FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 247525. March 24, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RAFIE RYAN CAMORO LUMEN @ RAFFY, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated March 24, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 247525 — (People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rafie Ryan Camoro Lumen @ Raffy, Accused-Appellant). — This is an appeal seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision 1 dated 06 March 2019 of the Court of Appeals, Cagayan de Oro Station (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01830-MIN, affirming the Joint Judgment 2 dated 19 December 2017 of Branch 21, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bansalan, Davao del Sur, in Criminal Case Nos. XXI-2216(17) and XXI-2217(17).
Antecedents
Rafie Ryan Camoro Lumen (appellant) was indicted for violation of Sections 5 3 and 11, 4 Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 5 in two (2) separate Informations, the accusatory portions of which state —
Criminal Case No. XXI-2216(17) for illegal sale of shabu (Section 5, Article II of RA 9165)
That on August 16, 2017, in the Municipality of Bansalan, Davao del Sur, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, trade or deliver to a poseur-buyer 0.031 gram, more or less, of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, to the damage and prejudice of the State.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 6
Criminal Case No. XXI-2217(17) for illegal possession of shabu (Section 11, Article II of RA 9165)
That on August 16, 2017, in the Municipality of Bansalan, Davao del Sur, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, control and custody eight (8) sachets of [shabu], weighing approximately 0.048 gram, a dangerous drug, to the damage and prejudice of the State.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 7
Upon arraignment, appellant entered a plea of "not guilty" to the charges. 8 After pre-trial was terminated, trial on the merits ensued. 9
Version of the Prosecution
On 16 August 2017, at about 9:00 a.m., a confidential informant (CI) informed the Provincial Drug Enforcement Unit (PDEU) of San Agustin, Digos City of appellant's alleged involvement in illegal drug activities in Bansalan. As a result, a buy-bust team was organized to entrap appellant. PO1 Donald Raña (PO1 Raña) was designated as poseur-buyer while PO1 Oliver Ace T. Nerona (PO1 Nerona) was tasked to lead the arresting team. 10
Thereafter, the entire team proceeded to the target area — Jerry's Eatery in Barangay Mabuhay, Bansalan, Davao del Sur — where appellant worked. Upon reaching the area, the arresting team went inside first. After some time, PO1 Raña and the CI followed. When the CI saw appellant, he introduced PO1 Raña as a person who wanted to buy shabu. Appellant took one (1) sachet from his pocket and told PO1 Raña that it was worth Php500.00. He then gave PO1 Raña the item under the table. After determining the item to be shabu, PO1 Raña handed over the marked money and then executed the pre-arranged signal. 11
PO1 Nerona consequently apprehended appellant and informed the latter of his rights. He was able to recover from appellant's possession the marked money, three (3) sachets of suspected shabu, and a purple pencil case containing five (5) more sachets of suspected shabu. 12
At the place of arrest, PO1 Raña marked the sachet he obtained from appellant while PO1 Nerona marked the other eight (8) sachets of suspected shabu. As people were becoming numerous, the police officers felt that their lives were in danger. Thus, they proceeded to the police station where they inventoried the seized items in the presence of appellant, Barangay Kagawad Dennis Gatmaitan, and media representative Jhun Otero. Photographs were taken while the inventory was ongoing. 13
Thereafter, PO1 Raña and PO1 Nerona took the seized specimens to the crime laboratory and were received by PO1 Jay Cañezo (PO1 Cañezo) 14 who then turned over the items to the forensic chemist, Police Inspector Jade Ryan Pelayre Bajade (PI Bajade). 15 Upon examination, PI Bajade found that all the specimens were positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, as shown in Chemistry Report Nos. D-120-17DS 16 and D-121-17DS. 17 Thereafter, PI Bajade turned over the seized specimens to the evidence custodian, PO2 Nilo Senajon, Jr. (PO2 Senajon). 18 When PI Bajade went to court, he obtained the drug specimens from PO2 Senajon 19 who maintained that he kept the items in the evidence room, to which only he had access. 20
Version of the Defense
On 16 August 2017, appellant was working at Jerry's Eatery when he was ordered by Keking, his co-worker, to hand something which was wrapped in paper to a customer. In return, the customer gave appellant a Php500.00 bill which appellant then turned over to Keking. Afterwards appellant went to the back of the eatery where he was followed by PO1 Nerona and PO1 Raña who questioned him as to what he gave the customer. When appellant answered that he did not know what it was, PO1 Raña pointed a gun at his nape and placed some items in his back pocket. After appellant insisted that the item given to the customer belonged to Keking, the latter's room was searched. The police officers found a pencil case with five (5) sachets of shabu and Php1,000.00 bill. 21
Ruling of the RTC
On 19 December 2017, the RTC rendered its Joint Judgment, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, this Court finds and so holds that accused RAFIE CAMORO LUMEN GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for violations of [Sections] 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 and imposes upon him the following, viz.:
a) In Criminal Case No. XX1-2216 (17), n the penalty of Life Imprisonment and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00), and
b) In Criminal Case No. XX1-2217 (17), n the penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to Fourteen (14) years of imprisonment and a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00).
xxx xxx xxx
SO ORDERED. 22
The RTC found that the prosecution was able to establish all the elements of the crimes charged and that the prosecution was able to establish an unbroken chain of custody. 23 Finally, the RTC observed that the procedure under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 was complied with. 24
Aggrieved, appellant appealed to the CA.
Ruling of the CA
In its Decision, the CA affirmed appellant's conviction. It also ruled that the prosecution satisfactorily established the elements of illegal sale of shabu and illegal possession of shabu. 25 Furthermore, the chain of custody has been satisfactorily established by the prosecution. 26
Hence, this appeal.
For purposes of this appeal, the Office of the Solicitor General 27 and the Public Attorney's Office 28 manifested that they were no longer filing their respective supplemental briefs.
Issue
The issue is whether or not the CA correctly found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the offenses of illegal sale and illegal possession of prohibited drugs under RA 9165.
Ruling of the Court
The Court finds the appeal without merit.
The elements of illegal sale and
The CA and the RTC uniformly held that the prosecution established the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of prohibited drugs, as defined and penalized under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165. We see no reason to disturb the united findings of the courts a quo.
For the prosecution of the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the following elements must be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and its consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. 29 On the other hand, for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must prove that the accused was in possession of the dangerous drug without authority of law, and the accused freely and consciously possessed the dangerous drug. 30
In the instant case, the prosecution successfully proved all the elements of the crime of illegal sale of shabu, a dangerous drug. PO1 Raña, the poseur-buyer, positively identified appellant as the person who sold him the shabu and from whom he confiscated said shabu and marked money. Settled is the rule that as long as the police officer went through the operation as a buyer and his offer was accepted by appellant and the dangerous drugs delivered to the former, the crime is considered consummated by the delivery of the goods. 31
All the elements for illegal possession of dangerous drugs were likewise established. Apart from the sachet of shabu sold to PO1 Raña, found in appellant's possession were eight (8) more plastic sachets containing shabu which showed that he freely and consciously possessed them prior to his apprehension without any authority or license to possess the same. 32
The procedural rules on the
It is essential that the identity and integrity of the illegal drugs must be shown to have been preserved. To remove any doubt or uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the seized drugs, evidence must definitely show that the illegal drugs offered in court as exhibit are the same as those recovered from the accused. 33 This requirement is known as the chain of custody rule under RA 9165, created to safeguard doubts concerning the identity of the seized drugs. 34
Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 provides the chain of custody rule, outlining the procedure police officers must follow in handling the seized drugs, in order to preserve their integrity and evidentiary value. 35 Said provision was amended by RA 10640, 36 which was approved on 15 July 2014. Since the offense charged in this case was committed on 16 August 2017, the prescribed procedure under RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, applies. Thus, as part of the chain of custody procedure, the apprehending team is mandated, immediately after seizure and confiscation, to conduct a physical inventory and to photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service (NPS) OR the media. The presence of these witnesses safeguards "the establishment of the chain of custody and remove[s] any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence." 37
It is well-settled that the following links should be established in the chain of custody of the confiscated item: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court. 38
It is well to note that there was compliance with the procedures laid down in Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, as to the custody and disposition of the seized items from its seizure up to its presentation in court. First, the buy-bust team immediately marked the seized items at the place of seizure and took custody of the same. Second, the inventory and taking of photographs were done in the presence of the two (2) mandatory witnesses, i.e., an elected public official and a representative of the media, together with appellant. While the required step was done at the nearest police station, the same was justified. The buy bust was conducted mid-morning in a public place, an eatery. Thus, people were becoming numerous, and the police officers felt that their lives were in danger. At any rate, inventory and photograph taking is allowed to be done at the nearest police station, whenever practicable. 39
Third, PO1 Raña and PO1 Nerona promptly brought the seized items to the crime laboratory, duly received by PO1 Cañezo. And fourth, after the seized items tested positive for shabu, the same were then turned over to the evidence custodian before they were presented in court. Thus, We uphold the findings of both the RTC and the CA that there was compliance with the law as to the preservation and disposition of the dangerous drug and the chain of custody requirements. 40
The defense of denial is
Appellant's defense of denial is invariably viewed by the courts with disfavor because such defense can easily be concocted and are common and standard defense ploys in most cases involving violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. 41 It deserves scant consideration in light of the positive testimonies of the police officers. 42
In order to prosper, appellant's defense of denial must be proven with strong and convincing evidence. Without proof of any intent on the part of the police officers to falsely impute to appellant the commission of a crime, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and the principle that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect, should prevail over bare denials and self-serving claims. 43
The prosecution has successfully demonstrated that the police officers faithfully adhered to the rules on chain of custody, including compliance with the inventory and two (2)-witness requirements. As such, the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti had been properly preserved. Necessarily, appellant's conviction for the offenses charged must stand. 44
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. Accordingly, the Decision dated 06 March 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01830-MIN is AFFIRMEDin toto.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 5-25; penned by Associate Justice Tita Marilyn Payoyo-Villordon and concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo A. Camello and Evalyn M. Arellano-Morales of the Court of Appeals, Cagayan de Oro Station.
2. Records, pp. 83-100; penned by RTC Presiding Judge Loida S. Posadas-Kahulugan.
3. Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals.
4. Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs.
5. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
6. Records, p. 1.
7.Id. at 3.
8.Id. at 39.
9.See Records, pp. 42-44.
10. TSN, 02 October 2017, pp. 3-6 (witness: PO1 Raña).
11.Id. at 7-10; TSN, 09 October 2017, p. 26 (witness: PO1 Raña); TSN, 06 November 2017, p. 5 (witness: PO1 Raña).
12. TSN, 02 October 2017, pp. 9-10 (witness: PO1 Raña); TSN, 09 October 2017, p. 10 (witness: PO1 Nerona).
13. TSN, 02 October 2017, pp. 10-12 (witness: PO1 Raña); TSN, 09 October 2017, pp. 10-11 (witness: PO1 Nerona).
14. TSN, 02 October 2017, p. 12 (witness: PO1 Raña); TSN, 09 October 2017, p. 11 (witness: PO1 Nerona).
15. Chain of Custody Form, Exhibit "P"; Folder of Exhibits.
16. Exhibit "B"; Folder of Exhibits.
17. Exhibit "E"; Folder of Exhibits.
18. TSN, 11 October 2017, p. 21 (witness: PI Bajade).
19.Id. at 4-27.
20. TSN, 30 October 2017, p. 8 (witness: PO2 Senajon).
21. TSN, 29 November 2017, pp. 3-11 (witness: appellant).
22.Id. at 99-100.
23.Id. at 96-99.
24. CA rollo, p. 51.
25.Id. at 15-16.
26.Id. at 22.
27.Id. at 33-38.
28.Id. at 41-45.
29.People v. Pantallano, G.R. No. 233800, 06 March 2019 [Per J. A.B. Reyes, Jr.].
30.People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21 (2017), G.R. No. 208093, 20 February 2017 [Per J. Del Castillo].
31.People v. Jaime, G.R. No. 232083, 27 November 2019 [Per J. Zalameda].
32.Id.
33.People v. Macaumbang, G.R. No. 208836, 01 April 2019 [Per J. Gesmundo]; see People v. Lumaya, G.R. No. 231983, 07 March 2018 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe].
34.People v. Bangcola, G.R. No. 237802, 18 March 2019 [Per J. Gesmundo].
35.People v. Alvaro, G.R. No. 225596, 10 January 2018 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe].
36. An Act to Further Strengthen the Anti-Drug Campaign of the Government, Amending for the Purpose Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
37.People v. Doctolero, Jr., G.R. No. 243940, 20 August 2019 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe].
38.People v. Ubungen, G.R. No. 225497, 23 July 2018 [Per J. Martirez].
39. Section 21 (1), Article II of RA 9165 as amended by RA 10640:
x x x 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:
40.Supra at note 31.
41.People v. Meneses, G.R. No. 233533, 30 June 2020 (Per C.J. Peralta].
42.People v. Lung Wai Tang, G.R. No. 238517, 27 November 2019 [Per J. Zalameda] citing People v. Bala, 741 Phil. 254 (2014), G.R. No. 203048, 13 August 2014 [Per J. Perez].
43.Id. citing People v. Chi Chan Liu, 751 Phil. 146 (2015), G.R. No. 189272, 21 January 2015 [Per J. Peralta].
44.Supra at note 31.
n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document.
n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document.