FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 203123. March 24, 2014.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. MACARARIK MACALA Y CASIM, appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated March 24, 2014 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 203123 (People of the Philippines vs. Macararik Macala y Casim). — This Court resolves the appeal of Macararik C. Macala (appellant) from the Decision 1 dated July 13, 2012 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00898.
Facts of the Case
An information 2 was filed against the appellant charging him with violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, 3 the text of which reads as follows:
That on June 12, 2005 (Sunday) at more or less 7:00 o'clock in the evening at Agora, Lapasan, in Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without lawful authority, willfully, unlawfully and criminally sell, trade, deliver and give away one (1) small rectangular sachet of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, or shabu weighing more or less 0.08 gm, in consideration of the amount of Php100.00[,] Philippine Currency, with SN FW960456, accused knowing fully well that it is a dangerous drug. 4
Upon arraignment, the appellant pleaded "not guilty". During pre-trial, the parties agreed on the sole issue on whether or not the appellant committed the crime charged. 5
Trial on the merits ensued.
The prosecution presented Police Senior Inspector April Carbajal-Mardoño (PSI Mardoño) and Police Officer 2 Irving M. Castuera (PO2 Castuera) as its witnesses. The testimony of PSI Mardoño was, however, dispensed with because of the admission by the defense regarding the proffered purpose of her testimony regarding the laboratory examination of the confiscated shabu. The defense, on the other hand, presented the lone testimony of the appellant.
Version of the Prosecution
The evidence for the prosecution shows that on June 12, 2005, at 7:00 p.m., a buy-bust team was organized by the Office of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) composed of Senior Police Officer 2 Benjamin Amacanin (SPO2 Amacanin) as teamleader, PO2 Castuera as poseur-buyer and PO2 Cotta Tanggote (PO2 Tanggote) as backup to entrap a certain Ricky Macararik (appellant), who has been tipped to be peddling shabu at Tulay Cemento, Agora, Lapasan, Cagayan de Oro City.
The team proceeded to Tulay Cemento. When they arrived at the site, they were guided by their confidential informant, whom they instructed to check the presence of the appellant within the area. The informant went back and reported that appellant was not yet there. After 30 minutes, the team re-instructed their informant to do the same thing. This time, both PO2 Castuera and the informant saw the appellant. The two approached him. Disguised as a poseur-buyer, PO2 Castuera wore a bandana on his head. PO2 Castuera approached the appellant who asked him, "mo score mo?" (you want to buy?) to which PO2 Castuera replied, "Oo, piso lang." The "piso" was understood as P100.00 in their street lingo. The appellant demanded for payment so PO2 Castuera handed him the marked P100.00. Upon receipt of the money, the appellant pulled out one heat-sealed plastic sachet from his pocket. PO2 Castuera examined the contents of the plastic sachet and after positively finding it as shabu, he immediately made the pre-arranged signal to his team by taking off the bandana from his head. PO2 Tanggote, as back up, then rushed to the scene, held the appellant's hand and introduced themselves as PDEA agents. PO2 Tanggote informed the appellant about his constitutional rights then handcuffed him. PO2 Tanggote also made a body search on appellant which resulted to the recovery of the marked P100.00 buy-bust money which the appellant held at his right hand 6 PO2 Castuera positively identified the same P100.00 bill which had his initials "IMC" written at the top of the "100" figure beside the words "REPUBLIKA NG PILIPINAS." 7 During the arrest, PO2 Castuera also marked the heat-sealed sachet he received from the appellant with his same initials "IMC." The same plastic sachet filled with white crystalline substance was taken by the police operatives to the office of the PDEA where it was submitted for laboratory examination. The white crystalline substance in the plastic sachet was examined and confirmed as methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu with a weight of 0.08 gram, more or less, as stated in Chemistry Report No. D-187-2005. 8 Even the drug test conducted on the person of the appellant showed positive for shabu, as per Chemistry Report No. DTCrim-128-2005. 9 DCcHIS
On cross-examination, PO2 Castuera stated that a surveillance of the appellant was conducted by the PDEA three days prior to the buy-bust operation on June 12, 2005 which confirmed appellant's involvement in illegal drug activities; that no search warrant was secured; that the sale transaction took place near a sari-sari store at about 7:00 p.m., where the appellant was 3 to 4 meters away from the store; that there were other persons in the area, and the nearest among them was 7 to 8 meters away from the store; that he was uncertain how far was the back-up team because he focused on the appellant; that he wore a bandana on his head to disguise as poseur-buyer while his wallet and service firearm were tucked behind his waist; that when he gave the pre-arranged signal, PO2 Tanggote rushed to the scene in a matter of seconds; that he informed the appellant about his right to counsel and the legal assistance that the government can give him if he cannot afford it; that while he was preparing the request and documents, the appellant was just behind him being interrogated by PO2 Taurac and PO2 Tanggote; that he cannot recall whether there were pictures taken of the subject specimen when they were still in Tulay Cemento; that he was not aware if any of his companions brought a camera during the buy-bust operation; and that the buy-bust money was obtained from SPO2 Amacanin and was marked with his initials ("IMC") which were indicated in the police blotter before they proceeded to Tulay Cemento. 10
Version of the Appellant
The appellant, on the other hand, denied the allegations and gave his own version of the facts,viz.:
The appellant is a vendor of sunglasses at the Agora Bus Terminal. On June 12, 2005, at about 4:00 pm., he was at the house of his friend, Michael at Tulay Cemento to collect P70.00 as payment for the sunglasses which Michael bought on credit from him on October 12, 2005 at 12:00 noon at the Agora Bus Terminal. 11 Michael instructed him to collect the payment from his house; that Michael became his friend because he would often see him at Agora. Upon arriving at Michael's house, Michael's father let him inside and instructed him to wait for Michael who was still taking a bath. Michael's father then left the appellant at the sala set and went inside his bedroom. While the appellant was waiting for Michael, the PDEA agents kicked the door, entered the house and immediately made a search. He recognized PO2 Taurac and PO2 Tanggote as among them. The appellant remained at the sala and was ordered not to move. The PDEA agents informed him that the houseowner including Michael were able to escape. They also failed to recover anything when they searched Michael's house. Taurac made a body search on him and told him to undress. When they failed to recover anything from him, he was taken outdoors after he was handcuffed. He was taken to the PDEA office located at the Pelaez Sports Center and was asked if he knew anyone selling drugs. He told PO2 Taurac that maybe Michael's father does because he escaped. He was then taken to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory at Camp Evangelista where he was made to sign a document without understanding its contents and without any assistance of a lawyer. Thereafter, he was made to give his urine sample. 12
According to the appellant, no buy-bust operation was conducted; that he saw the plastic sachet for the first time when he was already in the PDEA of face which came from the pocket of the PDEA's asset; that before the asset handed the sachet of shabu to PO2 Tanggote, PO2 Taurac ordered the asset to cut one sachet for the accused using a scissor; that the evidence presented against him was the same sachet which was cut by the asset for the police; that the buy-bust money came from the wallet of PO2 Radam; that PO2 Castuera was not among the policemen who barged in Michael's house; that he met PO2 Castuera only the following day after the appellant was arrested and brought to the PDEA office; that when he talked to PO2 Castuera, the latter tried to extort P60,000.00 from him with a threat that his failure to produce the money will result to a case for possession of drugs against him; and that he could not pay the money demanded because he was only poor, he complained to PO2 Castuera but the latter held him saying that he will only be released if they can give him the money demanded. 13 HcACST
The Regional Trial Court's Ruling
In a Decision 14 dated February 7, 2011, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Misamis Oriental, Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 25, convicted the appellant of illegal sale of shabu pursuant to Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The RTC accorded full credence to the testimony of PO2 Castuera as a witness for the prosecution, while it brushed aside the appellant's defense of denial and claim of extortion allegedly committed against him by the police operatives.
For the illegal sale of 0.08 gram, more or less, of shabu, the RTC sentenced the appellant to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine in the amount of P500,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of non-payment thereof. 15
The CA Ruling
On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC judgment and stated that PO2 Castuera is "the most competent person to testify on the fact of [the] sale" 16 for being the poseur-buyer during the buy-bust operation. The CA further ratiocinated that the arresting officers complied with the procedure laid down by law on the "chain of custody" of the seized drug, thus, malting the confiscated shabu admissible in evidence against the appellant.
Hence, this appeal.
This Court's Ruling
The conviction is affirmed.
The Court finds no cogent reason to reverse the findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA.
Factual findings of the trial court,
It is a basic tenet 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. The reason for this is that the trial court is in a better position to decide the credibility of witnesses having heard their testimonies and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial." 17 The rule finds an even more stringent application where the trial court's findings are sustained by the CA. 18
The elements of the crime were
In order to sustain a conviction in the crime of illegal sale of drugs, the following elements should be proved by the prosecution such as: (a) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for the thing. Moreover, what is material in prosecutions for illegal sale of shabu is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti. 19
In the case at bench, the prosecution was able to establish the above-mentioned elements beyond moral certainty. PO2 Castuera narrated in detail how they conducted the buy-bust operation against the appellant. PO2 Castuera, who acted as poseur-buyer, positively identified the appellant as the seller of the shabu; that the object of the sale pertains to a heat-sealed plastic sachet filled with white crystalline substance for which a pre-marked P100.00 bill was handed to the appellant as payment.
Corollarily, this Court finds the appellant's defenses of denial and alibi to be of scant consideration. Alibi is an inherently weak defense because it is easy to fabricate and highly unreliable. To merit approbation, the appellant must adduce clear and convincing evidence that he was in a place other than the situs criminis at the time when the crime was committed, such that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime when it was committed. 20 Nothing in the records tends to convince this Court that the appellant was suddenly bodily searched, handcuffed and taken by the police operatives for no reason.
This being so, this Court accords full weight and credit to the positive and categorical testimony of PO2 Castuera pointing to the appellant as the seller of the seized shabu. The defense, for its part, failed to persuade this Court that PO2 Castuera was not in the regular performance of his official duty and was ill-motivated to falsely testify against the appellant. Not even the appellant's claim of extortion against PO2 Castuera was substantiated. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the evidence for the prosecution stands unimpaired despite any trivial inconsistencies in the testimony of PO2 Castuera which showed crystal clear that the illegal sale of shabu transpired between him and the appellant. EASCDH
Chain of custody of the seized
As to the chain of custody of the seized shabu, this Court rejects the appellant's asseveration that the arresting officers failed to comply with the statutory guidelines laid down in Section 21 21 of R.A. No. 9165 regarding the procedure in the custody and disposition of seized drugs. 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 for destruction." 22
According to the appellant, the testimony of PO2 Castuera was doubtful as to who between him and PO2 Tanggote did the "processing" of the evidence; that the shabu was not marked immediately after his apprehension and that none of the apprehending officers photographed the same; that no physical inventory was conducted and offered as evidence during the trial. Neither was there any physical inventory thereof.
As aptly stated by the CA:
Following the successful drug transaction with the accused-appellant, PO2 Castuera marked the plastic sachet of suspected shabu with "IMC". The marked money (Php100.00) itself was offered in evidence after it was identified by PO2 Castuera as the money he paid to the accused-appellant. A letter-request, signed by Police Superintendent Rene Macaling Orbe, was then sent to the PNP Crime Laboratory for an examination of the seized drug, and Forensic Chemist April G. Carbajal-Ma[rd]oño's Chemistry Report No. D-187-2005 finding that the white crystalline substance in the plastic sachet marked "IMC" is positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. During trial, PO2 Castuera identified the same specimen as the shabu their team had seized from the accused-appellant and which he marked with "IMC".
It is also settled that, the integrity of the evidence is presumed to be preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered with. The accused-appellant has the burden to show that the evidence was tampered or meddled with to overcome a presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers, which We found wanting in this case. 23 (Citations omitted)
Thus, this Court finds the alleged non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 to be unfounded in this case because the apprehending team properly preserved the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs. 24
The penalty imposed was in
Finally, Section 5, Article II 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 drugs, regardless of the quantity or purity involved. Therefore, this Court agrees with the imposition of life imprisonment and fine of P500,000.00 by the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, as it is within the range of the penalties provided for by law.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated July 13, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00898 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo T. Lloren, with Associate Justices Maria Elisa Sempio Diy and Jhosep Y. Lopez, concurring; rollo, pp. 3-10.
2. CA rollo, p. 37.
3. Otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002".
4. CA rollo, p. 37.
5. Id. at 37-38.
6. Id. at 44.
7. Id. at 45.
8. Id. at 38.
9. Id. at 39.
10. Id. at 39-40.
11. Direct Testimony of appellant Macararik Macala, TSN, April 14, 2008 p. 5.
12. CA rollo, pp. 40-41.
13. Id. at 41.
14. Issued by Presiding Judge Arthur L. Abundiente; id. at 37-47.
15. Id. at 46-47.
16. Rollo, p. 8.
17. People v. De Leon, G.R. No. 186471, January 25, 2010, 611 SCRA 118, 127-128.
18. People v. Veloso, G.R. No. 188849, February 13, 2013, 690 SCRA 586, 595, citing People v. Apron, G.R. No. 183563, December 14, 2011, 662 SCRA 506, 523.
19. People v. Bautista, G.R. No. 177320, February 22, 2012, 666 SCRA 518, 529-530.
20. People v. Arpon, supra note 18, at 529.
21. Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — . . . (1) The apprehending 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.
22. Section 1 (b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, series of 2002.
23. Rollo, pp. 7-8.
24. In People v. Sanchez (590 Phil. 214 [2008]), we held that "non-compliance with the strict directive of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution's case; [but these lapses] must be recognized and explained in terms of their justifiable grounds and the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized must be shown to have been preserved."