THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 208684. February 17, 2016.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DARWIN MANUEL Y JUAN, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated February 17, 2016, which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 208684 (People of the Philippines v. Darwin Manuel y Juan).
Before us is an appeal from the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05136 on 28 December 2012, affirming the Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), First Judicial Region, Branch 13, Laoag City, dated 24 June 2011 in Criminal Case No. 14532-13, finding accused-appellant Darwin Manuel y Juan (Manuel) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of drugs or shabu, punishable under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, 3 otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
The Information
That on or about the 2nd day of August, 2010, in the City of Laoag, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused did then and there wil[l]fully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to a police poseur buyer a quantity of met[h]amphetamine hydrochloride, locally known as Shabu contained in a heat sealed transparent plastic sachet weighing 0.0376 gram valued in the amount of ONE THOUSAND PESOS (P1,000.00) without the necessary license or authority issued by competent authorities.
Contrary to law[.] 4
The Facts
Upon a tip-off, Police Inspector Christopher Danao, the action officer of the Provincial Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Group (PAIDSOTG), briefed his men to conduct a buy-bust operation against accused-appellant Manuel. After the briefing, the policemen coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Region 1 and then proceeded to the crime scene. When they arrived, Police Officer 2 Sygman Benigno (PO2 Benigno) and an informant acted as poseur-buyers and talked to Manuel to buy some shabu.
Manuel let them inside the living room of his house and asked them to wait while he went upstairs to get the shabu. When Manuel returned, he handed a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance to PO2 Benigno, who also handed to Manuel the marked money. Immediately, PO2 Benigno discreetly called Police Officer 2 Christopher Pola (PO2 Pola) to signal the arrest.
As soon as PO2 Benigno heard the backup vehicle, he grabbed Manuel by the hand and arrested Manuel. Thereafter, PO2 Benigno informed Manuel of his constitutional rights.
During the arrest, PO2 Benigno recovered the buy-bust money and the plastic sachet from Manuel.
After the arrest, PO2 Benigno prepared the necessary documents and marked the plastic sachet with his initials "SCB" and the initials of Manuel "DMJ." During the inventory, Dennis Alipio, a media man from the radio station DZJC, signed the same. Pictures were also taken. After preparing the letter request for laboratory examination, PO2 Benigno delivered the seized item to the Ilocos Norte Provincial Crime Laboratory Office, which was duly received by Senior Police Officer 2 Nilo Domingo (SPO2 Domingo) on 2 August 2010. Upon receipt, SPO2 Domingo affixed his initials "NPD" and personally submitted the specimen to the forensic chemist Police Inspector Roanalaine Baligod (PI Baligod), who conducted the examination.
Based on the Initial Laboratory Report and Chemistry Report No. D-027-2010, 5 it turned out that the plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance was positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. After the examination, PI Baligod sealed the plastic sachet with a masking tape, placed her initials "RBB", which she forwarded to their evidence custodian, Senior Police Officer 3 Teodoro Flojo (SPO3 Flojo) for safekeeping, who then stored the plastic sachet, Report, and letter request for laboratory examination in their evidence cabinet. cTDaEH
On 14 September 2010, SPO3 Flojo retrieved the evidence and gave them to Senior Police Officer 3 Diosdado Mamotos (SPO3 Mamotos), who delivered them to the court on the same day. The Clerk of Court acknowledged receipt of the evidence on 14 September 2010.
As defense, Manuel alleged that on 2 August 2010, upon arriving home at around 1:45 p.m. from the market, he saw Val Torres (Torres) who asked him, "Do you have any?" Knowing that Torres was referring to shabu, he answered, "You know Val, I don't have any."
When Manuel was about to enter the living room, 2 armed men entered and told him, "Iruarmon" (Bring it out.). Dumbfounded, Manuel asked the 2 armed men, "What is that?"
Without heeding his query, the 2 armed men frisked Manuel and took his P20.00 and cellphone. They brought him outside where 2 other men took him. Connie Agag (Agag), Manuel's aunt, attempted to help free Manuel from the men. It was then that the men introduced themselves as policemen for the first time. Agag, afraid of the policemen, stopped.
The policemen then boarded Manuel in a white van and told Agag to just see Manuel at the camp.
En route to the camp, Manuel suffered from the hands of his arresting officers. While he was being asked where he was getting his supply of shabu, the police officers would also beat him. When they arrived at the camp, they poked their guns at him, brought out from the table a P1,000.00 bill and a plastic sachet, took pictures of him with the aforesaid items, and took his fingerprints.
According to Manuel, the reason for his arrest was not because he was selling shabu, but because of the policemen's suspicion that he was back to his old ways of selling shabu for which he was already arrested before.
Upon arraignment, Manuel pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. The parties stipulated on the testimony of SPO3 Mamotos, a personnel of the Ilocos Norte Provincial Crime Laboratory Office, Camp Captain Valentin S. Juan, Laoag City; forensic chemist PI Baligod, SPO3 Flojo and SPO2 Domingo, all from the crime laboratory. The prosecution presented PO2 Benigno and PO2 Pola, 2 of the PAIDSOTG operatives involved in the buy-bust operation. On the other hand, the defense presented 2 witnesses, Agag and accused-appellant Manuel.
Ruling of the RTC
The RTC found that the prosecution was able to establish the presence of all the elements of the crime of illegal sale of shabu under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165: (1) the identities of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it. 6
As regards the inconsistency in the testimony of PO2 Pola, the RTC held that such inconsistency is trivial and cannot prevail over the weak and self-serving defense of alibi and frame-up by Manuel. The RTC reiterated the ruling in People v. Roa, 7 which held that such defenses have been invariably viewed by the courts with disfavor because they can be easily concocted but are difficult to prove.
However, there is one issue left to be settled: the marking, inventory, and taking of pictures happened at the place of the PAIDSOTG and not at the place of arrest. On this point, the RTC opined that what is of utmost importance is there is no gap in the chain of custody, and pursuant to Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165, 8 inventory may be conducted at the police station. The RTC, citing People v. Domado, 9 held that:
. . . marking upon immediate confiscation does not exclude the possibility that marking can be at the police station or office of the apprehending team. In the cases of People v. Rusiana, People v. Hernandez, and People v. Gum-Oyen, the apprehending team marked the confiscated items at the police station and not at the place of seizure. Nevertheless, we sustained the conviction because the evidence showed that the integrity and evidentiary value of the items seized had been preserved. To reiterate what we have held in past cases, we are not always looking for the strict step-by-step adherence to the procedural requirements; what is important is to ensure the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as these would determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. . . . . [Citations omitted]
Therefore, as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the arresting officers, the failure of the arresting officers to mark the seized items immediately upon confiscation shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items. The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Darwin Manuel y Juan GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as here charged of illegal sale of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu and is therefore sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00.
The shabu subject of this case is confiscated, the same to be disposed as the law prescribes.
SO ORDERED. 10
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
The Court of Appeals affirmed the Decision of the RTC in toto.
The Court of Appeals found that the prosecution was able to establish the presence of the elements of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165. The prosecution was able to establish the sale of shabu between Manuel and the poseur-buyer, PO2 Benigno, when Manuel handed the shabu to PO2 Benigno and accepted the latter's payment, consisting of the marked money. cSaATC
Manuel was caught in flagrante delicto in a buy-bust operation. The prosecution was able to establish with material proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation of evidence or corpus delicti corroborated by the testimony of witnesses, including the straightforward and candid testimony of PO2 Benigno, which is credible and remarkably sufficient to sustain Manuel's conviction as opposed to Manuel's self-serving defense of alibi and frame-up, who was clearly and convincingly identified in open court as the perpetrator of the crime. As held by the Court of Appeals, categorical and positive identification of an accused without proof of any ill-motive on the part of the witness prevails over the defense of alibi and denial. 11
The Court of Appeals further ruled that the fact that the informant was not presented in court does not at all destroy the evidence already proffered by the prosecution. As already held, the presentation of the informant in open court is not an element of the offense of selling illegal drugs. It is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. "Informants are usually not presented in court because of the need to hide their identity and preserve their invaluable service to the police". 12 The same principle applies to the non-presentation of the cellular phone to establish the presence of the pre-arranged signal during the buy-bust operation: non-presentation of the cellular phone is not fatal to the case of the prosecution.
With regard to the defense's claim that the absence of prior surveillance destroys the credibility of the buy-bust operation, the Court of Appeals, citing People v. Cruz, 13 correctly held that:
Settled is the rule that a prior surveillance of the suspected offender is not a prerequisite for the validity of a buy-bust operation, especially so if the buy-bust team is accompanied by the informant, as in this case. We have held that when time is of the essence, the police may dispense with the need for prior surveillance. (Citations omitted.)
On the failure of the police officers to mark the confiscated items at the place of arrest, the Court of Appeals held that such failure does not automatically impair the integrity of the seized items and/or the chain of custody. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. 14 As the prosecution duly established the unbroken chain of custody, the failure of the arresting officers to conduct an inventory at the place of arrest does not affect the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.
In any case, the Court of Appeals held that as the prosecution failed to show any ill motive on the part of the arresting officers to falsely accuse Manuel of the crime of illegal selling of shabu, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty shall prevail.
Our Ruling
We affirm accused-appellant Manuel's conviction.
Finding no reversible error in the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the lower courts, the Court resolves to AFFIRM in toto the Decision of the Court of Appeals.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed Decision dated 28 December 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05136 affirming the conviction of Darwin Manuel y Juan by the Regional Trial Court of Laoag City, Branch 13 in Criminal Case No. 14532-13, for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, is AFFIRMED in toto. Darwin Manuel y Juan is therefore sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00.
SO ORDERED. (Peralta and Jardeleza, JJ., no part; Mendoza and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., Additional Members per Raffle dated February 17, 2016).
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. CA rollo, pp. 160-171; penned by CA Associate Justice Francisco P. Acosta with Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Angelita A. Gacutan, concurring.
2. Records, pp. 91-109; penned by Presiding Judge Philip G. Salvador.
3. 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.
4. Records, p. 1.
5. Records, p. 36.
6. People v. Gaspar, 669 Phil. 122, 135 (2011).
7. 634 Phil. 437, 445 (2010).
8. (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 theintegrity 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.
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.
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. (Emphasis ours.)
9. 635 Phil. 74, 93 (2010).
10. Records, p. 109.
11. People v. Laog, 674 Phil. 444 (2011).
12. Quinicot v. People, 608 Phil. 259, 277 (2009).
13. 623 Phil. 261, 271 (2009).
14. Imson v. People, 669 Phil. 262, 268 (2011).