FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 241085. November 18, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. REME GREGORIO y YRAY, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated November 18, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 241085 (People of the Philippines v. RemeGregorio y Yray). — Before this Court is an appeal assailing the Decision 1 dated December 4, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02303, affirming in toto the Joint Judgment 2 in Criminal Case Nos. 2014-22495 and 2014-22496 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 30 of Dumaguete City, finding accused-appellant Reme Gregorio y Yray (Gregorio) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, locally known as shabu, in violation of Article II Sections 5 and 11, respectively, of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165. 3 HTcADC
During his arraignment, Gregorio pleaded not guilty. 4 At the ensuing trial, the prosecution established that on September 6, 2014, the provincial intelligence branch chief Police Senior Inspector Jul Mohammad Jamiri (PS/Insp. Jamiri) of the Negros Oriental Provincial Police Office dispatched Police Officers Eugene Calumba (PO2 Calumba) and Julius Caesar Gajetos (PO2 Gajetos) to verify an information that Gregorio was engaged in selling illegal drugs at his residence in Barangay Looc, Dumaguete City. Assisted by the informant who knew Gregorio, the two operatives conducted a surveillance on September 7 and 9, and found that the vicinity was frequented by known drug personalities. Convinced that Gregorio was engaged in the illegal drugs trade, PS/Insp. Jamiri launched a buy-bust operation headed by PO3 Jerry Magsayo (PO3 Magsayo), with PO2 Calumba as poseur-buyer. PO3 Magsayo coordinated the operation with Investigation Agent Ivy Claire Oledan of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). 5
On September 10, 2014, the operatives arrived at the target location at around 5:20 p.m. The informant accompanied PO2 Calumba on foot on the way to Gregorio's house, but they met him several meters away outside his residence. The informant readily asked Gregorio whether he had P500.00 worth of shabu on hand for PO2 Calumba. As soon as he affirmed, Gregorio asked for the money, 6 which PO2 Calumba handed to him and, immediately, he drew out from his pocket a one (1) heat-sealed packet with white crystalline substance inside, and gave it to PO2 Calumba. 7 Convinced that the sachet contained shabu, PO2 Calumba then declared himself to be a police officer and announced the arrest. Gregorio tried to escape, but was restrained and subdued with the arrival of PO2 Gajetos and the rest of the buy-bust team. He was then informed of the cause and nature of his arrest in his own dialect. Frisked, Gregorio was also found to have in his possession five (5) more sealed sachets containing the same substance, as well as the marked money he earlier received. 8
Right then and there, at the place of arrest, 9 PO2 Calumba lost no time in marking 10 the seized items. He marked the sachet subject of the sale with initials "RG-BB," 11 to differentiate it with the five other sachets found also in Gregorio's possession which were marked with initials "RG-P1," "RG-P2," RG-P3," "RG-P4" and "RG-P5." 12 Gregorio was then immediately taken to the Special Operations Group Office, along with the seized items which had remained in the custody and possession of PO2 Calumba between the time of arrest until the execution of the Inventory Report that he also signed. 13 The inventory, 14 as well as the photographic documentation performed by PO2 Gajetos, 15 were witnessed by Gregorio himself, Barangay Looc Chairman Angelita Ragay, 16 Department of Justice representative Anthony Chili us Benlot, 17 media practitioner Juancho Gallarde, 18 and PO3 Magsayo as team leader. 19
Upon the conclusion of the inventory, PO2 Calumba sealed up the seized items in a brown envelope and immediately turned them over to the Negros Oriental Provincial Crime Laboratory Office for examination — still within the day of Gregorio's arrest. 20 The seized items were received by forensic chemist Police Chief Inspector Josephine Llena (PCI Llena), 21 who found them all to be positive for the presence of the prohibited substance methamphetamine hydrochloride. 22 Gregorio was likewise found by urine sampling to be positive of the said substance in his body. 23 PCI Llena, who conducted the two tests, had kept all specimens in a secured vault only she had access to, until submitted in court. 24
Gregorio, the lone defense witness, denied the charges and claimed that the six sachets supposedly containing shabu had been planted by the police officers. He narrated that on his way home at the time and place of his arrest, he saw four men apparently transacting illegal drugs and heard two others announce themselves as police officers. He claimed that in the ensuing commotion, he scurried away, but two police officers caught up with him, pinned him down on a billiards table, beat him up with the butt of their guns, and restrained him with handcuffs. At the police station where he was immediately taken, he claimed that the police threatened to plant on him the packets of shabu if he would not identify the drug personalities in his place of residence. He denied that PO2 Calumba was present when he was nabbed, and claimed that he met him for the first time at the police station. 25
After due proceedings, a Joint Judgment 26 dated April 21, 2016 was rendered by the RTC finding Gregorio guilty beyond reasonable doubt of all the charges as follows:
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the Court hereby renders judgment as follows:
(1) In Criminal Case No. 2014-22495, the accused REME GREGORIO y YRAY is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of illegal sale of 0.06 gram of shabu in violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).
The one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with markings "RG-BB" containing 0.06 gram of shabu is hereby confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government and to be disposed of in accordance with law.
(2) In Criminal Case No. 2014-22496, the accused REME GREGORIO y YRAY is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of illegal possession of 1.19 grams of shabu in violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum term to fourteen (14) years as maximum term and to pay a fine of Four Hundred Thousand Pesos (P400,000.00). aScITE
The five (5) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets with markings "RG-P1" to "RG-P5," respectively, containing a total aggregate weight of 1.19 grams of shabu are hereby confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government and to be disposed of in accordance with law.
In the service of sentence, the accused REME GREGORIO y YRAY shall be credited with the full time during which he has undergone preventive imprisonment, provided he agrees voluntarily in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners.
SO ORDERED. 27 (Italics supplied)
Before the CA, Gregorio assailed the judgment of conviction based on the illegality of his arrest. He claimed that the buy-bust operation was highly doubtful, that the prosecution has failed to prove the elements of the crimes, and that his plain denial as a defense should not have been dismissed outright. The Office of the Solicitor General believed otherwise.
In the now-assailed Decision, 28 the CA denied the appeal and affirmed the RTC as follows:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DENIED. The Joint Judgment of the RTC, Branch 30, Dumaguete City, dated April 21, 2016, in Criminal Case Nos. 2014-22495 and 2014-22496 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED. 29
This Court is now called upon to evaluate whether, indeed, the lower courts rightly found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 5 and 11 of R.A. No. 9165. 30
We sustain accused-appellant's conviction.
In his Brief, 31 accused-appellant points out that the lack of a proper record of the casing and surveillance not only makes the prior information on his alleged drug trading highly suspect, but also gives the buy-bust operation the character of an instigation rather than an entrapment. 32 He also claims that he was merely lured to commit the offense by the informant's offer of purchase. 33 This is specious argument.
People v. Dela Rosa, 34 citing People v. Zheng Bai Hui, 35 instructs that there is no rigid or textbook method of conducting buy-bust operations, and that lack of evidence of a prior surveillance does not affect the regularity of the operation, especially when the buy-bust team is accompanied on site by the informant. In these cases, this Court held that it would "not pretend to establish on a priori bases what detailed acts police authorities might credibly undertake and carry out in their entrapment operations. The selection of appropriate and effective means of entrapping drug traffickers is best left to the discretion of police authorities." 36 Moreover it was held in People v. Frias37 that prior surveillance is not a requisite to a valid entrapment inasmuch as flexibility is a trait of good police work, the wisdom of which, the courts will not pass upon. 38 Indeed, People v. Daria, Jr. 39 teaches that the lack of a pre-operation report does not affect the legality and validity of a buy-bust operation, 40 as said report is accomplished by the local police or the National Bureau of Investigation only as compliance with Section 86 of R.A. No. 9165, which requires mandates close coordination with the PDEA on all drug-related matters. 41 In the present case, the said report is unnecessary because the prosecution has by PO2 Calumba's testimony established the close coordination between the police and the PDEA in the execution of the subject operation. 42
As a form of entrapment, a buy bust operation has in recent years been accepted as a valid and effective mode of apprehending drug pushers, where the idea to commit a crime originates from the offender without anybody inducing or prodding him to commit the offense. If carried out with due regard for constitutional rights and legal safeguards, it deserves judicial sanction, 43 as in this case where accused-appellant was informed of his rights as an arrestee in a manner intelligible to him. In establishing a valid buy-bust operation, credence is given to the narration of prosecution witnesses especially when they are police officers presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary. 44 In the latter case, the defense must show that the police officers were motivated by ill motive or odious intent to falsely charge the accused. No such motive or intent is apparent in the records as would put to question the legality of accused-appellant's arrest. It suffices to say that accused-appellant was caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu to poseur-buyer PO2 Calumba — an instance where the police are not only authorized, but duty-bound to arrest him even without a warrant. 45
On the charges laid down against accused-appellant, this Court finds that the prosecution has established with moral certainty the elements of the subject offenses. The illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 requires for its elements (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and 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. 46 In other words, the delivery of the dangerous drug to the poseur-buyer by the accused as the seller, and the receipt by the latter of the marked money during the buy-bust transaction are the acts that consummate the crime of illegal sale of the dangerous drug. 47 On the other hand, illegal possession of dangerous drugs has for its elements (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object identified as prohibited drug; (2) such possession was not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. 48 The clear and categorical testimony of PO2 Calumba established beyond reasonable doubt that the exchange of money and contraband happened during the buy-bust operation, and that in the ensuing frenzy of the arrest, accused-appellant was found in possession of five more plastic sachets containing shabu. HEITAD
It is fundamental in the prosecution of drugs cases that the existence and identity of the seized contraband be established beyond reasonable doubt. In this aspect of the case does the chain of custody rule come to the fore. Inasmuch as the contraband itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offenses and the existence thereof is vital to a judgment of conviction, it is essential to ensure that the substance recovered from the accused is the same substance offered in court. 49 Thus, the following links in the movement and custody of the seized drugs must be established: (1) confiscation and marking of the specimen seized from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) turnover of the seized item by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) investigating officer's turnover of the specimen to the forensic chemist for examination; and, (4) submission of the item by the forensic chemist to the court. 50
The unbroken chain of custody of the seized shabu in this case has been established by the prosecution. PO2 Calumba stated in open court that he marked the sachet subject of the sale with initials "RG-BB" 51 as soon as the arrest was declared upon accused-appellant, 52 and also marked the five other sachets found in accused-appellant's possession with the initials "RG-P1 through PS." 53 These items, transported immediately to the Special Operations Group Office, had remained in PO2 Calumba's possession and custody from the time of arrest until the conduct of the official inventory which he himself executed in the presence of accused-appellant and the insulating witnesses. 54 PO2 Calumba never lost possession of the seized items which, sealed up in an envelope, were immediately and officially turned over to forensic chemist PCI Llena for quantitative and qualitative examination. 55
The circumstances of the turn over of the evidence were given light by PCI Llena herself, who admitted in court having received the sealed envelope from PO2 Calumba and immediately having performed the requisite examination. 56 In open court, she validated having personally received from PO2 Calumba the sealed envelope containing the evidence in this case and having opened the same, affirmed the presence of the six sachets subject of the corresponding request for examination. 57 PCI Llena further testified that she immediately marked the envelope upon receipt, and affixed the marks "A1," "A2," "A3," "A4," "A5," and "A6" on the six sachets inside as well as placed her initials on them. She professed having physically examined the contents of the packets, and thereafter subjecting them to chemical testing to find that indeed they were positive for the prohibited shabu58 — a finding she herself transcribed in Chemistry Report No. D-358-14 which has been made of record in this case. 59 Asked how she exercised custody over the specimens handed over to her, PCI Llena asserted that she never lost possession of the items because she had since kept them in a vault only she had access to, until she turned these over to the trial court on September 30, 2014. 60
In fine, this Court agrees with the trial court and the CA that the evidentiary value and integrity of the corpus delicti have been preserved in the instant case. There is neither allegation nor evidence that PO2 Calumba has lost possession of the subject contraband from the time of seizure, to the inventory, and to the time he surrendered its custody to forensic chemist PCI Llena for examination. There is likewise no showing of a breach in custody while the specimens were in the possession of chemist PCI Llena until they were submitted in court as evidence on the charges against accused-appellant. To our mind, based on the records and testimonies of the key prosecution witnesses, the six sachets of shabu seized from accused-appellant, subjected to inventory and documentation at the police station and submitted to qualitative and quantitative examination, are the same items that were submitted to the trial court as physical object evidence.
Considering the entirety of the prosecution evidence, accused-appellant's bare and self-serving denial must fail. This Court is convinced beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant is guilty of violation of Sections 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 for selling of shabu, an illegal drug, and for the illegal possession of the same substance in violation of Section 11, Article II of the same law.
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The December 4, 2017 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02303, finding accused-appellant Reme Gregorio y Yray guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, is AFFIRMED.
The dangerous drugs seized and recovered from accused-appellant in this case are hereby forfeited in favor of the government to be disposed of in accordance with the law.
SO ORDERED." Lopez, M., J.,on official leave. ATICcS
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Edward B. Contreras with the concurrence of Associate Justices Edgardo L. Delos Santos (now retired Member of this Court) and Gabriel T. Robeniol; rollo, pp. 4-19.
2. Rendered by Judge Rafael Cresencio; CA rollo, pp. 45-58; records, pp. 205-212.
3. The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, as amended.
4. Certificate of Arraignment, records, p. 67.
5. TSN, March 1, 2016, pp. 2-29.
6. Marked with "VV502938;" records, pp. 45-48.
7. CA rollo, p. 70.
8.Id.; TSN, March 1, 2016, pp. 14, 17-18.
9.Rollo, p. 8; records, p. 206; TSN, March 1, 2016, pp. 16-19.
10. The sachets were marked "RG-BB" and "RG-P1" to "RG-P5."
11. Referring to accused-appellant's initials, qualified by the initials for "Buy-Bust," records, p. 98; TSN, March 1, 2017, p. 17.
12. The alphanumeric initials refer to "Possession" corresponding to the charge of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, records, p. 98; TSN, March 1, 2016, p. 18.
13. Records, p. 98; TSN, March 1, 2016, p. 18.
14. The Inventory of Property Seized was prepared in the presence of and signed by the required witnesses, records, pp. 27-29.
15.Rollo, p. 69; records, pp. 49-51.
16. TSN, March 2, 2016, pp. 2-5.
17.Id. at 8-11.
18. TSN, March 2, 2016, pp. 5-8.
19. TSN, March 7, 2016, pp. 2-6.
20. Records, p. 102; TSN, March 1, 2016, p. 23.
21. TSN, March 1, 2016, pp. 20-23.
22. Chemistry Report No. D-358-14; records, p. 34.
23. Chemistry Report No. DT-283-14, Exhibit "K," folder of exhibits.
24. CA rollo, p. 72; TSN, March 1, 2016, pp. 2-8.
25. TSN, March 22, 2016, pp. 2-10. See also rollo, p. 33.
26. CA rollo, pp. 45-58.
27.Id. at 58.
28.Rollo, pp. 4-19.
29.Id. at 19.
30. Accused-appellant assigns the following error in his Brief, per CA rollo, p. 25:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIMES CHARGED DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
31. CA rollo, pp. 25-43.
32.Id. at 35-36.
33. Appellant's Brief, citing Calumbay's testimony dated March 1, 2016; id. at 36.
34. 655 Phil. 630, 647 (2011).
35. 393 Phil. 68, 133 (2000).
36.Supra note 35; id. at 36.
37. G.R. No. 234686, June 10, 2019, 904 SCRA 12.
38.Id. at 22.
39. 615 Phil. 744 (2009).
40.Id. at 759.
41.People v. Somoza, 714 Phil. 368, 385 (2013).
42. TSN, March 1, 2016, pp. 9-29.
43.Supra note 38, citing People v. Rivera, 790 Phil. 770, 780 (2016).
44.People v. Alcala, 739 Phil. 189, 198 (2014).
45.People v. Rivera, 790 Phil. 770, 780 (2016).
46.People v. Lopez, 800 Phil. 180, 186 (2016).
47.People v. Yagao, G.R. No. 216725, February 18, 2019, 893 SCRA 169, 173.
48.Plan, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 247589, August 24, 2020.
49.People v. Padua, G.R. No. 244287, June 15, 2020.
50.People v. Bugtong, 826 Phil. 628, 638-639 (2018).
51. Referring to accused-appellant's initials, qualified by the initials for "Buy-Bust," records, p. 98; TSN, March 1, 2017, p. 17.
52. The sachets were marked "RG-BB" and "RG-P1" to "RG-P5."
53. The alphanumeric initials refer to "Possession" corresponding to the charge of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, records, p. 98; TSN, March 1, 2016, p. 18.
54. Records, p. 98; TSN, March 1, 2016, p. 18.
55. Testimony of PCI Josephine Llena, TSN, March 1, 2016, pp. 21-22; Testimony of PCI Josephine Llena, TSN, March 1, 2016, p. 3.
56. Testimony of PCI Josephine Llena, TSN, March 1, 2016, pp. 3-4.
57.Id. at 4-5.
58.Id. at 6-7.
59. Records, p. 104; Testimony of PCI Josephine Llena, TSN, March 1, 2016, p. 5.
60. Testimony of PCI Josephine Llena, TSN, March 1, 2016, p. 7.