THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 229932. February 28, 2018.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. EMIE PEROCHO LUMUSAD AND ALEX PODI ADAPON @ SALIK ADAPON, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedFebruary 28, 2018, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 229932 (People of the Philippines v. Emie Perocho Lumusad and Alex Podi Adapon @ Salik Adapon). — The Court NOTES the letter dated December 11, 2017 of Gerardo G. Padilla, Acting Superintendent of the Davao Prison and Penal Farm. B.E. Dujali, Davao del Norte, confirming the confinement therein of accused-appellant Alex Adapon y Podi @ "Salik Adapon" since October 9, 2015.
This is an appeal from the Decision 1 dated November 15, 2016 by the Court of Appeals-Mindanao (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01458-MIN. The CA affirmed the Omnibus Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court, Butuan City, Branch 4 (RTC) dated July 2, 2015 in Criminal Case No. 14153 finding Alex Podi Adapon @ Salik Adapon (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, thereby sentencing him to life imprisonment and payment of a fine of five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
Accused-appellant was charged in an amended information, which states:
Criminal Case No. 14153
That on or about 2:10 o'clock in the afternoon of May 19, 2010 at Butuan City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, confederating and conspiring one another without authority of law and without the corresponding license or prescription, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously dispense, deliver, sell and give away one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet of methamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as shabu weighing zero point zero three zero five (0.0305) gram, more or less, which is a dangerous drug to a poseur-buyer.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 3 (underscoring in the original)
The Antecedents
Before the trial court, the prosecution, through its witnesses, narrated the facts as follows:
On May 18, 2010, Intelligence Officer 1 Marjorie Veso (IO1 Veso) received information from a confidential informant about the alleged sale of drugs by a certain Salik Adapon in Butuan City. The following day, with the information confirmed by Investigation Agent 5 Joel Plaza (IA5 Plaza), a team was formed for a possible buy-bust operation against appellant. IO1 Veso was designated as the poseur-buyer and Investigation Officer 1 Robin Tibayan (IO1 Tibayan) the arresting officer. It was agreed that IO1 Veso will dial IO1 Tibayan's number when the sale was consummated. IO1 Veso had with her the buy-bust money of P500 with serial number YG684620 and marked with the initials "JCB."
In the afternoon of that day, the team, accompanied by the confidential informant, went to the target area, where they were approached by a young man who turned out to be Samad Adapon (Samad), brother of accused-appellant. Samad asked IO1 Veso and the confidential informant whether they were looking for something, to which the confidential informant replied in the positive. Samad said the item was with accused-appellant. They then went to accused-appellant's house, where the latter met IO1 Veso and the confidential informant. Accused-appellant then asked IO1 Veso how much she wanted to buy. She replied she wanted to buy P500 worth of shabu and gave the money to accused-appellant. Thereafter, he inserted the P500 bill into the right pocket of his maong short pants and asked something from his co-accused Emie Lumusad (Emie). Emie gave one heat-sealed plastic sachet containing the suspected shabu to accused-appellant, who, in turn, gave the same sachet to IO1 Veso. The latter examined the same, put the sachet in her left front pocket, and discreetly called IO1 Tibayan. Thereafter, IO1 Tibayan arrested accused-appellant inside the house and informed him of the reason for his arrest and his constitutional rights. IO1 Veso, while still at the area, marked the sachet of shabu she bought from appellant with the initials "JCB-1" in the presence of accused-appellant and Samad. She also took photos of the substance while at the area.
Upon instructions from IA5 Plaza and for security reasons, the buy-bust team pulled out from the area, bringing accused-appellant, Samad, and Emie back to their office. There, the agents bodily searched the three (3), recovering the P500 marked money and four (4) heat-sealed plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance, among others. Photographs and an inventory of these items were taken, witnessed by media representative Larry Diez, Barangay Councilor Nestor Orias, and DOJ Representative Ronaldo Bedrijo. IO1 Veso prepared the certificate of inventory, which was signed by the witnesses in the presence of accused-appellant, Samad, and Emie. She also prepared the Requests for Laboratory Examination of the sachet marked "JCB-1," the other four (4) sachets recovered marked "JCB-A" to "JCB-D," and Drug Test Examinations for the three (3) arrested persons. The requests, specimens, and arrested persons were brought by IO1 Veso and IO1 Tibayan to the PNP Crime Laboratory Office-13. The Chemistry Report showed that the sachets were found positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. The drug tests on accused-appellant and Samad were also positive for the same drug. Emie's drug test yielded a negative result.
On the other hand, the defense presented accused-appellant as its sole witness. He testified that he was in the house of his younger sister for lunch. His brother, Samad, also arrived, with whom he had a pot session. After the pot session, Emie also arrived. Thereafter, persons wearing bonnet masks arrived at the house, told them to get down, and searched him, Samad, and Emie. The persons with the bonnet masks also took appellant's earnings as a trisikad driver.
The RTC Ruling
In its decision dated July 2, 2015, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drug. The trial court ruled that all the elements for violation of Sec. 5, R.A. 9165 were present in this case. The RTC decision reads:
COURT EVALUATION
To prove a violation of Section 5 (selling) of Article II of Republic Act 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), two (2) basic elements must be proven beyond reasonable doubt:
A. Identity of the buyer and seller, exchange of the consideration (money) and the prohibited drug (sachet of shabu).
B. Compliance of (sic) Section 21 of Article II of Republic Act 9165.
On the first element —
Prosecution witness, Veso, categorically testified that it was accused who received the money and gave her the sachet of shabu during the transaction. There is no question as to the identity of the accused was (sic) the very person who sold the prohibited drug.
The consideration, P500.00 marked money was also properly identified as the very same money given and received by accused during the transaction.
The prohibited drug subject of the transaction was confirmed as shabu, as analysed by the forensic chemical officer, per Chemistry Report No. D-053-2010.
As to the second element —
The subject sachet of shabu was immediately marked by Veso (poseur-buyer) at the crime scene.
Photographs were taken at the crime scene portraying the alleged sachet of shabu and the members of the team as well as the accused, his live-in partner and younger brother.
The integrity and authenticity of the purchased sachet of shabu was not compromised as the sole custodian of the sachet of shabu was Veso until its eventual submission to the PNP Crime Laboratory.
Every case must be determine (sic) and evaluated with the circumstances obtaining on the ground.
Accused's defense does not persuade. Accused even admitted that he has prior knowledge about prohibited drugs because he and his brother engaged in a pot session prior to his arrest.
Besides, he cannot even give any logical reason why he was arrested by the PDEA when as alleged by him he committed no crime.
In summation, prosecution's evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt the crime of violation of Section 5 of Article II of Republic Act 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). 4
The dispositive portion insofar as Criminal Case No. 14153 of the omnibus decision stated:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds accused Alex Podi Adapon @ "Salik Adapon" in Criminal Case No. 14153, for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) guilty beyond reasonable doubt and is hereby sentenced to undergo imprisonment of Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five hundred thousand (P500,000.00) pesos, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
SO ORDERED. 5
Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed to the CA.
The CA Ruling
In its decision dated November 15, 2016, the CA denied the appeal of accused-appellant. The main arguments in appellant's brief were addressed squarely by the CA as follows:
Lack of prior surveillance is not
Accused-appellant assails the validity of the buy-bust operation claiming that the prosecution failed to establish that a prior surveillance was conducted by the PDEA agents before the alleged buy-bust operation. He argues that there was no verification and confirmation made by the PDEA agents on the information given by the confidential informant on his alleged illegal activities. He posits that without the surveillance, the PDEA agents did not have any basis that he was selling shabu. Likewise, he avers chat the lack of surveillance negates the prosecution's claim that a buy-bust operation was validly conducted.
This Court disagrees.
It has been repeatedly stressed that prior surveillance is not a pre-requisite for the validity of an entrapment operation. In People v. Manlangit, the Supreme Court, citing the case of Quinicot v. People, categorically stated that a prior surveillance or test buy is not required for a valid buy-bust operation, as long as the operatives are accompanied by their informant, thus:
Settled is the rule that the absence of a prior surveillance or test buy does not affect the legality of the buy-bust operation. There is no textbook method of conducting buy-bust operations. The Court has left to the discretion of police authorities the selection of effective means to apprehend drug dealers. A prior surveillance, much less a lengthy one, is not necessary, especially where the police operatives are accompanied by their informant during the entrapment. Flexibility is a trait of good police work. We have held that when time is of the essence, the police may dispense with the need for prior surveillance. In the instant case, having been accompanied by the informant to the person who was peddling the dangerous drugs, the policemen need not have conducted any prior surveillance before they undertook the buy-bust operation. (Emphasis added.)
In this case, there is no doubt that a legitimate buy-bust operation was conducted by the PDEA agents on 19 May 2010 against the accused-appellant. While it was admitted by IO1 Veso that there was no prior surveillance conducted by their office, yet, the lack of prior surveillance is not fatal, if not inconsequential, in this case considering that 101 Veso was accompanied by their CI during the buy-bust operation. IO1 Veso's testimony that she and the CI went to the house of accused-appellant where she was introduced to the accused-appellant as a friend who wanted to buy shabu was not refuted by the accused-appellant. Hence, the absence of prior surveillance in this case does not affect the legality of the buy-bust operation. 6
xxx xxx xxx
Here, contrary to the contention of accused-appellant, this Court finds no broken link in the chain of custody over the subject sachet of shabu.
First. As discussed above, a legitimate buy-bust operation was established by the prosecution wherein it was proven that accused-appellant sold to IO1 Veso one (1) sachet of shabu in consideration of P500.00. This sachet of shabu was immediately marked by IO1 Veso with the initials of "JCB-1" at the crime scene in the presence of the accused-appellant and Samad. This was also evidenced by the photograph taken right after the buy-bust operation and which was duly identified and testified to by IO1 Veso.
Second. From the crime scene until the buy-bust team reached the PDEA office, the sachet of shabu marked with "JCB-1" remained in the possession and custody of IO1 Veso. At the PDEA office, the accused-appellant, Samad and accused Ernie were bodily searched and the sachet of shabu seized during the buy-bust operation, as well as the other items recovered from the possession of accused-appellant, Samad and accused Emie at the PDEA office were inventoried and photographed.
While it appears from the record that it was also IO1 Veso who prepared the inventory of the seized items at the PDEA office, this does not, however, compromise the identity and evidentiary value of the subject sachet of shabu seized during the buy-bust operation because this sachet was already previously marked at the crime scene and is separate and distinct from those four other sachets recovered at the PDEA office. More importantly, the investigation, inventory and photographing of all the seized items at the PDEA office were witnessed by the representatives of the DOJ, media and the barangay official. While IO1 Veso acted in both capacities of a poseur-buyer and investigating officer in this case, this does not violate the chain of custody rule considering that IO1 Tibayan, the arresting officer, likewise testified on the fact of investigation and inventory conducted at the PDEA office. Also, as mentioned above, the defense, during the trial below, stipulated on the testimony of Barangay Councilor Nestor Orias who was supposed to testify on the inventory and marking of the seized items at the PDEA office.
Third. The sachet of shabu subject of the buy-bust operation marked with "JCB-1" (and the four other sachets recovered at the PDEA office marked with "JCB-A" to "JCB-D") were brought, together with accused-appellant, Samad and accused Emie, to the PNP Crime Laboratory 13 by IO1 Veso. This was testified to by IO1 Veso herself and further evidenced by the Request for Laboratory Examination showing that these specimen were delivered on 19 May 2010 to the PNP Crime Laboratory by IO1 Veso and were received by PO1 Osana and consequently turned over to PCI Esber, the forensic chemist who conducted the laboratory examination on the submitted specimen. It should be noted that the testimony of PCI Esber on this matter was being stipulated upon by the defense during the trial below.
And fourth. The prosecution was able to establish that from PCI Esber, the sachet of shabu subject of the buy-bust operation and the four other sachets recovered at the PDEA officer were turned over and submitted by him to PO1 Migullas for safekeeping. The testimony of PCI Esber on this matter was likewise stipulated upon by both the prosecution and defense during the trial below. Also, this fact was further bolstered by the Chain of Custody document which was submitted by the prosecution and admitted by the trial court. Consequently, the seized items submitted to PO1 Migullas for safekeeping were then presented, identified and deposited to the custody of the trial court.
Verily, from the foregoing disquisition, there is no doubt that the prosecution was able to establish that the chain of custody of the seized items was not broken and the integrity and the evidentiary value of the sachet of shabu subject of the buy-bust operation was preserved. There is likewise no doubt that the identity of the corpus delicti in this case was not compromised despite the presence of the four other sachets of shabu recovered, albeit not shown to have been in possession of the accused-appellant.
While ideally the procedure on the chain of custody should be perfect and unbroken, in reality, it is not as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain. In People v. Morate, the Supreme Court explained that the chain of custody is basically the duly recorded authorized stages of transfer of custody of seized dangerous drugs, from their seizure or confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory for examination to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. The function of the chain of custody requirement is to ensure that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved, so much so that the unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the evidence are removed. Thus, the chain of custody requirement has a two-fold purpose: (1) the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, and (2) the removal of unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the evidence.
Likewise, it has been ruled that testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard because it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. In other words, it must be established with unwavering exactitude that the dangerous drug presented in court as evidence against the accused is the same as that seized from him in the first place.
Also, the integrity of the evidence is presumed to have been preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered with. Accused-appellant bear the burden of showing that the evidence was tampered or meddled with in order to overcome the presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers and the presumption that public officers properly discharged their duties. Here, accused-appellant failed to discharge his burden of proof. 7
The fallo of the CA decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed Omnibus Decision dated 2 July 2015 of the Regional Trial Court of Butuan City, Branch 4, insofar as Criminal Case No. 14153 is concerned, is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 8
Hence, this appeal.
Issue
In this appeal, this Court is confronted with the same issue raised with the CA: whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
On April 17, 2017, this Court issued a Resolution requiring the parties to submit their respective supplemental briefs. The Office of the Solicitor General representing the People of the Philippines filed a Manifestation 9 dated July 4, 2017 praying to be excused from filing a Supplemental Brief, considering that all relevant issues and arguments were discussed in its brief filed before the CA. Appellant, through a Manifestation in lieu of Supplemental Brief 10 dated July 19, 2017, chose to adopt the brief filed with the CA as his Supplemental Brief for the instant appeal.
The Court's Ruling
The Court resolves to dismiss the appeal for failure of the appellant to sufficiently show reversible error in the challenged decision warranting the exercise of the Court's appellate jurisdiction.
Factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the CA, are conclusive and binding on the Court. 11 As the factual findings of the RTC and CA were in accord with the evidence, and in the absence of any overlooked or misapprehended fact, the same should be binding on the Court.
Further, all the issues raised on appeal to this Court were already adequately passed upon both by the RTC and the CA. Thus, there is no need to disturb the ruling of the CA.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated November 15, 2016, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01458-MIN finding accused-appellant Alex Podi Adapon @ Salik Adapon guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violating Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 is AFFIRMEDin toto.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-28; penned by Associate Justice Rafael Antonio M. Santos with Associate Justices Edgardo T. Lloren and Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas, concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 39-48; penned by Judge Godofredo B. Abul, Jr.
3.Id. at 39-40.
4.Id. at 46-48. Citations omitted.
5.Id. at 48.
6.Id. at 10-12. Citations omitted, emphasis in the original.
7.Id. at 23-26. Citations omitted, emphasis in the original.
8.Id. at 28.
9.Id. at 36-38.
10.Id. at 40-41.
11.People of the Philippines v. Lopez, 591 Phil. 853, 862 (2008).