THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 215322. March 9, 2016.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. AVELINO BARING JAYME, JR., accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated March 9, 2016, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 215322 (People of the Philippines vs. Avelino Baring Jayme, Jr.). — This is an appeal from the Decision 1 dated August 14, 2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01459, affirming the Judgment 2 dated January 2, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 57, in Criminal Case No. CBU-86110, which convicted accused-appellant Avelino Baring Jayme, Jr. (Jayme) for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
The prosecution's evidence established the following facts: Jayme was apprehended by a buy-bust operation team in Talamban, Cebu City in an operation conducted pursuant to an informant's tip that Jayme was engaged in illegal activities. The buy-bust happened in the morning of May 10, 2009, when Police Officer 1 Alpon Gualingco (PO1 Gualingco), who acted as a poseur-buyer, and the informant went to Jayme's house to buy P100.00 worth of hand-rolled marijuana. After Jayme took the P100.00 marked money and handed over ten (10) marijuana sticks to PO1 Gualingco, the latter revealed his identity, apprised Jayme of his constitutional rights, conducted a body search and recovered the marked money. After learning of the arrest, the rest of the team then proceeded to the area and brought Jayme to the police station. There, PO1 Vicente Garcia (PO1 Garcia) took photographs of the seized items while PO1 Gualingco made an inventory. The marijuana sticks were then sent to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory for examination and later on, tested positive for marijuana. 3
Jayme, on the other hand, denied the prosecution's version and contended that he was sleeping when the police officers, together with an asset, entered his house, conducted a search and arrested him. When he asked why he was being arrested, he was told that the asset was able to buy marijuana from him. He denied the accusation and in fact, saw the marijuana only at the police station. The asset later told him that he just got jealous of Jayme whom he suspected of having a relationship with his live-in partner. 4
The RTC did not give credence to Jayme's denial and convicted him of the crime charged. In its Judgment dated January 2, 2012, Jayme was sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00. 5 The CA, on appeal, likewise rejected Jayme's denial and affirmed the RTC conviction in the assailed Decision dated August 14, 2014.
In the present appeal, Jayme adopts the arguments he previously raised in the CA, to wit: (1) the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt; 6 and (2) the elements of the crime (sale of illegal drugs) charged were not established. 7 The gist of Jayme's arguments rests on his claim that the prosecution failed to prove the corpus delicti of the crime and establish the unbroken chain of custody of the seized marijuana sticks.
Ruling of the Court
Article II, Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165 penalizes, among others, the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. In order to sustain a conviction for this crime, the following elements must be proven by the prosecution: (a) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object and consideration of the sale; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What the prosecution needs to present is proof that a transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of the corpus delicti. 8
In this case, Court finds that the prosecution was able to establish the commission of the crime charged and Jayme's culpability. As was found by the RTC, "[PO1] Gualingco testified in direct and categorical manner, that he bought marijuana sticks from [Jayme], who received the payment of P100.00." 9 The CA also gave more weight to PO1 Gualingco's testimony. 10 The Court has adhered to the principle that findings of the trial court which are factual in nature and which involve the credibility of witnesses are accorded with respect, when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts, and speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. 11 The rule finds an even more stringent application where the RTC's findings are sustained by the CA. 12 DcHSEa
Moreover, a review of PO1 Gualingco's direct examination shows how he concisely testified regarding the conduct of the buy-bust operation — that he was introduced by the informant to Jayme as someone who wants to buy marijuana sticks; that Jayme asked him how many he wanted to buy and he replied, P100.00 worth; that Jayme, in turn, answered, "Okay" and gave him the items; that he placed the suspected marijuana in his pocket, and thereafter informed Jayme that he was a police officer. 13 On this score, the Court has consistently ruled that "[t]he commission of illegal sale merely requires the consummation of the selling transaction, which happens the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller. As long as the police officer went through the operation as a buyer, whose offer was accepted by appellant, followed by the delivery of the dangerous drugs to the former, the crime is already consummated." 14
The Court also rejects Jayme's argument assailing the integrity of the chain of custody of the seized marijuana.
The Court recognized the difficulty of complete compliance with the chain of custody requirement; hence, non-compliance with Section 21 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 is not fatal, 15and substantial compliance is sufficient as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending police officers. 16 What is imperative are the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items and the removal of unnecessary doubt as to the identity of the evidence as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. 17
The evidence on record shows that the prosecution sufficiently established the chain of custody of the seized marijuana from Jayme: (1) PO1 Gualingco had in his possession the marijuana sticks bought from Jayme and these continued to remain in his possession until they reached the police station; (2) at the police station, he marked the ten (10) marijuana sticks "AJ-1" to "AJ-10"; (3) he also made an inventory of the seized items, which was signed by Jayme and Talamban Barangay Captain Alvin B. Arcilla, while PO1 Garcia took photographs of the items; (4) team leader PO3 Andres Lim made a letter-request to the PNP Crime Laboratory, which was signed by Police Chief Inspector Ryan Asidera Devaras; (5) another member of the buy-bust team, PO1 Jennifer Velasco, brought the letter and the items to the PNP Crime Laboratory; (6) Chemistry Report No. D-459-2009 confirmed that the items yielded positive of marijuana; and (7) the marijuana sticks and the marked money were presented in evidence and identified by PO1 Gualingco during trial. 18 All these indubitably show substantial compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and the Court finds no convincing reason or evidence to hold otherwise.
Article II, Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165 prescribes a penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00 for the sale of any dangerous drug, regardless of the quantity or purity involved. Consequently, the penalties imposed by the RTC — life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 — as affirmed by the CA, are within the range of the penalties provided for by the law.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated August 14, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01459 is AFFIRMED." (Jardeleza, J., no part in view of his participation in the Office of the Solicitor General; Mendoza, J., designated Additional Member per Raffle dated December 8, 2014.)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob, with Associate Justices Ramon Paul L. Hernando and Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap concurring; CA rollo, pp. 75-90.
2. Issued by Presiding Judge Enriqueta Loquillano-Belarmino; id. at 39-43.
3. Id. at 76-77.
4. Id. at 77-78.
5. Id. at 42.
6. See Brief for the Accused-Appellant; id. at 30-33.
7. Id. at 33-36.
8. People v. Lucio, G.R. No. 191391, June 19, 2013, 699 SCRA 173, 185.
9. CA rollo, p. 41.
10. Id. at 83-86.
11. People v. De Leon, 624 Phil. 786, 796 (2010).
12. People v. Veloso, 703 Phil. 541, 551 (2013).
13. CA rollo, pp. 84-85.
14. People v. Lucio, supra note 8.
15. People of the Philippines v. Efren Basal Cayas, G.R. No. 215714, August 12, 2015.
16. People v. Morate, G.R. No. 201156, January 29, 2014, 715 SCRA 115, 131.
17. Id. at 130.
18. CA rollo, pp. 40, 82-86.