THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 225746. March 15, 2017.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,vs. FERNANDITO IBAÑEZ Y CAPUNO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 15, 2017, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 225746 (People of the Philippines vs. Fernandito Ibañez y Capuno). — This is an appeal from the Decision 1 dated September 30, 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 06713 which affirmed the conviction of Fernandito Ibañez y Capuno (Ibañez) for the violation of Sections 5, 11 and 12 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as "The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
Factual Antecedents
On March 27, 2006, Ibañez was charged in three informations for allegedly selling two (2) grams of dried marijuana leaves fruiting tops contained in one (1) small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet for P50.00, and possessing not only one brick of the same illegal drug weighing 200 g while it was wrapped with noodles, but also assorted drug paraphernalia on March 24, 2006 in Angeles City. 2 The cases were docketed as Criminal Case Nos. DC 06-720, 721, and 722, respectively.
Ibañez pleaded "not guilty" during arraignment. On pre-trial, the parties stipulated on the testimony of forensic chemist Amilyn Flores Maclid. 3
Evidence for the Prosecution
On May 27, 2004, an information was received by the City Anti-Illegal Drug Special Operation Task Group (CAIDSOTG) of the Angeles City Police Station about the illegal drug trade of marijuana and shabu of alias Jigs and alias Rose at Sitio Sto. Niño in Barangay Balibago. A buy-bust operation was organized where Police Officer 2 Felomino Atiga (PO2 Atiga) was designated as poseur-buyer who will use a 50-peso bill marked with his initials "FAA" below the serial number on its left portion. After the briefing, the team and the asset headed towards the target area. PO2 Atiga and the asset went to the house of Ibañez, also known as Jigs, to buy marijuana. Upon meeting Ibañez, PO2 Atiga asked for marijuana then handed the marked money. Upon receipt of a sachet, he sent a missed call to PO2 Rolando M. Pimentel, Jr. (PO2 Pimentel) as the pre-arranged signal that the sale was consummated. The rest of the team rushed to the scene. 4
Ibañez went inside the house where PO2 Pimentel frisked him and recovered the marked money. PO2 Pimentel also saw on top of the table plastic cups with several pieces of plastic sachets, rolling papers and a cigarette-burned marijuana, scissors, lighter, and one brick of marijuana, which he confiscated after arresting Ibañez. 5
Ibañez and the items confiscated were taken to the police station. PO2 Atiga marked the seized marijuana with his initials "FAA" in their office before turning it over to PO2 Pimentel. The latter, on the other hand, marked the items he seized with his initials "RMP" and prepared the affidavit of apprehension, custodial investigation report, certification of field test and inventory. Afterwards, PO2 Pimentel brought the seized marijuana and the request for its laboratory examination to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory. The chemical analysis thereof yielded positive for marijuana, as per Chemistry Report No. D-074-2006. 6
Evidence for the Defense
For his defense, on March 24, 2006, at about 2:00 p.m., Ibañez was waiting for passengers at a tricycle terminal when a woman boarded his tricycle and asked to be taken to Sitio Sto. Niño. When they reached their destination, the woman alighted and requested that he wait for her. While waiting, a van arrived with four men looking for the said woman. Not finding her, Ibañez was invited to the CAIDSOTG office where he was asked about her. He was detained after he denied knowing her and was charged for selling and possessing illegal drugs. 7 CAIHTE
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
In a Decision 8 dated February 11, 2014, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Angeles City, Branch 57, convicted Ibañez of all the charges against him. The trial court stated that: (1) the prosecution successfully proved all the elements of illegal sale and possession of prohibited drugs through the testimony of PO2 Atiga and PO2 Pimentel; (2) the evidence of the prosecution was supported by the Chemistry Report No. D-074-2006 issued by the PNP forensic chemist; (3) there was also evidence that various drug paraphernalia were recovered from the possession of Ibañez at the time of the arrest which the latter did not deny; (4) the defense of denial was scantily given consideration vis-à-vis the police officers' positive identification of Ibañez; and (5) the presumption of regularity in the performance of office duties is accorded upon the police officers who arrested Ibañez absent any evidence that they were ill motivated to falsely testify against him. 9
In Criminal Case No. DC 06-720, Ibañez was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00. In Criminal Case No. DC 06-721, he was sentenced to suffer imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years of reclusion temporal, and to pay a fine of P300,000.00. In Criminal Case No. DC 06-722, he was sentenced to suffer imprisonment of six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years of prision correccional. 10
Ruling of the CA
In a Decision 11 dated September 30, 2015, the CA affirmed the conviction of Ibañez based on the following: (1) the RTC aptly found that the prosecution duly established all the essential elements of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs; (2) a few discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses referring to minor details, which do not touch the essence of the crime, do not impair their credibility; (3) as for the chain of custody of the marijuana confiscated, substantial and not necessarily perfect adherence is required as long as it can be proven that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved in order to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. No hiatus or confusion was shown to have attended the handling, custody and examination of the dangerous drugs seized from Ibañez; (4) the bare denial of Ibañez cannot prevail over the positive testimony of the prosecution witnesses; and (5) the penalties imposed by the RTC were affirmed for being within the range of penalties under R.A. No. 9165. 12
Ruling of the Court
The appeal has no merit.
In every case of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165, the prosecution is obliged to establish the following essential elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and its payment. What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence. The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction. 13
For the prosecution of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11 of the same Act to prosper, there must be proof that (1) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug, (2) such possession is not authorized by law, and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug. 14
In Section 12 of the same Act, the following must be duly proved: (1) possession or control by the accused of any equipment, apparatus or other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body; and (2) such possession is not authorized by law. 15
The Court agrees with the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, that the prosecution duly established all the foregoing elements constituting illegal sale and possession of prohibited drugs and drug paraphernalia.
As testified during trial, PO2 Atiga handed a marked 50-peso bill to Ibañez upon receipt from him of a sachet of marijuana. After giving the pre-arranged signal to the rest of the buy-bust team, PO2 Pimentel and the other police officers rushed to the scene. Ibañez was arrested despite trying to escape by going inside his house. He was frisked and the marked 50-peso bill was recovered from his possession. Upon his arrest, PO2 Pimentel had a plain view of the brick of marijuana and various drug paraphernalia placed on top of the table a few meters away from where he stood.
The defense of denial is too flimsy and self-serving for this Court to consider absent any clear and convincing evidence to corroborate it. As aptly considered in the RTC and CA rulings, there was no showing of any ill motive on the part of the apprehending police officers when they testified against Ibañez. Thus, their credibility as witnesses for the prosecution is accorded merit and prevails over the denial of Ibañez. Moreover, they enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their official duties. Any inconsistencies in their testimonies on minor details do not affect their credibility as prosecution witnesses.
The Court further agrees that the chain of custody, pursuant to Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, of the marijuana seized was duly complied with from the time of its seizure until the same were adduced in evidence during the trial.
Lastly, the penalties imposed by the RTC, as 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 September 30, 2015 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 06713, finding accused-appellant Fernandito Ibañez y Capuno GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5, 11 and 12 of Republic Act No. 9165. The penalties imposed in all the said violations are AFFIRMED."
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 Rodil V. Zalameda, with Associate Justices Stephen C. Cruz and Pedro B. Corales concurring; CA rollo, pp. 106-119.
2.Id. at 107-109.
3.Id. at 109.
4.Id. at 109-110.
5.Id. at 110.
6.Id. at 110-111.
7.Id. at 111.
8. Rendered by Judge Omar T. Viola; id. at 43-54.
9.Id. at 52-53.
10.Id. at 54.
11.Id. at 106-119.
12.Id. at 112-118.
13.People v. Pascua, 672 Phil. 276, 283-284 (2011).
14.Fajardo, et al. v. People, 691 Phil. 752, 758 (2012).
15.People v. Mariano, et al., 698 Phil. 772, 785 (2012).