THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 229036. June 7, 2017.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. IRVIN CHICO Y ORTEGA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 7, 2017, which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 229036 (People of the Philippines vs. Irvin Chico y Ortega). — The Court resolves to NOTE:
(1) the letter dated April 5, 2017 of P/Supt. I Roberto R. Rabo, Superintendent of the New Bilibid Prison, Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, confirming the confinement therein of accused-appellant since April 5, 2013;
(2) accused-appellant's Manifestation (in Lieu of Supplemental Brief) dated May 4, 2017 stating that the he would no longer file a supplemental brief since no new issues material to the case were discovered and the filing of a supplemental brief would only be a repetition of the argument raised in accused-appellant's brief; and
(3) the Office of the Solicitor General's Manifestation and Motion dated April 11, 2017 stating that it would no longer file a supplemental brief in the instant case since all issues material to the case, including those raised by accused-appellant in his brief, were fully expounded and refuted in the brief for the appellee.
This is an appeal from the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 07427, promulgated on June 15, 2016, which affirmed the August 14, 2014 Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 64, in Criminal Case No. 12-1780, finding the accused-appellant Irvin Chico y Ortega (Chico) guilty of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. 9165), otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
The Facts
An Information dated September 19, 2012 was filed charging accused-appellant Chico with violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165, to wit:
On the 18th day of September 2012, in the city of Makati, the Philippines, accused, not being lawfully authorized by law and without the corresponding license, did then and there wilfully (sic), unlawfully and feloniously sell, give away, distribute and deliver to another methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) weighing zero point zero three (0.03) gram approximately, which is a dangerous drug, in consideration of the amount of three hundred pesos (Php300), in violation of the aforesaid law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 3
Upon arraignment on October 9, 2012, accused-appellant Chico pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
Version of the Prosecution
The version of the prosecution, as culled by the CA, is as follows:
The Makati Anti-Drug Abuse Council (MADAC) received an information from a confidential informant that a certain "Irvin Chico" was engaged in selling illegal drugs at Almario Street, Barangay (Brgy.) Tejeros, Makati City. Acting on the information, an entrapment team was formed with David Tuazon (Tuazon), an operative of MADAC, as the poseur-buyer and PO2 Ronnie Aseboque (PO2 Aseboque) and the other members of the operating team as his immediate back-up.
On September 18, 2012, at around 6:45 P.M. the buy-bust team together with the informant proceeded to the area of operation. Tuazon and the informant then walked towards Almario Street, Brgy. Tejeros and saw accused-appellant there. The informant introduced Tuazon, as the one who needed to buy shabu, to accused-appellant. After confirming the identity of accused-appellant, Tuazon placed a white face towel on his right shoulder, as the first pre-arranged signal. Accused-appellant then asked for the payment from Tuazon who in turn handed him the P300.00 buy-bust money. Accused-appellant placed one (1) piece of plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance and handed it to Tuazon. Tuazon put the sachet on the right pocket of his pants and executed the second pre-arranged signal that the sale was already consummated by placing a white face towel on top of his head. Thereafter, he grabbed accused-appellant and introduced himself as a MADAC operative. The other operatives immediately responded. PO2 Aseboque approached accused-appellant and apprised him of his constitutional rights, after which, Tuazon frisked accused-appellant and recovered from him the buy-bust money. From there, they proceeded to the barangay hall for inventory of the confiscated items. The sachet containing the white crystalline substance was marked with "DDT" and sent to the crime laboratory for examination. The examination showed that the contents thereof weighed 0.03 gram and tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. 4 aScITE
Version of the Defense
The testimony of the defense, as summarized by the CA, is as follows:
Accused-appellant denied the charge against him. He claimed that at around one o'clock in the afternoon of 18 September 2012, a person known to him as "Froilan" and a certain "Sir Glenn" entered and searched his house without permission. When their search yielded nothing, a search on the person of accused-appellant was conducted. However, nothing was found on him. Nonetheless, he was brought to the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Group where he was investigated. Later, he was told that a case for violation of Section 5 of RA 9165 will be filed against him. Accused-appellant was then brought to the barangay hall. However, since the barangay captain was not there, they brought him to the barangay captain's house where they showed him a small sachet with a white substance which they claimed to have been recovered from him. After the picture taking, he was brought to the Scene of the Crime Operatives (SOCO) and was forced to sign a document under threats of bodily harm. 5
Ruling of the RTC
On August 14, 2014, the RTC of Makati City, Branch 64, rendered a Decision finding accused-appellant Chico guilty as charged. The RTC held that all the elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs have been duly proven. The dispositive portion of the said Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused IRVIN CHICO y ORTEGA, GUILTY of the charge for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 and sentencing him to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (Php500,000.00) without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
SO ORDERED.6
Ruling of the CA
In its assailed Decision dated June 15, 2016, the CA affirmed the Decision of the RTC. The CA observed that the evidence adduced by the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant Chico violated Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165.
The CA upheld the ruling of the RTC that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the drug confiscated from the accused-appellant Chico during the entrapment operation were properly preserved and safeguarded. The chain of custody of the drug subject matter of the case was proven to be unbroken. The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the appeal is DENIED. The assailed Decision of the RTC of Makati City, Branch 64, in Criminal Case No. 12-1780, is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.7
The Issue
The pivotal issue in this case is whether the CA gravely erred in sustaining the accused-appellant Chico's conviction of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drug.
The Ruling of the Court
The appeal must fail.
First, the buy-bust operation conducted by the team of police officers was valid. It is legal and has been proved to be an effective method of apprehending drug peddlers, provided due regard to constitutional and legal safeguards is undertaken. It bears stressing that what is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti. In other words, the essential elements of the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs are: (1) the accused sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another; and (2) he knew that what he had sold and delivered was a prohibited drug. 8 All these elements were satisfactorily proven by the prosecution in the instant case. Accused-appellant Chico sold and delivered the shabu for PhP300.00 to Tuazon posing as buyer; the said drug was seized and identified as a prohibited drug and subsequently presented in evidence; and finally, accused-appellant Chico was fully aware that he was selling and delivering a prohibited drug.
Second, records show that the prosecution successfully established an unbroken chain of custody over the corpus delicti of the offense — from the seizure and confiscation of the shabu up to the delivery of the specimen to the PNP Southern Police District — through the testimony of Tuazon. As observed by the CA, the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer, to wit: HEITAD
Here, there is no doubt that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the drug confiscated from the accused-appellant during the entrapment operation were properly preserved and safeguarded. The chain of custody of the drug subject matter of the case was unbroken as shown by the following events: after accused-appellant handed one (1) sachet containing a white crystalline substance to Tuazon, the latter immediately grabbed accused-appellant and the other MADAC operatives arrived soon after and assisted him in arresting accused-appellant; thereafter, they went to the barangay hall for inventory; upon arriving thereat, Tuazon marked the confiscated item with "DDT"; the items confiscated from accused-appellant were turned over to SPO1 Orsua, who prepared the inventory receipt; the confiscated specimen submitted tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug per Physical Science Report No. D-4548-12S; the specimen was examined by PSI Anamelisa S. Bacani, a Forensic Chemical Officer of the Southern Police District, whose testimony to this effect was stipulated upon by the parties. 9
Lastly, hornbook doctrine is that the failure of the law enforcers to strictly comply with Sec. 21 of R.A. 9165 is not fatal to the prosecution of the case. It will not render the arrest of an accused illegal or the items seized or confiscated inadmissible. What is of utmost importance 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. 10 As applied herein, despite the alleged irregularities in the handling of the seized item, no attributable error can be ascribed to the appellate court when it found that the drug item offered as evidence was duly preserved, and that the identity and integrity thereof were not compromised via an unbroken chain of custody. Hence, there was sufficient basis for the court a quo to uphold the conviction meted by the trial court.
As regards accused-appellant Chico's denial and claim of frame-up, the appellate court correctly ruled that these defenses cannot stand unless the defense could show with clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired with ill motives or that they were not properly performing their duties. In Quinicot v. People, 11 the Court held that allegations of frame-up and extortion by police officers are common and standard defenses in most dangerous drugs cases. They are viewed by the Court with disfavor, for such defenses can easily be concocted and fabricated.
Anchored on the evidence extant on record, the Court finds no reason to disturb the findings of the CA. The decisions of the trial court and the CA must, therefore, be sustained.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court hereby resolves to DISMISS the appeal for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error in its assailed Decision dated June 15, 2016 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 07427 as to warrant the exercise of the Court's appellate jurisdiction and, thus, AFFIRM said Decision, finding accused-appellant Irvin Chico y Ortega GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (PhP500,000.00).
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Socorro B. Inting and concurred in by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Associate Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla.
2. Penned by Judge Gina M. Bibat-Palamos.
3.Rollo, p. 3; CA rollo, p. 36.
4.Rollo, pp. 3-4.
5.Id. at 4.
6.Id. at 41.
7.Id. at 10.
8.People v. Pagkalinawan, G.R. No. 184805, March 3, 2010.
9.Rollo, pp. 8-9.
10.People v. Abedin, G.R. No. 179936, April 11, 2012.
11. G.R. No. 179700, June 22, 2009, 590 SCRA 458.