FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 217377. February 4, 2019.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.RANDY MAGUNDAYAO y DEL ROSARIO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated February 4, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 217377 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RANDY MAGUNDAYAO y DEL ROSARIO, Accused-Appellant.) — The accused-appellant appeals from the April 28, 2014 decision 1 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05979 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction of the accused for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165. 2
The Antecedents
The CA provided the factual summary of the case as follows:
An Information dated 4 September 2007 was filed before the Regional Trial Court of Calamba City, charging accused-appellant Randy Magundayao with the violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the accusatory portion thereof reads:
That on or about 12:00 o'clock in the afternoon of September 2, 2007 at Brgy. Pansol, Calamba City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without any authority of law, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to a poseur-buyer three (3) transparent plastic sachets containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, otherwise known as "shabu," having a total weight of 0.13 gram, in violation of the aforementioned provision of law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Upon arraignment on 11 October 2007, accused-appellant, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty to the offense charged. Pre-trial and trial on the merits, thereafter, ensued.
During trial, the Prosecution presented Forensic Chemist Police Senior Inspector Lorna R. Tria (PSI Tria), Intelligence Officer II Artemio Baculi, Jr., and PO3 Marino A. Garcia, whose testimony was dispensed with in view of the stipulation of the defense that the same is merely corroborative. These testimonies were summarized by the Office of the Solicitor General in its Brief, as follows:
At 7:30 A.M. on September 2, 2007, the office of Intelligence Officer 2 (IO2) Artemio Baculi, Jr. of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) received a report from a confidential informant that a certain Randy, herein appellant, was engaged in illegal drugs activities in Barangay Pansol, Calamba City. After being informed about the report, the PDEA Regional Director instructed his officers to verify the same. Consequently, a team was formed and conducted a casing surveillance in the area. They were able to confirm the veracity of information given by the confidential informant. CAIHTE
Thereafter, IO2 Baculi formed and headed a team to conduct a buy-bust operation against appellant. They agreed that IO2 Baculi would act as the poseur-buyer, with Police Officer 3 (PO3) Marino Garcia as the arresting officer. They also agreed that when IO2 Baculi grabbed his forehead, it would be their signal to arrest appellant. They obtained buy-bust money from their Regional Director, after which, they made a pre-operational report and coordination with the Calamba Police Station.
In the meantime, the confidential informant called appellant through his cellphone and told him that they would like to buy shabu worth Php2,000.00. Appellant replied that the informant should go to his place in Barangay Pansol to get the shabu.
The buy-bust team and the informant then proceeded to the location. Upon arrival, IO2 Baculi and the informant approached appellant and introduced IO2 Baculi as the buyer. Appellant then asked him if he would buy shabu to which IO2 Baculi replied in the affirmative. Appellant asked them to follow him to a nearby junk shop. At the shop, appellant pulled out from his pocket three (3) sachets of shabu and gave them to IO2 Baculi and, in turn, the latter gave the buy-bust money consisting of three (3) one hundred peso bills and some papers to pass off for two thousand pesos (Php2,000.00) to appellant. At that juncture, IO2 Baculi executed their pre-arranged signal and grabbed appellant, telling him that he is a PDEA member.
After the arrest, IO2 Baculi marked the three (3) confiscated sachets with his initials "ALB." They then proceeded to the Barangay Hall near Camp Vicente Lim where he inventoried and took pictures of the confiscated items in the presence of Barangay Kagawad Artemio Torres. Thereafter, he brought the confiscated sachets, together with the corresponding laboratory examination request, to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory for examination.
Forensic Chemist Police Senior Inspector (PSI) Lorna Tria received the request dated September 2, 2007 and conducted examination on the specimens taken from the sachets. She found that they were positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride otherwise known as shabu. She indicated her findings in Chemistry Report No. D-487-04.
The defense, on the other hand, presented the accused-appellant himself and Exequiel Pineda as witnesses, whose testimonies are summarized in the Appellant's Brief, as follows:
At around 12:00 o'clock in the afternoon of September 2, 2007, accused Randy Magundayao was inside his house at Barangay Pansol, Calamba City with his parents when a certain "Eseng" (Exequiel Pineda) informed him that some persons were looking for him at the junk shop. When he arrived at the junk shop, a man choked him and pointed a gun at him. Afterwards, a vehicle suddenly arrived and two (2) male persons handcuffed him and brought him to Camp Vicente Lim.
Exequiel Pineda (a.k.a. Eseng) was sitting in front of his house on September 2, 2007, when two (2) male persons arrived looking for the accused. Thus, he brought them to the junk shop near his house and accompanied Randy back to the junk shop. They talked for a while and suddenly, one male person grabbed the neck of Randy and poked a gun at him. A vehicle arrived and two (2) male persons alighted therefrom. They handcuffed both Randy and Exequiel and brought them to Camp Vicente Lim. Exequiel was released in the evening of the same day. 3
On November 28, 2012, Judge Mafia Florencia B. Formes-Baculo of the Regional Trial Court of Calamba City, Branch 34 rendered a decision disposing as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds accused Randy Magundayao GUILTY beyond reasonable [doubt] of the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs as defined and punishable (sic) under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and accordingly sentences him to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00). DETACa
The Branch Clerk is directed to turn over three transparent heat-sealed plastic sachets containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, weighing 0.13 gram to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper disposition in accordance with law.
SO ORDERED. 4
The RTC found that the accused had delivered the prohibited drug to IO2 Baculi after the latter handed him the marked money, that the prosecution was able to preserve the chain of custody of the confiscated shabu from the time IO2 Baculi seized the same until its presentation in court; 5 and that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, particularly that of IO2 Baculi, were credible as they were consistent with the testimonies of other witnesses and the physical evidence.
On appeal, the CA sustained the conviction and further declared that the PDEA operatives were able to preserve the integrity of the confiscated drug despite non-compliance with some of the measures provided under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. The fallo reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Calamba City, Branch 34, dated 28 November 2012, in Criminal Case No. 15201-2007-C is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED. 6
Hence, this appeal where the accused-appellant insists on his innocence and that the court a quo erred in convicting him of the crime charged despite the failure by the prosecution to provide sufficient evidence and the non-compliance of the PDEA operatives with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, particularly the three third-party requirement (DOJ, Media and elected public official) to witness the fact of inventory. 7
In sum, is the accused-appellant entitled to an acquittal?
Our Ruling
We DENY the appeal for being unmeritorious.
In convicting the accused for violation of Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165, the prosecution is burdened to prove the presence of the following: (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. 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 as evidence. 8
In here, the prosecution had sufficiently proved the presence of all the elements of illegal sale of shabu. IO2 Baculi positively identified herein appellant as the person who sold the prohibited drug to him and to whom he handed the marked money. After confirmatory tests, the said drug that he received from Randy turned out to be shabu. Hence, the identities of the buyer, the seller, the object of the sale and the consideration, as well as the fact of delivery and payment were all sufficiently established by the prosecution.
Furthermore, the Court sees no reason to doubt the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses as to what really transpired during the buy-bust operation. The evaluation by the trial court of the credibility of witnesses is entitled to the highest respect and will not be disturbed on appeal considering that the trial court is in a better position to decide such question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. Its findings on the issue of credibility of witnesses and the consequent findings of fact must be given great weight and respect on appeal, unless certain facts of substance and value have been overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of the case. 9 Our examination of the records herein leads us to sustaining the credibility of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, considering that IO2 Baculi's testimony was corroborated by the dispensed testimony of SPO3 Garcia.
We also uphold the findings of the courts a quo that the State had preserved the integrity of the prohibited drug confiscated from Randy. Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 as amended by R.A. No. 10640 10 lays down the proper procedure in handling the confiscated prohibited drugs, thus: aDSIHc
SEC. 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 dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the persons from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media 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, finally, That noncompliance of 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 and custody over said items;
(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination;
(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued immediately upon the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not allow the completion of testing within the time frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided, however, That a final certification shall be issued immediately upon completion of the said examination and certification;
(4) After the filing of the criminal case, the Court shall, within seventy-two (72) hours, conduct an ocular inspection of the confiscated, seized and/or surrendered dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals, including the instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, and through the PDEA shall within twenty-four (24) hours thereafter proceed with the destruction or burning of 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 DOJ, civil society groups and any elected public official. The Board shall draw up the guidelines on the manner of proper disposition and destruction of such item/s which shall be borne by the offender: Provided, That those item/s of lawful commerce, as determined by the Board, shall be donated, used or recycled for legitimate purposes: Provided, further, That a representative sample, duly weighed and recorded is retained;
(5) The Board shall then issue a sworn certification as to the fact of destruction or burning of the subject item/s which, together with the representative sample/s in the custody of the PDEA, shall be submitted to the court having jurisdiction over the case. In all instances, the representative sample/s shall be kept to a minimum quantity as determined by the Board;
(6) The alleged offender or his/her representative or counsel shall be allowed to personally observe all of the above proceedings and his/her presence shall not constitute an admission of guilt. In case the said offender or accused refuses or fails to appoint a representative after due notice in writing to the accused or his/her counsel within seventy-two (72) hours before the actual burning or destruction of the evidence in question, the Secretary of Justice shall appoint a member of the public attorney's office to represent the former;
(7) After the promulgation and judgment in the criminal case wherein the representative sample/s was presented as evidence in court, the trial prosecutor shall inform the Board of the final termination of the case and, in turn, shall request the court for leave to turn over the said representative sample/s to the PDEA for proper disposition and destruction within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt of the same; and
(8) Transitory Provision: a) Within twenty-four (24) hours from the effectivity of this Act, dangerous drugs defined herein which are presently in possession of law enforcement agencies shall, with leave of court, be burned or destroyed, in the presence of representatives of the Court, DOJ, Department of Health (DOH) and the accused and/or his/her counsel, and, b) Pending the organization of the PDEA, the custody, disposition, and burning or destruction of seized/surrendered dangerous drugs provided under this Section shall be implemented by the DOH. ETHIDa
The amendment brought about by R.A. No. 10640 was an institutionalization of the IRR of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 that provides:
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:
(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, finally, 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]
This saving clause found in the IRR and now, in the law, is recognition that there is no perfect chain and that such expectation cannot be used as a standard for conviction. A testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items. 11
In sum, all these measures are intended to ensure that the confiscated drug is the same drug presented in court. As such, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to show by records or testimony, the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit at least between the time it came into possession of the police officers and until it was tested in the laboratory to determine its composition up to the time it was offered in evidence. 12
Applying the above guidelines, the Court is convinced that the integrity of the confiscated drug had been preserved. As aptly observed by the lower courts, OI2 Baculi placed his initials "ALB" at the crime scene and that the confiscated contraband remained with him until they reached the Barangay Hall near Camp Vicente Lim where an inventory was conducted and photos were taken. Thereafter, he personally surrendered the confiscated item to the crime laboratory for examination. The seized item was received by forensic chemist PSI Tria who conducted an examination and issued a report (Chemistry Report No. D-487-04) confirming that the substance confiscated from the accused-appellant was indeed shabu.
Notably, the PDEA operatives had satisfactorily complied with the procedures laid down by Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 by both conducting an inventory and taking pictures of the confiscated drug. While it is true that the inventory was not made in the presence of third party witnesses, the same did not affect the integrity of the confiscated drug since the PDEA operatives had proved that the substance seized from the accused was the same substance presented in court. IO2 Baculi had also positively testified that he marked the seized substance, inventoried, took photos and delivered the same to the Crime Laboratory. From here, PSI Tria testified on receiving the drugs under the same conditions that IO2 Baculi testified on. We therefore do not doubt that the PDEA operatives had preserved the integrity of the confiscated drug from the accused-appellant. cSEDTC
In sum, the State had not only sufficiently established the elements of illegal sale of shabu but had also successfully preserved the integrity of the confiscated drug from the accused-appellant. The guilt of the accused-appellant for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 having been proved beyond reasonable doubt, we thereby find his conviction to be proper.
WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES the appeal for being unmeritorious and AFFIRMS the April 28, 2014 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05979.
SO ORDERED." Del Castillo, J., official on leave; Jardeleza, J., designated as Acting Working Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2636 dated January 31, 2019.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-12; penned by Associate Justice Francisco P. Acosta, concurred by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Associate Justice Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez concurring.
2.Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
3.Rollo, pp. 2-5.
4. CA rollo, pp. 70-71.
5.Id. at 68.
6.Rollo, p. 11.
7. CA rollo, pp. 45-57.
8.People v. Bautista, G.R. No. 177320, February 22, 2012, 666 SCRA 518, 529-530.
9.People v. Bensig, G.R. No. 138989, September 17, 2002, 389 SCRA 182, 190.
10. Entitled "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."
11.Asiatico v. People, G.R. No. 195005, September 12, 2011, 657 SCRA 443, 451-452.
12.People v. Dela Rosa, G.R. No. 185166, January 26, 2011, 640 SCRA 635, 653.