SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 248052. September 15, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. DARREL DE CASTRO y PASCUAL @ "BUNSO", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 15 September 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 248052 (People of the Philippines v. Darrel De Castro y Pascual @ "Bunso"). — On appeal is the February 21, 2019 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10276, which affirmed the October 10, 2017 Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 84, Batangas City in Criminal Case No. 20767, finding accused-appellant Darrel De Castro y Pascual alias "Bunso" (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Antecedents:
In an Information 3 dated January 29, 2016, accused-appellant was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, which alleged:
That on or about January 28, 2016 at around 6:30 in the evening at Brgy. Cuta, Batangas City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law, did then and there knowingly, willfully and criminally sell or dispense 0.15 gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, more commonly known as "Shabu," a dangerous drug, which is a clear violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the offense charged. 5 Trial on the merits thereafter ensued.
Police Officer (PO) 3 Dennis R. Dinglasan (PO3 Dinglasan), Senior Police Officer (SPO) 4 Jesus T. Agustin, Jr. (SPO4 Agustin), Police Senior Inspector (PSI) Herminia Llacuna (PSI Llacuna), and PO2 Lowie Enriquez (PO2 Enriquez) testified for the prosecution. The defense, on the other hand, presented the accused-appellant.
Version of the Prosecution:
PO3 Dinglasan testified that he was assigned at the Intelligence Section of the Batangas City Police Station. 6 On January 28, 2016, at around 4:10 p.m., his confidential informant arrived at the office and informed him that he would have a transaction near the Bay Lodge Hotel, Brgy. Cuta, Batangas City, involving a purchase of shabu from one alias "Bunso," herein accused-appellant. 7 Also, he was informed that Bunso was involved in a series of motorcycle theft in the city. 8
Upon learning such information, PO3 Dinglasan immediately informed PO3 Mark Ivan Are (PO3 Are) and thereafter planned a buy-bust operation. 9 PO3 Dinglasan prepared a P500.00 bill which he immediately marked with his initials "DRD." 10 Thereafter, PO2 Enriquez prepared the Pre-Operational Report and Coordination Report and thereafter sent it to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Office. 11 After sending the documents, PO3 Dinglasan requested SPO3 Leur Libio to enter into the police blotter the departure of the police officers who will conduct the buy-bust operation. 12
Thereafter, PO3 Dinglasan, PO3 Are, and the confidential informant left the police station on board a Toyota Revo and proceeded to the Bay Lodge Hotel, Brgy. Cuta, Batangas City, where the informant and Bunso agreed to meet. 13 PO3 Are parked the vehicle beside the closed door near the Bay Lodge Hotel which was more or less (2) meters away from the place of transaction. 14 PO3 Dinglasan and the confidential informant, on the other hand, alighted from the vehicle and positioned themselves in front of the closed store. After waiting for about one (1) hour, accused-appellant who was wearing a brown shirt approached them. 15 Subsequently, the confidential informant introduced PO3 Dinglasan to accused-appellant as the buyer of shabu worth P500.00. PO3 Dinglasan handed the marked money to accused-appellant, who in turn, handed him one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet suspected to contain shabu. 16 After the transaction had transpired, PO3 Dinglasan introduced himself as a police officer. During the arrest, accused-appellant was apprised of his constitutional rights. 17
At the place of the incident, PO3 Dinglasan marked the one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with his initials "DRD" while PO3 Are took photographs. 18 Thereafter, PO3 Dinglasan took custody of the seized item. Together with PO3 Are and the confidential informant, they went back to the police station where the inventory was done 19 in the presence of the accused-appellant, the arresting officers, National Prosecution Service (NPS) representative Rodel Espina, and Barangay Kagawad Bernie Flores. 20 The representatives signed the Certificate of Inventory which was prepared by PO2 Enriquez. 21 Thereafter, as evidenced by the Chain of Custody Form, PO3 Dinglasan turned over the confiscated item to the duty investigator, PO2 Enriquez. 22
PO2 Enriquez then prepared the Arrest Report or Booking Sheet, the Request for Laboratory Examination, and Request for Drug Test. 23 Thereafter, he brought the seized item, the letter requests, and the accused-appellant to Batangas Provincial Crime Laboratory Office (BPCLO) drug testing. 24
Corroborating the testimony of PO2 Enriquez, SPO4 Agustin testified that on January 28, 2016, he was the duty receiving clerk of the BPCLO when PO2 Enriquez turned over to him the seized item which was marked with "DRD." 25 After receiving the seized item, he handed it over to PSI Llacuna, the forensic chemist of the BPCLO. 26
PSI Llacuna conducted a qualitative examination on the specimen she received from SPO4 Agustin particularly the one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with the marking "DRD." Chemistry Report No. BD-159-2016 concluded that the seized item tested positive for the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride. 27
Version of the Defense:
Accused-appellant proffered a different account of the incident and professed denial and frame up as his defenses. He narrated that on January 28, 2016, at around 1:00 p.m., he was at the Old Market waiting for a tricycle when two (2) men approached him. 28 When the duo got hold of him, they immediately shouted "magnanakaw." A police officer who was on duty at the market approached him and called someone. 29 Suddenly, a certain Joryel Alo (Alo) arrived at the scene. He knew Alo when he was incarcerated for theft in 2014. 30
Alo pointed to accused-appellant as the person who stole a motorcycle in Batangas City. 31 Despite his denial, the police officers still boarded him on a van and forced him to admit his involvement in a carnapping case. 32 When he persisted on his denial, the police officers brought him to his house. 33 When they arrived at his house, Alo asked accused-appellant's uncle if they can search the house. Accused-appellant's uncle acceded and the house was searched. 34 Thereafter, he was brought to the police station.
When they arrived at the police station, he was brought upstairs to the Intel Office where the police officers forced him to produce the stolen motorcycle. 35 Alo told him that they would plant drugs on him if he would persist on his denial. 36 Thereafter, the police officers called a detainee named Rey Castillo (Castillo). Alo then asked Castillo whether accused-appellant was alias "Bunso" and Castillo replied in the affirmative. 37 The accused was then medically examined and detained at the police station. 38 Inside the jail cell, Castillo approached him and told him that Alo was looking for him the day before his arrest. Both Castillo and the accused-appellant were allegedly charged with carnapping. 39 At around 8:00 p.m., PO3 Dinglasan and PO2 Enriquez told accused-appellant that they filed two (2) cases against him, one for carnapping and the other for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. 40
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:
The RTC, in its Decision 41 dated October 10, 2017, found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged. The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused, Darrel De Castro y Pascual alias "Bunso," GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 (sale of dangerous drugs) and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00).
Accordingly, the one (1) small plastic sachet containing shabu with markings "DRD" (Exhibit "R-1") and one (1) big transparent plastic sachet with marking BD-159-2016 HCL and signature (Exhibit "R") shall be transmitted to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for their proper disposal in accordance with law and pertinent regulations.
SO ORDERED. 42
The trial court ruled that the prosecution established all the elements of the offense. It further ruled that the requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 have likewise been complied with by the arresting officers and that the chain of custody had been faithfully observed.
The trial court did not give credence to accused-appellant's defense of denial in view of the positive and consistent testimonies of the witnesses presented by the prosecution.
Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed his conviction before the CA.
Ruling of the Court of the Appeals:
Before the appellate court, accused-appellant raised the following assignment of errors, to wit:
I.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO PROVE THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE ALLEGED SALE OF PROHIBITED DRUG.
II.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF THE CORPORA DELICTI OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED. 43
In its assailed February 21, 2019 Decision, 44 the CA affirmed the trial court's Decision finding accused-appellant guilty of violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. It ruled that the prosecution's testimonial and object evidence established all the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drug. Moreover, it sustained the trial court's finding that the links in the chain of custody in the subject buy-bust operation were all established by the prosecution.
Furthermore, the appellate court upheld the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by the police officers; it gave full credence to their affirmative and categorical testimonies. Moreover, it found that accused-appellant failed to present clear and convincing proof to overturn the presumption of regularity in the performance of duties of the buy bust team.
The appellate court likewise rejected the defense of denial proffered by the accused-appellant, holding that denials cannot be accorded probative weight especially so when taken in the light of the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses who testified clearly, providing thereby positive evidence on the various aspects of the crime committed.
Finally, the appellate court ruled that the penalties imposed by the trial court were proper.
Thus, the dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated October 10, 2017 rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 84, Batangas City is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 45
Hence, the instant appeal.
Issue
Whether the CA correctly found the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165.
Our Ruling
The appeal is bereft of merit.
In the prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, it is the dangerous drug itself that forms part of the corpus delicti of the offense. Thus, the integrity of the corpus delicti must be established with moral certainty through an unbroken chain of custody.
Accused-appellant insists that the arresting officers violated Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 in the seizure and custody of the seized drugs. He contends that he cannot be held liable for illegal sale of dangerous drug due to the prosecution's failure to establish beyond reasonable doubt the identity and integrity of the alleged seized sachet of drugs.
We are not convinced.
In the prosecution of drug cases, it is of paramount importance that the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti is preserved.
The acts constituting the offense charged were allegedly committed on January 28, 2016, or during the effectivity of RA 10640, 46 which amended Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, and imposed the mandatory procedural safeguards in a buy-bust operation, viz.:
SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, That the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures: Provided, finally, That noncompliance of these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items. [Emphasis Ours]
To ensure the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs, the prosecution must account for each link in its chain of custody:
First, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer;
Second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer;
Third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and
Fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court. 47
As can be gleaned from the established facts, PO3Dinglasan personally marked the heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet at the place where the transaction transpired. This is clear from the testimony of PO3Dinglasan who narrated that he marked the same with "DRD." Moreover, the inventory of the seized items was conducted in the presence of a barangay official, a representative from the NPS, and the appellant himself. Furthermore, PO3 Dinglasan personally took custody and control of the seized drug which was immediately turn-over to the case investigator and later submitted for laboratory examination. Upon receipt at the crime laboratory, PSI Llacuna prepared the chemistry report on her findings, which yielded positive results for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride. Thereafter, the seized item was produced and presented by the Evidence Custodian, PO2 Joel S. Barcelona, in court. Thus, We are convinced that the prosecution had sufficiently established an unbroken chain of custody as laid down under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 and its implementing rules and regulations.
Accordingly, there is no cogent reason to depart from the factual findings of the trial court which was likewise affirmed by the appellate court, that the chain of custody remained unbroken and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug was preserved. As this Court stated in the case of Medina v. People: 48
Time and again, this Court has deferred to the trial court's factual findings and evaluation of the credibility of witnesses, especially when affirmed by the CA, in the absence of any clear showing that the trial court overlooked or misconstrued cogent facts and circumstances that would justify altering or revising such findings and evaluation. This is because the trial court's determination proceeds from its first-hand opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses, their conduct and attitude under grilling examination, thereby placing the trial court in the unique position to assess the witnesses' credibility and to appreciate their truthfulness, honesty and candor. 49
We likewise reject the defense of denial and claim of frame-up interposed by the accused-appellant. Jurisprudence dictates that the defense of denial or frame-up, like alibi, has been invariably viewed by the courts with disfavor for it can just as easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in most prosecution for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. 50
Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 expressly provides for the penalty for illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The pertinent provision of the said section reads:
Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall 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.
In view of the foregoing, We sustain the penalties imposed on the accused-appellant for the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs in consonance with the above-quoted provision of law.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The February 21, 2019 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10276 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED." (J. Rosario designated as additional Member per Special Order No. 2835 dated July 15, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-18; penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and concurred in by Associate Justices Danton Q. Bueser and Rafael Antonio M. Santos.
2. CA rollo, pp. 67-70; penned by Presiding Judge Dorcas P. Ferriols-Perez.
3. Records, p. 1.
4.Id.
5. Records, p. 25.
6. TSN, April 20, 2016, p. 5.
7.Id. at 6.
8.Id.
9.Id.
10.Id. at 6-7.
11.Id. at 7-8.
12.Id. at 10.
13.Id. at 12.
14. Id.
15.Id. at 12-13.
16.Id. at 13.
17.Id.
18.Id. at 15.
19. Id.
20.Id. at 16.
21.Id. at 17-18.
22.Id. at 21.
23. TSN, July 14, 2017, pp. 10-11.
24.Id. at 13.
25. TSN, June 16, 2016, pp. 3-4.
26.Id. at 4.
27. Records, p. 7.
28. TSN, September 5, 2017, p. 7.
29.Id. at 8.
30.Id.
31.Id. at 9.
32.Id.
33.Id.
34.Id. at 10.
35.Id. at 11.
36. Id.
37.Id. at 12.
38.Id. at 12-13.
39.Id. at 14.
40.Id. at 15.
41. CA rollo, pp. 67-70.
42.Id. at 70.
43.Id. at 55.
44.Rollo, pp. 3-18.
45.Id. at 16.
46. AN ACT TO FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE ANTI-DRUG CAMPAIGN OF THE GOVERNMENT, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE SECTION 21 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE "COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002." Approved on July 15, 2014.
47.People v. Siaton, 789 Phil. 87, 98-99 (2016).
48. 724 Phil. 226, 234-235 (2014).
49.Id. at 234-235.
50.People v. Domingo, 786 Phil. 246, 251 (2016).