FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 200160. January 9, 2013.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. JONATHAN CAÑETE ESCOPETE, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated January 9, 2013, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 200160 (People of the Philippines vs. Jonathan Cañete Escopete). — This is an appeal filed by Jonathan C. Escopete (Escopete) from the Decision 1 dated February 16, 2011 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00506. The CA Decision affirmed the Decision 2 dated December 13, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 58, finding Escopete guilty beyond reasonable doubt for illegal sale of shabu penalized under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 3 in Criminal Case No. CBU-66638.
Escopete was accused of selling 0.09 gram of shabu before the RTC of Cebu City, Branch 58. When arraigned, he entered a plea of "not guilty." After pre-trial, trial on the merits ensued.
The evidence of the prosecution shows that:
On June 26, 2003, around 4:00 p.m., PO2 Jesus Villahermosa, PO2 Percival Eborlas, PO2 Aristocles Gutierrez, PO2 Marlon Lumayag, PO2 Nolberto Cejas and PO1 Ricardo de la Peña, members of the Philippine National Police, were informed by their confidential agent that a certain Jonathan Escopete was engaged in illegal drug trade. Chief Capt. Arnel Banzon directed PO1 de la Peña, PO3 Cejas, PO2 Lumayag, PO2 Gutierrez and PO3 Villahermosa to conduct surveillance on the activities of [Escopete] and as a result of said surveillance, persons were seen coming in and out of [Escopete's] two-storey house located at the interior portion of Sun Valley, Calamba, Cebu City. These persons were interviewed by the civilian asset of the police. It was discovered that they frequented the residence to purchase shabu. cTaDHS
On July 1, 2003, at 8:00 in the evening, PO2 Cejas and PO1 de la Peña, together with their civilian asset, acted as poseur buyers during the buy-bust operation. PO1 de la Peña tendered two marked [P]100.00 bills as buy-bust money to [Escopete], who in turn, handed them a pack of shabu. PO1 de la Peña immediately made the pre-arranged signal to his fellow police officers who arrested [Escopete] and informed him of the charges against him and his constitutional rights.
[Escopete] was subsequently brought to the Office of the Regional Investigation Bureau and the three packs of shabu recovered from [him] were submitted together with a letter request for examination to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory. PNP Forensic Chemical Officer P/Insp[.] David Alexander Patriana inspected the markings of the seized items, weighed them and took representative samples from which he conducted chemical and confirmatory examinations and color test. P/Insp[.] Patriana concluded in the Chemistry Report and Certification that the seized items were positive for the presence of 2.27 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug as defined in R.A. 9165. 4
On the contrary, the version of the defense shows that: HICATc
On July 1, 2003, [Escopete] was about to sleep when a certain Jose woke him up. Jose was a known drug user in their community. Jose insisted on buying shabu from [Escopete] but the latter refused. Despite his refusal, Jose left the money with [Escopete]. The police officers then rushed to [Escopete], arrested him and searched his house. The police found shabu but [Escopete] contended that it was brought by Jose.
[Escopete] alleged that during the buy-bust operation, the team members did not mark any of the confiscated items allegedly recovered from [Escopete]. Neither were the police officers accompanied by any representative from the Department of Justice, media, any elected public official, or by barangay officials to witness the search of the house. 5
On December 13, 2005, the RTC rendered a decision 6 convicting Escopete for illegal sale of shabu pursuant to Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 as it gave full credence to the testimonies of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation vis-a-vis Escopete's defense of frame up. The RTC decreed in this wise:
ACCORDINGLY, the Court finds the accused GUILTY as charged and hereby imposes upon him the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of [P]500,000.00.
The dangerous drugs (Exh. "B") are hereby forfeited in favor of the State for proper disposition.
SO ORDERED. 7
On appeal, the CA upheld the findings of the RTC. It brushed aside Escopete's vain assertion that he was framed up by the police operatives. The CA explained that the minor inconsistencies in the testimonies of the police officers who apprehended Escopete were not fatal as it even gave premium to their credibility as prosecution witnesses. The CA further stressed that non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. 9165 will not render the arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from Escopete inadmissible as long as the integrity of the corpus delicti has been preserved. Thus, in a Decision 8 dated February 16, 2011, the appellate court disposed the case, as follows: ACIEaH
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated December 13, 2005, of the Regional Trial Court, 7th Judicial Region, Branch 58, in Criminal Case No. CBU-66638, is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 9
Our Ruling
We dismiss the appeal and affirm the conviction.
The prosecution competently and convincingly established the essential elements for illegal sale of shabu, to wit: (a) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for the thing. What is material in prosecutions for illegal sale of shabu is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence. 10
A thorough examination of the records herein confirms the presence of all these elements, such as: (1) a team of police officers acted as poseur-buyers to entrap Escopete who was tipped to be selling shabu during a legitimate buy-bust operation; (2) PO1 de la Peña, as poseur-buyer tendered two (2) marked P100.00 bills to Escopete; and (3) the latter, in return, handed a pack of shabu to PO1 de la Peña. The chemistry report conducted on the specimen resulted in shabu with a total weight of 2.27 grams. Thus, no cogent reason exists to disturb the factual findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA.
Applying the "objective test", this Court accords full credit to the positive and credible testimonies of the police officers pointing to Escopete as the seller of the confiscated shabu, and thereby, rejects Escopete's version of the events which eventually led to his apprehension.
As held in People v. De La Cruz: 11
It is the duty of the prosecution to present a complete picture detailing the buy-bust operation — "from the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise or payment of the consideration until the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal drug subject of sale." We said that "[t]he manner by which the initial contact was made, . . . the offer to purchase the drug, the payment of the 'buy-bust money', and the delivery of the illegal drug . . . must be the subject of strict scrutiny by the courts to insure that law-abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced to commit an offense. 12 (Citations omitted)
In the instant case, PO1 de la Peña positively identified Escopete who was caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu to him and their civilian asset. PO1 de la Peña testified in court about the conduct of the surveillance after they got a tip from a civilian asset in order to entrap Escopete.
In People v. Amarillo, it has been held:
As to the credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies, it well-settled that the determination by the trial court of the credibility of witnesses, when affirmed by the appellate court, is accorded full weight and credit as well as great respect, if not conclusive effect and that findings of the trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve credibility are accorded respect when no glaring errors; gross misapprehension of facts; or speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. 13 (Citations omitted) aTEHCc
Escopete's asseveration that he was merely framedup is further self-serving and uncorroborated, and must fail in light of the straightforward and positive testimony of PO1 de la Peña identifying him as the seller of the shabu. Being caught in flagrante delicto of illegally selling shabu, Escopete is considered liable for violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165.
As to the chain of custody of the shabu seized, this Court rejects Escopete's claim that the police officers failed to comply with the provisions of Section 21, paragraph 1 of R.A. No. 9165, 14 which provides for the procedure in the custody and disposition of seized drugs. We affirm the CA's observation on the matter through the testimonies 15 of PO1 de la Peña, PO3 Gutierrez, PO3 Lumayag, PO3 Villahermosa, and PSI Partiana who all pointed out the details as to who seized the confiscated shabu, the markings made on such specimen, the formal request made for the specimen's quantitative examination at the PNP Crime Laboratory and the results stating that the specimen confiscated is indeed shabu, an illegal substance.
As to the penalty, the first paragraph of Section 5, 16 Article II of R.A. No. 9165 prescribes a penalty of life imprisonment to death 17and a fine ranging from Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00) against any person who shall illegally 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. Thus, this Court affirms the penalty imposed by the trial court which is well within the range provided for by law.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the Decision dated February 16, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00506 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED." cAEaSC
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Penned by Associate Justice Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez, with Associate Justices Ramon C. Cruz and Socorro B. Inting, concurring; rollo, pp. 4-20.
2.CA rollo, pp. 45-49.
3.Otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002".
4.Rollo, pp. 5-6.
5.Id. at 6.
6.CA rollo, pp. 45-49.
7.Id. at 49.
8.See note 1.
9.Rollo, p. 20.
10.People v. Bautista, G.R. No. 177320, February 22, 2012, 666 SCRA 518, 529-530.
11.G.R. No. 185717, June 8, 2011, 651 SCRA 597.
12.Id. at 609.
13.G.R. No. 194721, August 15, 2012.
14.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. — . . . (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.
15.Rollo, pp. 13-19.
16.Sec. 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.
xxx xxx xxx
17.The imposition of the death penalty has been proscribed with the effectivity of R.A. No. 9346, otherwise known as "An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines."