SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 237685. July 28, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.ANTONIO CHAN y BELTRAN AND JOHN PHILIP KIRIT y CORDOVA, accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated28 July 2021which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 237685 (People of the Philippines v. Antonio Chan y Beltran and John Philip Kirit y Cordova). — For review is the Decision 1 dated August 30, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02081, which affirmed the Judgment 2 dated April 15, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 30, Dumaguete City in Criminal Case No. 2013-21937, convicting Antonio Chan y Beltran (Chan) and John Philip Kirit y Cordova (Kirit) (accused-appellants) of violating Section 5 in relation to Section 26, Article II, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Charge
In Criminal Case No. 2013-21937, the accused-appellants were charged with a violation of Section 5 in relation to Section 26, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 under an Information dated April 22, 2014, which reads:
That on or about the 30th of October 2013, in the City of Dumaguete, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused conspiring with one another and not being then authorized by law did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally sell and/or deliver to a poseur buyer four (4) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing an approximate weight of 0.27 gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, otherwise known as "SHABU," a dangerous drug.
Contrary to Sec. 5, in relation to Sec. 26, Article II of R.A. 9165. 3
During arraignment, the accused-appellants, assisted by their counsel, pleaded "not guilty." Trial then ensued. 4
Version of the Prosecution
The prosecution presented as witnesses: (1) the arresting officers, Police Officer (PO) 1 Crisanto Panggoy (PO1 Panggoy) and PO1 Ricknie Briones (PO1 Briones); (2) Agent Hector Ryan Avenido of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA); (3) Orlando Angot (Angot), the Barangay Captain of Barangay Tinago, Dumaguete City; and (4) Anthony Chilius Benlot (Benlot), a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ). 5
The version of the prosecution, as stated by the CA, is as follows:
At around 11:30 in the morning of 29 October 2013, PO1 Panggoy and PO1 Briones of the Provincial Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Group (PAIDSOTG) in Sibulan, Negros Oriental, received information about the illegal drugs activities of "Boyet" and "John-John" in Barangay Tinago, Dumaguete City. The Chief of the PAIDSOTG, Police Inspector Ryan Jay Orapa, ordered a surveillance on said individuals. Upon confirmation, P/Insp. Orapa organized a buy-bust operation against "Boyet" and "John-John" who were later identified as accused-appellants Antonio Chan and John Philip Kirit, respectively.
At around 3:00 P.M. of the following day, 30 October 2013, PO1 Panggoy and PO1 Briones proceeded to Barangay Tinago where an asset introduced them to accused-appellants as prospective buyers of shabu. PO1 Panggoy struck a deal for the purchase of Php2,000.00 worth of shabu but the delivery will be at 9:00 P.M. later that day.
At about 6:00 P.M., P/Insp. Orapa held a pre-operational briefing for the buy-busy operation. PO1 Panggoy, the designated poseur-buyer, was handed one (1) Php500.00 bill with serial number RR8001823 which he marked with his initials "C.P." He bundled several pieces of paper with it to create the appearance of Php2,000.00. He also coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) which assigned the Coordination Control Number 1013-00095, and issued a Certificate of Coordination, for the operation.
The members of the buy-bust team proceeded to Barangay Tinago and immediately positioned themselves strategically. PO1 Panggoy approached and asked accused-appellant Chart, a.k.a. "Boyet," if they brought the shabu. Accused-appellant Chan, in turn, asked for the payment. When PO1 Panggoy showed him the buy-bust money, accused-appellant Chan handed to him four (4) heat-sealed plastic sachets containing crystalline substances. After verifying that those were indeed shabu, PO1 handed the buy-bust money to accused-appellant Kirit, a.k.a. "John-John," as the latter insisted that payment be made to him.
It was then that PO1 Panggoy grabbed accused-appellant Chan's hand, introduced himself as a police officer, and informed said accused-appellant Chan of his constitutional rights and the reason for his arrest. PO1 Briones arrested accused-appellant Kiri[t] and likewise informed him of his rights. A body search on accused-appellant Kirit yielded the buy-bust money.
PO1 Panggoy marked the four (4) heat-sealed plastic sachets with 'ABC/JCK-BB1-10-30-13', 'ABC/JCK-BB2-10-30-13', 'ABC/JCK-BB3-10-30-13', and 'ABC/JCK-BB4-10-30-13', which are the initials of accused-appellants and the date of the buy-bust operation. Fearing for the buy-bust team's safety, PO1 Panggoy conducted the succeeding inventory at the Dumaguete Police Station. He held custody over the marked heat-sealed plastic sachets and the buy-bust money while on the way to the Police Station. The inventory was conducted in the presence of accused-appellants, DOJ representative Anthony Benlot, media representative Neil Rio, Barangay Captain Orlando Angot, P/Insp. Orapa and PO1 Briones, as shown by the photographs taken by PO1 Briones.
PO1 Panggoy placed the four (4) heat-sealed plastic sachets inside a brown envelope, sealed it with a masking tape, and affixed his signature on the tape. He also prepared the Memorandum Request for Laboratory Examination and Drug Test and personally forwarded it with the sealed envelope to the Negros Oriental Provincial Crime Laboratory for chemical analysis.
Per Chemistry Report No. D-197-13, issued by Forensic Chemist PCI Josephine Llena, the submitted specimens tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. 6
Version of the Defense
The defense, through the testimonies of the accused-appellants and their witness Sunny Kirit, presented a different version, summarized by the CA, as follows:
In the evening of 30 October 2013, accused-appellants, on board a motorcycle, were headed home from Barangay Mangnao, Dumaguete City. Upon reaching Barangay Tinago, accused-appellant Kirit dropped accused-appellant Chan off. As soon as accused-appellant Chan alighted, a man poked a gun at his temple and said "Do not run!" Accused-appellant Chan was able to identify the man as P/Insp. Orapa as he is familiar with the PAIDSOTG police officers, his nephew, PO1 Jerald Chan Manlan, being a member. Thereupon, eight (8) police officers, including his nephew PO1 Manlan, approached. They forced both accused-appellants to board their vehicle and brought them to the Dumaguete City Police Station. Only then were they informed that they are being arrested for selling shabu. Accused-appellant Chan surmised that his indictment was an off-shoot of a quarrel he had with PO1 Manlan a week ago involving a land dispute with PO1 Manlan's mother.
Witness Sunny Kirit recounted that, as accused-appellant Chan alighted from the motorcycle in from n of his "sari-sari" store, he saw elements of the PAIDSOTG immediately accost accused-appellants. The witness did not see any sale of dangerous drugs on the occasion. 7
After trial, the RTC issued its judgment dated April 15, 2015, which found the accused-appellants guilty of the crime charged. The dispositive portion of the Judgment reads:
WHEREFORE, in x x x light of the foregoing, the two (2) accused ANTONIO CHAN y BELTRAN and JOHN PHILIP KIRIT y CORDOVA are hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of illegal sale of 0.27 gram of shabu in violation of Section 5, in relation to Section 26, Article II of RA 9165 and are hereby sentenced each to suffer a penalty of life imprisonment and each to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).
xxx xxx xxx
SO ORDERED. 8
In reaching its decision, the RTC found that the prosecution was able to sufficiently establish the essential elements for a successful prosecution of the offense involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, considering that:
First, PO1 Panggoy proved that a buy-bust operation was conducted.
Second, during the buy-bust operation, the accused-appellants were apprehended for delivering four heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance to PO1 Panggoy.
Third, the four heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets were properly marked, inventoried before the accused-appellants and the required witnesses, and thereafter brought to the crime laboratory.
Fourth, Forensic Chemist Police Chief Inspector (PCI) Josephine Llena, who examined the white crystalline substance, found the same to be positive for 0.27 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, as indicated in Chemistry Report No. D-197-13. 9
The RTC likewise ruled that the accused-appellants acted in conspiracy with one another. As found by the RTC, Chan's act of delivering the shabu to PO1 Panggoy, and Kirit's act of accepting the marked money, clearly show that they have a common goal to sell and deliver a dangerous drug.
The accused-appellants appealed the RTC's Judgment to the CA, and contended that the RTC erred when it convicted the accused-appellants despite want of proof of conspiracy and the existence of the requisites of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. 10 The accused-appellants likewise argued that the RTC erred when it upheld the doubtful integrity of the corpus delicti. 11
In its Decision dated August 30, 2017, the CA found the appeal unmeritorious and affirmed the RTC's Judgment in toto. 12 According to the CA, the evidence on record shows that the prosecution was able to establish all the elements of the crime charged. 13 Moreover, the CA held that the supposed inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses merely relate to trivial matters, and ultimately do not negate the criminal culpability of the accused-appellants. 14 Furthermore, the CA found that the accused-appellants' defenses of denial and "frame-up" are untenable, and the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti were adequately preserved. 15 Thus, the dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED, and the assailed Judgment dated 15 April 2015 of the Regional Trial Court of Negros Oriental, 7th Judicial Region, Branch 30, Dumaguete City, in Criminal Case No. 2013-21937, finding accused-appellants Antonio Chan and John Philip Kirit guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 5, in relation to Section 26, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED. 16
Unsatisfied, the accused-appellants filed a Notice of Appeal dated October 11, 2017. Accused-appellants now ask this Court to reverse the assailed dispositions of the CA and pray anew for their acquittal.
Our Ruling
The appeal is without merit. This Court affirms the Decision of the CA convicting the accused-appellants for the violation of Section 5, in relation to Section 26, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
First, all the elements of the offense have been duly established.
It is well-settled that the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 are: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. 17 Thus, what is material in prosecuting the offenses for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs "is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug in evidence." 18
In this case, the prosecution was able to duly establish the following: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller — PO1 Panggoy and accused-appellant Chan, respectively; the object of the sale — four heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets of shabu, which is an illegal drug; and the consideration — the marked PhP500 bill; and (2) the accused-appellants were positively identified by PO1 Panggoy as the persons who transacted and sold the shabu to him in exchange for the marked money. Undoubtedly, the prosecution was able to establish all the elements of the offense.
Second, the accused-appellants acted in conspiracy to sell the illegal drug.
We agree with both the CA and the RTC that, indeed, the accused-appellants acted in concert and shared a common purpose to sell an illegal drug. In a long line of cases, this Court has ruled that conspiracy exists when two or more persons come into an agreement concerning the commission of a crime, and decide to commit it. 19 To prove conspiracy, it must be shown that "all participants performed specific acts with such closeness and coordination as to indicate a common purpose or design to commit the felony." 20
Applying the same to the present case, it is evident that the individual acts of the accused-appellants indicate a common purpose to sell a dangerous drug. As correctly ruled by the RTC 21 and the CA, 22 the conspiracy between the accused-appellants is manifest considering that the series of overt acts of the accused-appellants "unmistakably show that they were in concert and shared a common motivation in selling shabu." 23 Thus, We find that the accused-appellants are liable as co-principals, regardless of their individual participation in the commission of the offense.
Third, the deficiencies pointed out by the accused-appellants do not negate their criminal culpability.
In their Appellants' Brief, 24 the accused-appellants argued that the prosecution failed to establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt supposedly because of several inconsistencies and deficiencies in the conduct of the buy-bust operation, such as the supposed lack of prior surveillance and PDEA coordination. 25 However, We again agree with the CA that the supposed deficiencies do not and cannot negate the guilt of the accused-appellants, which, to reiterate, has been sufficiently established by the prosecution.
As held in People v. Roa, 26 prior coordination with the PDEA is not a condition sine qua non in the conduct of a buy-bust operation:
In the first place, coordination with the PDEA is not an indispensable requirement before police authorities may carry out a buy-bust operation. While it is true that Section 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 requires the National Bureau of Investigation, PNP and the Bureau of Customs to maintain "close coordination with the PDEA on all drug related matters," the provision does not, by so saying, make PDEA's participation a condition sine qua non for every buy-bust operation. After all, a buy-bust is just a form of an in flagrante arrest sanctioned by Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, which police authorities may rightfully resort to in apprehending violators of Republic Act No. 9165 in support of the PDEA. A buy-bust operation is not invalidated by mere non-coordination with the PDEA. 27 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
In the same case, this Court has likewise held that the lack of prior surveillance is not fatal in the conduct of buy-bust operations:
Neither is the lack of prior surveillance fatal. The case of People v. Lacbanes is quite instructive:
"In People v. Ganguso, it has been held that prior surveillance is not a prerequisite for the validityof an entrapment operation, especially when the buy-bust team members were accompanied to the scene by their informant. In the instant case, the arresting officers were led to the scene by the poseur-buyer. Granting that there was no surveillance conducted before the buy-bust operation, this Court held in People v. Tranca, that there is no rigid or textbook method of conducting buy-bust operations. Flexibility is a trait of good police work. The police officers may decide that time is of the essence and dispense with the need for prior surveillance." 28 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
In any case, and as found by the CA, 29 a prior test-buy was actually conducted on the accused-appellants, and the procedure confirmed that the accused-appellants were selling shabu in Barangay Tinago. Furthermore, it likewise bears emphasis that the Provincial Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Group officers coordinated with the PDEA, as evinced by the Certificate of Coordination with Control Number 1013-00095 issued by the PDEA.
Thus, it is clear that the supposed deficiencies pointed out by the accused-appellants are immaterial and do not negate, in any way, their criminal culpability in the instant case.
Fourth, the accused-appellants' defenses of denial and "frame-up" deserve scant consideration.
We agree with the findings of the CA that the accused-appellants' defenses of denial and "frame-up" are untenable. 30 In People v. Lung Wai Tang, 31 this Court has ruled that the defenses of denial and "frame-up" are invariably weak:
Accused-appellant's defenses, primarily predicated on denial and frame-up, are invariably viewed with disfavor because such defenses can easily be fabricated x x x. They deserve scant consideration in light of the positive testimonies of the police officers.
In order to prosper, accused-appellant's defense of denial and frame-up must be proven with strong and convincing evidence. Without proof of any intent on the part of the police officers to falsely impute to appellants the commission of a crime, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and the principle that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect, should prevail over bare denials and self-serving claims. (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
Thus, compared to the bare and unsubstantiated denials of the accused-appellants, We give more weight to the testimonies and positive identification of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation.
Fifth, the integrity of the seized illegal drug has been adequately preserved.
In their Appellants' Brief, the accused-appellants argued that there are doubts regarding the proper custody, handling, and safekeeping of the seized shabu which have affected the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti. 32
In People v. Cutara, 33 this Court has summarized the necessary links that the prosecution must show in order to establish the chain of custody:
In a buy-bust operation, the following links are necessary in order to establish the chain of custody: (1) the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the turnover of the illegal drug seized to the investigating officer; (3) the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and (4) the turnover and submission of the illegal drug from the forensic chemist to the court. 34 (Citation omitted)
Applying these parameters, We are convinced that the chain of custody has been duly established since a review of the evidence on record will show that the prosecution was able to establish an unbroken chain of custody over the shabu sold by the accused-appellants:
1) PO1 Panggoy testified that accused-appellant Chan delivered to him four heat-scaled transparent plastic sachets of shabu.
2) Upon apprehending the accused-appellants, PO1 Panggoy marked the four heat-sealed plastic sachets with 'ABC/JCK-BB1-10-30-13', 'ABC/JCK-BB2-10-30-13', 'ABC/JCK-BB3-10-30-13', and 'ABC/JCK-BB4-10-30-13', which are the initials of accused-appellants and the date of the buy-bust operation.
3) Since the buy-bust team feared for their safety, PO1 Panggoy decided to conduct the inventory at the Dumaguete Police Station. PO1 Panggoy held custody of the marked plastic sachets and the buy-bust money while on the way to the Police Station.
4) Upon arriving at the Dumaguete Police Station, PO1 Panggoy conducted the inventory in the presence of the accused-appellants, DOJ representative Benlot, media representative Neil Rio, Barangay Captain Angot, Police Inspector Orapa and PO1 Briones, as shown by the photographs taken by PO1 Briones.
5) Thereafter, PO1 Panggoy placed the four heat-sealed plastic sachets inside a brown envelope, sealed it with a masking tape, and affixed his signature on the tape. He also prepared the Memorandum Request for Laboratory Examination and Drug Test and personally forwarded it with the sealed envelope to the Negros Oriental Provincial Crime Laboratory for analysis.
6) At the Negros Oriental Provincial Crime Laboratory, PCI Llena personally received the brown envelope containing the four heat-sealed plastic sachets and examined the same.
7) Per Chemistry Report No. D-197-13, issued by PCI Llena, the submitted specimens tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as shabu.
8) Afterwards, the shabu was retrieved for purposes of trial.
Evidently, the prosecution was able to account for each and every link in the chain of custody over the shabu, from the time of the sale transaction, up to the time the shabu was presented in court as proof of the corpus delicti. Thus, We agree with the CA that there is no cogent reason to doubt the integrity and evidentiary value of the shabu, and We are satisfied that the corpus delicti of the offense in this case has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
All said, We affirm the conviction of the accused-appellants for the offense of illegal sale of shabu. The penalty for unauthorized sale of shabu under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, regardless of its quantity and purity, is life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00. However, as correctly pointed out by the CA, only life imprisonment and fine may be imposed in view of the enactment of R.A. No. 9346. 35 We, therefore, sustain the penalty of life imprisonment and payment of fine in the amount of P500,000.00 imposed upon each accused-appellants being within the range provided by law.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated August 30, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in the case entitled, "People of the Philippines v. Antonio Chan y Beltran and John Philip Kirit y Cordova," docketed as CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02081 is hereby AFFIRMED. aScITE
SO ORDERED." (Rosario, J., designated additional Member per Special Order No. 2835 dated July 15, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MA. CONSOLACION GAMINDE-CRUZADADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 4-19; penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Robeniol with Associate Justices Edgardo L. delos Santos (retired Member of this Court) and Edward B. Contreras concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 16-26.
3.Rollo, p. 5.
4.Id.
5.Id.
6.Id. at 5-8.
7.Id. at 8.
8. CA rollo, pp. 24-25.
9.Id. at 22.
10.Rollo, p. 9.
11.Id.
12.Id. at 18.
13.Id. at 10-12.
14.Id. at 12-14.
15.Id. at 15-17.
16.Id. at 18.
17.People v. Opiana, 750 Phil. 140, 147 (2015); People v. Cutara, 810 Phil. 999, 1004 (2017); People v. Piñero, G.R. No. 242407, April 1, 2019; People v. Cuevas, G.R. No. 238906, November 5, 2018.
18.People v. Opiana, id.; People v. Dilao, 555 Phil. 394, 409 (2007).
19.People v. Ngano Sugan, 661 Phil. 749, 755 (2011); People v. Buyagan, 681 Phil. 569, 754 (2012); People v. Gerero, 791 Phil. 618, 623 (2016); People v. Acquiatan, G.R. No. 225640, July 30, 2019.
20.People v. Bautista, 636 Phil. 535, 553 (2010) cited in People v. Acquiatan, id.
21. CA rollo, pp. 22-23.
22.Rollo, p. 12.
23.Id.
24. CA rollo, pp. 36-58.
25.Id. at 45.
26. 634 Phil. 437 (2010).
27.Id. at 446-448.
28.Id. at 448.
29.Rollo, p. 13.
30.Id. at 15.
31. G.R. No. 238517, November 27, 2019.
32. CA rollo, pp. 53-55.
33.Supra note 17.
34.Id. at 1005.
35.Rollo, p. 17.
n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document.