FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 200924. October 13, 2014.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANDREW JAPE MANUEL y CASIN, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated October 13, 2014, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 200924 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANDREW JAPE MANUEL y CASIN, Accused-Appellant.
Before Us on appeal is the Decision 1 dated July 18, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 04221, affirming the Decision 2 dated October 5, 2009 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 65, in Criminal Case Nos. 09-268 to 09-269, which found accused-appellant Andrew Jape Manuel y Casin guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegally selling and possessing dangerous drugs, in violation of Article II, Sections 5 and 11, respectively, of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Accused-appellant was charged in two separate Informations both dated February 23, 2009, filed before the RTC, with the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs, allegedly committed as follows: ACIEaH
1) Criminal Case No. 09-268
On or about the 20th day of February, 2009, in the City of Makati, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without the necessary license or prescription and without being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and give away One (1) small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) weighing zero point zero four (0.04) gram, a dangerous drug, in consideration of P500.00. 3
2) Criminal Case No. 09-269
On or about the 20th day of February, 2009, in the City of Makati, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess and/or use regulated drugs and without any license or proper prescription, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control one (1) small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets (sic) containing white crystalline substance that tested positive for the presence of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) weighing zero point zero one (0.01) gram, a dangerous drug, in violation of the aforesaid law." 4HcaDTE
During his arraignment on March 23, 2009, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged against him. Thereafter, trial ensued.
The prosecution called two witnesses to the stand, namely, Operative Jake Cosio (Cosio) of the Makati Anti-Drug Abuse Council (MADAC) and Barangay Captain Rodolfo Doromal (Doromal) of Barangay Pitogo, Makati City, who then headed MADAC, Cluster 4. The prosecution presented the following version of the events which led to accused-appellant's arrest:
Based on a report relayed by a confidential informant, the MADAC and the Makati Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Force (SAID-SOTF), in coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), organized a team, which included MADAC Operative Cosio and Police Officer (PO) 2 Ronnie Aseboque (Aseboque), to conduct a buy-bust operation against Joel Vibas, CJ de Castro, and a certain "Tats." MADAC Operative Cosio, as the designated poseur-buyer, was given a marked P500.00 bill to be used in the operation.
On February 20, 2009, at around 3:00 in the afternoon, the buy-bust team arrived at Dapitan Street, Barangay Guadalupe Nuevo, Makati City. MADAC Operative Cosio and the confidential informant walked ahead of the rest of the buy-bust team to the area of operation, where they came upon accused-appellant sitting on the sidewalk. The confidential informant identified accused-appellant as "CJ," one of the subjects of the operation. The confidential informant introduced MADAC Operative Cosio to accused-appellant as someone in need of shabu. MADAC Operative Cosio gave accused-appellant the marked P500.00 bill, and in exchange, accused-appellant handed to MADAC Operative Cosio a transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. When MADAC Operative Cosio inquired as to the genuineness of the shabu, accused-appellant replied, "Garantisado yan." MADAC Operative Cosio then placed a white towel over his left shoulder, the pre-arranged signal that the sale had been consummated. MADAC Operative Cosio identified himself to accused-appellant, and PO2 Aseboque and the rest of the buy-bust team rushed to the scene to assist in accused-appellant's arrest. MADAC Operative Cosio conducted a search of the person of accused-appellant, which yielded another heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing suspected shabu, the marked P500.00 bill, and P150.00 in different denominations. SHAcID
At the place of arrest, MADAC Operative Cosio marked the plastic sachet accused-appellant handed to him during the buy-bust with "JAKE" and the plastic sachet found in accused-appellant's possession with "CJ." The seized items were inventoried in the presence of accused-appellant and witnessed by Barangay Captain Doromal. The buy-bust team brought accused-appellant and the seized drugs to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory at the Makati Police Station for drug testing and laboratory examination, respectively. Next, accused-appellant was brought to the Makati SAID-SOTF office for further investigation. During investigation, it was found out that accused-appellant, identified by the confidential informant as CJ, is actually named Andrew Jape Manuel y Casin.
Richard Allan Mangalip of the PNP Crime Laboratory conducted the laboratory examination of the contents of the two heat-sealed sachets submitted as specimens, and in his Physical Science Report No. D-107-09S, 5 he stated that said specimens tested positive for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, an illegal drug.
Accused-appellant was the lone witness for the defense, and he narrated a completely different version of events. CaDEAT
According to accused-appellant, on February 20, 2009, he was inside his house located at 8301 Dapitan Street, Guadalupe Nuevo, Makati City, preparing for a basketball game. As accused-appellant was about to leave, he saw from the gate several armed men alighting from a red van parked in front of his house. One of the men pointed at him and identified him as "CJ." Two of the men held accused-appellant and told him, "Huwag ka ng pumalag, sumama ka na lang." Accused-appellant asked why the men seized him but no one answered and he was forced to board the red van. The men asked if he was CJ de Castro and accused-appellant answered that while "CJ" is his alias, his last name is Manuel not "de Castro." The men then asked accused-appellant where his cellular phone and motorcycle were, but accused-appellant denied having any of said items. After a three-minute ride, accused-appellant was instructed to alight from the van. Accused-appellant was brought inside a garage where he saw a man, he later identified as Barangay Captain Doromal, sitting on a table. There were two plastic sachets containing white substance on the table. One of the men who seized accused-appellant told Barangay Captain Doromal that the plastic sachets were taken from accused-appellant. Thereafter, accused-appellant was brought to the Makati SAID-SOTF office where he learned that cases would be filed against him for the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs.
On October 5, 2009, the RTC promulgated a Decision finding accused-appellant guilty of the crimes charged. The RTC decreed:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered as follows: HEacAS
1. In Criminal Case No. 09-268, the court finds the accused, ANDREW JAPE MANUEL y CASIN, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the charge of violation of Section 5, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 and sentences him 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. 09-269, the court finds the same accused, ANDREW JAPE MANUEL y CASIN, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the charge of violation of Section 11, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 and sentences him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months as maximum and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00).
The period or detention of the accused shall be given full credit.
The Branch Clerk of Court is directed to transmit the plastic sachets of shabu subject matter of these cases to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for said agency's appropriate disposition. 6
Accused-appellant appealed to the Court of Appeals. In his appeal brief, accused-appellant assigned the following errors on the part of the RTC:
I. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE PROSECUTION'S EVIDENCE NOTWITHSTANDING ITS FAILURE TO PROVE THE IDENTITY AND INTEGRITY OF THE ALLEGED SEIZED SHABU. TEDAHI
II. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. 7
The Court of Appeals rendered its Decision on July 18, 2011, denying accused-appellant's appeal and affirming the RTC Decision in toto.
Hence, the instant appeal.
In compliance with our Resolution 8 dated June 18, 2012, plaintiff-appellee filed a Manifestation (Re: Supplemental Brief) 9 stating that it was no longer filing a supplemental brief, while accused-appellant filed his Supplemental Brief. 10
Accused-appellant asserts that his guilt for the offenses charged was not adequately proven by the prosecution as he was not even among the three persons subject of the buy-bust operation conducted on February 20, 2009. Accused-appellant insists that he was not the "CJ de Castro" identified by the confidential informant because his surname is Manuel.
Accused-appellant additionally avers that the police officers failed to observe the mandatory procedure for the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized dangerous drugs laid down in Article II, Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. First, the police officers failed to conduct a physical inventory of the dangerous drugs in the presence of accused-appellant, his representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall sign and receive copies of the inventory. Second, no pictures of the seized articles were taken during the inventory. In fact, no picture of the seized articles was presented in court. Third, the prosecution failed to establish the unbroken chain of custody of the seized articles. While the laboratory report showed that the submitted specimens tested positive for shabu, there was no proof that the specimens tested were the same ones confiscated from accused-appellant. All these cast doubt on the identity of the dangerous drugs. CDEaAI
The appeal is unmeritorious.
At the outset, we stress that both the RTC and the Court of Appeals found accused-appellant guilty of the crimes charged against him. Time and again, we have ruled that the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses, particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, as in this case, is accorded great weight and respect, since it had the opportunity to observe their demeanor and deportment as they testified before it. Unless substantial facts and circumstances have been overlooked or misappreciated by the trial court which, if considered, would materially affect the result of the case, we will not countenance a departure from this rule. 11 None such facts and circumstances is extant in this case.
Conviction is proper in prosecutions involving illegal sale of regulated or prohibited drugs if the following elements are present: (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 proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti, i.e., the prohibited or regulated drug. 12
All the foregoing elements were established by the prosecution herein. There was a legitimate and successful buy-bust operation during which accused-appellant sold and delivered to MADAC Operative Cosio a plastic sachet of shabu in exchange for P500.00. The marked P500.00 bill paid by MADAC Operative Cosio to accused-appellant was later recovered from the latter's possession. HDIATS
For illegal possession of regulated or prohibited drugs, the prosecution must establish the following elements: (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. 13
In the instant case, the second sachet of shabu was found by the buy-bust team in accused-appellant's possession during the search of the latter's person incidental to his lawful warrantless arrest for illegal sale of shabu. It is undisputed that accused-appellant had no authority to possess the shabu. As for the last element, we held in a catena of cases that mere possession of a regulated drug per se constitutes pima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused absent a satisfactory explanation of such possession — the onus probandi is shifted to the accused, to explain the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi, 14 which herein accused-appellant failed to do.
It is settled that accused-appellant's bare denials cannot prevail over the positive identification by the prosecution witnesses of accused-appellant as the person who was caught selling and in possession of shabu. 15 Moreover, accused-appellant failed to proffer clear and convincing evidence to overturn the presumption that the buy-bust team regularly performed their duties. It was not proven that MADAC Operative Cosio, as a member of the buy-bust team, was impelled by improper motives to testify against accused-appellant. Therefore, there is no basis to suspect the veracity of MADAC Operative Cosio's testimony. We have invariably viewed with disfavor the defenses of denial and frame-up for such defenses can easily be fabricated and are common ploy in prosecutions for the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. In order to prosper, such defenses must be proved with strong and convincing evidence, 16 which are absent in the case at bar. SEDaAH
Accused-appellant attempts to raise doubt as to his identity by pointing out that the buy-bust operation targeted a different person named "CJ de Castro."
We are not persuaded.
It bears to point out that accused-appellant does not deny that he is also called "CJ," only that his surname is "Manuel" not "de Castro." The name by which he was initially identified by the confidential informant is of no moment. The fundamental facts established by the evidence for the prosecution are that during the buy-bust operation, it was accused-appellant who sold and delivered the sachet of shabu to MADAC Operative Cosio, the poseur-buyer; and that subsequent search of the person of accused-appellant yielded another sachet of shabu in his possession. The buy-bust team arrested accused-appellant, not because he was purportedly "CJ de Castro," but because he was caught in flagrante delicto of illegally selling and possessing dangerous drugs. The Informations filed against accused-appellant already bore his correct name. Prosecution witness MADAC Operative Cosio was able to identify and point to accused-appellant in open court. Relevant portions of MADAC Operative Cosio's testimony are reproduced below: ATICcS
Q: What were you doing at that said place, Mr. Witness?
A: We were conducting buy[-]bust operation, sir.
Q: And can you tell us against whom were you conducting this buy[-]bust operation, Mr. Witness?
A: Against one Joel Vivas, CJ de Castro alias Tats, sir.
Q: Were you able to consummate the buy[-]bust operation that you conducted against these persons, Mr. Witness?
A: No, sir.
Q: Can you tell us why you were not able to conduct this buy[-]bust operation against these persons you mentioned a while ago, Mr. Witness?
A: Because when alias CJ was arrested he gave [a] different name, sir. aETDIc
Q: What was the name given by this person that you arrested during that buy[-]bust operation?
A: Andrew Jape Manuel, sir.
Q: What is the relation of this Andrew Jape Manuel to the accused in this case?
A: They are the same person, sir, that was being referred to by our informant alias . . ., sir.
Q: If that Andrew Jape Manuel is present inside this courtroom, will you be able to identify him?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Will you kindly look around this courtroom and identify him to this court by pointing him?
A: That person, sir, wearing yellow shirt.
THE INTERPRETER:
The Witness pointed to a male individual wearing yellow shirt and maong pants, when asked of his identity, he replied, Andrew Jape y Manuel, the accused in these cases. 17
Thus, we have no doubt as to accused-appellant being the seller and possessor of the shabu. HTCIcE
Next, accused-appellant challenges the identity of the corpus delicti by highlighting the failure of the buy-bust team to strictly comply with the procedure for the seizure and custody of dangerous drugs provided under Republic Act No. 9165 and its implementing rules and regulations and preserve the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs. This argument is not novel and we had already addressed the same at length in People v. Rosialda, 18 and reiterated in People v. Manlangit, 19 thus:
Anent the second element, Rosialda raises the issue that there is a violation of Sec. 21, Art. II of RA 9165, particularly the requirement that the alleged dangerous drugs seized by the apprehending officers be photographed "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." Rosialda argues that such failure to comply with the provision of the law is fatal to his conviction.
This contention is untenable. TIcEDC
The Court made the following enlightening disquisition on this matter in People v. Rivera:
The procedure to be followed in the custody and handling of seized dangerous drugs is outlined in Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 which stipulates:
(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.
The same is implemented by Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165, viz.:
(a) 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: 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.
The failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the required physical inventory and photograph of the evidence confiscated pursuant to said guidelines, is not fatal and does not automatically render accused-appellant's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. Indeed, the implementing rules offer some flexibility when a proviso added 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.' The same provision clearly states as well, that it must still be shown that there exists justifiable grounds and proof that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence have been preserved. SacTAC
This Court can no longer find out what justifiable reasons existed, if any, since the defense did not raise this issue during trial. Be that as it may, this Court has explained in People v. Del Monte that what is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. The existence of the dangerous drug is a condition sine qua non for conviction for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the crime and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction. Thus, it is essential that the identity of the prohibited drug be established beyond doubt. The chain of custody requirement performs the function of ensuring that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved, so much so that unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the evidence are removed. EHDCAI
To be admissible, the prosecution must 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. (Emphases included, citation omitted.)
Contrary to accused-appellant's contention in the present case, the integrity of the seized shabu remained intact given the substantial compliance by the buy-bust team with the procedure in Republic Act No. 9165 and its implementing rules and regulations, and establishment by the prosecution of the chain of custody of the said drugs.
Records show that the sachet of shabu sold by accused-appellant to MADAC Operative Cosio and the other sachet of shabu confiscated from accused-appellant's possession were immediately marked with "JAKE" and "CJ," respectively. An inventory of the seized sachets of shabu was conducted at the place of accused-appellant's arrest and in the presence of accused-appellant and Barangay Captain Doromal, as evidenced by the Inventory Receipt. 20 The very same sachets, specifically identified by the markings thereon, together with the request for their laboratory examination, were brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory at the Makati Police Station. Per Physical Science Report No. D-107-09S, the contents of said sachets tested positive for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. On the basis of the test results, a Final Investigation Report was issued by the PNP recommending and/or referring the case for inquest proceedings. 21 The chain of custody of the dangerous drugs from the buy-bust team, to the Forensic Chemical Officer of the PNP Crime Laboratory, to the Police Investigator, was not broken. DACIHc
It is thus evident that the identity of the corpus delicti had been properly preserved and established by the prosecution. Besides, 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 had been tampered with. Accused-appellant has the burden of showing that the evidence was tampered or meddled with to overcome the presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers and the presumption that public officers properly discharge their duties. Accused-appellant failed to discharge such burden. 22
Consequently, we are convinced that the dangerous drugs that were presented before the RTC during trial were the very same ones seized from accused-appellant during the buy-bust operation and the subsequent incidental search on his person.
For the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, Article II, Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 provides for the following penalty:
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.
Hence, the penalty of life imprisonment and fine of P500,000.00 imposed on accused-appellant by the RTC in Criminal Case No. 09-268, and affirmed by the Court of Appeals, is proper. ACTISE
Article II, Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 prescribes the following penalty for the illegal possession of less than five grams of shabu:
Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. — . . .
xxx xxx xxx
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be graduated as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu," or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy," PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or less than three hundred (300) grams of marijuana.
Based on the foregoing, the RTC, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, correctly sentenced accused-appellant in Criminal Case No. 09-269 to imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months as maximum, and to pay a fine of P300,000.00, as penalty for his illegal possession of 0.01 gram of shabu.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated July 18, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 04221, affirming the Decision dated October 5, 2009 of the RTC of Makati City, Branch 65, in Criminal Case Nos. 09-268 and 09-269, is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. CA rollo, pp. 99-119, penned by Associate Justice Socorro Q. Inting with Associate Justices Magdangal M. De Leon and Mario V. Lopez, concurring.
2. Id. at 13-20.
3. Records, p. 2.
4. Id. at 4.
5. Id. at 76.
6. CA rollo, pp. 19-20.
7. Id. at 41.
8. Rollo, p. 28.
9. Id. at 30-34.
10. Id. at 42-50.
11. Manalili v. Court of Appeals and People, 345 Phil. 632, 649 (1997).
12. People v. Desuyo, G.R. No. 186466, July 26, 2010, 625 SCRA 590, 603-604.
13. Id. at 604.
14. People v. Posing, G.R. No. 196973, July 31, 2013, 703 SCRA 62, 81.
15. People v. Uy, 392 Phil. 773, 788 (2000).
16. People v. Gonzaga, G.R. No. 184952, October 11, 2010, 632 SCRA 551, 569.
17. TSN, June 1, 2009, pp. 5-6.
18. G.R. No. 188330, August 25, 2010, 629 SCRA 507, 519-521.
19. G.R. No. 189806, January 12, 2011, 639 SCRA 455, 467-469.
20. Records, p. 79.
21. Id. at 68-69.
22. People v. Macatingag, 596 Phil. 376, 392 (2009).