SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 253285. October 13, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. CYRIL FERNANDEZ y SANSANO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated13 October 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 253285 (People of the Philippines v. Cyril Fernandez y Sansano) — This is an appeal 1 from the Decision 2 dated February 7, 2020 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10664 which affirmed the Decision 3 dated November 27, 2017 of Branch 52, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Tayug, Pangasinan in Criminal Case No. T-6541. The RTC found Cyril Fernandez y Sansano (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
The Antecedents
An Information 4 was filed charging accused-appellant with violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 committed as follows:
That at about past 5:20 o'clock in the afternoon, November 1, 2016, at Brgy. A, 5 municipality of Tayug, province of Pangasinan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell one (1) plastic sachet marked as "AD" containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug, weighing 0.010 gram, in exchange of two (2) pcs of One Hundred Peso Bill and one (1) pc of Fifty Peso Bill bearing serial numbers FQ790974, QR544059 and BK948253 marked as "FMF1", "FMF2" and "FMF3", respectively.
Contrary to Sec. 5, Art. 2 of Republic Act 9165, otherwise known as "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act." 6
When arraigned, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge.
Trial ensued.
On November 1, 2016, Police Officer 3 Allan Abelon Dilan (PO3 Dilan) received information that accused-appellant was selling illegal drugs at Brgy. Amistad, Tayug, Pangasinan. He immediately relayed the information to their officer-in-charge. Thereafter, the officer-in-charge conducted a meeting to plan for a buy-bust operation; PO3 Dilan was designated as the poseur-buyer with Police Officer 2 Franknould Fernando (PO2 Fernando) as his backup. PO2 Fernando prepared two pieces of P100.00-bills and one piece of P50.00-bill marked "FMF1" to "FMF3", respectively, as the buy-bust money. 7
At around 5:20 p.m., the buy-bust team and the confidential informant proceeded to St. Patrick Catholic School. When they arrived, accused-appellant approached the tricycle where PO3 Dilan and the confidential informant were waiting. The confidential informant asked accused-appellant in the Ilocano dialect, "Pare, adda maala?" (Can we have something?) Accused-appellant replied: "Wen adda, partakan yo, alaemon to baka adda makakita." (Yes, we have it, you get it fast, so that no one can see.) Upon hearing this, PO3 Dilan took out the marked money from his pocket and gave it to accused-appellant, who in turn handed to the former a plastic sachet. After the transaction was consummated, PO3 Dilan executed the pre-arranged signal. PO2 Fernando and his companions ran towards them, introduced themselves as police officers, and arrested accused-appellant. At the place of arrest, PO3 Dilan marked the purchased sachet with his initials, "AD." They conducted the inventory and photography in the presence of barangay officials, Freddie Bocobo (Bocobo) and Jemuel Golingo (Golingo); and Department of Justice (DOJ) representative Clinton Balingcado (Balingcado). 8
Soon after, the police officers brought accused-appellant to a hospital for a medical examination and then to Tayug Police Station for investigation. In the meantime, PO3 Dilan remained in possession of the seized item from the place of arrest to the police station. Later, PO3 Dilan brought the request for laboratory examination and the seized item to the crime laboratory. The qualitative examination yielded positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu. After the examination, Police Senior Inspector Maria Joanna Ang Boquiren (PSI Boquiren) sealed the sachet with tape and placed her markings thereon. She then turned over the seized item to the evidence custodian. 9 CAIHTE
For his part, accused-appellant interposed the defenses of denial and frame-up. He averred that at around noontime on November 1, 2016, he was at home with his two children. He left his children in the care of his brother-in-law to go to the public market to buy food before they go to the cemetery. Later, while driving his motorcycle, he chanced upon policemen who were also on board their motorcycles. One of the police officers flagged him to stop his motorcycle. When he stopped, the police officer asked to see the contents of his backpack. After checking it, they returned his backpack. However, the police officer asked him to wait for a while as the other police officer named PO3 Dilan called someone. After almost an hour, PO3 Dilan came back with three men in a police mobile patrol. PO3 Dilan took a plastic sachet and crumpled money from his pocket; at the same time, he led accused-appellant towards the lighted side of the road. PO3 Dilan placed the plastic sachet and money of two P100.00-bills and one P50.00-bill on the U-box seat of his motorcycle and started taking photographs. Later on, the barangay officials, Golingo and Bocobo arrived at the scene; he was not familiar with them. 10
Ruling of the RTC
On November 27, 2017, the RTC convicted accused-appellant of the charge. 11 It decreed as follows:
WHEREFORE, the court finds the accused GUILTY as charged, and sentences him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Php500,000. The buy-bust money of Php250 is ordered transmitted to the National Treasury. The destruction of the sachet of shabu is likewise ordered.
SO ORDERED. 12
The RTC gave full faith and credit to the testimony of the police officers and upheld the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties. 13 The witnesses testified that the marking of the sachet of shabu, the conduct of the inventory, as well as the photograpy of the seized item were made in the presence of accused-appellant himself, the barangay officials, and a DOJ representative who signed the inventory. 14
Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed to the CA.
The Ruling of the CA
In the assailed Decision, 15 the CA affirmed accused-appellant's conviction and held that the police officers sufficiently complied with the chain of custody rule under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. It ruled that accused-appellant's defenses of denial and frame-up do not persuade. It further ruled that denial, as a defense, crumbles in the light of the positive identification of accused-appellant; and that frame-up is likewise viewed with caution because it is easy to contrive and difficult to disprove. It declared that it is a common and standard line of defense in prosecutions of violations of RA 9165. 16 Thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated November 27, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court. Branch 52, Tayug, Pangasinan, in Criminal Case No. T-6541, is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 17
Accused-appellant now seeks affirmative relief from the Court and prays for his acquittal. In compliance with the Resolution 18 dated December 7, 2020, both accused-appellant 19 and the People 20 manifested that, in lieu of supplemental briefs, they are adopting their respective briefs filed before the CA. 21
Issue
The lone issue presented is whether the guilt of accused-appellant for the offense of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The Ruling of the Court
The appeal is without merit. DETACa
In a prosecution for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, the following elements must be established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took place; (2) presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence; and (3) identification of the buyer and seller. What is material in a prosecution for illegal sale of drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence. 22
All the elements of the offense charged are present in this case. 23
Records show that a buy-bust team was formed after an information was received from a confidential informant regarding accused-appellant's drug trade activity. Upon arrival at the target area, PO3 Dilan and the confidential informant who were inside a tricycle, saw accused-appellant standing in front of St. Patrick Catholic School. Accused-appellant then approached the tricycle. At that point, the confidential informant began the transaction. PO3 Dilan took out the marked money from his pocket and gave it to accused-appellant; the latter, on the other hand, gave him a plastic sachet containing shabu in exchange for the P250.00. Upon completion of the sale, PO3 Dilan alighted from the tricycle, signaling that the transaction was consummated. The back-up officers led by PO2 Fernando approached them and arrested accused-appellant. At that point, the police officers marked the plastic sachet with suspected shabu with the initials "AD."
Under the circumstances, the delivery of the illegal drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction between the police officers and accused-appellant. 24
It must also be noted that the buy-bust team had sufficiently complied with the chain of custody rule under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640. Section 21 (1) of RA 9165 outlined the procedure to be followed by the apprehending officers in the seizure, initial custody, and handling of confiscated illegal drugs and/or paraphernalia, viz.:
(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. (Italics supplied).
Supplementing this provision is Section 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 which mandates as follows:
(a) The apprehending officer/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 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: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.
On July 15, 2014, Section 21 (1) of RA 9165 was amended by RA 10640 which modified the number of witnesses during the conduct of the inventory but adopted the saving clause under Section 21 of the IRR of RA 9165. Section 21, Article II of RA 10640 provides:
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. — 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 dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the persons from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, That the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, finally, That noncompliance of these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items. (Italics supplied).
After the arrest of accused-appellant during the buy-bust operation, PO3 Dilan immediately marked the seized item at the place of arrest. Thereafter, the inventory and photography of the seized item were made in the presence of accused-appellant, DOJ representative Balingcadao, and barangay officials Bocobo and Golingo. RA 10640, which took effect on July 15, 2014, is applicable in this case because the offense was committed on November 1, 2016. Significantly, RA 10640 requires the apprehending officers, after seizure and confiscation, to immediately conduct the physical inventory and photography of the seized item in the presence of the accused, an elected public official, and a representative from the DOJ or the media. 25
In the case, the inventory and photography of the seized item were done at the place of arrest in the presence of accused-appellant, two barangay officials, and a DOJ representative. After the inventory, PO3 Dilan remained in the possession of the seized plastic sachet until its turnover to PSI Boquiren for forensic examination. Thereupon, PSI Boquiren sealed the small plastic sachet containing the white crystalline substance and placed it in a bigger transparent plastic sachet sealed with a masking tape with the markings "D-764-2016-U" and her initials. The seized item was later stored in the evidence room and was only retrieved on March 13, 2017 for its presentation to the RTC. 26
In view of the foregoing, the Court holds that there was sufficient compliance with the chain of custody rule. Therefore, the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti had been preserved. Perforce, accused-appellant's conviction must stand. aDSIHc
Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 provides that the penalty for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, like shabu, regardless of its quantity and purity, is life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00. However, with the enactment of RA 9346, the imposition of the supreme penalty of death has been proscribed. Hence, only life imprisonment and a fine shall be imposed. The penalty imposed by the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, against accused-appellant for illegal sale of shabu is proper.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated February 7, 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10664, finding accused-appellant Cyril Fernandez y Sansano guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 is AFFIRMED. He is hereby SENTENCED to serve the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00.
SO ORDERED." (PERLAS-BERNABE, S.A.J., on official leave; HERNANDO, J., Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2846 dated October 6, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 12-13.
2. Id. at 3-11; penned by Associate Justice Victoria Isabel A. Paredes with Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Walter S. Ong, concurring.
3. CA rollo, pp. 61-68; penned by Presiding Judge Emma S. Ines-Parajas.
4. As culled from the RTC Decision, id. at 61.
5. Brgy. Amistad in some parts of the rollo.
6. Rollo, p. 61.
7. Id. at 3-4.
8. Id. at 4.
9. Id. at 4-5.
10. Id. at 5-6.
11. CA rollo, p. 67.
12. Id. at 67.
13. Id. at 65.
14. Id. at 67.
15. Rollo, pp. 3-11.
16. Id. at 8-10.
17. Id. at 10-11.
18. Id. at 18.
19. Id. at 28-30.
20. Id. at 23-25.
21. Id. at 23 and 28.
22. People v. Dadang, G.R. No. 242880 (Resolution); January 22, 2020, citing People v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 225064 (Notice), January 19, 2018.
23. Rollo, p. 8.
24. People v. Alunan, G.R. No. 244170. January 25, 2021 (Notice), citing People v. Encila, 598 Phil. 165, 181 (2009).
25. People v. Alunan,supra note 24.
26. Rollo, pp. 4-5.