People v. Fernandez y Baguisan

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 198875. June 4, 2014.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs.EMMA FERNANDEZ y BAGUISAN, MARIE VILLANUEVA y SANTOS AND CRISELDA ANTIADO y RAMIREZ, accused;

EMMA FERNANDEZ y BAGUISAN AND MARIE VILLANUEVA y SANTOS, accused-appellants.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated04 June 2014which reads as follows:

G.R. No. 198875 (People of the Philippines v. Emma Fernandez y Baguisan, Marie Villanueva y Santos and Criselda Antiado y Ramirez, accused; Emma Fernandez y Baguisan and Marie Villanueva y Santos, appellants).— We decide the appeal, filed by appellants Emma B. Fernandez and Marie S. Villanueva, from the March 3, 2011 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. H.C.-CR No. 04090. The appealed decision affirmed the July 28, 2009 Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),Branch 2, Manila, finding the appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

In its Decision dated July 28, 2009, the RTC convicted: (1) the appellants of illegal sale of 0.030 gram of shabu in Criminal Case No. 08-260041; and (2) Villanueva of illegal possession of 0.021 gram of shabu in Criminal Case No. 08-2060042. The RTC held, among others, that the prosecution was able to prove that Fernandez and Villanueva, conspiring and confederating with each other, sold 0.030 gram of shabu to Police Officer (PO) 3 John Alfred Taruc, the poseur-buyer. The RTC also found Villanueva to have knowingly possessed shabu without legal authority to do so. It rejected the appellants' claim that they were illegally arrested; it also did not give credit to the appellants' claim that the police tried to extort money from them.

For illegal sale of shabu, the RTC sentenced the appellants to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment, and imposed on each of them a P500,000.00 fine. For illegal possession of shabu, it sentenced Villanueva to suffer the indeterminate penalty of twelve years and one day, as minimum, to seventeen years and four months, as maximum, and imposed on him a P300,000.00 fine. aHTCIc

On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC's decision. It held that the prosecution successfully showed an unbroken chain of custody over the seized items. The CA added that the apprehending officers' failure to prepare an inventory or to photograph the confiscated drugs did not render the arrest illegal, or make the seized items inadmissible, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the items had been preserved. It further ruled that the appellants failed to substantiate their claims of extortion and ill motives on the part of the arresting officers.

Our Ruling

After due consideration, we dismiss the appeal and affirm the appellants' convictions.

Illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and jurisprudence has the following elements: "(1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and its payment." 3 What is material is the proof that the transaction actually took place, coupled with the presentation before the court of the prohibited or regulated drug or the corpus delicti. On the other hand, illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165 and case laws carries 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

Our examination of the records confirms the presence of all the elements of illegal sale of shabu under Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165. PO3 Taruc narrated in detail how the police officers conducted the buy-bust operation, with him as the poseur-buyer. PO3 Taruc positively identified Villanueva as the one who received P500.00 in exchange for the heat-sealed plastic sachet containing white crystalline powder; and Fernandez as the one who received the payment from Villanueva. As regards violation of Section 11, the presented evidence revealed that during PO3 Taruc's arrest of Villanueva, another heat-sealed plastic with white crystalline substances was recovered from her when she was asked to empty her pockets. It was during the arrest of Villanueva that PO3 Taruc marked the sachet subject of the sale and the sachet recovered from Villanueva's pocket as "SAID-1" and "SAID-2," respectively. Per Chemistry Report No. D-257-08 of Forensic Chemist Elisa G. Reyes, the white crystalline substances contained in both heat-sealed plastics were confirmed to be methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.

We find the appellants' defense of extortion unavailing for their failure to substantiate this defense. Frame-up is generally disfavored as a defense since, like alibi, it is an easy excuse and is a frequently utilized defense in most prosecutions for violations of the Dangerous Drugs Law. To prove extortion, the evidence must be clear and convincing and should show that the buy-bust team was motivated by indecent objective or was not properly performing its duty. 5

After a careful reading of the records, we also find the chain of custody unbroken. The prosecution successfully established that the shabu marked as "SAID-1" and "SAID-2" were the very same sachets forwarded to the PNP Crime Laboratory and presented during trial. Corollarily, PO3 Taruc positively identified the presented heat-sealed plastic sachets marked with "SAID-1" and "SAID-2" as the very same items seized from the appellants. The prosecution's documentary evidence also demonstrated the movement of the drugs from the time they were confiscated and brought to the police station, to the preparation of the Request for Laboratory Examination by Police Senior Inspector Jesus Aquino Respes, until they were delivered by PO3 Young to the crime laboratory where they were received by PSI EG Reyes.

We also hold that failure to strictly comply with Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 is not fatal and will not necessarily render the items confiscated from an accused inadmissible. What assumes utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, as these are determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused. 6 The succession of events established by evidence in the present case shows that the item seized was the same item tested and subsequently identified and testified to in court.

Finally, we affirm the penalties and the amounts of fine imposed on the appellants as they are within the range provided for under Sections 5 and 11 of R.A. No. 9165. aIcCTA

WHEREFORE,premises considered, we AFFIRM the March 3, 2011 Decision 7 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. H.C.-CR No. 04090.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court

By:

TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Rollo,pp. 2-16; penned by Associate Justice Josefina Guevara-Salonga, and concurred in by Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Franchito N. Diamante.

2. CA rollo,pp. 10-23; penned by Presiding Judge Alejandro J. Bijasa.

3. People v. Blanco,G.R. No. 193661, August 14, 2013, 703 SCRA 597, 604.

4. People v. Posing,G.R. No. 196973, July 31, 2013, 703 SCRA 62, 80.

5. Ibid.

6. See People v. Campomanes,G.R. No. 187741, August 9, 2010, 627 SCRA 494, 507; and People v. Sta. Maria,G.R. No. 171019, February 23, 2007, 516 SCRA 621.

7. Rollo,pp. 2-16; penned by Associate Justice Josefina Guevara-Salonga, and concurred in by Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante.