THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 212208. February 22, 2016.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EMILY DE ARCE Y ALGABA AND REMEDIOS BRUSOTO Y SALABIT, accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedFebruary 22, 2016, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 212208(People of the Philippines vs. Emily de Arce y Algaba and Remedios Brusoto y Salabit). — This is an appeal from the Decision 1 dated May 22, 2013 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04853 which affirmed the Decision 2 dated October 4, 2010 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lipa City, Branch 12, in Criminal Case No. 0057-2004, convicting Emily de Arce y Algaba (de Arce) and Remedios Brusoto y Salabit (Brusoto) (accused-appellants) for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as "The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
An Information was filed charging the accused-appellants with selling 13.04 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu, on February 1, 2004, at about 6:30 p.m., inside the McDonald's branch in Lipa City. 3
Upon arraignment, the accused-appellants both pleaded not guilty. 4
The prosecution established that on February 1, 2004, at about 10:00 a.m., a civilian asset tipped the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) of the Philippine National Police (PNP), Batangas City regarding the rampant shabu-peddling of the accused-appellants in a certain area. Acting on the said information, a buy-bust team was formed amongst Police Chief Inspector Armando Unico, Senior Police Officer 1 Tadeo Loyola Chavez, PO3 Danilo Balmes (PO3 Balmes), a CIDG agent and the civilian asset. The latter was designated to act as poseur-buyer while PO3 Balmes would be the financier, who would carry the boodle money placed in between two pieces of P500.00 bills marked with his initials "DFB." 5
Prior to the buy-bust operation, PO3 Balmes and the civilian asset had set up a meeting with the accused-appellants for the purchase of three (3) bulto of shabu (usually 5 g per bulto) worth P27,000.00 at a McDonald's branch in Lipa City at around 10:00 a.m. 6
Upon arrival at the target area, PO3 Balmes and the civilian asset met the accused-appellants. However, the latter failed to bring shabu as priorly agreed so they instructed PO3 Balmes and the civilian asset to accompany them to Tanauan, Batangas where they would get it from their supplier. PO3 Balmes and the civilian asset refused the proposal but suggested instead that they would just wait for the accused-appellants at McDonald's, Lipa City. The accused-appellants agreed. 7 PO3 Balmes and the civilian asset stayed at the agreed venue while the rest of the buy-bust team acted as customers. 8
The accused-appellants arrived at McDonald's at around 6:30 p.m. PO3 Balmes and the civilian asset immediately inquired about the shabu to which the accused-appellants replied positively. PO3 Balmes handed over the boodle money to Brusoto, who, in turn, gave him one (1) plastic sachet filled with white crystalline substance. Two (2) more plastic sachets of the same nature were also handed to him by de Arce. Upon receipt thereof, PO3 Balmes made the pre-arranged signal and the rest of the buy-bust team approached them. PO3 Balmes introduced themselves as police officers to the accused-appellants who were thereafter apprised of their constitutional rights. 9
The accused-appellants were taken to the police station at Camp Miguel Malvar. Upon arrival, PO3 Balmes marked the confiscated plastic sachets filled with white crystalline substance in front of the accused-appellants and SPO3 Myrna Oligario (SPO3 Oligario), the duty investigator. He marked the two (2) plastic sachets received from de Arce with DFB 1 and DFB 2 and the date of the apprehension, while the plastic sachet received from Brusoto was marked DFB 3 and the date of the apprehension. The three (3)-marked plastic sachets of shabu, the boodle money and the two (2) pieces of marked P500.00 bills were turned over to SPO3 Oligario, who, in turn, made a letter requesting the Batangas PNP Crime Laboratory Office for the examination of the seized plastic sachets. The chemical testing on the subject substance yielded positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu, as indicated in Chemistry Report No. D-109-04 and D-110-04 issued by Police Senior Inspector Lorna Ravales Tria, Forensic Chemical Officer of the PNP, Camp Vicente Lim, Canlubang, Laguna. 10 cSEDTC
The defense did not present any evidence but filed a Memorandum for Acquittal or Dismissal based on the prosecution's failure to comply with the legal requirements of an inventory and photograph as mandated under Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. 11
Ruling of the RTC
In a Decision 12 dated October 4, 2010, the RTC convicted the accused-appellants of illegal sale of shabu pursuant to Section 5, paragraph 1, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The accused-appellants were sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine of P500,000.00 each.
The period of the accused-appellants' preventive imprisonment was ordered to be credited in the service of their sentence. The shabu involved is confiscated in favor of the government for proper disposition by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency where it shall be turned over under proper receipt. A Commitment Order for the transfer of detention of the accused-appellant from the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology in Lipa City Jail to the Women's Correctional Facility at Mandaluyong City was also instructed. 13
Ruling of the CA
On appeal, the CA rendered a Decision on May 22, 2013 which affirmed in toto the decision of the RTC.
In its affirmance, the CA ratiocinated that the accused-appellants were caught in flagrante delicto through a valid and legitimate entrapment operation. It further accorded credence on the testimony of PO3 Balmes which narrated the chain of custody of the confiscated shabu from the time the accused-appellants handed all three (3) plastic sachets of shabu, which he properly placed in the pockets of his pants and polo shirt. And, upon arrival at the police station, PO3 Balmes immediately marked the same with his initials in front of the accused-appellants and duty investigator. He, thereafter, handed over the marked plastic sachets to SPO3 Oligario, who in turn made a letter requesting the Batangas PNP Crime Laboratory Office for its laboratory examination. PO3 Balmes and SPO3 Oligario brought the subject specimen to the said laboratory, which in its chemical analysis yielded positive for shabu. 14
For the CA, the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated plastic sachets of shabu were completely preserved by PO3 Balmes as provided under paragraph 1, Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. 15 Moreover, "the failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the required physical inventory and photograph of the evidence confiscated pursuant to said guidelines is not fatal. Indeed, the Implementing Rules of R.A. No. 9165 clearly provide that 'non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizure of and custody over said items.'" 16
Ruling of the Court
In essence, the primordial issue posed to this Court by the accused-appellants is whether or not the prosecutor had established the corpus delicti, by preserving in an unbroken chain of custody the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized three (3) plastic sachets of shabu.
The appeal is bereft of merit.
Consistent with the rulings of this Court, it is a fundamental and settled rule that factual findings of the trial court and its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its conclusions anchored on its findings are accorded by the appellate court high respect, if not conclusive effect. 17 More so, when the factual findings of the trial court, especially those affirmed by the CA, are supported by the evidence on record. 18
Accordingly, the Court finds no reason to deviate from the factual findings and conclusions of the RTC and the CA that the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt the necessary links in the handling of the subject drugs from the time of their seizure until their presentation in court and how these were handled, stored and safeguarded. 19
The records reveal that PO3 Balmes was able to identify the accused-appellants in open court as the persons from whom he recovered the three (3) plastic sachets of shabu which he identified in court as the items he marked at the police station on February 1, 2004 after both the accused-appellants were apprehended. 20 Non-compliance with the photograph and inventory provided for under Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 is not fatal and will not render the arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated inadmissible. The purpose of the statutory rules on preserving the chain of custody of confiscated prohibited drugs and related items is to ensure the integrity and reliability of the evidence to be presented against the accused. Their observance is the key to the successful prosecution of illegal possession or illegal sale of dangerous drugs. 21 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. 22
Here, the prosecution sufficiently established the chain of custody of the drugs seized from both the accused-appellants from the moment they were arrested, during the time they were transported to Camp Miguel Malvar with the seized items, until the same drugs were submitted to the crime laboratory for chemical examination. The apprehending officers also identified the seized drugs with certainty when these were presented in court. 23 SDAaTC
It bears to stress that prosecution of cases for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act arising from buy-bust operations largely depends on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the same. Unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive or were not properly performing their duty, their testimonies on the operation deserve full faith and credit. 24 Also, the credibility of witnesses is a matter best examined by, and left to, the trial courts.
The alleged inconsistencies or contradictions pointed out by the accused-appellants are regrettably insufficient to overturn their conviction absent any clear and convincing proof that the police officers were ill motivated during the entrapment operation. Thus, they are presumed to have regularly performed their official duties. It has been repeatedly held that a few discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses referring to minor details and not actually touching upon the central fact of the crime do not impair their credibility. 25 Hence, there is no cogent reason to deviate from the findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA.
Lastly, the Court agrees with the penalty imposed by the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, as it falls squarely within the range of penalties provided for by law. The first paragraph of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 prescribes a penalty of life imprisonment to death 26 and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00 against any person who shall illegally sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions. Therefore, the penalty of life imprisonment and fine of P500,000.00 meted against both the accused-appellants are upheld.
WHEREFORE, in consideration of all the foregoing, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated May 22, 2013 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04853 is AFFIRMED." (Jardeleza, J. no part in view of his participation in the Office of the Solicitor General; Mendoza, J., designated Additional Member per Raffle dated November 10, 2014.)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon, with Associate Justices Florito S. Macalino and Pedro B. Corales concurring; CA rollo, pp. 153-161.
2. Id. at 15-22.
3. Id. at 153-154.
4. Id. at 154.
5. Id.
6. Id. at 17.
7. Id.
8. Id. at 154-155.
9. Id. at 17-18.
10. Id. at 155.
11. Id.
12. Issued by Judge Albert A. Kalalo; id. at 15-22.
13. Id. at 22.
14. Id. at 159.
15. Id.
16. Id., citing People v. Berdadero, 636 Phil. 199, 208-209 (2010).
17. 588 Phil. 247, 263 (2008).
18. People v. Corpuz, G.R. No. 191068, July 17, 2013, 701 SCRA 493, 499.
19. CA rollo, p. 58.
20. Id. at 57.
21. See People v. Relaio, 679 Phil. 268, 277 (2012).
22. People v. Del Monte, 575 Phil. 576, 586 (2008).
23. CA rollo, p. 158.
24. People v. Casolocan, 478 Phil. 363, 373 (2004).
25. People v. Lim, et al., 615 Phil. 769, 789 (2009).
26. The imposition of the death penalty has been proscribed with the effectivity of R.A. No. 9346, otherwise known as "An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines."