THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 229363. November 20, 2017.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. RENANDEZ DELOS SANTOS, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 20, 2017, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 229363(People of the Philippines vs. Renandez Delos Santos). — The Court resolves to:
(1) NOTE and GRANT the Office of the Solicitor General's Manifestation (in Lieu of Supplemental Brief) dated May 23, 2017 stating that the Brief for the Appellee of October 27, 2015 has exhaustively and substantially refuted accused-appellant's arguments as such it deems it unnecessary to file a supplemental brief so as to expedite the resolution of the case;
(2) NOTE:
(a) the letter dated May 14, 2017 of P/Supt. I Roberto R. Rabo, Superintendent of the New Bilibid Prison, Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, confirming the confinement therein of accused-appellant since October 16, 2014; and
(b) the Public Attorney's Office's Manifestation and Motion dated May 22, 2017 stating it is not accused-appellant's counsel of record and praying that it be excused from complying with the Resolution of March 8, 2017; and
(3) DISPENSE with the filing of comment on the petition for review on certiorari, it appearing that Atty. Ferdinand Menor Agustin of Agbayani Agustin & Leandor Law Offices, counsel for accused-appellant, has not filed a supplemental brief or manifestation in lieu thereof, required in the Resolution dated March 8, 2017, within the period fixed therein which had long expired.
For resolution is an appeal from the Decision dated February 15, 2016 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 07042 which denied the appeal of accused-appellant Renandez Delos Santos from the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Laoag City, Branch 13, in Criminal Case No. 15336-13, entitled "People of the Philippines vs. Renandez Delos Santos y Pascua."
Antecedent Facts
Accused-appellant was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 (The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) before the RTC, committed as follows:
That on or about 9:45 o'clock in the evening of October 5, 2012 in the City of Laoag, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the said accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to a poseur-buyer, two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet[s] containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, otherwise known as Shabu, with an aggregate weight of 0.2438 grams, a dangerous drug, without any license or authority to sell and dispose the same, in violation of the aforesaid law. 2
Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty. Trial on the merits ensued.
Version of the Prosecution
At around 8:00 in the evening of October 5, 2012, a male confidential informant (CI) went to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency-Ilocos Norte Special Enforcement Team (PDEA-INSET), in its office at San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte, to report the illegal activity of accused-appellant to Intelligence Agent 1 (IA1) Paul Pestelos. IA1 Pestelos, in turn, relayed the information to their team leader, Security Officer II (SOII) Anabel Cabarles, who then decided to conduct a buy-bust operation. After a briefing, a buy-bust team was formed composing of IA1 Pestelos as poseur-buyer, Intelligence Officer 1 (IO1) Ray Bahiyan as backup and IO1 Dexter Regaspi and SOII Cabarles as perimeter security. The team agreed on their pre-arranged signal to grab the arm of the subject to indicate the consummation of the transaction. IA1 Pestelos was given four (4) pieces of P500.00-bills marked with his initials "PCP," date and signature. 3
At around 9:30 of that evening, the team proceeded to the Florida Bus Line Terminal waiting area in an unmarked vehicle. IA1 Pestelos and the CI approached a man wearing a t-shirt and jogging pants, later identified as accused-appellant, and expressed their interest to buy P2,000.00-worth of shabu. Delos Santos handed two (2) sachets to IA1 Pestelos, mentioning that he was selling them at a bargain price as they were the last. IA1 Pestelos received the sachets with his left hand and with his right hand gave the buy-bust money to accused-appellant. There and then, IA1 Pestelos grabbed accused-appellant's arm and announced that he was a PDEA agent, prompting the accused-appellant to throw away the buy-bust money. Meanwhile, upon seeing the pre-arranged signal, IO1 Bahiyan approached and helped IA1 Pestelos in effecting accused-appellant's arrest, while the CI moved away. They read the constitutional rights to the accused. IA1 Pestelos picked up the buy-bust money and frisked the accused-appellant. Thereafter, he marked the plastic sachets with his initials, signature and date. Considering that people started to gather in the area, IA1 Pestelos conducted the inventory at the PDEA-INSET office in the presence of barangay officials of Barangay 11, Laoag City, and media personalities. A letter request for laboratory examination was signed by SOII Cabarles and submitted to the Crime Laboratory Office at Camp Captain Valentin S. Juan, Laoag City. Forensic Chemist PI Navarro issued Chemistry Report No. D-073-2012, finding the contents of the sachets to be methamphetamine hydrochloride. 4
Version of the Defense
Accused-appellant averred that in 2002, he became an asset of the Provincial Anti-Illegal Drugs Operations Task Group (PAIDSOTG) but claimed stopping work for the group in 2012 because he could no longer stomach the agents' practice of extorting money and appropriating valuables from the subjects of their operations. The agents, accused-appellant added, also suspected him of reporting their illegal activities to the Provincial Director; thus, they threatened him that what they do in the operations will happen to him. 5
On October 5, 2012, at around 8:30 p.m., he went to the store in front of their house and there chanced upon Rafael Quinay with whom he had some drinks. In the course thereof, PO3 Joey Aninag, a member of the PAIDSOTG, arrived and informed him that PI Omar David was looking for him. Accused-appellant informed PO3 Aninag that he no longer wish to work for them. PI David called PO3 Aninag's phone but accused-appellant refused to talk to him. When PO3 Aninag moved away while talking on the phone, accused-appellant heard him mention that they were in front of the Florida Bus Line Terminal. Three to five minutes later, a red Nissan Sentra arrived, followed by a black car owned by PO2 Jefferson Sulmerin. The cars stopped ten (10) meters from their place. Agent Bahiyan and Agent Pestelos, both armed with firearms, alighted from the car to approach him. IA1 Pestelos tried to hold his hands but he warded them off and asked why they wanted him to go with them. They answered that they needed his help on something. Thereafter, he saw PI Omar David alight from the black car. Accused-appellant asked Rafael Quinay to inform his mother that he was going with the officers. While on their way, the two (2) vehicles drove parallel to each other, and accused-appellant heard PI David instructing Agent Regaspi, who was driving the red car, "Dun nalang sa safehouse niyo. Dun nalang natin titirahin."6
At the warehouse, the police officers kicked and boxed him, and at some point covered his head with a trash bag. Later on, SOII Cabarles knocked and informed them that somebody was looking for accused-appellant. It was then that the PDEA agents and the PAIDSOTG operatives made it appear that he was arrested after a buy-bust operation. They let the barangay officials in and persuaded the Barangay Chairman of Barangay 11 to sign a document although he was reluctant at first. Afterwards, Juanito Badua from ABS-CBN arrived and took footage of him and was also asked to sign the document. 7
The following day, SOII Cabarles went to Vintar, Ilocos Norte to have the documents signed by a prosecutor. Accused-appellant averred that Agent Estoque, former team leader of the PDEA-INSET, allegedly talked to SOII Cabarles, but the latter informed Agent Estoque that they could not do anything because a report has already been made. PI David told him that he should be thankful that it was the only thing done to him, and that he should have been salvaged. 8
The Trial Court Ruling
On July 31, 2014, the trial court rendered a Decision, 9 the decretal portion of which states:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Renandez Delos Santos y Pa[s]cua GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as charged of illegal sale of shabu and is accordingly sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00). CAIHTE
The shabu subject of this case is confiscated, the same to be disposed as the law prescribes.
SO ORDERED. 10
Accused-appellant then appealed to the CA.
The CA Ruling
The CA rendered a Decision dated February 15, 2016, disposing as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed Decision of the court a quo finding accused-appellant, RENANDEZ DELOS SANTOS, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of dangerous drugs and sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Php500,000.00 is hereby AFFIRMED. 11
The CA held that the elements of illegal sale of shabu were proven by the prosecution — (a) the identity of the seller, the buyer and the object of the sale; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. To the CA, as long as the police officer went through the operation as buyer and his offer is accepted by the accused-appellant and the dangerous drug is delivered to the former, the crime is already consummated. What is material is the proof that the transaction transpired and that the corpus delicti is presented in court. 12
On March 9, 2016, accused-appellant filed a Notice of Appeal.
The sole issue raised was whether the CA erred in affirming the Decision of the trial court in convicting the accused-appellant of illegal sale of shabu despite the alleged failure of the prosecution to prove the buy-bust operation, as well as the corpus delicti of the offense.
The Court's Ruling
The appeal is bereft of merit.
Contrary to the claim of the accused-appellant, the prosecution was able to prove the regularity of the buy-bust operation and present the corpus delicti before the trial court.
Section 5, paragraph 1, Article II of RA 9165 provides:
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. x x x (emphasis supplied)
The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of shabu are:
1. Identity of the poseur-buyer and seller, the object, and consideration;
2. The delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. 13
What is material in the prosecution of the offense is the corpus delicti or the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation of the prohibited or regulated drug before the court. 14
The term corpus delicti means the body or substance of the crime. It refers to the fact that the crime has been actually committed. 15 In People v. Climaco, this Court stated that, to establish corpus delicti, the chain of custody over the dangerous drugs must be shown. Thus, this Court, in People v. Alcuizar, 16 held:
x x x the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must definitely be shown to have been preserved. This requirement necessarily arises from the illegal drug's unique characteristic that renders it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution either by accident or otherwise. Thus, to remove any doubt or uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the seized drug, evidence must definitely show that the illegal drug presented in court is the same illegal drug actually recovered from the accused-appellant; otherwise, the prosecution for possession under Republic Act No. 9165 fails.
The State has the burden of proving these elements and is obliged to present the corpus delicti in court to support a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 17
In this case, the prosecution was able to establish that in the evening of October 5, 2012, a confidential informant approached IA1 Paul Pestelos of the PDEA-INSET in San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte about the illegal drug activities of accused-appellant at Barangay 11, Laoag City, Ilocos Norte. On the basis of said information, the PDEA-INSET formed a buy-bust team composed of IA1 Paul Pestelos, designated poseur-buyer, IO1 Ray Bahiyan, immediate back-up, IO1 Dexter Regaspi and SOII Anabel Cabarles as the designated team leader. 18 After planning the entrapment operation, the buy-bust team, together with the informant, proceeded to their target area, the Florida Bus Line Terminal. The informant approached the accused-appellant and introduced him to IA1 Pestelos, poseur-buyer, who asked to buy P2,000.00 worth of shabu. Accused-appellant took out two heat-sealed plastic sachets containing substance from his right front pocket and handed the same to IA1 Pestelos in exchange for the four pieces of P500.00 marked money. IA1 Pestelos accepted the sachets using his left hand and handed the money using his right hand. Afterwards, IA1 Pestelos gave the pre-arranged signal by grabbing the hands of accused-appellant to indicate that the buy-bust operation was consummated. IO1 Bahiyan approached them and, together with IA1 Pestelos, arrested accused-appellant. Accused-appellant was read his constitutional rights and informed that he was being arrested by the PDEA for selling dangerous drugs. 19
The testimony of IA1 Pestelos was substantially corroborated by IO1 Bahiyan, who testified that the accused-appellant was an "asset" or an informant of the PAIDSOTG and PDEA and that he assisted IA1 Pestelos in effecting accused-appellant's arrest during the buy-bust operation. 20
As correctly observed by the lower court and affirmed by the CA, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were straightforward, honest, and did not indicate any form of ill-motive on the part of the arresting policemen. Thus, in a long line of cases, this Court expressed that the findings of a trial court, which has the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses and assess their credibility and weigh the same as against conflicting claims, are generally given the highest degree of respect, absent any showing of oversight or arbitrariness. 21
The buy-bust operation conducted has been long accepted as a valid and effective mode of arresting violators of the Dangerous Drugs Law. 22 It is a form of entrapment. Entrapment is the employment of such ways and means for the purpose of trapping or capturing a lawbreaker. 23 The act of the apprehending police officer of soliciting drugs from the accused-appellant, also known as decoy solicitation, is not prohibited by law and does not render invalid the buy-bust operation. 24 The idea to commit a crime originates from the offender, without anybody inducing or prodding him to commit the offense. If carried out with due regard for constitutional and legal safeguards, a buy-bust operation deserves judicial sanction. 25 In this operation, the offender sells the illegal substance to the poseur-buyer. Once the transaction is completed, the offender is apprehended.
Section 21 of RA 9165 provides for the procedural safeguards for conducting a buy-bust operation in order to protect the innocent from abuse by the authorities and suffering the severe penalties for drugs offenses: 26
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;
(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination;
(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done under oath by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued within twenty-four (24) hours after the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of the dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not allow the completion of testing within the time frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided, however, That a final certification shall be issued on the completed forensic laboratory examination on the same within the next twenty-four (24) hours;
(4) After the filing of the criminal case, the Court shall, within seventy-two (72) hours, conduct an ocular inspection of the confiscated, seized and/or surrendered dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals, including the instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, and through the PDEA shall within twenty-four (24) hours thereafter proceed with the destruction or burning of 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 DOJ, civil society groups and any elected public official. The Board shall draw up the guidelines on the manner of proper disposition and destruction of such item/s which shall be borne by the offender: Provided, That those item/s of lawful commerce, as determined by the Board, shall be donated, used or recycled for legitimate purposes: Provided, further, That a representative sample, duly weighed and recorded is retained;
(5) The Board shall then issue a sworn certification as to the fact of destruction or burning of the subject item/s which, together with the representative sample/s in the custody of the PDEA, shall be submitted to the court having jurisdiction over the case. In all instances, the representative sample/s shall be kept to a minimum quantity as determined by the Board;
(6) The alleged offender or his/her representative or counsel shall be allowed to personally observe all of the above proceedings and his/her presence shall not constitute an admission of guilt. In case the said offender or accused refuses or fails to appoint a representative after due notice in writing to the accused or his/her counsel within seventy-two (72) hours before the actual burning or destruction of the evidence in question, the Secretary of Justice shall appoint a member of the public attorney's office to represent the former;
(7) After the promulgation and judgment in the criminal case wherein the representative sample/s was presented as evidence in court, the trial prosecutor shall inform the Board of the final termination of the case and, in turn, shall request the court for leave to turn over the said representative sample/s to the PDEA for proper disposition and destruction within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt of the same; and DETACa
(8) Transitory Provision: a) Within twenty-four (24) hours from the effectivity of this Act, dangerous drugs defined herein which are presently in possession of law enforcement agencies shall, with leave of court, be burned or destroyed, in the presence of representatives of the Court, DOJ, Department of Health (DOH) and the accused and/or his/her counsel, and, b) Pending the organization of the PDEA, the custody, disposition, and burning or destruction of seized/surrendered dangerous drugs provided under this Section shall be implemented by the DOH.
In the present case, the prosecution was able to establish the chain of custody of the confiscated substance. "Chain of custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. 27
The Court agrees when the CA held that:
x x x [T]he totality of evidence adduced by the prosecution, both testimonial and documentary, clearly shows an unbroken chain of custody and substantial compliance with the legal requirements on the handling of seized items. Hence the identity and integrity of the subject drugs have not been compromised.
Records show that after the two heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing shabu was handed to IA1 Paul Pestelos and the arrest of accused-appellant was made, the seized items were promptly marked by IA1 Pestelos with "PCP, 10-5-12, and signature" referring to his initials, date and signature in the presence of accused-appellant, who was then brought to the PDEA office for booking, and where the Affidavits of Arrest, the Booking Sheet and Arrest Report, Certificate of Inventory and Letter Request for Laboratory Examination were prepared. With the request, IA1 Pestelos then turned over the seized items to the crime laboratory, which later confirmed that the substance in the sachets are positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. 28
Thus, without doubt, the prosecution was able to firmly establish that there was an unbroken chain of custody over the seized drugs presented before the trial court.
The defense of accused-appellant that he was framed was not substantiated by testimony or evidence that could have proven his claim. Thus, it is unavailing in view of the testimonial and documentary evidence presented by the PDEA agents who arrested accused-appellant in the regular performance of their official duties.
Jurisprudence shows that accused-appellant's defenses of denial and frame-up necessarily crumble against the credible and positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses duly supported by documentary evidence. The defense of frame-up cannot prevail over the established fact that a valid buy-bust operation was indeed conducted and that the identity of the seller and the drug subject of the sale is proven. Such defenses are not favored by the Court because they can easily be concocted and are common and standard defense ploys in most cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act. 29
In sum, we find no cogent reason to reverse the finding of the RTC and the CA.
Imposable Penalty
Under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the sale of dangerous drug, regardless of its quantity and purity, is punishable by life imprisonment to death and a fine of P500,000.00 to P10 million. In view of RA 9346, 30 accused-appellant can only be meted out the penalty of life imprisonment in lieu of death and payment of fine amounting to P500,000.00. Hence, the Court sustains the penalties imposed by the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, for being in accordance with law.
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby resolves to DISMISS the appeal for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error in its assailed Decision dated February 12, 2016 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 07042 as to warrant the exercise of the Court's appellate jurisdiction and, thus, AFFIRM said Decision.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-20. Penned by Associate Justice Agnes Reyes-Carpio and concurred in by Associate Justices Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Romeo F. Barza.
2.Id. at 2.
3.Id. at 3.
4.Id. at 3-4.
5.Id. at 5.
6.Id. at 5-6.
7.Id. at 6-7.
8.Id. at 7.
9. CA rollo, pp. 39-58. Penned by Presiding Judge Philip G. Salvador.
10.Id. at 58.
11.Rollo, p. 19.
12.Id. at 8.
13.People v. Bautista, G.R. No. 177320, February 22, 2012, People v. Michael Sembrano y Castro, G.R. No. 185848, August 16, 2010.
14.People v. Cesar Bautista y Santos, G.R. No. 177320, February 22, 2012.
15.Michael Tan v. People, G.R. No. 134298, August 26, 1999.
16. G.R. No. 189980, April 6, 2011, citing People v. Denoman, G.R. No. 171732, August 15, 2009, 596 SCRA 257, 267.
17.People v. Cardenas, G.R. No. 190342, March 21, 2012, citing People v. Coreche, G.R. No. 182528, August 14, 2009, 596 SCRA 350.
18.Rollo, p. 10.
19.Id. at 11-12.
20.Id.
21.People v. Subesa, G.R. No. 193660, November 16, 2011, People v. Villamin, G.R. No. 175590, February 9, 2010.
22.People v. Salcena, G.R. No. 192261, November 16, 2011.
23.People v. Pagkalinawan, G.R. No. 184805, March 3, 2010, citing People v. Bayani, G.R. No. 179150, June 17, 2008, 554 SCRA 741; citing People v. Gatong-o, No. L-78698, December 29, 1988, 168 SCRA 716, 717.
24.Id.
25.People v. Francisco Manlangit y Tresballes, G.R. No. 189806, January 12, 2010.
26. See People v. Sammy Umipang y Abdul, G.R. No. 190321, April 25, 2012, citing People v. Ruiz Garcia y Ruiz, G.R. No. 173480, February 25, 2009.
27.People v. Adriano, G.R. No. 208169, October 8, 2014, citing People v. Gutierrez, 614 Phil. 285, 294 (2009).
28.Rollo, p. 17.
29.People v. Aplat, G.R. No. 191727, March 31, 2014, citing People v. Honrado, G.R. No. 182197, February 27, 2012, 667 SCRA 45.
30.An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines.