SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 185205. April 21, 2014.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. CEFERINO DY y LOCSIN, appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated21 April 2014which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 185205 (People of the Philippines v. Ceferino Dy y Locsin) — We decide the appeal filed by appellant Ceferino Dy y Locsin, from the decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated May 30, 2008 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02214.
The appealed decision affirmed the March 8, 2006 Judgment 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 64, Makati City, finding the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The RTC Ruling
The RTC found the appellant guilty of illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu penalized under Section 5 and 11 respectively, of R.A. No. 9165. It held that the prosecution had sufficiently established through documentary and testimonial evidence that an illegal sale of drugs transpired between the appellant and the poseur-buyer. It disregarded the appellant's self-serving defenses of denial and instigation, and gave full credence to the testimonies of the poseur buyers Eugenio Dizer (Dizer) and Joel Balote (both of the Makati Anti-Drug Abuse Council) and PO1 Dominador Robles (PO1 Robles), the arresting officers who conducted the buy-bust operation against the appellant. aDHCcE
For violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the RTC sentenced the appellant to suffer life imprisonment, and to pay a fine of P500,000.00. For violation of Section 11 of the same law, the court sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment, and to pay a fine of P400,000.00.
The CA Ruling
On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC's judgment. The CA held that the buy-bust operation conducted against the appellant was not a case of instigation but an entrapment sanctioned by law. It agreed with the RTC in giving weight to the testimonies of the poseur buyer and the arresting officers, and held that the prosecution, through testimonial, documentary and object evidence, satisfactorily proved all the elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of drugs. It further ruled that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs had been properly preserved. Lastly, it noted that the defense failed to overcome the presumption that the police officers regularly performed their official duties.
Our Ruling
We dismiss the appeal and affirm the appellant's conviction.
The essential elements in the successful prosecution of offenses involving the illegal sale of dangerous or prohibited drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 are: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor. Material in the successful prosecution is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti. 3
In the charge of illegal possession of a dangerous drug, the prosecution must prove the following elements: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object, which is identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. 4
In the present case, the prosecution duly established all the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The evidence on record showed that the appellant was caught in flagrante delicto of selling a dangerous drug (methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu) to Dizer, the poseur buyer.
At the trial, Dizer and PO1 Robles positively identified the appellant as the seller and possessor of the confiscated shabu. Dizer narrated that the sale of 0.23 gram of shabu was in exchange for P1,000.00 and the transaction transpired between him and the appellant. He also recounted in detail how the buy-bust operation was conducted — from the preparation of the marked money, the persons who would take part in the operation, the checking-in in the hotel and the pre-arranged signal that the illegal sale had taken place. His testimony was corroborated in material points by the other prosecution witnesses who were part of the buy-bust operating team, and was supported by pieces of evidence, such as the twenty (20) plastic sachets of the prohibited substance seized from the appellant and the two (2) pieces of five hundred peso bills which served as marked money. Further, the twenty (20) plastic sachets were later confirmed to contain methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu per the Physical Science Report No. 1284-036 issued by the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory.
Records likewise confirm the presence of all the elements for violation of Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165. Dizer narrated in full detail how they discovered the other plastic sachets of suspected shabu in the possession of the appellant. The prosecution witnesses also identified in open court the one (1) plastic sachet of white crystalline substance and the brown leather wallet containing the other nineteen (19) plastic sachets of suspected shabu. Per Physical Science Report No. 1284-036, these nineteen (19) plastic sachets contained a total of eleven point twenty-three (11.23) grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. Failing to provide contrary evidence to rebut his possession of the shabu, we find that the appellant knowingly possessed a prohibited drug in violation of Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165. Indeed, as against the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses supported by documentary and object evidence, the appellant's defense of denial cannot but fail.
Significantly, the appellant failed to present convincing proof that the prosecution witnesses were driven by improper and malicious motives in testifying in the case. Thus, this Court gives full faith and credence to the police officers' testimonies and upholds the presumption of regularity in the apprehending officers' performance of official duty. The settled rule is that in cases involving violations of Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to the narration of the incident by the testifying police officers who, unless the contrary is shown or give cause to render their testimonies or evidence suspect, are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner. 5 Furthermore, the factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the CA, are conclusive and binding on this Court. 6
We also note that contrary to the claim of the appellant, the crucial links in the chain of custody of the seized prohibited drugs were adequately established in the instant case. As the CA aptly pointed out, after the poseur buyer Dizer received the plastic sachet of white crystalline substance and after recovering the nineteen (19) other plastic sachets from the appellant, he immediately marked them with "CLD" and CLD-1 to CLD-19, for purposes of identification. The markings were made by Dizer at the scene of the crime. Thereafter, together with the appellant and his co-accused, they proceeded to the Barangay Hall of Barangay Pitogo, then to the Drugs Enforcement Unit (DEU) office, and finally to the Camp Crame to submit the confiscated substances to the PNP crime laboratory for analysis. The forensic chemist tested the substances and after finding them positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, issued the Physical Science Report No. 1284-036. Notably, the specimens were never shown or proven to have been tampered with or altered. Thus, the trial court correctly upheld the admissibility of the seized items as their integrity and evidentiary value had been properly preserved. IAcTaC
We also stress that the 'decoy solicitation' made by the police officers during the buy-bust operation is not tantamount to instigation. Instigation is the means by which the accused is lured into the commission of the offense charged in order to prosecute him. Officers of the law or their agents incite, induce, instigate or lure an accused into committing an offense which he or she would otherwise not commit and has no intention of committing.
Entrapment, on the other hand, is the employment of such ways and means for the purpose of trapping or capturing a lawbreaker. 7 Here, the criminal intent or design to commit the offense charged originates in the mind of the accused, and the law enforcement officials merely facilitate the apprehension of the criminal by employing ruses and schemes. Thus, in entrapment, the accused cannot justify his or her conduct.
In the present case, the solicitation of drugs by the poseur buyer from appellant during a buy-bust operation is recognized as a form of entrapment that is not prohibited by law. Jurisprudence, no less, considers entrapment as an effective way of apprehending law offenders in the act of committing a crime. 8
Records show that after being informed by the informant that the poseur buyer is interested to buy shabu, the appellant quickly transacted with the latter, turning over one 1) sachet of shabu that he took from his brown leather wallet and receiving the marked bill from his co-accused. He was shown to have been willing and ready to sell the shabu without much prodding from the informant. The appellant, too, had a ready supply of shabu for sale and disposition to anyone willing to pay the price as proven by the seizure of the other nineteen (19) plastic sachets of shabu. All told, the acts of the police officers clearly constituted entrapment; the idea to commit the crime originated froth the appellant's mind.
Finally, we sustain the penalties imposed by the RTC and affirmed by the CA for the illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu, as they are within the ranges provided by the law.
WHEREFORE we hereby AFFIRM the decision dated May 30, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02214.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 2-26; penned by Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr., and concurred in by Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr. and Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr.
2. CA rollo, pp. 24-32.
3. See People of the Philippines v. Michael Andres y Trinidad, G.R. No. 193184, February 7, 2011; People of the Philippines v. Ruper Posing y Alayon, G.R. No. 196973, July 31, 2013; People of the Philippines v. Manuel Cruz y Cruz, G.R. No. 187047, June 15, 2011.
4. See People of the Philippines v. Donald Vasquez y Sandigan @ "Don", G.R. No. 200304 January 15, 2014; Rosana Asiatico y Sta. Maria v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 195005, September 12, 2011.
5. People of the Philippines v. Hadji Socor Cadidia, G.R. No. 191263, October 16, 2013.
6. People of the Philippines v. Raymond Fabian y Nicolas, G.R. No. 181040, March 15, 2010.
7. People of the Philippines v. Delia Bayani y Botanes, G.R. No. 179150, June 17, 2008.
8. People of the Philippines v. Delia Bayani y Botanes, G.R. No. 179150, June 17, 2008.