.
Q: How about you, did you place markings on the evidence turned over to you by PO3 Galang?
A: No, ma'am.
Q: Why did you not put your markings on the evidence submitted to you by PO3 Galang?
A: It was already marked with the initials of the arresting officer and the suspect, ma'am.
Q: How would you be able to identify it later?
A: Through the markings, which are the initials of the arresting officer and the suspect, ma'am.
Q: I am showing to you this brick form wrapped in newspaper with markings "EG/LCY-BB-04-28-10 and the same has been previously marked as Exhibit "C-1" and "C-1-a," will you please take a look at this and tell the Honorable Court what relation has this to the newspaper wrapping the brick form which you said was turned over to you by PO3 Galang?
A: This is the evidence turned over to me by PO3 Galang. (Witness identified Exhibit "C", "C-1" and "C-11-a". 12
In this regard, the CA cogently observed that:
As to PO2 Mendez's identification of the said substances, he testified that PO3 Galang marked the parcels with his initials "EG". It is only normal that the police officers would only recall the part of the markings that have significance to them such as "EG" which stand for PO3 Galang's initials and "LCY" indicating accused-appellant, considering the number of drug cases that they have worked on throughout their careers as police officers. Although they may not have fully stated the markings on the parcels, PO2 Mendez and PO3 Rana were able to identify the same when presented during the trial. 13
Still, the accused-appellant further claims that the inventory indicated that PO3 Galang had bought two items from her, but the Prosecution presented only one as having been bought from her.
The claim of the accused-appellant is misleading. The inventory did not state that the two objects wrapped in newsprint, which contained the cocaine, had been bought by PO3 Galang during the buy-bust operation. It simply disclosed that said items had been seized by the police officers and taken into their possession without stating the circumstances of the seizure itself. The records of the trial show, indeed, that PO3 Galang had bought from her only one of the two brick-like objects; and that the second wrapped parcel had been found inside her backpack, along with her security guard's uniform.
The accused-appellant argues that the Prosecution did not establish the corpus delicti and an unbroken chain of custody. She stresses that the RTC did not bother to delve on the chain of custody and on the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items; and that as a consequence the integrity of the evidence was not preserved, thereby indicating the possibility that the evidence had been tampered with.
The argument is bereft of factual basis. In this regard, we quote with approval the factual findings of the CA on proof of the chain of custody by the Prosecution, to wit:
To be able to create a first link in the chain of custody, what is required is that the marking be made in the presence of the accused and upon immediate confiscation. "Immediate confiscation" has no exact definition thus, marking upon immediate confiscation contemplates marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team.
In this case, therefore, the first link is when the bricks of what was then suspected to be cocaine were marked at the police station after accused-appellant had been arrested, as shown by the photographs. Defense would have this Court believe that the photographs did not show that accused-appellant was present when the evidence was marked but a cursory view of the said photographs would reveal otherwise, particularly Exhibits "I-1" and "I-5" which show the accused seated at a table inside the precinct, facing the marked evidence.
The connection between the first and second links in the chain of custody is established by the Evidence Acknowledgment. Receipt dated April 28, 2010, which states that PO3 Rana received the following evidence from PO3 Galang and PO2 Mendez:
xxx xxx xxx
The second and third links are bridged by the request for laboratory examination of the brick-lie parcels, sent to the crime laboratory on April 28, 2010, the same day the items were seized and Physical Science Report No. B-109-10 shows that the tests were concluded the following morning.
The final link in the chain is forged when all three police officers presented as witnesses positively identified the parcels in open court as the same items subject of the buy-bust operation seized from accused-appellant when she was arrested. 14
The identity and the integrity of the evidence were dutifully preserved from the moment of seizure during the buy-bust operation up to their presentation in court during the trial. The Prosecution adduced sufficient proof of the making of the appropriate markings, inventory, and the request for laboratory examination vis-à-vis the dangerous drugs seized during the buy-bust operation, thereby documenting the chain of custody for the evidence of the corpus delicti. What was material to the successful prosecution of the accused for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs was the proof that the transaction or sale had taken place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of the corpus delicti. 15 We remind that any minor deviations from the procedures laid down under Republic Act No. 9165 would not automatically exonerate the accused from liability for the crime of which she was convicted. 16 That is what should happen herein. In the absence of a showing that irregularities or lapses tainted the chain of custody, therefore, the testimonies of the police officers in dangerous drugs cases carried with them the presumption of regularity. 17
The accused contends that the police officers engaged in extortion by falsely filing charges against her after she could not pay the full amount of P100,000.00 demanded in exchange for her freedom.
The accused's contention was unsubstantiated. Both she and her aunt Eva attested that the police officers committing the extortion were not PO3 Galang, PO3 Rana and PO2 Mendez, the officers who had a direct hand in her arrest and in the confiscation of the contraband, as well as in subsequent processing of her arrest and formal incrimination. Moreover, although she presented the Kwarta Padala receipt dated April 26, 2010 showing one Gerald Borja Balois from Eastern Samar to have sent to Jun Roado Acosta in Baclaran P50,000.00, and paid the P300.00 charge, such proof did not bolster her allegation of extortion considering that Acosta was not even shown to have been related to Eva, or to have had any connection with any of the extorting police officers. Lastly, she did not establish that Acosta as the recipient of the remittance had later on delivered the P50,000.00 to any of the police officers in her behalf. In short, the allegation of extortion on the part of some police officers to secure her freedom and that of her aunt, albeit easy to make, was not as easy to establish. Hence, the allegation of extortion, having remained unproved, was not even relevant.
WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES the appeal; AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on June 3, 2013; and ORDERS the accused-appellant to pay the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-16; penned by Associate Justice Agnes Reyes-Carpio, with the concurrence of Associate Justice Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente and Associate Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla.
2. CA Rollo, pp. 23-37; penned by Judge Aurelio R. Ralar, Jr.
3.Rollo, p. 3.
4.Id.
5.Id. at 4-5.
6.Id. at 7.
7.Supra note 2.
8. CA Rollo, pp. 36-37.
9.Supra note 1.
10.Rollo, p. 16.
11.Id. at 54.
12. TSN October 6, 2010, pp. 8-9.
13.Rollo, p. 13.
14.Id. at 14-15.
15.People v. Paler, G.R. No. 188103, March 7, 2012, 667 SCRA 703, 710.
16.People v. Umipang, G.R. No. 190321, April 25, 2012, 671 SCRA 324, 355.
17.People v. Fundales, Jr., G.R. No. 184606, September 5, 2012, 680 SCRA 181, 196.