People v. Mandangan y Sullano

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 206911. October 8, 2014.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. OMAR MANDANGAN y SULLANO, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated October 8, 2014, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 206911 (People of the Philippines versus Omar Mandangan y Sullano). — Before us is an appeal from the December 18, 2012 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed the January 25, 2008 Omnibus Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 47, of Tagbilaran City, finding appellant Omar Mandangan guilty of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

The Facts

The prosecution evidence established that on January 27, 2006, a confidential informant reported to the Tagbilaran City Police that appellant, a noted drug peddler, had just received a large quantity of shabu from his source in Cebu City. Acting on the report, SPO4 Adriano Bacus, SPO1 Edgardo Chan, SPO1 Reinario Añana, PO3 Jimboy Villapaz, PO3 Larry Lumbab and PO2 Reynaldo Calimbayan formed a team to conduct a buy-bust operation against appellant. The informant was given a marked P500 bill to be used as buy-bust money. He was also bodily searched to ensure that he had no other things in his possession other than the marked money. After coordinating with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, they proceeded to Myrn Store, corner Hontanosas Extension and Circumferential Road in Tagbilaran City. The informant arrived at the target area on board a motorcycle followed by appellant and Al Dindo Gisete. After talking for a while, the informant handed the marked money to appellant, who placed it in the right side pocket of his pants. In turn, appellant took out something from the left side pocket of his pants and handed it to the informant. Immediately, the informant turned his cap to indicate that the sale was consummated. 3

The informant went to PO3 Lumbab to hand over the small plastic sachet containing crystalline substance that he bought from appellant. PO3 Lumbab then informed SPO4 Bacus through his handheld radio that he suspected the item to be shabu. The police officers approached and arrested appellant. They seized from him the buy-bust money and other drug paraphernalia. PO3 Lumbab handed the plastic sachet to SPO1 Añana who placed the markings "subject of sale" on the sachet. Meanwhile, SPO1 Chan recovered 32 plastic sachets of suspected shabu inside a purse placed by appellant on the nearby Violeta plants. The items were photographed and listed by SPO1 Añana in a Certificate of Inventory 4 which was witnessed and signed by the barangay officials and a representative from the media and Department of Justice (DOJ). Thereafter, appellant and the confiscated items were brought to the police station. 5 The next day, the items were delivered by SPO1 Añana to the crime laboratory and were received by Forensic Chemical Officer Police Chief Inspector Victoria Celis De Guzman. She issued Chemistry Report No. D-017-2006 6 stating that the items, including the plastic sachet with 0.06 gram of white crystalline crystal marked as "Subject of Sale" tested positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu. 7SHTcDE

For his part, appellant testified that on January 27, 2006, he and Al Dindo Gisete were on their way to Tagbilaran City coming from Baclayon on board a motorcycle when they stopped at Myrn Store to buy refreshments. A few minutes later, SPO1 Añana and PO2 Villapaz, with other police officers, arrived and handcuffed him. They took his two cellular phones and wallet containing more than P4,000. SPO1 Chan yelled, "Here is the buy-bust money." He was arrested and brought to the police station. He denied selling illegal drugs and insisted that he was a trader of malong, bed sheets, clothes and assorted dry goods. But he admitted that he had been convicted twice for using and possessing illegal drugs. He also claimed that he had no conflict or misunderstanding with the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation. 8

The trial court rendered a decision acquitting appellant of the charge of illegal possession of illegal drugs but convicting him of illegal sale of shabu. He was sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.

The CA affirmed the RTC Decision in toto. It found that all the elements necessary to establish a case for illegal sale of shabu are present.

The sole issue in this appeal is whether appellant's guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Our Ruling

In cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Law, appellate courts tend to rely heavily on the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses, because the latter had the unique opportunity, denied to the appellate courts, to observe the witnesses and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under direct and cross-examination. Hence, its factual findings are accorded great respect, even finality, absent any showing that certain facts of weight and substance bearing on the elements of the crime have been overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied. 9

In the instant appeal, the RTC and CA uniformly found that the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation positively identified appellant as the person who sold the shabu. Although the poseur-buyer was not presented as a witness during trial, his non-presentation is fatal only if there is no other eyewitness to the illicit transaction. Here, we note that SPO1 Chan, SPO1 Añana and PO3 Lumbab, who were present during the entrapment operation, categorically testified that they witnessed the informant, who acted as a buyer of shabu, hand the marked money to appellant who in turn gave the informant the plastic sachet which turned out to be shabu. The police officers also recovered the marked money used in the buy-bust operation from appellant. At the trial, the police officers were able to positively identify the shabu sold by the appellant.

Moreover, we find that the police officers complied with paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations. The prosecution was able to establish that both the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated shabu were duly preserved and that the chain of custody of the seized item was not broken. The records show the poseur-buyer immediately gave the seized item to PO3 Lumbab, who turned it over to SPO1 Añana for marking. The item was photographed before the media, DOJ, and barangay officials. Thereafter, SPO1 Añana brought it to the crime laboratory and was received by Forensic Chemical Officer Police Chief Inspector Victoria Celis De Guzman for examination.

Lastly, we note that appellant failed to adduce proof of any ill-motive on the part of the police officers to impute wrongly such a serious crime against him. In cases involving violations of the Comprehensive 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. In the absence of proof of motive on the part of the police officers to impute falsely such a serious crime against the appellant, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, as well as the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, shall prevail over appellant's self-serving and uncorroborated denial. 10

WHEREFORE, the present appeal is DISMISSED. The December 18, 2012 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB-CR HC No. 00830 affirming the conviction of appellant Omar Mandangan for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.

With costs against accused-appellant. (Jardeleza, J., no part, due to his prior action as Solicitor General; Perlas-Bernabe, J., designated Acting Member per Raffle dated October 1, 2014. Bersamin, J., designated additional Member per Special Order No. 1816-A dated October 3, 2014.)

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 3-15. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, with Associate Justices Carmelita Salandanan-Manahan and Maria Elisa Sempio Diy concurring. The assailed CA decision was rendered in CA-G.R. CEB-CR HC No. 00830.

2. Records, pp. 137-152. Penned by Presiding Judge Suceso A. Arcamo.

3. Rollo, pp. 4-5; TSN, May 15, 2006, pp. 3-9; TSN, June 8, 2006, pp. 4-10.

4. Exhibit "B," folder of exhibits.

5. Rollo, pp. 5-6; TSN, May 15, 2006, pp. 9-17; TSN, June 8, 2006, pp. 11-20; TSN August 14, 2006, pp. 7-8.

6. Exhibit "D," folder of exhibits.

7. Rollo, pp. 6-7; TSN, April 26, 2000, pp. 4-9.

8. Id. at 7; TSN, February 26, 2007, pp. 3-20.

9. People v. De Mesa, G.R. No. 188570, July 6, 2010, 624 SCRA 248, 255.

10. People v. Llamado, 600 Phil. 591, 599-600 (2009).