ADVERTISEMENT
THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 215347. March 9, 2016.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. MOHAMMAD MANAGANTAL Y SABAN, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated March 9, 2016, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 215347 (People of the Philippines vs. Mohammad Managantal y Saban). — The records of this case were elevated to the Court pursuant to the Resolution 1 issued by the Court of Appeals (CA) on September 8, 2014 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05776 giving due course to the Notice of Appeal 2 filed by Mohammad Managantal y Saban (Managantal).
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) submitted its Manifestation 3 stating its adoption of the arguments previously proffered in the brief 4 filed with the CA. The Public Attorney's Office and Managantal's private counsel submitted their respective Supplemental Briefs. 5
Antecedents
As summed up by the OSG and the trial court, the prosecution's version of the facts are as follows:
To prove the actual commission of [Managantal] of the two (2) charges 6 filed against him, the prosecution presented the testimonies of Police Officers Napoleon Zamora, Peggy Lynne Vargas and Alexander Jimenez. Pursuant to their testimonies[,] at about 1:30 p.m. on July 5, 2008, they were dispatched to Barangay Culiat, Quezon City per information previously given by a male informant known to them as ["]Cap["]. Said informant informed Capt. Roderick Medrano that a certain alias Mike had been selling shabu inside Salam Mosque Compound at Barangay Culiat situated along Tandang Sora Avenue, Quezon City.
Capt. Medrano formed a buy[-]bust team with him as team leader and PO Zamora as the poseur[-]buyer. Other police officers, [including] PO Jimenez, PO Lachica and PO Vargas were designated as back ups. They rode in a Toyota Revo driven by PO Jimenez. PO Zamora was given a P500.00 bill as buy[-]bust money. The day before the team was dispatched, PO Peggy Lynne Vargas had already made a pre-operation report and letter of coordination with PDEA . . . . They were sent first to the communications center in Camp Karingal (where the said officers also hold office as a unit) and the latter faxed the reports to PDEA, which gave the operation a control number, Control No. MMRO-0708-00037.
The buy[-]bust team arrived at Tandang Sora Avenue outside the Salam Mosque Compound at about 2:00 p.m. where they parked their vehicle. PO Jimenez, as driver thereof, was left at the Toyota Revo while the rest of the team rode a tricycle going to Maguindanao Street inside the Salam Mosque Compound.
PO Zamora, accompanied by the confidential informant, rode the tricycle up to No. 17 Maguindanao Street, in front of a sari-sari store. There the two approached a man, whom the informant in whispers told PO Zamora [was] [a]lias Mike, their quarry.
When the two came near, the confidential informant introduced PO Zamora to Mike as a buyer of shabu. Alias Mike, identified in the courtroom as [Managantal], asked PO Zamora: "Kukuha ka ba?" to which the latter replied: "Oo pakuha ng limang daan. Maganda ba yan?" Alias Mike said: "Oo maganda ito!" and PO Zamora then said: "Sige[,] pakuha." Alias Mike demanded for the money before giving any shabu to PO Zamora. PO Zamora gave alias Mike the P500.00 bill he had previously marked with his initials "NZ". Alias Mike put the money in the pocket of his short pants and took therefrom also one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing the shabu PO Zamora bought.
PO Zamora got the sachet and then made the pre-arranged signal of throwing the butt of a cigarette he has in his mouth. The back up police officers rushed up to the sari-sari store where the transaction took place. PO Vargas frisked Managantal and was able to recover the buy[-]bust money from his pocket. In the left pocket of his pants, PO Vargas got a paltik .38 caliber handgun, a revolver, and a hand grenade.
The police team informed [Managantal] of his violations and his constitutional rights. CAIHTE
PO Zamora put the markings "NZ-07-05-08" on the sachet he bought, while PO Jimenez, whom PO Zamora called to drive the Toyota Revo to Maguindanao Street, Salam Mosque Compound[;] made an inventory of the items seized. It was signed by PO Zamora, PO Vargas and PO Lachica.
Per PO Zamora, they did not call on the barangay there "kasi risky yung area" and so they have to withdraw fast. They are afraid "na malagay kami sa alanganin." On the way to their station at Camp Karingal, PO Zamora took custody of the sachet he bought . . . . He was also the one who brought the said sachet to the PNP Crime Laboratory where it was examined and found . . . to be positive to the test for shabu by Chemical Engr. Jabonillo who also put markings thereon . . . in a masking tape before giving the sachet to their evidence custodian. 7
The defense, on the other hand, offered the testimonies of Managantal and Abdul Rahim Macaumbao (Macaumbao).
Managantal claimed that he worked in Saudi Arabia and returned to the Philippines in 1996. He stayed in a room rented by his brother, Danny Saban, in Cotabato Street, Salam Mosque Compound, Barangay Culiat, Quezon City. In 1998, he married Sakira Lakman and has two children with her. In 2008, he and his brother Abdul Saban (Abdul) executed a mortgage agreement covering a room owned by the latter. Managantal paid Abdul P150,000.00, but the latter, thereafter, sought to recover the room. When Managantal demanded that the P150,000.00 which he paid be returned by Abdul, they disagreed. Abdul then filed complaints before the barangay officials and the police officers alleging that Managantal was engaged in the sale of guns and shabu. The barangay officials searched his house, but found nothing. The police officers, on the other hand, arrested him on July 5, 2008 at around 11:00 a.m. He was handcuffed and taken to a vehicle. He saw Abdul behind the vehicle which was used by the police. Three of his neighbors, who were then playing chess, witnessed the incident. His house was searched and the police took a digital camera and pieces of gold jewelry. In Camp Karingal, the police officers took his cell phone and watch and demanded P350,000.00 from him. He was not assisted by a lawyer. 8
Macaumbao, on his part, testified that he talked to one of the police officers, but the subject of their conversation was not on record. Macaumbao likewise stated that Managantal was arrested at 11:00 a.m. Macaumbao thereafter did not leave his house for the rest of the afternoon. 9
Two Informations for violations of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1866 and Article II, Section 5 10 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 was filed against Managantal before the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
On June 28, 2012, the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 103, rendered a Decision 11 acquitting Managantal from the charge of violation of P.D. No. 1866, but convicting him of illegal sale of dangerous drugs (0.04 grams of shabu) under Article II, Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165. The RTC imposed upon Managantal the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00.
The RTC explained that the hand grenade and firearm allegedly recovered from Managantal were not offered as evidence; hence, fatal to the prosecution's cause. 12
Anent the requirements regarding the marking, inventory, and photographing of the seized shabu at the crime scene, the RTC found proper compliance therewith by the police officers. Further, PO3 Napoleon Zamora (PO3 Zamora) retained custody over the seized item from the time it was taken from Managantal until it was turned over to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory on July 5, 2008 at around 9:00 p.m. 13
The RTC also found credible the explanation provided by the police officers on why they did not involve barangay officials during and after the buy-bust operation. The police officers were anxious to stay long in the area, which was primarily populated by Muslims. It is a dangerous place for drug operatives to be in. 14
On the other hand, only Managantal and Macaumbao testified for the defense. Managantal's wife, his siblings and neighbors did not come to court to corroborate their claims. 15
The appeal filed before the CA yielded the same result. The CA Decision 16 dated July 25, 2014 affirmed in toto the RTC decision ratiocinating as follows:
For the successful prosecution of the illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold, and its payment. What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence.
The first element of illegal sale of shabu was established. The identities of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration, were proved, . . . .
xxx xxx xxx
The second element of illegal sale of shabu was proved. [Managantal] delivered the [sic] one plastic sachet of shabu to the poseur [-]buyer PO3 Zamora, and PO3 Zamora paid for the item using the marked money. . . . The object of the sale . . . was presented and identified [during] the trial. . . . .
Managantal argues the Prosecution was unable to establish the chain of custody and the integrity of the items seized from [Managantal] as the police officers failed to call a barangay official to witness the physical inventory of the seized item, and the persons required to be present during the inventory were not present at the time of [Managantal's] apprehension.
The argument is without merit.
Applicable is Section 21 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of [R.A. No. 9165]. It reads: DETACa
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, further, 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 . . . .
Section 21 above-quoted categorically states non-compliance with the requirements regarding the procedure to be taken in the handling of seized drugs, shall not invalidate the seizure and custody of the contraband. . . . . What is imperative is the preservation of the integrity and the evidential value of the seized items as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.
As a mode of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires the admission or presentation of an exhibit, such as the seized prohibited drugs, be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. HEITAD
xxx xxx xxx
The testimonies of PO3 Zamora, PO1 Vargas and PO1 Jimenez sufficiently established the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated illegal substance. Moreover, no proof was adduced to support the claim that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were compromised. 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 . . . .
xxx xxx xxx
. . . [T]he defenses of denial and frame-up are viewed by the Court with disfavor, as this can easily be concocted and are commonly used as standard lines of defense in most prosecutions arising from illegal sale of drugs. . . . . 17 (Citations omitted)
Issue
Aggrieved, Managantal is before the Court insisting that he deserves an acquittal.
Managantal points out that as regards compliance with the requirements of R.A. No. 9165, lapses should be recognized, addressed and explained. Justifiable grounds and the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items must be shown. 18 While the prosecution explained the reason for the absence of barangay officials during the buy-bust operation, no information whatsoever was offered anent the lack of representatives from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ). Lamentably too, no photographs were offered as evidence. 19
On its part, the OSG contends that the RTC merely took judicial notice of common knowledge concerning how dangerous and risky it is for police operatives to be in the area where Managantal was arrested. 20 Further, the unbroken chain in the custody of the drug seized was established by the prosecution, viz.: (1) poseur-buyer marked the seized items from Managantal with his initials "NZ-07-05-08" at the crime scene; (2) PO1 Alexander Jimenez (PO1 Jimenez) prepared the inventory of the seized items; (3) poseur-buyer brought the contrabands to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination; (4) Chemical Engineer Jabonillo (Engr. Jabonillo) received the sachets from the poseur buyer and conducted the Qualitative Examination; (5) Chemistry Report No. D-336-08 LMJ reveals that the specimens yielded positive to the test of shabu; and (6) the sachets of shabu was offered in evidence. 21 Besides, the credibility of witnesses is a matter best examined by, and left to, the trial courts. 22
Ruling of the Court
The instant appeal is bereft of merit.
It is settled that "findings of the trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve credibility are accorded respect when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts and speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings." 23 The foregoing rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the CA. 24
In the case at bar, both the RTC and the CA found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses PO3 Zamora, PO1 Peggy Lynne Vargas and PO1 Jimenez as credible. The prosecution was able to prove that the illegal sale of shabu took place when Managantal delivered one sachet to PO3 Zamora, the poseur-buyer, in exchange for the P500.00-marked bill handed by the latter. The sachet of shabu recovered from PO3 Zamora and the P500.00 bill seized from Managantal were marked, inventoried and brought to the police station. PO3 Zamora thereafter took the sachet of shabu to the PNP Crime Laboratory, where it was examined by Engr. Jabonillo. The contents of the sachet were positively identified as shabu. The seized item remained in the custody of the said laboratory up to the time that it was presented as evidence before the RTC.
A departure from the foregoing findings is not in order.
The Court notes as well, the lack of any proof supporting Managantal's implied suggestion that his brother Abdul maliciously instigated the police to conduct the buy-bust operation. Macaumbao's testimony failed to lend any support to the defense's cause. No one among Managantal's wife, siblings or neighbors came to the court to help lend credence to his claims of frame-up and extortion.
As regards the absence of representatives from the barangay, media and the DOJ, and the lack of photographs offered as evidence, in alleged breach of the requirements of Section 21, Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165, the Court's declaration in People v. Cruz25 finds application, viz.:
It is very clear from the language of the law that there are exceptions to the requirements. Therefore, contrary to appellant's assertions, Sec. 21 need not be followed with pedantic rigor. It has been settled that non-compliance with Sec. 21 does not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from the accused inadmissible. What is essential is "the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused." 26 (Citations omitted)
In the case at bar, contrary to Managantal's assertion, photographs of him and the shabu seized from him were taken. 27 The police officers also amply explained why a barangay official was not present during the buy-bust operation. More importantly, as aptly found by the RTC and the CA, the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized shabu was proven by the prosecution. In contrast, the evidence offered by the defense had lamely refuted the prosecution's claims.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Decision dated July 25, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05776 is AFFIRMED." (Jardeleza, J., no part in view of his participation in the Office of the Solicitor General; Leonen, J., designated Additional Member per Raffle dated December 8, 2014.) ATICcS
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. CA rollo, p. 145.
2. Id. at 138-139.
3. Rollo, pp. 23-25.
4. CA rollo, pp. 104-114.
5. Rollo, pp. 63-66, 36-55.
6. Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunitions in violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866 (CODIFYING THE LAWS ON ILLEGAL/UNLAWFUL POSSESSION, MANUFACTURE, DEALING IN, ACQUISITION OR DISPOSITION, OF FIREARMS, AMMUNITION OR EXPLOSIVES OR INSTRUMENTS USED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF FIREARMS, AMMUNITION OR EXPLOSIVES, AND IMPOSING STIFFER PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN VIOLATIONS THEREOF AND FOR RELEVANT PURPOSES), as amended by Republic Act No. 8294 (AN ACT AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1866), and Violation of Article II, Section 5 (Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals) of Republic Act No. 9165 (AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES); CA rollo, p. 24.
7. Id. at 25-26.
8. Id. at 26-27, 128-129.
9. Id. at 27.
10. Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch, in transit or transport, any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.
xxx xxx xxx
11. Issued by Judge Jaime N. Salazar, Jr.; CA rollo, pp. 24-30.
12. Id. at 27.
13. Id. at 28.
14. Id.
15. Id.
16. Penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela, with Associate Justices Vicente S.E. Veloso and Jane Aurora C. Lantion concurring; id. at 124-137.
17. Id. at 131-136.
18. Rollo, pp. 39-40.
19. Id. at 63-64.
20. CA rollo, p. 111.
21. Id. at 112.
22. Id. at 111.
23. People v. del Monte, 575 Phil. 576, 588 (2008).
24. Id.
25. 623 Phil. 261 (2009).
26. Id. at 277-278.
27. CA rollo, p. 28.