SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 205766. October 12, 2015.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JEFFREY CINCO Y PAGUNSAN ALIAS NONOY CINCO OR JEFFREY CABAÑAS CINCO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 12 October 2015 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 205766 — People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, v. Jeffrey Cinco y Pagunsan alias Nonoy Cinco or Jeffrey Cabañas Cinco, accused-appellant.
Appellant Jeffrey Cinco y Pagunsan alias Nonoy Cinco or Jeffrey Cabañas Cinco was charged with violation of Section 11 (possession of illegal drugs), and Section 5 (sale of dangerous drugs), both of Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165) or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges. 1
The facts as summarized by the trial court are as follows:
On July 8, 2002 at around 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon, Police Officers ANTONIO CRUDA, SR., MARCELO C. SAGALA and REYNALDO T. LAUDERES and others were in the house of Police Senior Inspector Tecbobolan, who was then the Chief of the Calbayog Narcotics Unit (CANU), at Hinay Street, Barangay Capoocan, Calbayog City.
The police officers were having a meeting regarding the conduct of [the] raid at the house of Chola Capistrano, a suspected drug dealer. While P/SINP Tecbobolan was conducting the briefing, he received a . . . call from their Chief MARIA LOPE UBALDO LIM informing him that the accused JEFFREY or NONOY CINCO was openly selling shabu at the boundary of Barangays Carmen and Obrero. So, P/SINP Tecbobolan designated POI Reynaldo T. Lauderes to act as poseur-buyer and he divided the group into two (2) teams — one team to conduct [the] raid at the house of Chola Capistrano and the other to conduct [the] buy-bust operation against JEFFREY CINCO. The second team was composed of SPO4 ANTONIO A. CRUDA, SR, PO1 MARCELO SAGALA and PO1 REYNALDO T. LAUDERES. EcTCAD
The second team proceeded to the boundary of Barangays Carmen and Obrero where the accused was allegedly selling shabu openly. The team arrived at around 3:20 o'clock in the afternoon of . . . July 8, 2002. Upon [its] arrival, [the] confidential asset approached [the operatives]. The asset guided PO1 Lauderes to the place where the accused was selling shabu while SPO4 Cruda and PO1 [Sagala] positioned themselves nearby to act as back-up.
The asset introduced PO1 Lauderes to the accused as buyer of shabu. After the introduction, PO1 Lauderes asked the accused to [first show] to him the shabu to make sure that [it is] of good quality. So, the accused gave to PO1 Lauderes one (1) sachet of shabu . . . PO1 Lauderes gave the marked money of Php400.00 . . . to the accused which the latter accepted. After the accused accepted the money, SPO4 Cruda and PO1 Sagala approached them. But upon seeing them, the accused ran away [on a Honda] XL125 which his companion drove.
The police officers with their motorcycles chased the accused and his companion. The Officers were able to catch up with the accused at the Rosales Bridge. When PO1 Lauderes collared the accused, the latter threw three (3) sachets of shabu [into] the river. But, PO1 Lauderes immediately jumped into the river and recovered the three (3) sachets of shabu.
The police officers brought the accused to the Police Headquarters. When they conducted body search on the accused, they found the money in the right side of his pants. Then, they made a request for laboratory examination on the drugs they confiscated, Confiscation Receipt and Drug Field Test. P/SINP EDWIN EMNAS ZATA, the Forensic Chemist confirmed that the four (4) sachets [contained] white crystalline substance . . . shabu.
xxx xxx xxx
For his defense of denial, the accused testified that before his arrest, he had [a] misunderstanding with Police Officers CRUDA, SAGALA and LAUDERES because at one time, he prevented them [from entering] his house about [the] trouble he committed in their barangay.
On July 8, 2002; he was at the house of EMY DOMAYAN to borrow money but since there were policemen around, he decided to go back to Barangay Rawis. While on his way back to Barangay Rawis, at Rosales Bridge, Policemen CRUDA, LAUDERES and two (2) others stopped him. He asked if they had a Search Warrant and why they were arresting him.
They showed him no Search Warrant and instead brought him to the police station. At the headquarters, they brought him [into] one (1) of the rooms, . . . showed him a sachet of shabu[,] and . . . asked him where . . . he [got] it. He told them he had nothing to do [with] it. Then, the policemen [locked him in a] cell. 2
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC):
In a Joint Decision 3 dated September 10, 2008, the RTC of Calbayog City, Branch 31, found appellant guilty of the charges. It held that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, to wit: "first, [appellant] was in possession of the dangerous drugs when the police officers caught up with him at the Rosales Bridge and second, knowing them to be dangerous drugs and having no authority to possess them, he threw them into the river." 4 Anent the charge for sale of illegal drugs, the trial court also found all the elements of the crime to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt, to wit: "(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller; the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor." 5 Moreover, the corpus delicti or the shabu was presented in evidence and identified by the forensic chemist to be shabu indeed. The trial court gave short shrift to appellant's unsubstantiated denial; on the other hand, it found the police officers to be in the regular performance of their duties.
The dispositive portion of the Joint Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, finding the accused JEFFREY CINCO y PAGUNSAN alias Nonoy Cinco or alias Jeffrey Cabañas Cinco guilty beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 4170 for illegally possessing 6.9 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride popularly known as shabu, this Court hereby sentences him to suffer a penalty of imprisonment of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (Php400,000.00). . . .
On the other hand, finding the accused also guilty beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 4171, for illegally selling 2.9 grams of shabu, this court sentences him to suffer a penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Php500,000.00. . . .
SO ORDERED. 6
Ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA)
In his Brief, 7 appellant claimed that his arrest was illegal. He asserted that the buy-bust operation was irregularly conducted because his identity as the alleged seller of shabu was relayed merely by the confidential asset through a phone call; that the confidential asset was not presented in court; that it was improbable for the back-up team to have witnessed the transaction as they were supposedly positioned at a distance of 10 meters; and that it was unlikely for appellant to have immediately sped away on a motorcycle, to have thrown the sachets of shabu into the river and for PO1 Lauderes to have jumped into the river to retrieve the sachets. Appellant claimed that his arrest being illegal, it follows that the confiscated shabu could not be used as evidence against him.
Appellant likewise contended that the proper procedure in the handling and custody of the shabu was not followed considering that the marking was not immediately done at the place of the arrest; no photograph was taken of the shabu; and it was not clear who turned over the specimen to the crime laboratory for examination. HSAcaE
In its January 25, 2012 Decision, 8 the CA affirmed in full the judgment of the trial court. It held that "[a]fter an exhaustive review of the [r]ecords, [it found] no reason to disturb the Joint Decision . . . of the court a quo. [Appellant] was correctly convicted of the offenses of illegal sale, and illegal possession, of shabu. The penalty rendered in the said Decision likewise stands." 9
Hence, this appeal.
Proceedings before this Court:
In a Resolution 10 dated April 10, 2013, we required the parties to submit their respective supplemental briefs. However, both manifested that they are adopting the brief they submitted before the CA.
In the same Resolution, we directed the Bureau of Corrections (BuCor) to confirm the confinement of the appellant. However, in a letter 11 dated June 6, 2013, the Officer-in-Charge of the BuCor informed this Court that they have no records of appellant's confinement. Thus, we required the Presiding Judge of Branch 31, RTC-Calbayog City to inform us about the whereabouts of the appellant. 12 In its reply, the trial court stated that after promulgation of its judgment, it issued a Commitment Order of Final Sentence on appellant. However, appellant subsequently managed to escape from confinement. 13 This was confirmed by the Office of the Sub-Provincial Jail of Calbayog City in a letter 14 dated November 29, 2013 stating that appellant managed to escape on November 11, 2008 and remains at large.
Our Ruling
Section 8, Rule 124 15 of the Rules of Court provides that:
Sec. 8. Dismissal of appeal for abandonment or failure to prosecute. — . . .
The Court of Appeals may also, upon motion of the appellee or motu proprio, dismiss the appeal if the appellant escapes from prison or confinement, jumps bail or flees to a foreign country during the pendency of the appeal.
It is on record that after the promulgation by the court a quo of its judgment, and during the pendency of his appeal with the CA, appellant managed to escape from confinement. To date, he remains at large. Pursuant to Section 8, Rule 124 as above-quoted, appellant lost his right to appeal when he escaped from prison and the CA ought to have dismissed outright appellant's appeal. The rationale for this rule was explained in People v. Mapalao, 16 to wit:
The reason for this rule is . . . once an accused escapes from prison or confinement or jumps bail or flees to a foreign country, he loses his standing in court and unless he surrenders or submits to the jurisdiction of the courts he is deemed to have waived his right to seek relief from the court.
Thus when as in this case he escaped from confinement . . . he should not be afforded the right to appeal therefrom . . . . While at large as above stated he cannot seek relief from the Court as he is deemed to have waived the same and he has no standing in court. 17
In any event, the appeal lacks merit. The trial court and the CA correctly held that the prosecution satisfactorily established beyond reasonable doubt the culpability of appellant for the crimes of violation of Section 5 (sale of illegal drugs), and Section 11 (possession of dangerous drugs) of RA 9165.
For the violation of Section 5, the prosecution satisfactorily established the following elements: "(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material in a prosecution for 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 particular, the prosecution established the following: the identities of the buyer and the seller, as well as the object (which is the 2.9 grams of shabu contained in a heat-sealed plastic sachet) and the consideration (P400.00 marked money). Also, it was proved that appellant gave a plastic sachet containing shabu to the poseur-buyer for which he received P400.00. The delivery of the shabu and the receipt of the marked money consummated the transaction between appellant and the poseur-buyer.
Undoubtedly, the prosecution adequately established all the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. It was proved that when appellant was apprehended, he threw three heat-sealed plastic sachets into the river which were immediately retrieved by a police officer; the three sachets were found to contain 6.69 grams of shabu which is a prohibited drug. It was also shown that appellant was without authority to possess said shabu yet he freely and consciously possessed said illegal drug.
Moreover, the forensic chemist testified that the results of the laboratory tests on the seized items yielded positive for shabu. During trial, the prosecution presented the items seized from appellant; they were all properly marked and duly identified. In fine, their integrity and evidentiary value have been properly preserved.
The penalty for the unauthorized sale of shabu under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 is life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10 million, regardless of its quantity and purity. However, with the enactment of Republic Act No. 9346, 19 only life imprisonment and fine shall be imposed. Thus, the penalty imposed by the trial court and affirmed by the CA, i.e., life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00, is proper. On the other hand, the penalty for illegal possession of dangerous drugs as stipulated in Section 11, Article II of the same law is imprisonment of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to life imprisonment and a fine ranging from P400,000.00 to P500,000.00, if the quantity of the dangerous drugs is five (5) grams or more but less than ten (10) grams. In this case, appellant was found to have been in illegal possession of 6.69 grams of shabu. Thus, he was properly meted the penalty of imprisonment ranging from twenty (20) years and one (1) day to life imprisonment and a fine of P400,000.00. HESIcT
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing reasons, the appeal is DISMISSED. (Carpio, J., on official leave from October 2-30, 2015; Brion, J., designated Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2222; Peralta, J., designated Acting Member per Special Order No. 2223, both dated September 29, 2015).
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTO
Division Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Records, p. 25.
2. Id. at 195-196.
3. Id. at 193-199; docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 4170 and 4171; penned by Judge Reynaldo B. Clemens.
4. Id. at 197.
5. Id. at 198.
6. Id. at 198-199.
7. CA rollo, pp. 22-38.
8. Docketed as CA-G.R. CEB CR HC No. 00951; penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela and concurred in by Associate Justices Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez and Ramon Paul L. Hernando.
9. Id. at 106.
10. Rollo, p. 36.
11. Id. at 34.
12. Id. at 45.
13. Id. at 51.
14. Id. at 54.
15. On Procedure in the Court of Appeals.
16. 274 Phil. 354 (1991).
17. Id. at 363.
18. People v. Dilao, 555 Phil. 394, 409 (2007).
19. AN ACT PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY IN THE PHILIPPINES.