THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 226843. March 29, 2017.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. ANTONETTE DEDALA Y ANIB AND RONNIE FAJARDO Y NAVARETTE, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 29, 2017, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 226843 (People of the Philippines vs. Antonette Dedala y Anib and Ronnie Fajardo y Navarette). — This is an appeal from the Court of Appeals' Decision 1 dated May 16, 2016 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 07027, affirming the Consolidated Judgment 2 dated September 3, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 31 in San Pedro Laguna, in Criminal Case Nos. 12-8295-SPL, 12-8296-SPL, and 12-8297-SPL.
The Information charged accused-appellant Antonette Dedala (Dedala) with violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 (Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs), while two (2) separate charges for violation of Section 11 of the same law (Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs) were filed against accused-appellants Dedala and Ronnie Fajardo (Fajardo), to wit:
1. Criminal Case No. 12-8295-SPL against Dedala:
That on or about March 19, 2012, in the Municipality of San Pedro, Province of Laguna, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without legal authority, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, distribute and deliver to a police poseur-buyer for P400.00 one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug weighing .07 grams.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
2. Criminal Case No. 12-8296-SPL against Dedala:
That on or about March 19, 2012, in the Municipality of San Pedro, Province of Laguna, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of the law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in her possession, custody and control one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug weighing .04 grams.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
3. Criminal Case No. 12-8297-SPL against Fajardo:
That on or about March 19, 2012, in the Municipality of San Pedro, Province of Laguna, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of the law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug weighing .03 gram.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
The Prosecution's Version of Facts
As culled from the assailed Decision, the facts are as follows:
On March 19, 2012 around 1:00 a.m., PO2 Marie France Sumayod (PO2 Sumayod) received an information that accused-appellants Dedala and Fajardo were engaged in an illegal drug trade in Brgy. Cuyab, San Pedro, Laguna. CAIHTE
A team composed of PO2 Sonny Xyrus De Leon (PO2 De Leon), PO2 Sumayod, and PO2 Rick Jaison Almadilla (PO2 Almadilla) was created to conduct a monitoring operation in Brgy. Cuyab. The team proceeded to the said barangay. PO2 Sumayod, together with the informant, went to Dedala's house. On their way to the latter's house, Dedala approached them and asked the informant, "Bibili ka ba ng bato?" The informant replied, "May hawak ka bang shabu diyan, bibili kami ng Php400.00." Dedala produced two plastic sachets of shabu and gave one plastic sachet to PO2 Sumayod. Then, PO2 Sumayod handed over the marked Php400.00 bills to Dedala. After the transaction, Fajardo arrived holding a plastic sachet containing shabu. Thereafter, PO2 Sumayod took out his cellphone and rang up PO2 De Leon to signal that the sale has transpired. PO2 Sumayod identified himself as a police officer, arrested Dedala, and recovered from her the marked money. Meanwhile, PO2 Almadilla arrested Fajardo and confiscated the plastic sachet of shabu he was holding. The arresting officers then informed the appellants of their constitutional rights and brought them to the San Pedro Municipal Police Station.
Following the arrest of accused-appellants, PO2 Sumayod marked the plastic sachets of shabu recovered from Dedala with "AD-B1 and AD-P1." PO2 Almadilla also marked the plastic sachet of shabu confiscated from Fajardo with "RF-P1." Afterwards, the arresting officers brought accused-appellants to the San Pedro Police Station in San Pedro, Laguna for processing. At the police station, PO2 Sumayod prepared the Certificate of Inventory, the letter-request for laboratory examination, the letter-request for drug dependency, and took pictures of the recovered plastic sachets. Thereafter, PO2 Sumayod and PO2 Almadilla proceeded to the PNP Crime Laboratory in Camp Vicente Lim, Calamba City for drug analysis. Upon arriving at the crime laboratory, PO2 Sumayod and PO2 Almadilla handed the recovered evidence and the letter-request to PO2 Randy B. Legaspi, the receiving clerk.
The qualitative examination conducted by Forensic Chemist Lalaine Ong Rodrigo on the white crystalline substance contained in the three plastic sachets with markings "AD-B1, AD-P1, and RF-P1" yielded a positive result for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a prohibited drug.
The Defense's Version of Facts
Dedala denied the accusations against her. She testified that on March 19, 2012 at around 10:00 in the evening, PO2 Sumayod, PO2 De Leon and PO1 Almmadilla suddenly went inside their house. She was already sleeping together with her co-accused, Fajardo, her live-in partner, and with their eldest daughter during that time.
While inside their house, the police officers instructed them to stay at the corner and began searching for something inside the house. Dedala tried to stop them but the police officers did not heed her. She likewise asked them what they were looking for, but they did not answer. It took them about two (2) hours to search the house and after they found nothing, the police officers brought her and Fajardo to the police station.
Upon reaching the police station, PO2 De Leon, asked them to provide Php20,000 in exchange for their liberty. When they failed to give the amount that the police officers were asking for, they were told that they will be charged with violation of Sections 5 and 11, but did not understand any of them. After 30 minutes, they were brought downstairs and were detained.
The testimony of Dedala was corroborated by Fajardo in all its material points. He likewise denied the accusation against him.
The RTC rendered a Consolidated Judgment 3 dated September 3, 2014, disposing of the case as follows:
WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. 12-8295-SPL, accused Antonette Dedala y Anib is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) Pesos without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
The period of her preventive imprisonment should be given full credit.
2. In Criminal Case No. 12-8296-SPL, accused Antonette Dedala y Anib is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of twelve (12) years and one day as minimum to fourteen (14) years and eight months as maximum and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand (P300,000.00) pesos without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
The period of her preventive imprisonment should be given full credit.
3. In Criminal Case No. 12-8297-SPL, accused Ronnie Fajardo y Navarette is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of twelve (12) years and one day as minimum to fourteen (14) years and eight months as maximum and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand (P300,000.00) pesos without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
The period of his preventive imprisonment should be given full credit.
Let the three plastic sachets of shabu subject matter of these cases be immediately forwarded to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for its disposition as provided by law. The P400.00 buy-bust money is ordered forfeited in favor of the government and deposited with the National Treasury through the Office of the Clerk of Court, San Pedro City.
SO ORDERED.
Accued-appellants repaired to the CA, arguing that the RTC committed the following errors:
I. The court a quo gravely erred in disregarding the accused-appellants' testimonies
II. The court a quo gravely erred in not finding the accused-appellants' warrantless arrest illegal
III. The court a quo gravely erred in not applying the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine with respect to the allegedly confiscated shabu
IV. The court a quo gravely erred in finding the accused-appellants guilty despite the police officers' non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 and its implementing rules
V. The court a quo gravely erred in finding the accused-appellants guilty despite the broken chain of custody of the allegedly confiscated shabu
The CA, in a Decision dated May 16, 2016, ruled as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED. The Consolidated Judgment dated September 03, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court of San Pedro, Laguna, Branch 31 in Criminal Case Nos. 12-8295-SPL, 12-8296-SPL and 12-8297-SPL is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
The CA held that the pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution justify the conviction of accused-appellants; thus, their appeal necessarily failed. Dedala is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and Fajardo is likewise guilty of violation of Section 11 of the same law. The CA also upheld the penalties imposed by the RTC as the same are in accord with the law and existing jurisprudence.
Hence, the present appeal, with the same assignment of errors raised before the CA.
Ruling of this Court
The Court sustains accused-appellants' conviction.
Well-settled is the rule that factual findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, should be given full faith and credit unless there is a showing of a misinterpretation of material facts or grave abuse of discretion. 4
In appreciating the facts of the present case, the RTC gave credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, which the CA found to be without grave abuse of discretion. The CA likewise did not make any finding that the RTC overlooked or misinterpreted a material fact. As We have previously held, the RTC is in the best position to make this determination as the judge was the one who personally heard the accused and the witnesses, as well as observed their demeanor and the manner in which they testified during trial. 5 Accordingly, We do not disturb or interfere with the trial court's finding of facts and its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses. DETACa
The RTC's disregard of accused-appellants' testimonies which consist primarily of denials was not tainted with abuse of discretion. As correctly held by the RTC, the defense failed to 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. As held in People v. Andres, 6 the Court has invariably viewed with disfavor the defenses of denial and frame-up. Such defenses can easily be fabricated and is a common ploy in prosecutions for the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs.
Considering the absence of either a mistake in the appreciation of material facts or grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC, and considering further the presumption of regularity on the actions of the police officers, and finally the opportunity of the trial court judge to directly observe the witnesses and ascertain their credibility, We do not disturb the assessment of the facts.
We also find accused-appellants' arrest to be legal. In People v. Villamin, 7 involving an accused arrested after he sold drugs during a buy-bust operation, the Court ruled that it was a circumstance where a warrantless arrest is justified under Rule 113, Sec. 5 (a) of the Rules of Court. 8 The same ruling applies to the instant case. When carried out with due regard for constitutional and legal safeguards, a buy-bust operation is a judicially sanctioned method of apprehending those involved in illegal drug activities. It is a valid form of entrapment, as the idea to commit a crime comes not from the police officers but from the accused himself. The accused is caught in the act and must be apprehended on the spot. From the very nature of a buy-bust operation, the absence of a warrant does not make the arrest illegal. 9 In the case at bar, the arrest of accused-appellants, for having been caught in flagrante delicto following a buy bust-operation, is valid. The buy-bust team members were justified in arresting accused-appellants as they just had committed a crime, i.e., Dedala sold shabu to a police poseur buyer and Fajardo was in the act of holding a sachet of shabu when he arrived to chat with Dedala and the informant.
Verily, since the arrest of accused-appellants is valid, the subsequent warrantless search is also valid, thus negating the application of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. The recovery of another plastic sachet of shabu from Dedala is, therefore, admissible in evidence.
We likewise agree with the findings of the RTC and the CA that the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drug was properly and clearly established. The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 provides for the requirements in handling seized dangerous drugs. Particularly, its Sec. 21 (1) requires that:
Section 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 drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory 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, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
And the law's Implementing Rules and Regulations states:
SECTION 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:
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory 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, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official 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, further, 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 seizures of and custody over said items.
We have ruled that non-compliance with the afore-quoted provisions does not render the seizure of the dangerous drug void and the evidence inadmissible. The absence of a showing that the apprehending officer did not make an inventory of the seized items and that he did not take photographs of them is not fatal. 10 In cases of dangerous drugs, what is important and necessary is for the prosecution to prove with moral certainty that the dangerous drug presented in court as evidence against the accused be the same item recovered from his possession. 11
In the case at bar, the CA has correctly affirmed the findings of the RTC that the prosecution had proven substantial compliance with the essential requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. We held in People v. Beran12 that "the venues of the physical inventory and photography of the seized items differ and depend on whether the seizure was made by virtue of a search warrant or through a warrantless seizure such as a buy-bust operation. In seizures covered by search warrants, the physical inventory and photograph must be conducted in the place where the search warrant was served. On the other hand, in case of warrantless seizures such as a buy-bust operation, the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable." In this case, thus, the markings of the police officers at the place of arrest, and the preparation of the Certificate of Inventory and photographs of the seized items in the presence of the media at the police station substantially complied with the said procedure.
To reiterate, non-compliance by the apprehending/buy-bust team with Section 21 is not fatal as long as there is justifiable ground therefor, and as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated/seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team. Its non-compliance will not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him 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. 13
Both the RTC and CA found the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti as having been preserved. Convincingly, accused-appellants' guilt for the criminal charges had been established beyond reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, considering the allegations, issues, and arguments presented, the Court resolves to DISMISS the appeal for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error in its assailed Decision dated May 16, 2016 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 07027 as to warrant the exercise of the Court's appellate jurisdiction and, thus, AFFIRM said Decision, finding accused-appellants Antonette Dedala y Anib and Ronnie Fajardo y Navarette guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Secs. 5 and 11 Art. II of Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
By:
MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-20. Penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion and concurred in by Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela.
2. CA rollo, pp. 49-56.
3. Penned by Judge Sonia T. Yu-Casano.
4.People v. Darius Bautista, G.R. No. 191266, June 6, 2011.
5.People v. Gabrino, G.R. No. 189981, March 9, 2011.
6. G.R. No. 193184, February 7, 2011.
7. G.R. No. 175590, February 9, 2010.
8. SEC. 5.Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.
9.People v. Villamin, supra note 7.
10.People v. Presas, G.R. No. 182525, March 2, 2011.
11.Cacao v. People, G.R. No. 180870, January 22, 2010, 610 SCRA 636, 644-45.
12.People v. Joselito Beran y Zapanta, G.R. No. 203028, January 15, 2014.
13.Imson v. Adriano, G.R. No. 193003, July 13, 2011.