THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 234163. March 6, 2019.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.PO1 DANIEL DALI y TOMONDAN, SOLICA DALI y ULAMA AND MOHAMMAD SAID URIAN y ALIM, accused, SOLICA DALI y ULAMA AND MOHAMMAD SAID URIAN y ALIM, accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated March 6, 2019, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 234163 (People of the Philippines vs. PO1 Daniel Dali y Tomondan, Solica Dali y Ulama and Mohammad Said Urian y Alim, accused; Solica Dali y Ulama and Mohammad Said Urian y Alim, accused-appellants). — Before this Court is an Appeal 1 filed by Solica Dali y Ulama (Solica) and Mohammad Said Urian y Alim (Mohammad) (accused-appellants) assailing the Decision 2 dated March 29, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06564, which affirmed the Decision 3 dated July 11, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 53, in Criminal Case Nos. 04-230945 and 04-230947, finding the accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, and Solica guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 11 (3), Article II of the same Act, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
The Facts
Police Officer 1 Daniel Dali (PO1 Dali), Solica and Mohammad were indicted for violation of Section 5, in relation to Section 26, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 or the illegal sale, trade and delivery of a plastic sachet containing methamphetamine hydrochloride. The Information 4 reads as follows:
Criminal Case No. 04-230945
That on or about October 9, 2004, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring and confederating together with another whose true name, identity and present whereabouts are still unknown and helping one another, not being then authorized by law to sell, trade, deliver or give away to another any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing ZERO POINT ONE TWO TWO (0.122) gram of white crystalline substance known as "shabu" containing [methamphetamine] hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law. 5
In a separate Information, Solica was likewise charged for violation of Section 11, paragraph 3, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. This information 6 was consolidated with Criminal Case No. 04-230945. CAIHTE
Criminal Case No. 04-230947
That on or about October 9, 2004, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, not being authorized by law to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in her possession and under her custody and control TWO (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance weighing 0.096 (ZERO POINT ZERO NINE SIX) gram and 0.318 (ZERO POINT THREE ONE EIGHT) gram known as "shabu" containing [methamphetamine] hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law. 7
On March 11, 2005, the three accused were arraigned and all pleaded "Not guilty."
During the trial, PO1 Dali passed away after he had testified. As a consequence, the cases filed against him were dismissed.
Version of the Prosecution
On October 9, 2004 at about 2:00 p.m., Senior Police Officer 4 Norberto Murillo (SPO4 Murillo), officer-in-charge of the Station Anti-Illegal Drug Office of the Manila Police Station 5 received a report via telephone call from a confidential Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency informant who disclosed that a certain alias Daniel, later identified as the accused PO1 Dali, a member of the Philippine National Police-Special Action Force, was selling drugs at the Baseco Port Area. 8
SPO4 Murillo then formed an entrapment team composed of SPO1 Ricardo Interno (SPO1 Interno), who was assigned as Team Leader, PO3 Richard Dela Victoria (PO3 Dela Victoria), SPO1 Dennis Insierto (SPO1 Insierto), PO2 Wilfredo Nazareno (PO2 Nazareno), PO3 Ernesto Hetigan (PO3 Hetigan), PO3 Federico Decena (PO3 Decena), PO3 Ruben Canares (PO3 Canares), PO2 Gilbert Gomboc (PO2 Gomboc), and PO1 James Poso (PO1 Poso) (collectively "police officers"). 9
PO3 Dela Victoria was instructed to be the poseur-buyer and two (2) pieces of one thousand peso bills (total of PhP2,000.00) were to be used as buy-bust money. The pre-arranged signal to inform the team of the consummation of the sale was a missed call from PO3 Dela Victoria to SPO1 Interno. 10
At around 3:30 p.m., the buy-bust team, along with the confidential informant, proceeded to the Baseco Port Area. PO3 Dela Victoria, SPO1 Insierto, PO2 Gomboc, PO2 Nazareno and PO1 Poso proceeded to the target area, while SPO1 Interno and the rest of the team positioned themselves about 150 meters away to wait for the signal. 11
PO3 Dela Victoria and the confidential informant then proceeded to Block 9, Baseco Port Area, where the house of PO1 Dali was located. The informant introduced PO3 Dela Victoria as buyer to PO1 Dali. PO3 Dela Victoria handed the buy-bust money as payment. PO1 Dali then gave the buy-bust money to a woman, later identified as Solica. Subsequently, another man, later identified as Mohammad, handed the drugs to Solica, who in turn passed it to PO1 Dali, who then gave it to PO3 Dela Victoria. During the transaction, a certain Mike Ulama (at large) was also with the accused and the accused-appellants. 12
When the sale was consummated, PO3 Dela Victoria made a missed call to SPO1 Interno. 13
Thereafter, PO1 Dali asked PO3 Dela Victoria if the latter was a police officer and poked a gun at him. Someone tried to grab PO3 Dela Victoria's gun after which PO1 Dali fired his gun and hit PO3 Dela Victoria near the right eyebrow and likewise hit Mohammad on the leg. PO3 Dela Victoria fell on the floor while PO1 Dali took his gun and handcuffed him. 14
The other members of the buy-bust team who were on stand-by immediately responded. PO2 Nazareno saw PO3 Dela Victoria lying on the floor held by PO1 Dali. One of the members pointed to Solica saying "Kasama 'yan, kasama 'yan!" PO2 Nazareno arrested Solica, while SPO1 Insierto and PO2 Gomboc pointed their revolvers at PO1 Dali. PO2 Nazareno commanded Solica to empty her pockets which yielded two (2) more sachets containing white crystalline substance. PO2 Nazareno then apprehended Solica while the other members of the entrapment team handled PO1 Dali. 15 DETACa
When SPO1 Interno noticed the bleeding wound of PO3 Dela Victoria, the latter was brought to the Ospital ng Maynila for immediate medical treatment while the rest of the team brought PO1 Dali and his wife Solica to Manila Police Station 5. 16
Upon arrival at the Manila Police Station 5, SPO1 Interno proceeded with the conduct of the investigation. PO2 Gomboc turned over the following confiscated items to SPO1 Interno: a) PO1 Dali's firearm; b) the sachet of shabu purchased during the entrapment operation; and c) marked money. It was PO2 Nazareno who turned over to SPO1 Interno the two (2) plastic sachets retrieved from the pockets of Solica. Marking was conducted at the police station. SPO1 Interno marked the plastic sachet purchased during the entrapment with "DDT," while the sachets of shabu retrieved from Solica's pockets as "SDU" and "SDU-1." After the preparation of the request for laboratory examination, SPO1 Interno transmitted the marked plastic sachets of shabu to the Crime Laboratory for qualitative and quantitative examinations. 17
Later, SPO4 Murillo received a call from the Far Eastern University (FEU)-Fairview Hospital informing him that they admitted a person with a gunshot wound who was shot at the Baseco compound. PO2 Nazareno's team went to FEU-Fairview Hospital and indeed discovered that Mohammad, who was shot in the leg, was undergoing medical treatment. 18
During the laboratory examination, Forensic Chemist Police Senior Inspector Maritess Mariano tested samples of the contents of the plastic sachets which confirmed that these contained methamphetamine hydrochloride, known as shabu. These results of the chemical examination were contained in Chemical Report No. D-1573-04. 19
Version of the Defense
On October 9, 2004, at around 3:00 p.m., Solica narrated how she saw PO2 Nazareno with other members of the police force pass by their residence, which piqued her curiosity prompting her to ask her husband PO1 Dali where they could be going. PO1 Dali and Mohammad replied that perhaps they were going to arrest someone. 20
While they were eating, someone shouted and called to Mohammad, "Jun, Jun, pinasok ang bahay mo ng mga pulis." Mohammad stepped out of the house, to which PO1 Dali followed. After 30 minutes, Solica examined the commotion. 21
When Mohammad got to the residence with a distance of 30 to 40 meters away from Solica's house, he witnessed how his doorknob was broken and their clothes and other personal effects ransacked. 22
Mohammad asked why there were men in civilian clothes inside his house, and he was informed that these were police officers conducting a search. When he asked if they had a search warrant, they ignored him. When the police officers left the house, Mohammad discovered that his cash amounting to PhP8,000.00 and three (3) mobile phones were missing. This prompted him to run after the fleeing police officers and demand the return of his personal belongings, but the police officers did not say anything. Thereafter, PO3 Dela Victoria fired his 9 millimeter gun which hit Mohammad's leg. Mohammad's neighbors then came out and ganged up on PO3 Dela Victoria. 23
Mohammad was brought to FEU-Fairview Hospital for medical treatment. While inside the hospital, he was informed that his mother was arrested. On the same day, he was also apprehended by the police officers. Mohammad narrated how he was assaulted in the police vehicle while on their way to the police station, the police officers were hitting his wound with the tip of their firearms and burning it with a cigarette. 24
According to Solica, she followed her husband PO1 Dali, who was arrested, to the Manila Police Station 5 in Ermita, Manila. When she saw police officers mauling her husband, she asked why they were mauling him. Out of desperation, she then pushed one of the police officers who hit his head on the bar. This caused the police officer to handcuff her and put her in the room with her husband, PO1 Dali. A body search was conducted and her pieces of jewelry were taken from her. When she asked why her pieces of jewelry were taken, the police officers replied that the other detainees might take away her pieces of jewelry inside the jail. She claimed that she was advised by the police officers to call her son and to give them money; otherwise, she would be put in jail. 25 aDSIHc
Ruling of the RTC
On July 11, 2012, the RTC of Manila rendered a Decision 26 convicting the accused-appellants for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. Solica was likewise found guilty for violation of Section 11 (3), Article II, of the same Act. The dispositive portion reads:
1. In CRIM. CASE NO. 04-230945, finding accused SOLICA DALI y ULAMA and MOHAMMAD SAID URIAN y ALIM GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of [Section 5], Article II, Republic Act 9165, and are hereby sentenced to suffer Life Imprisonment and each to pay fine in the amount of P500,000.00.
2. In CRIM. CASE NO. 04-230947, finding SOLICA DALI y ULAMA GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Sec. 11(3), Article II, Republic Act No. 9165, and is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of Twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to Fifteen (15) years, as maximum, and to pay fine in the amount of P300,000.00.
Cost against the accused.
SO ORDERED. 27 (Emphases in the original)
Ruling of the CA
Undeterred, the accused-appellants appealed to the CA. In its Decision 28 dated March 29, 2017, the CA affirmed the findings of the trial court, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, the instant APPEAL is hereby DENIED and the Decision dated July 11, 2012 in Criminal Case Nos. 04-230945 and 04-230947 of the Regional Trial Court, which adjudged accused-appellants SOLICA DALI y ULAMA and MOHAMMAD SAID URIAN y ALIM guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, and which found SOLICA DALI y ULAMA GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of violation of Section 11 (3), Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 29 (Emphases in the original)
Hence, the present appeal.
Ruling of the Court
The Court sustains the conviction of the accused-appellants.
Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165,
A successful prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs requires the following elements to be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration of the sale; and (2) the delivery to the buyer of the thing sold and receipt by the seller of the payment therefor. What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence. Thus, the delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money consummate the illegal transaction. 30
The Court adopts the findings of the CA in its Decision dated March 29, 2017, as follows:
Appellants, who were caught in flagrante delicto were positively identified by PO3 Dela Victoria, who acted as the poseur-buyer, as the identical individuals who sold a plastic sachet of shabu. The sachet of shabu with the marking "DD1" was presented in court, which PO3 Dela Victoria identified to be the same object sold to him by appellants. 31 (Citations omitted and italics in the original) ETHIDa
What determines if there was indeed sale of dangerous drugs is proof of the concurrence of all the elements of the offense. To sustain a conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution needs to sufficiently establish the identity of the buyer, seller, object and consideration, and the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof. What is material is proof that the transaction or sale of dangerous drugs was consummated. This happens the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller. Settled is the rule that as long as the police officer went through the operation as a buyer and his offer was accepted by appellant and the dangerous drugs delivered to the former, the crime is considered consummated by the delivery of the goods. 32
In the case at bar, PO1 Dali and the accused-appellants were caught in flagrante delicto selling dangerous drugs through an entrapment operation led by PO3 Dela Victoria.
The prosecution fully satisfied the "objective test." Under the objective test, the prosecution must be able to present a complete picture detailing the buy-bust operation — from the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise or payment of the consideration, until the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal subject of sale. The manner by which the initial contact was made, the offer to purchase the drug, the payment of the buy-bust money, and the delivery of the illegal drug must be the subject of strict scrutiny by courts to ensure that law abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced to commit an offense. 33
A testimony that included the marking of the seized items at the police station and in the presence of the accused was sufficient in showing compliance with the rules on chain of custody. Marking upon immediate confiscation contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team. 34
The Court is fully satisfied with the unbroken links in the chain of custody. Prosecution witness PO3 Dela Victoria sufficiently explained his inability to mark the confiscated drug as he had been brought to the hospital for immediate medical treatment.
Q: Then afterward, what did you do with the sachet containing the stuff in question?
A: I placed it inside my pocket.
Q: And who recovered the stuff?
A: I was in possession of the stuff even I was brought to the hospital, sir.
Q: And you did not put any marking on it because of the physical impossibility of doing it when the crime allegedly consummated? (sic)
A: I did not place markings, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Where was the stuff marked?
A: By the investigator in the office, sir.
Q: It was not you who place[d] the markings?
A: No, sir.
Q: By the way, can you tell us what action did you take to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of that stuff which you bought?
A: I turned it over to the investigator, sir.
Q: How many hours after you were taken to the hospital?
A: I did not know how many hours, sir.
Q: You did not stay long at the hospital?
A: I did not stay long, sir. 35
The Court is convinced of the presumption of regularity in the handling of the confiscated drug from the buy-bust sale, arrest and confiscation of the dangerous drug, until its presentation by the Forensic Chemist in court. cSEDTC
It has long been settled that since the "perfect chain" is almost always impossible to obtain, non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as stated in the Implementing Rules and Regulations, does not, without more, automatically render the seizure of the dangerous drug void, and evidence is admissible as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team. 36
Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165,
In the same vein, the Court adopts the findings of the CA that Solica is guilty of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The elements of the crime as charged were glaringly present and clearly established by the prosecution.
In a prosecution for the illegal possession of prohibited drugs, the following elements must be proved: (1) that the accused was in possession of the object identified as a prohibited or regulated drug; (2) that the drug possession was not authorized by law; and (3) that the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. All the aforesaid elements were clearly established by the prosecution. 37
In People v. Dela Rosa, 38 the Court held that a mere possession of a regulated drug per se constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused absent a satisfactory explanation of such possession. The onus probandi is then shifted to the accused, to explain and prove the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi. 39
To the Court's mind, there is no reason to deviate from the findings of the lower courts that the corpus delicti was properly handled and that its integrity and evidentiary value have been properly preserved.
The chain of custody requirement performs the function of ensuring that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved, so much so that unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the evidence are removed. To be admissible, the prosecution must show, by records or testimony, the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit at least between the time it came into possession of the police officers and until it was tested in the laboratory to determine its composition up to the time it was offered in evidence. 40 Here, the guilt of the accused-appellants for the crimes charged has been clearly and categorically proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Prosecution's version of facts:
As to the argument that the two police officers had varying narrations as to the time when the pre-arranged signal was made, the Court finds the same to be minor and immaterial. These minor inconsistencies did not affect the strength of the prosecution's evidence resulting to the conviction of both the accused-appellants for the crimes charged.
The Court, in People v. Tancinco, 41 held that the defense of denial has been and is viewed with disfavor for it can easily be concocted and is a common defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of R.A. No. 9165. Denial is a weak form of defense especially when it is not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence. 42
Moreover, absent a finding of any irregularity, the Court deems it wise to affirm the findings of the trial court, especially when it involves credibility of the witnesses. Here, the evidence presented by the prosecution clearly and undoubtedly revealed the accused-appellants' involvement in the drug trade.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated March 29, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06564, finding herein accused-appellants Solica Dali y Ulama and Mohammad Said Urian y Alim GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, is hereby AFFIRMED.
For violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, accused-appellants Solica Dali y Ulama and Mohammad Said Urian y Alim are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Life Imprisonment and to each pay a Fine in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (PhP500,000.00).
For violation of Section 11, Article II of the same Code, accused-appellant Solica Dali y Ulama is sentenced to suffer the penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day of imprisonment, as minimum, to fifteen (15) years, as maximum, and to pay a Fine in the amount of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (PhP300,000.00).
SO ORDERED." (Carandang, J., designated as additional Member per Special Order No. 2624 dated November 28, 2018.)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 15-16.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr., with Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Mario V. Lopez, concurring; CA rollo, pp. 133-145.
3. Rendered by Judge Reynaldo A. Alhambra; id. at 15A-17.
4.Id. at 77.
5.Id.
6.Id.
7.Id. at 77-78.
8.Id. at 78.
9.Id.
10.Id.
11.Id.
12.Id. at 78-79.
13.Id. at 79.
14.Id.
15.Id.
16.Id.
17.Id.
18.Id.
19.Id. at 80.
20.Id.
21.Id.
22.Id.
23.Id.
24.Id.
25.Id.
26.Id. at 15A-17.
27.Id. at 17.
28.Rollo, pp. 2-14.
29.Id. at 13-14.
30.People v. Cayas, 766 Phil. 534, 543 (2015).
31. CA rollo, p. 140.
32.People v. Dumlao, 584 Phil. 732, 738 (2008).
33.People v. Guinto, 744 Phil. 156, 168 (2014).
34.People v. Cerdon, 740 Phil. 685, 696 (2014).
35. CA rollo, p. 111.
36.People v. Abetong, 735 Phil. 476, 485 (2014).
37.People v. Gaspar, 669 Phil. 122, 135 (2011).
38. 655 Phil. 630 (2011).
39.Id. at 647-648.
40.People v. Rosialda, 643 Phil. 712, 727 (2010).
41. 736 Phil. 610 (2014).
42.Id. at 623.