THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 214774. March 14, 2016.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. ALLAN GURO @ "BENNY", respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 14, 2016, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 214774 (People of the Philippines vs. Allan Guro @ "Benny"). — This is an appeal from the Decision 1 dated October 25, 2013 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05402, affirming Allan Guro's (accused-appellant) conviction for violation of Sections 5 (Sale of Dangerous Drugs) and 11 (Possession of Dangerous Drugs), Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
According to the prosecution, on July 13, 2007, acting upon the information given by a confidential informant, the police officers of San Fernando City, La Union planned a buy-bust operation. The informant was assigned as the poseur-buyer. He was given a P500.00-marked bill, and was instructed to shake the hand of the target and to drop the item he will receive as pre-arranged signals. 2
The team proceeded to the designated place between Dominion Bus Terminal and McDonald's Quezon Avenue Branch in San Fernando City, La Union and positioned in the area as they waited for the accused-appellant. A few minutes later, the accused-appellant alighted from a bus and went directly to the poseur-buyer, who shook his hand. The poseur-buyer gave the marked money to the accused-appellant who in turn, brought out a plastic container from his right pocket. He handed over the plastic to the poseur-buyer, which the latter dropped as agreed upon. This prompted the police back-up to approach them and arrest the accused-appellant. Police Officer 2 Ramil Leones (PO2 Leones) recovered the buy-bust money and seven (7) plastic sachets of white crystalline substance from the accused-appellant. The accused-appellant and the object evidence were brought to the Philippine National Police (PNP), San Fernando City, La Union station. The sachets were later turned over to the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory at Camp General Oscar Florendo in San Fernando City, La Union where the contents tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. 3
For the defense, the facts are as follows:
On July 13, 2007, the accused-appellant closed his shop early and attended a religious service. His friend Omar Sarif asked him to proceed to San Fernando City, La Union to meet one Liza Estacio (Estacio). The accused-appellant arrived at around 4:00 p.m. and went to McDonald's. He was at the table with Estacio when a man pointed a gun at him, saying he was a police officer. He and Estacio were handcuffed and then brought outside. He was blinded by his cap and was frisked by other men before he was taken to the police station. One of the men brought out a P500.00-marked bill to serve as marked money. The men also made the accused-appellant sign a document by threatening him that he would be placed in a sack and dumped in the sea. 4
The defense presented another witness, Marisol Galvez, who was allegedly inside McDonald's when the accused-appellant was apprehended. 5
In its Joint Decision 6 dated January 17, 2012, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Fernando City, La Union, Branch 26, found the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of R.A. No. 9165. The accused-appellant was sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) for violation of Section 5; and imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and one (1) day as maximum, and to pay a fine in the amount of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) for violation of Section 11. 7
Unperturbed, the accused-appellant filed an appeal before the CA.
The CA, in its Decision dated October 25, 2013, affirmed the RTC decision. The dispositive portion thereof reads:
WHEREFORE, the Appeal is DISMISSED. The Joint Decision, dated 17 January 2012 of Branch 26, [RTC] of San Fernando City, La Union is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 8 ATICcS
The CA noted that the chain of custody mandated under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 has sufficiently been met. After the eight (8) packs containing crystalline substance were seized from the accused-appellant, PO2 Leones immediately marked them as "RBL" (subject of buy-bust sale) and "ACG" to "ACG6" (recovered from possession). PO2 Leones held on the sachets from the place of arrest up to arrival at the police station. He turned over the sachets to PO2 Abrera, who sent the sachets to Police Inspector Meilani Joy Ordoño (P/Insp. Ordoño) of the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory for Qualitative Laboratory Examination. P/Insp. Ordoño affixed her initials "MJO" thereon and examined the contents of the sachets, which she concluded positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. After the examination, the sachets were placed under the custody of the Evidence Custodian of the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory until the RTC issued a subpoena and P/Insp. Ordoño brought the sachets to the trial prosecutor for presentation in open court as pieces of evidence. 9
The accused-appellant argued that the poseur-buyer was never presented by the prosecution as witness. Furthermore, the corpus delicti of the crime was never established due to the arresting officers' disregard of the mandatory procedures. 10 Hence, this appeal.
"It is settled that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence should be given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses especially when they are police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there be evidence to the contrary. Moreover, in the absence of proof of motive to falsely impute such a serious crime against the petitioner, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, as well as the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, shall prevail over petitioners' self-serving and uncorroborated claim of having been framed." 11
In the instant case, the Court finds no cogent reason to set aside the above rule. "Essentially, the findings of fact of the trial court are entitled to great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed except for strong and valid reasons since the trial court is in a better position to examine the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying. This rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the [CA]." 12 The Court concurs with the findings of the lower courts and is likewise convinced that the prosecution has adequately established the unbroken links in the chain of custody of the confiscated drug, preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of the items seized.
On the matter of the absence of the poseur-buyer as witness for the prosecution, the Court held in People of the Philippines v. Virgilio Largo Perondo, 13 that "whatever relevant information the poseur-buyer may have was also equally known to the police officers who testified for the prosecution during trial. This is considering that they all participated in the planning and implementation of the buy-bust operation and were all direct witnesses to the actual sale of the shabu, the appellant's arrest immediately thereafter, and the recovery from him of the marked money. Hence, the testimony of the poseur-buyer was not indispensable or necessary; it would have been cumulative merely, or corroborative at best." It is worth mentioning that PO1 Dennis Riñon and PO2 Leones, who testified for the prosecution, were posted merely six meters 14 away from the exact meeting point of the accused-appellant and the poseur-buyer, making them actual witnesses to the transaction. TIADCc
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated October 25, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05402 is hereby AFFIRMED." (Jardeleza, J., no part in view of his participation in the Office of the Solicitor General; Sereno, C.J., designated Additional Member per Raffle dated February 29, 2016.)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion, with Associate Justices Vicente S.E. Veloso and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. concurring; CA rollo, pp. 111-128.
2. Id. at 51-52.
3. Id. at 113-114.
4. Id. at 115.
5. Id. at 63.
6. Rendered by Presiding Judge Juvencio S. Gascon; id. at 50-64.
7. Id. at 63-64.
8. Id. at 127.
9. Id. at 126.
10. Id. at 42.
11. Dimacuha v. People, 545 Phil. 406, 418 (2007).
12. People v. Villarta, G.R. No. 205610, July 30, 2014, 731 SCRA 497, 508.
13. G.R. No. 193855, February 18, 2015.
14. CA rollo, pp. 114-115.