SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 252674. January 5, 2022.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.GENESIS MADRIGAL y MANEJA ALIAS "BAROK", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated05 January 2022which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 252674 (People of the Philippines v. Genesis Madrigal y Maneja alias "Barok"). — This is an appeal 1 from the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision 2 dated July 8, 2019 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10996, which affirmed the Consolidated Judgment 3 dated January 29, 2018 rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lemery, Batangas, Branch 5 in Criminal Case Nos. 57-2014 and 58-2014, finding Genesis Madrigal y Maneja (accused-appellant) guilty of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
The Antecedents
The instant case stemmed from two (2) separate Informations, the accusatory portions of which read:
Criminal Case No. 57-2014(Violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165)
That on or about the 5th day of May, 2014, at about 5:30 o'clock in the afternoon at Barangay Anak Dagat, Municipality of Lemery, Province of Batangas, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law, did then and there willfully and unlawfully sell, deliver and give away one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet referred to as Specimen A-1 with markings ("GMM-1") in Chemistry Report No. BD-266-2014, containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as "shabu," weighing 0.04 gram, a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law. 4
Criminal Case No. 58-2014(Violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165)
That on or about the 5th day of May, 2014, at about 5:30 o'clock in the afternoon at Barangay Anak Dagat, Municipality of Lemery, Province of Batangas, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without having been authorized by law, did then and there willfully and unlawfully have in his possession, custody and control one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet referred to as Specimen A-2 with markings ("GMM-2"), containing methamphetamine hydrochloride commonly known as shabu, weighing 0.03 gram and one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet referred to as Specimen B with markings ("GMM-3"), containing dried marijuana fruiting tops weighing 1.08 grams in Chemistry Report No. BD-266-2014, both dangerous drugs.
Contrary to law. 5
When arraigned on June 11, 2014, accused-appellant pleaded "not guilty" to the crimes charged. 6 Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued. TCAScE
The prosecution alleged that on May 5, 2014, Police Officer (PO) 2 Aldwin Maniquis 7 (Maniquis) reported for duty at eight o'clock in the morning at Lemery Municipal Police Station in Lemery, Batangas where he was then assigned. 8 The station's Chief of Police, Police Senior Inspector (PSI) Gerry Malibiran Laylo (Laylo), directed the conduct of a buy-bust operation in Brgy. Anak Dagat, Lemery, Batangas against a certain alias "Barok," later identified as accused-appellant, who was in the drug watchlist. 9
A buy-bust team was formed, composed of five members, namely: PO2 Maniquis, PO2 Dondon Apolonia (Apolonia), Deputy Chief of Police Inspector Amiel Bernard Sanhi (C/Insp. Sanhi), Special Police Officer 2 Rami Humarang (SPO2 Humarang), and PO2 Mark Dimaano (Dimaano). PO2 Maniquis was designated as the poseur-buyer and was given P500.00 marked with "AK" as buy-bust money. 10 The coordination form was likewise prepared and submitted to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). 11
At around five in the afternoon, the buy-bust team, accompanied by their confidential informant, proceeded to the target area. Upon arrival, the confidential informant identified accused-appellant, about 11 to 12 meters away from their location. 12 The team observed accused-appellant in his yard, entertaining people who came and went, 13 and continued with the surveillance for 15 minutes. 14
Subsequently, PO2 Maniquis approached accused-appellant who asked him, "[m]agkano ang kukunin mo?" To which, PO2 Maniquis replied, "[b]igyan mo ako ng limang daang piso." Accused-appellant took out two (2) plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance from his right pocket, showed them, and handed one (1) sachet to PO2 Maniquis. In turn, PO2 Maniquis gave the P500.00 marked money to accused-appellant. With that exchange, PO2 Maniquis introduced himself as a police officer and effected the arrest of accused-appellant. 15
PO2 Maniquis immediately placed the plastic sachet bought from accused-appellant in his left pocket. He recovered the P500.00 buy-bust money from accused-appellant's right hand, as well as the other plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance wrapped in the said bill. 16 During the bodily search done on accused-appellant, he was able to retrieve a plastic sachet containing suspected dried marijuana leaves. 17
As the rest of the buy-bust team secured the area, PO2 Apolonia summoned representatives from the barangay, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the media. In the presence of accused-appellant, and as witnessed by Barangay Captain Oligario 18 Marcial (Marcial), DOJ representative Lorna Orlina (Orlina), and media representative Lito Rendora (Rendora), PO2 Maniquis marked the buy-bust money as "GMM"; the plastic sachet of suspected shabu which he purchased from accused-appellant as "GMM-1"; the other plastic sachet of suspected shabu recovered from accused-appellant as "GMM-2"; and the plastic sachet of suspected marijuana also recovered from accused-appellant's possession as "GMM-3". PO2 Maniquis also conducted the inventory of the seized items while PO2 Dimaano took photos thereof. 19
Accused-appellant was brought to the Batangas Provincial Memorial Hospital for medical examination before he was transferred to the police station where PO2 Maniquis prepared all the pertinent documents, including the request for laboratory examination. On the same day of the incident, PO2 Maniquis delivered the three (3) plastic sachets marked as "GMM-1", "GMM-2", and "GMM-3", together with the request, to the Batangas Provincial Crime Laboratory Office for analysis. 20 The same were received by the forensic chemist, PSI Herminia C. Llacuña 21 (PSI Llacuña). 22
PSI Llacuña examined the specimens taken from the three (3) plastic sachets. Per Chemistry Report No. BD-266-2014, "GMM-1" and "GMM-2" tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu, while "GMM-3" yielded positive for marijuana. 23
In his defense, accused-appellant denied the charges against him. He averred that on May 5, 2014, at around noon, he was having lunch with his wife when three armed men, one of whom he recognized as PO2 Maniquis, entered their house located at P. Burgos St., Brgy. Anak Dagat, Lemery, Batangas. They poked a gun at him, handcuffed him, and brought him inside the bathroom where he was undressed and frisked. However, nothing was found on him. After which, they searched the whole house but still found nothing. When he was finally allowed to go out of the bathroom, accused-appellant saw his wife's money on the able which the police officers took. He was told that it was the money used in buying illegal drugs from him. 24
Accused-appellant's wife, Chona Madrigal, corroborated the testimony of accused-appellant. She added that the three armed men were wearing civilian clothes during that time and that she was made to sit at a corner while her husband was brought inside the bathroom. Since the bathroom door was partly made of glass, she saw how her husband was undressed and frisked. Likewise, she testified that the entire house was searched. In both instances, the police officers found nothing. 25
The RTC Ruling
On January 29, 2018, the RTC rendered a Consolidated Judgment, 26 the fallo of which states:
WHEREFORE, in the light of all the foregoing, the court hereby renders judgment as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. 57-2014, accused GENESIS MADRIGAL Y MANEJA is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of illegal sale of 0.04 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride in violation of Section 5, Article II, of R.A. No. 9165 and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00);
2. In Criminal Case No. 58-2014, accused GENESIS MADRIGAL y MANEJA is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of illegal possession of 0.03 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride and 1.08 grams of marijuana fruiting tops in violation of Article II, Section 11, paragraph 3 of R.A. No. 9165 and [is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty] of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum term to fourteen (14) years as maximum term and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00).
SO ORDERED. 27
In convicting accused-appellant, the RTC found that all the essential elements of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs have been duly proven by the prosecution. Further, the RTC held that the evidence presented by the defense failed to overturn the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty accorded to the arresting officers. 28
Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed to the CA.
The CA Ruling
In its Decision 29 dated July 8, 2019, the CA upheld accused-appellant's conviction. The CA was convinced that the chain of custody of the seized illegal drugs was properly preserved considering that the drugs were marked, inventoried, and photographed in the presence of accused-appellant and the three witnesses required under the law, and did not leave the hands of PO2 Maniquis until they were delivered to the crime laboratory for examination. The CA also concurred with the RTC in not giving weight to accused-appellant's defense of denial and frame-up, in the absence of any improper motive on the part of the police officers. 30
Insisting on his innocence, accused-appellant interposed the present appeal.
The Court's Ruling
The appeal is bereft of merit.
For a successful prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the following elements must be satisfied: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale transpired, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited drug, the corpus delicti, as evidence. 31 In buy-bust operations, the delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money consummate the illegal transaction between the entrapping officers and the accused. 32
In the instant case, all these requisites were met. The prosecution proved that a valid buy-bust operation was conducted. PO2 Maniquis himself acted as the poseur-buyer and effected the arrest of accused-appellant. On the witness stand, he positively identified accused-appellant as the seller of the illegal drugs. He testified how he handed to accused-appellant the buy-bust money in exchange for a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance, which later tested positive for shabu. PO2 Maniquis identified in court the plastic sachet of shabu marked as "GMM-1" to be the same object sold to him by accused-appellant. 33
Accused-appellant harps on the lack of coordination with the PDEA to discredit the validity of the buy-bust operation. Well-settled is the rule that "coordination with the PDEA is not an indispensable requirement before police authorities may carry out a buy-bust operation; that in fact, even the absence of coordination with the PDEA will not invalidate a buy-bust operation." 34 But to set things straight, there was prior coordination with the PDEA in this case. As pointed out by the CA, the Coordination Form submitted by the prosecution and the sworn statement of PO2 Maniquis and PO2 Apolonia disprove accused-appellant's assertion. cTDaEH
In an attempt to impugn the credibility of PO2 Maniquis, accused-appellant claims that the version of the prosecution witness regarding the alleged Illegal Sale of drugs was highly improbable and incredible. According to him, it is unimaginable how he would know right away, when PO2 Maniquis purportedly approached him, that the latter was going to buy drugs without prior agreement or without even ascertaining his identity and asking the reason why he was there. 35
The Court is not persuaded. In People v. Mendoza, 36 the Court recognized that peddlers of illicit drugs have been known with ever increasing casualness and recklessness to offer and sell their wares for the right price to anybody, be they strangers or not, at any time and at any place. 37 Moreover, in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence should be given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses especially when they are police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary. 38 As will be discussed below, there is none.
Meanwhile, to successfully prosecute a case of Illegal Possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the following elements must be established: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. 39 Mere possession of prohibited drug constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of any satisfactory explanation of such possession. The burden to explain the absence of animus possidendi rests upon the accused. 40
In the present case, the aforesaid elements have been adequately established. In open court, PO2 Maniquis confirmed that the plastic sachets marked as "GMM-2" and "GMM-3" were the same plastic sachets containing shabu and marijuana, respectively, which he recovered from accused-appellant during the search done as an incident to his arrest. There is no indication whatsoever that accused-appellant was legally authorized to possess the same. And having been caught in flagrante delicto, there is prima facie evidence that accused-appellant freely and consciously possessed the drugs, 41 which he failed to rebut.
In cases involving dangerous drugs, the State bears not only the burden of proving these elements, but also of proving the corpus delicti or the body of the crime. 42 In all prosecutions for violations of R.A. No. 9165, the corpus delicti is the dangerous drug itself, the existence of which is essential to a judgment of conviction. 43 Thus, it is of utmost importance that the integrity and identity of the seized drug must be shown to have been duly preserved. 44 This requirement necessarily arises from the illegal drug's unique characteristic that renders it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration, or substitution either by accident or otherwise. 45
To remove any doubt or uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the seized drug, evidence must definitely show that the illegal drug presented in court is the same illegal drug actually recovered from the accused; otherwise, the prosecution for possession or for sale fails. 46
In this connection, Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the applicable provision at the time of the commission of the alleged crimes, 47 lays down the procedure to be observed by law enforcement officers in handling seized illegal drugs:
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. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(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;
Evidence on record shows that the seized items were inventoried and photographed at the place of arrest. It was done in the presence of accused-appellant and was witnessed by an elected official, Barangay Captain Marcial, DOJ representative Orlina, and media representative Rendora, as can be gleaned from their signatures in the Certificate of Inventory dated May 5, 2014. 48
Despite such compliance with the requirements of the law, accused-appellant contends that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized illegal drugs have not been preserved because the prosecution failed to prove the maintenance of a clear and unbroken chain of custody. 49
"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. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and used in court as evidence, and the final disposition. 50
Jurisprudence dictates the links that must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation, as in this case, to wit: 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. 51
Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link. 52 In People v. Lumaya, 53 the Court underscored the importance of the immediate marking upon confiscation of the seized items in the preservation of their integrity and evidentiary value, thus: cSaATC
x x x Marking, which is the affixing on the dangerous drugs or related items by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his initials or signature or other identifying signs, should be made in the presence of the apprehended violator immediately upon arrest. The importance of the prompt marking cannot be denied, because succeeding handlers of dangerous drugs or related items will use the marking as reference. Also, the marking operates to set apart as evidence the dangerous drugs or related items from other material from the moments they are confiscated until they are disposed of at the close of the criminal proceedings, thereby forestalling, switching, planting, or contamination of evidence. In short, the marking immediately upon confiscation or recovery of the dangerous drugs or related items is indispensable in the preservation of their integrity and evidentiary value. x x x54 (Emphasis and underscoring in the original, citation omitted)
Here, the marking of the seized illegal drugs was likewise done at the place of arrest, in the presence of accused-appellant and the three witnesses previously mentioned, right before the inventory and photography thereof. Hence, the possibility of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence was altogether prevented. 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. 55 Notably, accused-appellant, upon whom this burden of proof rests, failed to overcome such presumption.
It must be noted that PO2 Maniquis was the poseur-buyer and, at the same time, the investigator in the case. There was no instance that he yielded possession of the seized items to another police officer after he acquired custody thereof, until he personally delivered the said items, along with the request for laboratory examination, to the Batangas Crime Laboratory Office. All of which were received by PSI Llacuña. Per Chemistry Report No. BD-266-2014, the specimens taken from the plastic sachets marked as "GMM-1" and "GMM-2" tested positive for shabu while the specimen taken from the plastic sachet marked as "GMM-3" yielded positive for marijuana.
The plastic sachets were offered as evidence in court and were positively identified by PO2 Maniquis to be the same illegal drugs bought ("GMM-1") and recovered ("GMM-2" and "GMM-3") from accused-appellant through the markings inscribed in each plastic sachet.
From the discussion above, the body of evidence adduced by the prosecution supports the conclusion that the integrity and evidentiary value of the subject drugs were successfully and properly preserved. The Court is well aware that a perfect chain of custody is almost always impossible to achieve, 56 but as long as the continuous whereabouts of the object evidence are accounted for, at least between the time it came into the possession of the police officers until it was tested in the laboratory, as in this case, it cannot be said that the chain of custody has been broken or that the integrity of the evidence has been compromised. 57
Against the prosecution's evidence, accused-appellant merely denied the accusations against him and suggested frame-up. Time and again, the defense of denial and frame-up has been invariably viewed with disfavor, for it can easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. 58 To merit consideration, it has to be substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, 59 which accused-appellant miserably failed to do. It is of no use that he presented his wife as witness to corroborate his testimony. It bears stressing that denial and alibi will not prevail when corroborated not by credible witnesses, but by the accused's relatives and friends. 60
All told, the Court finds no cogent reason to depart from the findings of the RTC and the CA. Accordingly, the Court sustains accused-appellant's conviction.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated July 8, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10996 is AFFIRMED. Accused-appellant Genesis Madrigal y Maneja @ "Barok" is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, as defined and penalized under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, respectively. He is sentenced to suffer the following penalties: cHDAIS
(a) In Criminal Case No. 57-2014 for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine in the amount of P500,000.00; and
(b) In Criminal Case No. 58-2014 for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, as maximum, and to pay a fine in the amount of P300,000.00.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 14-16.
2. Id. at 3-13; penned by Associate Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr., with Associate Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Gabriel T. Robeniol, concurring.
3. CA rollo, pp. 53-62; penned by Executive Judge Mary Jane B. Valeza-Maranan.
4. Rollo, p. 4.
5. Id.
6. Id. at 3.
7. Also appears as "Maniquiz" in some parts of the rollo.
8. CA rollo, p. 54.
9. Id.
10. Id.
11. Rollo, p. 12.
12. CA rollo, p. 54.
13. Id. at 78.
14. Id. at 54-55.
15. Id. at 55.
16. Id.
17. Id. at 6.
18. Also appears as "Olegario" in some parts of the rollo.
19. CA rollo, p. 55.
20. Id.
21. Also appears as "Llacuna" in some parts of the rollo.
22. Rollo, p. 7.
23. Id.
24. CA rollo, pp. 56-58.
25. Rollo, p. 7.
26. CA rollo, pp. 53-62.
27. Id. at 61-62.
28. Id. at 59-61.
29. Rollo, pp. 3-13.
30. Id. at 10-13.
31. People v. Eda, 793 Phil. 885, 896-897 (2016).
32. People v. Judge Lagos, 705 Phil. 570, 579 (2013).
33. Rollo, pp. 4-6.
34. People v. Havana, 776 Phil. 462, 470 (2016) citing People v. Abedin, 685 Phil. 552, 568-569 (2012).
35. CA rollo, pp. 46-47.
36. 814 Phil. 31 (2017).
37. Id. at 41.
38. People v. Steve, 740 Phil. 727, 737 (2014).
39. People v. Hementiza, 807 Phil. 1017, 1025 (2017).
40. People v. Rafols, 787 Phil. 466, 474-475 (2016).
41. Tionco v. People, 755 Phil. 646, 653 (2015).
42. People v. Cabezudo, G.R. No. 232357, November 28, 2018.
43. People v. Jaafar, 803 Phil. 582, 591 (2017).
44. People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 29 (2017).
45. People v. Nuarin, 764 Phil. 550, 557 (2015).
46. People v. Prudencio, 800 Phil. 128, 136 (2016).
47. The crimes subject of this case were allegedly committed on May 5, 2014, before the enactment of R.A. No. 10640 amending Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 on July 15, 2014.
48. Rollo, p. 11.
49. CA rollo, p. 45.
50. Section 1 (b) of the Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002.
51. People v. Arposeple, 821 Phil. 340, 364 (2017); Jocson v. People, G.R. No. 199644, June 19, 2019.
52. People v. Sabdula, 733 Phil. 85, 95 (2014).
53. 827 Phil. 473 (2018).
54. Id. at 489-490.
55. People v. Aplat, 731 Phil. 29, 42 (2014).
56. Tolentino v. People, G.R. No. 227217, February 12, 2020.
57. People v. Ygot, 790 Phil. 236, 245 (2016).
58. People v. Felipe, 663 Phil. 132, 143 (2011).
59. People v. Villahermosa, 665 Phil. 399, 418 (2011).
60. People v. XXX, G.R. No. 239906, August 26, 2020 citing People v. Adriano, 764 Phil. 144, 159 (2015) and People v. Las Piñas, 739 Phil. 502, 528 (2014).