THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 206415. November 8, 2017.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. JOEL DELA CRUZ and MICHAEL NAVARRO y JOSON, accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated November 8, 2017, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 206415 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOEL DELA CRUZ and MICHAEL NAVARRO y JOSON, Accused-Appellants) — Under review is the decision promulgated on July 24, 2012, 1 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction of both the accused for violation of Section 5, in relation to Section 26, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002) through the decision rendered on September 24, 2008 by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 35, in Manila, 2 meeting on each of them the penalty of life imprisonment and fine of P500,000.00.
The information charged the accused of the violation by alleging thusly:
That on or about October 5, 2006, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping each other, not being authorized by law to sell, trade, deliver or give away to another dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell or offer for sale, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute to a poseur-buyer one (1) heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing ZERO POINT ONE SIX FOUR (0.164) gram of white crystalline substance containing methylamphetamine hydrochloride known as SHABU, a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law. 3
Both accused pleaded not guilty to the information. 4
At the pre-trial, the Prosecution and the Defense agreed to dispense with the testimony of Forensic Chemist Police Senior Insp. Maritess Mariano (PSI Mariano) after stipulating that: (a) PSI Mariano received the request for examination and the plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance marked as Exhibit C; (b) PSI Mariano examined the contents of Exhibit C; (c) the examination yielded positive result to the test for methylamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu, a dangerous drug; and (d) PSI Mariano signed Chemistry Report No. D-1167-06 marked as Exhibit D. 5
During trial, the Prosecution adopted the testimony of PO2 Joel Sta. Maria (PO2 Sta. Maria) and the documentary evidence presented during the hearing of the petition for bail of accused Michael Navarro. The CA summarized the evidence in its assailed decision, as follows:
x x x on October 5, 2006 at about 9:00 o'clock in the morning at the SAID Police Station, a male confidential informant came and reported the drug-proliferating activities of a certain "Sito." Inspector Arnolfo Ibañez then formed a team which composed of himself, SPO1 Ricardo Manansala and PO2 Darwin Macalinao to conduct a buy-bust operation against alias "Sito." Inspector Ibañez prepared three pieces of P100 with markings PS-2 at the upper left corner of the bill and assigned PO2 Sta. Maria as the poseur-buyer. After coordination with the PDEA, the team proceeded to Del Pan Street, Tondo, Manila. On or about 12:10 p.m., while walking along St. Peter Street, two (2) male persons blocked him and the informant. They were asked "Kung kukuha kayo?" the informant whispered to him that they were the runners of "Sito." Dela Cruz handed to him one (1) piece plastic sachet with white crystalline substance suspected of shabu while Navarro took the three (3) P100 bills. Thereafter, PO2 Sta. Maria stroked his nape, which was the pre-assigned signal, to indicate the consummation of the sale. SPO1 Manansala promptly arrested the two. After they were informed of their rights and the offense committed, Dela Cruz and Navarro were immediately brought to the police station. The plastic sachet suspected of shabu was marked by PO2 Sta. Maria with the words "S.A.I.D." for identification purposes at the police station. Thereafter, the confiscated item was brought to the Manila Police District (MPD) Crime Laboratory for chemical analysis of its contents. Marites Mariano, Police Senior Inspector, Forensic Chemical Officer found that the specimen contains Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. 6
On its part, the Defense presented both accused who denied the accusation. The CA synthesized their testimonies thusly:
Accused Navarro testified that, on October 5, 2006 at about 11:00 a.m., he and his co-accused Dela Cruz were conversing in front of the latter's house along St. Peter Street, corner San Antonio and was inviting the latter to attend the baptismal celebration of his child. Suddenly, four (4) armed men arrived and introduced themselves saying "MGA ALAGAD KAMI NG BATAS" and frisked both accused. When they asked why they were being frisked, the armed men retorted, "BASTA HUWAG KAYONG MAGTANONG, TAAS NINYO LANG KAMAY NINYO." However, no illegal items were recovered from them. Thereafter, they were brought to the police station and placed in a detention cell. PO2 Joel Sta. Maria told them that a case for Violation of Section 5, R.A. No. 9165 will be filed against them. During the inquest before the public prosecutor, they were not assisted by counsel. He claimed that the charges against them were not true and he did not file a counter charge against the three (3) police officers.
Accused Dela Cruz, in his testimony, reiterated that he and accused Navarro were just having a conversation on October 5, 2006 when they were apprehended. He further stated that he knows of no ill-motive why the police officer will testify against them and admitted that he did not file any counter charges against the arresting officers.
To corroborate the testimony by both accused, Rolando Marquirang testified that on October 5, 2006, he was in front of their house along St. Peter St. carrying his grandchild while waiting for the food being cooked by his wife when the incident happened. He saw accused Navarro coming towards their direction and shouting to accused Dela Cruz, "PARE, BIBINYAGAN NA UNG AANAKIN MO!" Thereafter, four (4) armed men arrived, surrounded both accused and frisked them. Then, they were immediately brought to the police station. He did not report the incident to the barangay because he is certain that nothing will come out if it because they are being ignored by the police authorities. 7
As stated, the RTC declared and pronounced the accused guilty as charged, 8 decreeing thusly:
WHEREFORE, finding both accused Joel Dela Cruz y Landrito @ "Batute" and Michael Navarro y Joson GUILTYbeyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged, they are each hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment, to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) Pesos; and the cost of suit.
Let a commitment order be issued for the immediate transfer of their custody to the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, pursuant to SC-OCA Circulars Nos. 4-92-A and 26-2000.
The plastic sachet with shabu (Exh. "C") is hereby confiscated and forfeited in favor of the Government.
The Branch Clerk of Court is hereby directed to turn over the same to the PDEA for proper disposal thereof.
SO ORDERED. 9
On appeal, the accused assailed the Prosecution's failure to identify the corpus delicti with unwavering exactitude, and emphasized that the dangerous drug had not been photographed, marked and inventoried in accordance with the requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.
On July 24, 2012, the CA promulgated the assailed decision, 10 and affirmed the convictions, to wit:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed Decision dated September 24, 2008 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 35 in Criminal Case No. 06-247265 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.11
Issue
To be considered and resolved in this appeal is whether or not the accused were properly pronounced guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violating Section 5 in relation to Section 26, Article II, of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The records show that the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) and the accused expressly informed the Court that they were waiving the filing of supplemental briefs. 12
Ruling of the Court
The appeal lacks merit.
For the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs to prosper, the following elements must be proved by the Prosecution, namely: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefore. 13 What is material is the proof that the transaction actually took place, coupled with the presentation before the court of the dangerous drug, which is the corpus delicti. 14
PO2 Sta. Maria revealed that an entrapment operation was organized and conducted after the confidential informant had notified the policemen about an alias Sito being engaged in drug peddling. PO2 Sta. Maria was designated as the poseur buyer, and he and the rest of the buy-bust team — PO2 Ricardo Manansala and PO2 Darwin Macalinao — then went with the confidential informant to the target area. At the target area on St. Peter Street, the two accused approached him and the confidential informant and asked if they would be buying shabu. The confidential informant whispered to SPO2 Sta. Maria that the two accused were the runners of alias Sito. Although it was Dela Cruz who handed to SPO2 Sta. Maria one sachet containing white crystalline substance, it was Navarro who received the three marked P100.00 bills. SPO1 Manansala, who was monitoring the transaction from viewing distance, immediately drew near and arrested both accused. Forensic examination confirmed that the contents of the sachet bought from the accused tested positive for the presence of methylamphetamine hydrochloride. 15
Prosecutions for illegal drugs largely depend on the credibility of the lawmen conducting the buy-bust operations. Their narration of the incidents of the operations, buttressed by the presumption that they regularly performed their duties in the absence of convincing proof to the contrary, must be given weight. 16 Considering that the CA affirmed the RTC's declaration that the testimonies of the lawmen and the facts stipulated upon were consistent with each other as well as with the physical evidence, we uphold the findings on the matter by the CA.
On the other hand, the denial by the accused does not convince. Their inability to impute any ill-motive to the police officers fully warranted the presumption of regularity in the performance of their official duties; hence, the affirmative evidence on the making of the arrest in flagrante delicto prevailed over the self-serving denial of the accused. 17 It serves to emphasize that the denial by the accused of their entrapment cannot overcome positive evidence for the Prosecution to the contrary unless clear and convincing evidence supported and substantiated the denial. Denial, being essentially negative and by nature easy to make, bears little weight in adjudication, and has no greater evidentiary value than probable testimony upon affirmative matters. 18
The accused have placed heavy reliance on the failure of the members of the buy-bust team to immediately photograph and conduct a physical inventory of the seized shabu in their presence. In that regard, Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165 provides:
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 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;
The reliance did not help the accused any. The failure to literally comply with the statutory procedure set forth by Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165 did not render their arrest either illegal or ineffectual, or the seized shabu inadmissible in evidence. The literal compliance with the procedure could not always be possible. Hence, Section 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 (IRR) has expressly accepted a substantial compliance with the requirements should there be justifiable grounds to excuse a literal compliance provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs have been properly preserved. 19
The IRR provision pertinently reads:
(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 the 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. (Bold underscoring supplied for emphasis)
In this case, the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated shabu were preserved. PO2 Sta. Maria did not lose possession and control of the seized shabu from the time of the arrest of the accused until the moment of turnover in the police station. He also marked the seized shabu immediately upon arrival at the police station, and turned the evidence over to PO2 Elymar Garcia, the investigating officer, who forwarded and delivered the plastic sachet containing the shabu for examination to determine the presence of prohibited drugs. On the same day, PO2 Garcia handcarried the letter request for laboratory examination and the seized shabu to the PNP Crime Laboratory where they were received by Forensic Chemist P./Insp. Mariano who conducted the examination and found it positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug as evidenced by the Chemistry Report. It is notable in this connection that the accused admitted during the pre-trial the purpose for which P/Insp. Arban's testimony was being offered. As such, the parties were fully bound by the stipulations made on the proferred testimony of P/Insp. Arban. 20 The marked sachet of shabu and the marked money used in purchasing the same were both presented in evidence.
WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES the appeal; UPHOLDS the decision promulgated on July 24, 2012 by the Court of Appeals affirming the conviction of accused JOEL DELA CRUZ and MICHAEL NAVARRO y JOSON; and ORDERS the accused to pay the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-20; penned by Associate Justice Ramon A. Cruz, with Associate Justice Noel G. Tijam (now a Member of the Court) and Associate Justice Romeo F. Barza concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 45-50; penned by Judge Lugenio C. Mendinueto.
3.Id. at 7.
4.Id. at 16.
5.Id. at 45-46.
6.Rollo, pp. 3-4.
7.Id. at 5.
8. CA rollo, pp. 45-50.
9.Id. at 48-50.
10.Rollo, pp. 2-23.
11.Id. at 20.
12.Id. at 32-34 & 37-39.
13.People v. Llamado, G.R. No. 185278, 13 March 2009, 581 SCRA 544, 551; People v. Ong, G.R. No. 175940, 6 February 2008, 544 SCRA 123, 132.
14.People v. Catalan, G.R. No. 189330, Nov. 28, 2012, 686 SCRA 631; People v. Cruz, G.R. 187047, June 15, 2011, 652 SCRA 286, 298; People v. De la Cruz, G.R. 177324, March 30, 2011, 67 SCRA 707, 716; People v. Presas, G.R. 182525, March 2, 2011, 644 SCRA 443, 455; People v. Agulay, G.R. 181747, September 26, 2008, 566 SCRA 571, 609.
15. CA rollo, pp. 46-47.
16.People v. Llanita, G.R. No. 189817, October 3, 2012, 682 SCRA 288, 300-301.
17.People v. Lazaro, Jr., G.R. No. 186418, 16 October 2009, 604 SCRA 250, 269.
18.People v. Alberto, G.R. No. 179717, February 5, 2010, 611 SCRA 706, 714.
19.Supra note 16.
20.People v. Steve, G.R. No. 204911, August 6, 2014, 732 SCRA 385, 390.