THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 223555. March 13, 2017.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. CECILIAN JOY GUTUAL Y SEMITERA AND GEMMA GABATAN Y TAMPIO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 13, 2017, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 223555 (People of the Philippines vs. Cecilian Joy Gutual y Semitera and Gemma Gabatan y Tampio). — This is an appeal from the Decision 1 dated July 31, 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 01663 which affirmed the conviction of Cecilian Joy Gutual y Semitera (Gutual) and Gemma Gabatan y Tampio (Gabatan) (accused-appellants) for illegal sale of prohibited drugs and the latter's additional conviction for illegal possession of prohibited drugs, which are penalized under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as "The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
Factual Antecedents
An information was filed charging the accused-appellants with a violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 for having allegedly sold one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.10 gram of shabu. 2 Gabatan was also charged in another information with a violation of Section 11 of the same Act for having allegedly possessed one (1) unsealed transparent plastic sachet filled with four heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets with a total net weight of 1.10 g of shabu. Both violations allegedly transpired on July 28, 2010 in Dumaguete City. 3
The accused-appellants both entered a plea of "not guilty" during indictment. Trial on the merits ensued. 4
Evidence for the Prosecution
On July 28, 2010, Senior Police Officer 2 Allen June Germodo (SPO2 Germodo) called for a meeting of the members of Task Force 24 of Negros Oriental after their office received an information that a certain Joy Gutual was engaged in the illegal drug trade at the Cadawinonan Housing Project. During the briefing, Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency Intelligence Officer 1 Julieta Amatong (Amatong) was designated as poseur-buyer in coordination with the confidential informant. It was agreed that Amatong will make a "missed call" to SPO2 Germodo to signal the rest of the team that the illegal sale has been consummated. SPO2 Germodo marked two 500-peso bills with his signature to be used during the entrapment. After the briefing, the buy-bust team headed to the target area soon after noontime. Amatong and the confidential informant rode a motorcycle toward the house of Gutual. They parked the motorcycle 10 to 15 meters away from the house of Gutual while the rest of the buy-bust team were stationed at about 40 to 50 m away along the barangay road. 5 CAIHTE
The confidential informant told Amatong to wait where they parked. As the confidential informant neared the house of Gutual, the latter approached him. As they conversed, another woman (later on identified as Gabatan), dressed in a duster and holding a piece of transparent plastic, joined them. Amatong saw them talking with each other until Gabatan took out a sachet filled with suspected shabu from the plastic she was holding. Gabatan gave the sachet to Gutual then left the area. Gutual handed the same sachet to the confidential informant, who, in turn, gave her the marked 500-peso bills. The confidential informant left the scene and went back to Amatong to whom he handed the sachet he received from Gutual. Amatong inspected the contents of the sachet then slid the sachet into her pocket. She gave the pre-arranged signal to SPO2 Germodo and hurriedly ran towards Gutual to arrest her with SPO2 Germodo. 6
While preparing to conduct the inventory of the sachet seized after the illegal sale, Amatong spotted Gabatan who was about 10 to 20 m away from them. Amatong immediately told the rest of the team that Gabatan was the source of the suspected shabu sold to the confidential informant. With this, Intelligence Agent 1 Ivy Claire Oledan (Oledan) arrested Gabatan for allegedly conspiring with Gutual in selling shabu. Oledan conducted a body search on Gabatan which yielded four heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets from the side pocket of her duster. Oledan handed the four sachets to SPO2 Germodo. The latter marked all the sachets seized with "JG-GG-BB" (sachet obtained from the confidential agent after the alleged sale) and "JG-GG-P1" to "JG-GG-P4" (sachets recovered from the possession of Gabatan). JG stands for the initials of Gutual, while GG stands for Gabatan's initials. 7
The inventory of all the sachets confiscated was conducted by SPO2 Germodo at the locus criminis before Ramonito Astillero, a Department of Justice (DOJ) representative, and Cadawinonan Kagawad Ma. Emily Olivo, who both signed the Inventory Sheet together with Amatong as the seizing officer, Police Senior Inspector Alvin Futalan as the team leader of the operation, and Oledan who photographed the seized items. The inventory was, however, continued at the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) office because the media representative was unable to arrive at the place of the incident. SPO2 Germodo had custody of all the sachets seized until they arrived at the NBI office, where Juditho Fabillar, a media representative, arrived during the continuation of the items' inventory and signed the inventory sheet. Amatong, afterwards, prepared the letter-request for the chemical analysis of the sachets' contents. SPO2 Germodo gave the sachets to Amatong, who personally indorsed the letter and sachets to Police Chief Inspector Josephine Llena (PCI Llena), the forensic chemist of the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory of Dumaguete City whose qualitative examination conducted on the white crystalline substance contained in the said sachets yielded positive for shabu, as per Chemistry Report No. D-084-10. 8
Evidence for the Defense
Gutual denied selling shabu. She testified that she was selling groceries, softdrinks and liquors at the Dumaguete City Pier. On July 28, 2010, at about noontime, she was resting at the second storey of her house when three men suddenly entered. She knew they were police officers but did not know their names. Said men rifled through her things and took her earnings amounting to P2,000.00. She was told to stand up and was searched but nothing was found in her possession. They brought her to the ground floor of the house and had her seated. Later on, the police officers brought her to the police station aboard a green vehicle where she was ordered to give her urine sample. It was only at the police station where she learned about the charge against her. 9
Gabatan also denied the charges against her and averred that in the morning of July 28, 2010, she was washing clothes in her house in Cadawinonan, Dumaguete City. At about 1:00 p.m., while she was resting, her neighbor Ronnie Gutual (Ronnie) called her and requested her to go to his place to hand her something. When she arrived at Ronnie's house, Gabatan saw three men while Gutual was seated. She was told to enter the house and sit. She asked them what the incident was all about but one of the men told her to keep silent. Gabatan got infuriated so she refused but one of the men pointed a gun at her chest that constrained her to sit down. Then, she and Gutual were made to board a vehicle which brought them to the police station. There, they gave their urine samples and were, afterwards, detained. 10
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
In the Joint Judgment 11 rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental, Branch 30, on May 21, 2013, the accused-appellants were both convicted of the charges leveled against them. For illegal sale of shabu, the accused-appellants were each sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00. For illegal possession of shabu, Gabatan was also sentenced to suffer imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and to pay a fine of P400,000.00. 12
For violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the RTC ruled based on the following:
(i) The prosecution successfully proved all its essential elements such as the identities of the buyer and seller, the object and the consideration, 13 as well as the existence of the buy-bust money used during the entrapment; 14
(ii) The collective testimonies of the apprehending officers were corroborated by Chemistry Report No. D-084-10 issued by PCI Llena which confirmed that the white crystalline substance contained in the sachets confiscated resulted positive for shabu; 15
(iii) The non-presentation of the poseur-buyer during the trial is not fatal to the case of the prosecution because her testimony is merely corroborative considering that Amatong testified and positively identified the accused-appellants as the perpetrators of the crimes; 16
(iv) The conspiracy between the accused-appellants was duly established; 17 and
(v) The warrantless arrest was valid because the accused-appellants were caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu at the time it was made.
Any objection on its validity should have been made before they entered their plea, otherwise, the objection is deemed waived. 18
Gabatan was also convicted of violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 based on the following:
(i) The prosecution had adduced sufficient proof that Gabatan was found to be in possession of 1.10 g of shabu contained in four heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets; 19
(ii) Amatong and Oledan's testimonies vividly featured the circumstances which led to the arrest of the accused-appellants; 20 and
(iii) Gabatan was not authorized by law to possess the sachets of shabu, which was confiscated from her. 21
The RTC gave scant consideration to the denial interposed by the accused-appellants as there was no clear and convincing evidence to corroborate it vis-à-vis the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses positively identifying them as the perpetrators of the crime. The defense further failed to adduce evidence that the apprehending police officers were ill motivated to falsely testify against them. Thus, they enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their official duties. 22
Lastly, the RTC further stated that the chain of custody of the sachets of shabu was complied with. Thus, the integrity and evidentiary value of the same have not been compromised. 23
Ruling of the CA
The findings of the RTC were affirmed by the CA. In its Decision 24 dated July 31, 2015, the CA emphasized that the testimony of Amatong clearly proved that a transaction of illegal drugs took place as she was able to personally witness the same. The CA further agreed that the non-presentation of the confidential informant during the trial will not prejudice the case of the prosecution and would merely be corroborative to the testimony of the apprehending officers. 25 DETACa
The CA further agreed with the RTC that the evidence for the prosecution showed that the buy-bust team followed the procedure in handling and preserving the integrity of the shabu from the time of its seizure until it was given to SPO2 Germodo, who marked all the sachets and immediately conducted an inventory thereof in the presence of both the accused-appellants, a DOJ representative and a Barangay Kagawad. And to ensure compliance with Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, SPO2 Germodo ensured that he had custody of all the sachets of shabu confiscated when he, the team and the accused-appellants, arrived at the NBI Office in Dumaguete City where he continued the inventory in the presence of a media representative. The CA stressed that SPO2 Germodo's failure to sign the inventory receipt of the items confiscated is inconsequential and does not overcome the clear testimonies of the prosecution witnesses that he was the one who marked all said items after they were handed to him. 26
Ruling of the Court
The appeal has no merit.
As aptly stated by the RTC and affirmed by the CA, all the elements necessary to convict the accused-appellants of violations of Sections 5 (illegal sale) and 11 (illegal possession of prohibited drugs) have been duly established by the prosecution. It was proved during the trial that Gabatan handed a plastic sachet filled with white crystalline substance to Gutual, who sold the same to the confidential informant in exchange for P1,000.00. Amatong stood merely 10 m away and personally saw how it happened. The confidential informant, on the other hand, immediately met Amatong and handed the sachet to her. After having been convinced that the content thereof was shabu, Amatong made the pre-arranged signal to SPO2 Germodo to prompt him and the rest of the team that the illegal sale has been consummated. Gabatan, on the other hand, was seen by SPO2 Germodo as she was standing about 10 m away, and was arrested for being the source of the sachet sold to the confidential informant. This prompted the buy-bust team to also arrest her and search her person which yielded four more sachets of shabu. Such facts justify their arrest as they were committing violations of R.A. No. 9165 in flagrante delicto.
The RTC and CA correctly disregarded the defense of denial absent clear and convincing evidence to corroborate it. The police officers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their official duties absent any evidence that they were ill motivated to falsely testify against the accused-appellants.
The Court further agrees that the chain of custody of the sachets of shabu seized was duly complied with from the time of its seizure until the same were adduced in evidence against the accused-appellants.
Lastly, the penalties imposed by the RTC and affirmed by the CA are well within the range of penalties provided for under R.A. No. 9165.
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to DISMISS the appeal for failure to sufficiently prove that the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in its disputed Decision dated July 31, 2015 in CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 01663, finding accused-appellants Cecilian Joy Gutual y Semitera and Gemma Gabatan y Tampio GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, and likewise finding Gemma Gabatan y Tampio additionally GUILTY of violating Section 11, Article II of the same Act. The penalties imposed in both violations are AFFIRMED." (Jardeleza, J., no part in view of his prior action in the Office of the Solicitor General; Carpio, J., designated additional Member per Raffle dated January 23, 2017.)
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
By:
MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo L. Delos Santos, with Associate Justices Renato C. Francisco and Edward B. Contreras concurring; CA rollo, pp. 131-150.
2.Id. at 9.
3.Id.
4.Id. at 137.
5.Id. at 137-138.
6.Id. at 138-139.
7.Id. at 52-53.
8.Id. at 53-54.
9.Id. at 54.
10.Id. at 54-55.
11. Rendered by Judge Rafael Crescencio C. Tan, Jr.; id. at 50-67.
12.Id. at 65-66.
13.Id. at 56.
14.Id. at 60.
15.Id.
16. Id. at 61.
17. Id.
18. Id. at 63.
19. Id. at 61.
20. Id.
21. Id. at 62.
22. Id. at 62-63.
23. Id. at 64.
24. Id. at 131-150.
25. Id. at 143-146.
26. Id. at 20-21.