People v. Esguerra y Esteban

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 198111. September 21, 2015.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. WILLY ESGUERRA y ESTEBAN, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 21, 2015 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 198111 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WILLY ESGUERRA y ESTEBAN, Accused-Appellant.

We review the decision promulgated on February 10, 2011, 1 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction of the accused-appellant of a violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002), sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of P500,000.00 in Criminal Case No. 15128-D-T6; and of a violation of Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165 and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment of 12 years and one 1 day to 20 years and to pay fine of P300,000.00 in Criminal Case No. 15129-D-T6 through the decision rendered on August 10, 2009 by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 70, in Pasig City. 2

The records show that the accused-appellant was arrested in the afternoon of October 3, 2006 during an entrapment mounted against him by operatives of the Taguig City Police Station-Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Force (SAID-SOTF) upon prior coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), as evidence by PDEA-issued certificate of coordination. The entrapment team, which was formed and dispatched by Police Senior Inspector Eufronio Obong, Jr., the Action Officer of the SAID-SOTF, after a confidential informant reported to PO2 Ruchyl Gasid who was then on duty about the illegal drugs activities of alias Tonge, later identified as the accused-appellant, of No. 8 Polintan Compound, Sta. Ana in Western Bicutan, Taguig City, was led by PO2 Jason Magistrado, with PO2 Gasid as the poseur buyer, and PO2 Emmanuel Maglana, PO1 Alexander Saez and PO1 Rommel Ragos as the back-up officers. For purposes of the mission, PO2 Ruchyl Gasid was provided with a P100.00 bill bearing serial number BE740117 that he marked with his initials RG to be used as the buy-bust money. 3

Upon arrival at the target area, PO2 Gasid and the informant proceeded to the house while the rest of the team positioned themselves at a distance. Coming to the house of the accused-appellant, which appeared to be still unfinished, the informant loudly called to the accused-appellant, and after the latter came out, the informant introduced PO2 Gasid as a scorer of marijuana who wanted to buy marijuana. The accused-appellant replied that he had newly-arrived omads and entered his house. From where he was, PO2 Gasid could see the accused-appellant remove a plastic container containing what appeared to be marijuana brick from a cabinet without difficulty considering that the house still had no door and windows. Upon his return, the accused-appellant was holding two sachets containing what appeared to PO2 Gasid to be dried marijuana leaves saying that each sachet was worth P50.00. He handed two sachets to PO2 Gasid, and the latter handed to him the marked P100.00 bill. PO2 Gasid then took off his bullcap, which was the pre-arranged signal for the back-up officers to come forward. PO2 Gasid grabbed the accused-appellant who appeared about to run away. PO2 Gasid introduced himself as a police officer and informed the accused-appellant about his constitutional rights. 4

On his part, PO1 Ragos rushed towards PO2 Gasid upon seeing the pre-arranged signal, and assisted the latter in arresting the accused-appellant. PO2 Gasid entered the house and went towards the cabinet from which he had seen the accused-appellant take the two plastic sachets subject of their transaction. PO2 Gasid recovered there a plastic container containing a suspected marijuana brick. PO2 Gasid marked the two sachets of suspected marijuana leaves and the suspected marijuana brick and its container in the presence of the accused-appellant with WEE to WEE-3, inclusive, which were the initials of the accused-appellant. Also recovered from the accused-appellant was the buy-bust money. 5 CAIHTE

The entrapment team brought the accused-appellant and the confiscated items to the police station. PO1 Saez booked the accused-appellant and prepared the certificate of inventory and the requests for drug test of the accused-appellant and laboratory examination. PO2 Gasid accompanied PO1 Saez in bringing the seized items to the Southern Police District (SPD) Crime Laboratory at Bgy. Poblacion, Makati City, where the items were received by PO2 Santos around 11:35 p.m. of that same evening. Upon examination and analysis, Sr. Insp. Richard Allan Mangalip, Forensic Chemist of the SPD Crime Laboratory, found and certified the two plastic sachets of suspected marijuana leaves (WEE to WEE-1) and the suspected marijuana brick (WEE-2) to be positive for the presence of marijuana, a dangerous drug. 6

Thereafter, the Office of the City Prosecutor filed in the RTC two informations to charge the accused-appellant with violation of Section 5 and violation of Section 11, both of R.A. No. 9165, to wit:

Criminal Case No. 15128-D-T6

That, on or about the 3rd day of October 2006, in the City of Taguig, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused and without being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell, deliver and give away to PO2 RUCHYL GASID, who acted as poseur-buyer, a total of 2.80 grams of dried suspected marijuana leaves and fruiting tops broken as 1.60 grams and 1.20 grams of said substance, separately contained in two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets marked as WEE & WEE-1 respectively which substance was found positive to the test for the presence of Marijuana, dangerous drug, in violation of the above cited law.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 7

Criminal Case No. 15129-D-T6

That, on or about the 3rd day of October 2006, in the City of Taguig, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly possess one (1) tape-sealed transparent bag containing 73.90 grams of dried suspected brick of marijuana leaves marked as WEE-2, which substance was found positive to the test for the presence of Marijuana, dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 8

After trial, the RTC rendered its decision on August 10, 2009 in both cases, 9 disposing as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

In Criminal Case No. 15128-D, for violation of Section 5, Art. II of R.A. 9165 or the unauthorized sale of dangerous drugs, accused WILLY ESGUERRA y ESTEBAN is hereby found G U I L T Y beyond reasonable doubt and is hereby sentenced to suffer LIFE IMPRISONMENT and ordered to pay a FINE of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (PHP500,000.00).

In Criminal Case No. 15129-D for Violation of Section 11, Art. II of R.A. 9165 or for illegal possession of dried Marijuana leaves, accused WILLY ESGUERRA y ESTEBAN is hereby found G U I L T Y beyond reasonable doubt and is hereby sentenced to Twelve (12) years and One (1) Day to TWENTY (20) Years and to pay a FINE of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (PHP300,000.00).

Considering the penalty imposed by the Court on herein accused relative to Criminal Case No. 15128-D, his immediate confinement to the New Bilibid Prisons, National Penitentiary, Muntinlupa City, is hereby ordered. aScITE

Pursuant to Section 21 of R.A. 9165, representatives from the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) are hereby ordered to take charge and have custody over the sachets of dried marijuana leaves and fruiting tops, subject matter of these cases for proper disposition.

Costs against the accused.

SO ORDERED. 10

The accused-appellant appealed, submitting that:

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. 11

On February 10, 2011, 12 the CA promulgated its affirmance of the conviction, ruling:

WHEREFORE, the trial court's Decision dated August 10, 2009 is AFFIRMEDin toto.

SO ORDERED. 13

Hence, this appeal, with the accused-appellant rehashing his appellant's brief submitted in the CA.

Ruling of the Court

The appeal has no merit.

First of all, the apprehension of the accused-appellant was in flagrante delicto because it was effected during a legitimate entrapment operation in which the poseur buyer, who was a police officer, purchased two sachets of marijuana leaves from him with the use of the marked P100.00 bill. The recovery and seizure of the rest of the marijuana leaves from the cabinet inside the house of the accused-appellant was also made by PO2 Gasid immediately following the arrest for drug selling because said officer had seen the accused-appellant take out the sachets of marijuana from the cabinet. As such, the incrimination of the accused-appellant was valid.

Secondly, the contention of the accused-appellant that the apprehending police officers did not comply with the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 on the inventorying and photographing of the items seized without justifiable grounds demonstrated a broken chain of custody that tainted the validity of the incrimination, and rendered the evidence against him weak and unreliable is unworthy of serious consideration. The records sufficiently established that the integrity of the evidence against the accused-appellant was well preserved, and remained untainted with any weakness. In this regard, we find to be worthy of mention the following findings of the CA based on the trial court's appreciation of the evidence presented by the State, to wit:

The Court finds no cogent basis to disturb the trial court's finding that the failure of the apprehending officers to have the certificate of inventory signed by the proper parties and the confiscated specimens photographed was not fatal, as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized marijuana were not compromised. Said the trial court:

"After going over the evidence on record, the Court finds that some requirements under RA 9165 may have not been complied with by the arresting team. An inventory of the items seized was submitted but unsigned by the proper parties. And there was no photograph taken of the said items. The prosecution's failure to submit in evidence the proper physical inventory of the seized drugs and the photograph pursuant to Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, however, will not exonerate the accused. Non-compliance with said section is not fatal and 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. In the instant case, the Court finds the integrity of the drugs seized intact. The chain of custody of the drugs subject matter of the case was shown not to have been broken. After seizure of the drugs from accused's possession, PO2 Ruchyl Gasid marked them and turned over to PO1 Saez. Then PO2 Gasid accompanied PO1 Saez in bringing the drugs to the Crime Laboratory for laboratory examination. After a qualitative examination conducted on the specimens, Forensic Chemist P/Sr Insp. Richard Allan Mangalip concluded that the specimens were positive for marijuana, a dangerous drug. There can be no doubt that the drugs seized from the accused were the same ones examined in the crime laboratory. This statement is buttressed by the defense admission of the existence, due execution and genuineness of the request for laboratory examination, the Chemistry Report and specimens submitted. HEITAD

In other words, despite non-compliance with Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 regarding the immediate physical inventory and photographing of the seized dangerous drug, there is no showing that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated marijuana at the time of the buy-bust had not been properly preserved by the apprehending team."

In Yolly Teodosio y Blancaflor v. Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines, the Court belittled the argument that the prosecution's case was weakened by the fact that the police officers did not issue a receipt for the confiscated drugs and declared that issuing such a receipt was not essential to establishing a criminal case for selling drugs as it was not an element of the crime. Neither was it an element of illegal possession of prohibited drug.

Record bears that during the trial, the defense did not question the prosecution's witness why they failed to have the certificate of inventory signed by the proper parties and the confiscated specimens photographed as required under Section 21. But in any case, People vs. Berdadero, instructs that "if the justifiable reason could no longer be determined due to the defense's failure to raise it in issue during trial, it is of vital importance to establish that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items have been preserved since these would be determinative of whether the accused is guilty or not." Thus, what is imperative is "the preservation of the integrity and the evidential value of the seized items as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused."

Whether the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items had been preserved is the function of the rule on chain of custody. Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002 defines chain of custody as follows:

b. "Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition.

It is elementary that in every prosecution for the illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the presentation of the drug as evidence in court is material. It is, therefore, essential that the identity of the prohibited drug be established beyond doubt. What is more, the fact that the substance bought during the buy-bust operation is the same substance offered in court should be established. The chain of custody requirement performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.

As a mode of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission or presentation of an exhibit, such as the seized prohibited drugs, be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. This would ideally cover the testimony about every link in the chain, from seizure of the dangerous drug up to the time it is offered in evidence, in such a way that everyone who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, to include, as much as possible, a description of the condition in which it was delivered to the next in the chain. Thus, there are links that must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation, viz.: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.

The Court finds that the prosecution presented an unbroken chain of custody of the marijuana seized from accused-appellant during the buy-bust operation until the items seized were examined at the Southern Police District Crime Laboratory, all of which took place in only a matter of hours. The buy-bust team arrived at the target area at past 7:00 PM, and the seized specimens were turned over to the crime laboratory at 11:35 PM. By 2:00 AM of October 4, 2006, P/Sr. Insp. Richard Allan Mangalip, Forensic Chemist of the Southern Police District Crime Laboratory had already completed his examination of the seized specimens.

Thus, the chain of custody was established through the following links: (1) the poseur-buyer SPO2 Rucyl Gasid marked right at the place of arrest and in the presence of accused-appellant the two (2) seized sachets of marijuana leaves subject of buy-bust with "WEE" and "WEE-1," and the marijuana brick in a plastic container found inside a cabinet in accused-appellant's house with "WEE-2"; (2) upon arrival at the SAID-SOTF office, Police Investigator PO1 Alexander Saez (who acted as back-up during the buy-bust operation) prepared the request for laboratory examination of the seized items "WEE" and "WEE-3" which was signed by PSI Eufronio Obong, Jr., SAIS-SOTF Action Officer, PS-6, Taguig City Police Station; (3) the request and the marked items seized were delivered to the Southern Police District Crime Laboratory by PO1 Alexander Saez, accompanied by PO2 Ruchyl Gasid, and was received by a certain PO2 Santos of the Southern Police District Crime Laboratory; (4) Physical Science Report No. D-676-06S of the Southern Police District Crime Laboratory confirmed that the marked items seized from accused-appellant were positive for the presence of marijuana, and (5) the marked items were offered in evidence as Exhibits "I" to "I-3". 14 ATICcS

Thirdly, the accused-appellant did not tender any explanation why the arresting officers, whom he and his son Michael Esguerra admittedly did not know at all, had caused his arrest and prosecution for the very serious offenses of drug pushing (Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165) and illegal possession of drugs (Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165) unless the reason was true and legitimate. Without such explanation, the only conclusion was that such officers reason for the arrest was true, and their incriminating evidence was entitled to full faith and credit.

And, fourthly, the accused-appellant's defenses were denial and frame-up. Yet, such defenses, being by nature negative, did not prevail over the positive attestations by the poseur buyer. Besides, such defenses, because they are initially viewed as nothing but self-serving assertions by the accused, must rest on credible and convincing substantiation. Without such manner of substantiation, which was not the case here, the appreciation of the credit of the proof against the accused-appellant by the trial court and later on by the CA must be respected.

Before ending, however, the Court notices that the trial court incorrectly and improperly set the penalty for the violation of Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165 in Criminal Case No. 15129-D-T6 by sentencing the accused-appellant to imprisonment of 12 years and one 1 day to 20 years and to pay fine of P300,000.00 without indicating the minimum and the maximum of the penalty. The CA did not rectify the omission.

By imposing imprisonment of 12 years and one 1 day to 20 years, the lower courts refused to apply the Indeterminate Sentence Law, which required the sentence to consist of a minimum and a maximum period of the penalty. Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law states:

Section 1. Hereafter, in imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by the Revised Penal Code, or its amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the said Code, and the minimum of which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense; and if the offense is punished by any other law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same. (As amended by Act No. 4225)

The result is to deny to the accused-appellant the benefits of the indeterminate sentence in Criminal Case No. 15129-D-T6. That result is legally taboo, given the mandatory tenor of Section 1, supra, which textually requires that "the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same."

Accordingly, the Court modifies the penalty in Criminal Case No. 15129-D-T6 to an indeterminate sentence of 12 years and one day, as minimum, to 13 years, as maximum.

WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on February 10, 2011 by the Court of Appeals in both criminal prosecutions, subject to the MODIFICATION of the penalty in Criminal Case No. 15129-D-T6 to an indeterminate sentence of 12 years and one day, as minimum, to 13 years, as maximum.

Costs of suit to be paid by the accused-appellant.

SO ORDERED." PERLAS-BERNABE, J., on official leave; JARDELEZA, J., acting member per S.O. No. 2188 dated September 16, 2015.

Very truly yours,

 

(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 2-22; penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta, and concurred in by Associate Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla and Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybañez.

2. CA rollo, pp. 45-48.

3. Supra note 1, at 3.

4. Id. at 4.

5. Id.

6. Id. at 5.

7. Id. at 5-6.

8. Id. at 6.

9. Supra note 2.

10. Supra note 2, at 21-22.

11. CA rollo, p. 28.

12. Supra note 1.

13. Id. at 23.

14. Id. at 14.