FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 207000. October 12, 2015.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALMA P. JUZAN Y PETALLAR and TADY CABILAO Y BACANTE, Accused; ALMA P. JUZAN y PETALLAR, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated October 12, 2015, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 207000 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALMA P. JUZAN Y PETALLAR and TADY CABILAO Y BACANTE, Accused; ALMA P. JUZAN y PETALLAR, Accused-Appellant.
For the Court's consideration is merely the final appeal of accused-appellant Alma P. Juzan y Petallar (Juzan). The appeal of accused Tady Cabilao y Bacante (Cabilao) was already dismissed by the Court of Appeals in a Resolution dated August 27, 2010 pursuant to accused Cabilao's Supplemental Motion with Manifestation (To Withdraw Appeal).
Accused-appellant Juzan challenges the November 20, 2012 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB-CR-HC No. 00505, which affirmed the October 28, 2005 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Cebu City, Branch 10, in Criminal Case No. CBU-63932. 2
In an Information 3 dated October 1, 2002, accused-appellant Juzan and accused Cabilao were charged with violation of Republic Act No. 9165 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, specifically Section 5 of Article II thereof, alleged to be committed as follows:
That on or about the 30th day of September, 2002, at about 9:45 P.M., in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, conniving and confederating together and mutually helping each other with deliberate intent, and without authority of law, did then and there sell, deliver or give away to a poseur buyer: one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic packet containing 0.03 gram of white crystalline substance locally known as "SHABU" containing Methylamphetamine hydrochloride, [a] dangerous drug/s.
On January 22, 2003, accused-appellant Juzan and accused Cabilao were arraigned and both pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.
To prove the commission of the crime charged, the prosecution presented the following witnesses: Police Inspector David Alexander T. Patriana (P/Insp. Patriana), Police Officer 2 Marvin Martinez (PO2 Martinez), and Police Officer 3 Ismael R. Gandionco (PO3 Gandionco). 4
P/Insp. Patriana, a forensic analyst of the Philippine National Police (PNP), 5 was supposed to testify in court but his testimony was dispensed with due to the defense counsel's admission of his expertise, and the existence of the specimen and Chemistry Report No. D-2044-2002. The defense counsel qualified, however, that the accused was not the owner of the specimen, and that P/Insp. Patriana was not competent to testify on the circumstances surrounding the arrest of both accused-appellant Juzan and accused Cabilao. 6
During trial, PO2 Martinez testified that he conducted surveillance operation at General Gines Street, Cebu City a few days before the buy bust operation. 7 On September 30, 2002 at around 9:45 p.m., his group, composed of PO3 Gandionco as team leader, PO2 Vilma Abayan (PO2 Abayan), and himself as the poseur-buyer, conducted a buy bust operation at said location. The subject of the operation was a certain "Alma". 8 He narrated that when he arrived at General Gines Street, he spoke to an informant and they proceeded to their target area where both accused-appellant Juzan and accused Cabilao approached them, with the latter asking PO2 Martinez if he wanted to buy shabu.
PO2 Martinez agreed to buy P100-worth of shabu after which accused-appellant Juzan handed him a clear plastic sachet containing white powdery substance. In exchange, PO2 Martinez handed over the marked P100 bill to accused Cabilao. 9 Thereafter, PO2 Martinez scratched his head with his left hand, the pre-arranged signal for the arrest. 10 After arresting the two accused, the police proceeded to the barangay hall to blotter the incident, and then to the police station at Gorordo Avenue. PO2 Martinez testified that he gave the shabu to PO3 Gandionco after the arrest, who, in turn, marked the same with "TBC-09-30-2002," the initials of accused Cabilao. 11 CAIHTE
PO3 Gandionco corroborated PO2 Martinez's narration on the buy bust operation. He testified that he submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory the shabu marked with the initials of accused-appellant Cabilao and a letter-request for its examination. He stated that the examination of the confiscated substance yielded positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. 12
For the defense, the witnesses included both accused-appellant Juzan and accused Cabilao, and one Flor Laborte (Laborte). 13
Accused-appellant Juzan denied the accusations against her and testified that at around 9:45 p.m. on September 30, 2002, she was playing tong-its (a card game) with several individuals, namely, Val, Minggay, Gary and Ricky, in a neighbor's house. Accused Cabilao was also playing behind them. All of a sudden, policemen arrived and arrested her and Cabilao. Gary and Ricky were able to escape. She said that the police brought her and accused Cabilao at the roadside of San Nicolas and asked for P40,000.00 in exchange for their freedom. When she was unable to produce the amount, they were brought to the police station where the police conducted a body search on them and found nothing. She denied that the money and shabu recovered belonged to them. 14
As for accused Cabilao, he testified that accused-appellant Juzan is his neighbor. He recounted that on the night of September 30, 2002, he was playing a video game in the house of Ray Gocor, when accused appellant Juzan called him. When he approached her, she handed a folded yellow paper to him to be given to a certain Alma Abayan. Five minutes later, policemen arrived, frisked them, and arrested them. 15
To corroborate the foregoing testimonies, the defense presented Laborte, a neighbor of the two accused. She testified that on the night of September 30, 2002, she was playing tong-its with accused-appellant Juzan, while accused Cabilao was playing a video game. She narrated that a lesbian, who was later identified as policewoman Vilma Abayan, approached accused-appellant Juzan and gave her money. The latter then handed a folded yellow paper to accused Cabilao to be given to PO2 Abayan. Five minutes later, several policemen arrived and frisked everyone in the area including the two accused. She said that the police did not find anything from accused Cabilao, while they recovered money and shabu from accused-appellant Juzan. Afterwards, the police arrested the two accused. 16
The Regional Trial Court Decision
On October 28, 2005, the RTC rendered a Decision 17 finding both the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. The dispositive portion thereof reads: aScITE
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, this Court finds the accused TADY CABILAO Y BACANTE and ALMA JUZAN Y PETALLAR, GUILTY of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. They are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay separately P500,000.00 each.
The single heat-sealed transparent plastic packet containing white crystalline substance weighing 0.03 gram, proven positive for the presence of methyl amphetamine hydrochloride, is ordered confiscated and shall be destroyed in accordance with law. 18
The RTC held that the prosecution was able to establish the elements of illegal sale of shabu: 1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration, and 2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payments thereof. PO2 Martinez clearly narrated the participation of both accused in the sale. The corpus delicti of the crime, which was the single plastic packet containing methamphetamine hydrochloride labeled as "TBC-09-30-2002" and marked as Exhibit "B," was identified and its chain of custody duly established. The marked money with serial number "YN866724" was presented and identified in court. The RTC pronounced that the guilt of the two accused were proven with moral certainty and beyond reasonable doubt. 19
The RTC further said that the prosecution witnesses, the police officers, testified in straightforward, consistent, spontaneous and frank manner; thus, they were entitled to full faith and credence. 20 As opposed to the defense witnesses, some of whom it found to be lying. The RTC also observed that the best persons who could attest to accused-appellant Juzan's innocence were her playmates. Oddly, they were not presented in court. Therefore, the RTC concluded that said playmates would not corroborate accused-appellant Juzan's testimony. 21
On November 29, 2005, the counsel for accused Cabilao filed a notice of appeal, while the counsel for accused Juzan filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File a Motion for Reconsideration on December 1, 2005. The RTC denied the latter motion.
The Court of Appeals Decision
On May 6, 2009, accused Cabilao filed, through counsel, a Supplemental Motion with Manifestation (To Withdraw Appeal), which stated that he was no longer interested in appealing his case and that he was withdrawing his appeal. 22 As for accused Juzan, she did not withdraw her appeal; thus, her appeal subsists.
On August 27, 2010, the Court of Appeals issued a Resolution 23 granting the motion of accused Cabilao. The dispositive portion of which reads:
Thus, considering all the foregoing, the Court RESOLVES to:
1. NOTE the Manifestation (With Motion for Extension of Time) dated August 12, 2009 and Manifestation dated October 9, 2009 from the Public Attorney's Office;
2. GRANT the Motion to Withdraw Appeal filed by accused-appellant Tady Cabilao. Thus, the appeal is DISMISSED in so far as accused-appellant Tady Cabilao is concerned; and
3. DIRECT the accused-appellant Alma Juzan Y Petallar, through counsel to file the Appellant's Brief within thirty (30) days from notice. 24
Thus, on the same date, the Court of Appeals issued a Partial Entry of Judgment with regards only to the dismissal of the appeal filed by accused Cabilao. 25
In a Decision 26 dated November 20, 2012, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of accused-appellant Juzan, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, the October 28, 2005 Decision of the Regional Trial Court Branch 10, Cebu City, in Criminal Case No. CBU-63932 is hereby AFFIRMED. 27
The Court of Appeals sustained the RTC's findings that the integrity of the evidence was preserved despite failure to strictly comply with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165; and that the witnesses were credible. The Court of Appeals reiterated the RTC's ruling that the policemen had no ill motive to falsely charge accused-appellant Juzan, i.e., that they had no dispute with each other; and that the defense did not offer any proof of any ill motive. Thus, the Court of Appeals held that the presumption of regularity in the performance of their official duty prevailed.
In striking down the defense's arguments, the Court of Appeals explained that 1) prior surveillance is not required for a valid buy bust operation, as long as the operatives are accompanied by their informant as in this case; 2) the purpose of marking is for identification of evidence of the parties, and there is no law or jurisprudence requiring that marking be made using the initials of all the accused; 3) the testimony of arresting officers in drug cases is accorded faith and credit because of the presumption of the regularity in the performance of their duties; 4) drug pushers offer strangers and non-strangers alike to purchase their prohibited articles because familiarity is immaterial as long as there is agreement on the sale and delivery of the prohibited drugs; 5) minor inconsistencies in the testimonies are allowed as long as they do not delve into the elements of the crime; and 6) the positive identification of the participants in the illegal sale of prohibited drugs and the withdrawal of appeal of one of the accused point to their guilt. 28
Undaunted, accused-appellant Juzan filed a Notice of Appeal on December 12, 2012 29 mainly anchored on the issue of whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Decision. HEITAD
The Court's Ruling
The appeal is denied.
In People v. Gani, 30 the Court held that in the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the prosecution must prove the following elements: (1) the identities of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof.
In this case, this Court agrees in the RTC's findings of facts and its evaluation of the prosecution's evidence. PO2 Martinez conducted a surveillance operation at General Gines Street, Cebu City a few days before the buy bust operation on September 30, 2002. His group, composed of PO3 Gandionco as team leader, PO2 Abayan, and himself as the poseur-buyer, proceeded with the buy bust operation and targeted a certain "Alma." Both accused-appellant Juzan and accused Cabilao approached them, with the latter asking PO2 Martinez if he wanted to buy shabu. PO2 Martinez bought P100-worth of shabu, accused-appellant Juzan handed him a clear plastic sachet containing white powdery substance, then PO2 Martinez handed over the marked P100 bill to accused Cabilao. After arresting the two accused, the police proceeded to the barangay hall to record the incident, and then to the police station at Gorordo Avenue. PO2 Martinez gave the clear plastic sachet with its contents to PO3 Gandionco after the arrest who marked the same with "TBC-09-30-2002," which are the initials of accused Cabilao. PO3 Gandionco then submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory the clear plastic sachet with its contents marked with the initials of accused Cabilao and a letter-request for examination. Afterwards, the test yielded positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
Accused-appellant Juzan denies the charges against her and claims extortion and frame-up.
This Court is not convinced.
In People v. Salvador, 31 this Court ruled that a defense of denial which is unsupported and unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence becomes negative and self-serving, deserving no weight in law, and cannot be given greater evidentiary value over convincing, straightforward and probable testimony on affirmative matters. Herein, accused-appellant Juzan's denial is unavailing as it is unsupported by any evidence. On the contrary, it is even contradicted by the testimonies of the other defense witnesses, accused Cabilao and Laborte, who both testified that she handed a folded yellow paper to accused Cabilao to be given to undercover policewoman PO2 Abayan, which turned out to contain the shabu.
Accused-appellant Juzan cannot likewise avail of the defense of frame-up. Frame-up, like alibi, can easily be concocted and is a common ploy in most prosecutions for violations of the Dangerous Drugs Law. To substantiate this defense, the evidence must be clear and convincing and should show that the buy bust team was inspired by improper motive or was not properly performing its duty. 32 Again, herein, the defense did not present evidence that there was ill motive on the part of the buy bust team, and there was no proof that the arresting officers improperly performed their duty in arresting accused-appellant Juzan and accused Cabilao.
Accused-appellant Juzan further contends that the police officers categorically testified that the clear plastic sachet with its contents that was allegedly bought from the accused-appellant Juzan was marked at the police station and not at the place of confiscation, in violation of Section 21, paragraph 1, Article 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, which states that the apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall immediately conduct a physical inventory of and photograph the same.
In People v. Salvador, 33 the Court pronounced that failure to strictly comply with the above procedure will not render an arrest illegal or the seized items inadmissible in evidence. Substantial compliance is allowed as provided for in Section 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165. This provision reads:
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items. (Emphasis supplied). ATICcS
The failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the required physical inventory and photographed the objects confiscated does not ipso facto result in the unlawful arrest of the accused or render inadmissible in evidence the items seized. This is due to the proviso added in the implementing rules stating that it must still be shown that there exists justifiable grounds and proof that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence have not been preserved. What is crucial is that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved for they will be used in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. 34
Hence, the links in the chain of custody must be established. The integrity and evidentiary value of seized items are properly preserved for as long as the chain of custody of the same are duly established. Chain of Custody means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who had temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody was made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition. 35
In the present appeal, the prosecution established the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated shabu. The prosecution demonstrated how the shabu contained in a clear plastic sachet transferred hands from accused-appellant Juzan to the poseur-buyer, PO2 Martinez; from the latter to PO3 Gandionco for marking after the arrest; and the latter submitted the confiscated item to the PNP Crime Laboratory for testing. The records show that there was no break in the chain of custody of the confiscated illegal drug from the accused, and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved. Notably, accused-appellant Juzan did not offer any proof of mishandling, tampering, or switching of evidence. She also did not offer as witnesses those persons she was playing with at the time of her arrest. Overall, this Court is satisfied that the Court of Appeals had thoroughly and sufficiently addressed the matters brought on appeal, and finds no reason to overturn or amend it.
In view of the foregoing, this Court is satisfied that neither the RTC nor the Court of Appeals erred in finding accused-appellant Juzan guilty as charged. The prosecution sufficiently proved beyond reasonable doubt accused-appellant Juzan's guilt of illegally selling a dangerous drug.
The penalty for illegal sale of shabu, regardless of the quantity and purity involved, under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, shall be life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00). Considering that no aggravating circumstance was alleged and proved to justify the imposition of the death penalty, plus the fact that the imposition of the death penalty has been prohibited by Republic Act No. 9346, entitled "An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines," the RTC, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, properly imposed upon accused-appellant Juzan the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).
WHEREFORE, the November 20, 2012 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB-CR-HC No. 00505, which affirmed the October 28, 2005 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Cebu City, Branch 10, in Criminal Case No. CBU-63932, is AFFIRMED in toto. No costs.
SO ORDERED." TIADCc
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 3-16; penned by Associate Justice Carmelita Salandanan-Manahan with Associate Justices Ramon Paul L. Hernando and Maria Elisa Sempio Diy, concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 29-51; penned by Judge Soliver C. Peras.
3. Id. at 15.
4. Records, pp. 21, 24, 41, 42A1, 55, 62, 65.
5. Id. at 18.
6. Id. at 21.
7. Id. at 118, 126.
8. Id. at 111-113.
9. Id. at 113-114, 118-121.
10. Id. at 121.
11. Id. at 122-123, 130, 143.
12. Id. at 134-139.
13. Id. at 79, 98, 102, 106, 108.
14. Id. at 156-160.
15. Id. at 189-192, 195-199.
16. Id. at 177-187.
17. Id. at 212-234.
18. Id. at 233-234.
19. Id. at 229-233.
20. CA rollo, p. 44.
21. Id. at 45-46.
22. Id. at 58, 60.
23. Id. at 75-77, penned by Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon with Associate Justices Portia A. Hormachuelos and Socorro B. Inting, concurring.
24. Id. at 76-77.
25. Id. at 78.
26. Id. at 167-180; penned by Associate Justice Carmelita Salandanan-Manahan with Associate Justices Ramon Paul L. Hernando and Maria Elisa Sempio Diy, concurring.
27. Id. at 180.
28. Id. at 203-205.
29. Id. at 183.
30. G.R. No. 198318, November 27, 2013, 711 SCRA 78, 90.
31. G.R. No. 190621, February 10, 2014, 715 SCRA 617, 632.
32. Id.
33. Id. at 633-634.
34. Id. at 634.
35. Id. at 635.