THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 224924. June 7, 2017.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. RONIE MAODANI Y AUKASA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 7, 2017, which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 224924 (People of the Philippines vs. Ronie Maodani y Aukasa). — The Office of the Solicitor General's Manifestation and Motion (in Lieu of Supplemental Brief) dated October 12, 2016 stating that counsel has fully traversed the matters raised in the September 8, 2016 Appellee's Brief and adopting the said appellee's brief as her supplemental brief in this case is NOTED.
For review is the Decision 1 dated February 29, 2012 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00771-MIN, affirming the Judgment dated September 26, 2008 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Zamboanga City, Branch 14 in Criminal Case No. 19127, finding accused-appellant Ronie Maodani y Aukasa guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. No. 9165), otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
Factual Antecedents
Accused-appellant was charged in an Information with violation of Section 5 (illegal sale of dangerous drugs), Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the accusatory portion of which reads:
That on or about November 9, 2002, in the City of Zamboanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law to sell, deliver, transport, distribute, or give away to another any dangerous drug, conspiring and confederating together, mutually aiding and assisting with one another, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, SELL AND DELIVER to PO1 Ibrahim Ladja, a PNP member, who acted as poseur buyer, transparent plastic pack wrapper containing one (1) medium size heat-sealed transparent plastic pack each containing white crystalline substance having a total weight of 0.1419 gram which when subjected to qualitative examination gave positive result to the tests for METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE (shabu), knowing same to be a dangerous Drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 2
The facts, as summarized by the CA, are as follows:
Version of the Prosecution
At about 10:00 a.m. of November 9, 2002, SPO3 Edgar Fernandez (SPO3 Fernandez), a member of the Philippine Drugs Enforcement Agency (PDEA) was at the PDEA Region IX Office at Upper Calarian, Zamboanga City when he received a tip from a male confidential informant (CI) that accused-appellant is selling illegal drugs at Lustre Street, Sta. Barbara, Zamboanga City. SPO3 Fernandez immediately reported the tip to P/Insp. Panfilo V. Cañete (P/Insp. Cañete), who in turn informed the Regional Chief of PDEA, P/Insp. Jul Hamolo. The latter instructed P/Insp. Cañete to form a team to conduct a buy-bust operation against accused-appellant. P/Insp. Cañete formed a team consisting of himself as team leader, PO1 Ibrahim Ladja (PO1 Ladja) as poseur buyer, SPO3 Fernandez as arresting officer, PO3 Jesus Formento (PO3 Formento) as investigator, and PO3 Edgar Arnejo, PO1 Abdulgafar Turadji, PO3 Senerio Custodio, PO1 Jamal Akiran, SPO1 Bonifacio Morados, PO1 Ruby Diaz, PO1 Samsuradji as members. 3
A briefing on how to carry out their buy-bust operation against accused-appellant was then conducted. P/Insp. Cañete handed to PO1 Ladja the buy-bust money consisting of five (5) pieces of Php100.00 bills. The police officers agreed that PO1 Ladja will indicate the consummation of the sale by scratching his head with his right hand. 4
At around 2:30 p.m. of the same day, the team arrived at the target site and positioned themselves strategically at a distance of 10 to 15 meters from accused-appellant's house. PO1 Ladja and the CI walked towards the house and stopped at a two-storey house with a tall iron gate. Attached to the gate is a small structure akin to a store made with light materials. When the CI knocked at the gate, a man opened it from the other side and asked them what they wanted. The CI called on the name of accused-appellant. Recognizing the CI, the accused-appellant approached them and asked them how much they wanted. PO1 Ladja answered only P500.00 worth and handed the five (5) pieces of P100.00 bills to accused-appellant, who, in exchange, handed one sachet containing white crystalline substance to PO1 Ladja. Accused-appellant then called his wife and gave her the money. At this juncture, PO1 Ladja scratched his head with his right hand. Accused-appellant sensed the signal and immediately closed the gate. The team rushed to the scene and called on to accused-appellant to open the gate and informed him that they are members of the PDEA. 5 aScITE
Unable to open the gate, the team forcibly opened the wooden window slabs of the wooden structure attached to the gate. PO1 Ladja, SPO3 Fernandez, P/Insp. Cañete, and three others went through the small opening and searched for accused-appellant and his wife. SPO3 Fernandez found five (5) pieces of Php100.00 bills scattered on the second floor of the house. He picked them up and gave them to PO3 Formento. Moments later, the officers found accused-appellant and his wife hiding in the ceiling of the second floor. While at the scene, PO1 Ladja turned the plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance over to PO3 Formento. SPO3 Fernandez brought accused-appellant and his wife to the PDEA Office, while PO3 Formento took charge of the seized drugs and the five P100.00 bills and brought the same to the PDEA Office. 6
At the PDEA Office, the plastic sachet recovered from accused-appellant was first marked by PO1 Ladja with his initials "IUL" and subsequently by PO3 Formento with markings "JLF," the latter's initials. 7 PO3 Formento prepared the booking sheet, arrest report, and request for laboratory examination. PO1 Ladja, upon the instruction of P/Insp. Cañete, brought the seized drugs with the laboratory request to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Regional Office IX Crime Laboratory, Zamboanga. 8
On the same day, at about 6:05 p.m., P/Insp. Mercedes Delfin Diestro (P/Insp. Diestro), Forensic Chemical Officer of the Philippine National Police Regional Office IX Crime Laboratory, Zamboanga City, received the letter request for laboratory examination from the Zamboanga City PDEA, with the white crystalline substance contained in a medium heat-sealed plastic sachet placed in a plastic pack wrapper. She conducted physical, chemical and confirmatory tests on the samples and prepared Chemistry Report No. D-474-2002, 9 which showed that the specimen contained in the sachet recovered from accused-appellant had a total weight of 0.1419 gram, and was positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. 10
Inquest proceedings were conducted by the Zamboanga City Prosecution Office (CPO) against accused-appellant and his wife Hadji Walda Maodani y Saldun (Hadji Walda) for illegal sale of drugs. On November 11, 2002, the Zamboanga CPO issued Inquest Resolution finding the existence of reasonable ground to charge accused-appellant and his wife Hadji Walda for violation of the crime charged. On the same day, the said Office filed an Information against the two for violation of Section 5 in relation to Section 26, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. A warrant for their arrest was issued. 11
On November 29, 2002, accused-appellant and his wife moved that a preliminary investigation be conducted. After reinvestigation, the Zamboanga CPO recommended that Hadji Walda be dropped from the Information. However, in the Order dated December 10, 2002, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 13, Zamboanga City denied the findings of the CPO stating that the court has already acquired jurisdiction over the case; hence, the determination of guilt or innocence of Hadji Walda is within the consideration of the court. Thereafter, trial proceeded. 12
After the prosecution rested its case, accused-appellant and Hadji Walda filed separate motions for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence claiming that the evidence presented by the prosecution are not sufficient to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court granted the demurrer of Hadji Walda, but trial proceeded for accused-appellant. 13
Version of the Defense
Accused-appellant denied the charges against him. He recounted that in the early afternoon of November 9, 2002, he was at his house to do some house painting. When he ran out of paint, he asked Alnazer Bunawan, his jeepney conductor, who at that time was at the road, to buy paint for him. After he gave the money, accused-appellant locked the gate and went upstairs. While resting in his bedroom on the second floor, he heard gunshots coming from outside. When he went out of the room, he saw armed men already inside the house pointing guns at him. The policemen poked their guns at him, and forcibly arrested him and Hadji Walda. They were brought at the PDEA Office, where they were detained. It was only during the hearing that he learned that he is being charged with selling shabu. 14
Alnazer Bunawan corroborated accused-appellant's statements and testified that on November 9, 2002 at around 1:00 p.m., he was at the house of accused-appellant eating lunch when accused-appellant instructed him to buy paint. Moments later, two persons knocked at the gate, looking for accused-appellant. Shortly, two armed men forcibly entered the house of accused-appellant and arrested the latter and his wife. 15
Ruling of the RTC
On September 26, 2008, the RTC rendered its Judgment, 16 the dispositive portion of which reads: HEITAD
WHEREFORE, finding the accused Ronnie Maodani Y Aukasa guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 5, Article II of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, the court hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay the fine of P500,000.00 and costs of the proceedings.
The methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu subject matter of the case is hereby confiscated in favor of the government. The Officer-in-Charge, this court is ordered to turn it over to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, this Region, for disposition in accordance with law.
SO ORDERED.
Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed to the CA.
Accused-appellant argued that the corpus delicti was not duly established by competent evidence due to procedural lapses in the chain of custody of the shabu allegedly seized from him. 17
After considering the parties' arguments, the CA affirmed the RTC's Judgment in toto and ruled that the prosecution satisfactorily proved all the elements for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The CA disposed of the appeal in this wise:
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED. The April 24, 2014 Judgment of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 204, Muntinlupa City in Crim. Case Nos. 09-279 and 09-280 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Issue
The sole issue for the resolution of this Court is whether the CA erred in affirming the accused-appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
Our Ruling
The appeal lacks merit. Both the RTC and the CA correctly found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
As a rule, findings of fact of the trial court are entitled to great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed except for strong and valid reasons since the trial court is in a better position to examine the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying. This rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals. 18 This rule is not absolute, and admits of certain exceptions, such as where facts of weight and substance with direct and material bearing on the final outcome of the case have been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied. 19
After a careful review of the records, however, this Court does not find any compelling reason to deviate from the lower courts' judgment finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of drugs.
The prosecution successfully
In order to successfully prosecute an offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu, the following elements must first be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and consideration of the sale; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. 20
From the foregoing established facts, and as testified to by PO1 Ladja, all the elements for a valid prosecution for illegal sale and possession of shabu are present:
Fiscal Eisma
Q What was your role on that operation?
A [Poseur] buyer, Sir
Q What were you supposed to do?
A I was designated to buy shabu from the suspect together with the confidential informant
xxx xxx xxx
Q You said earlier you were with the confidential informant in going to the area. So when you arrive[d] at the target area, what did you do?
A The confidential informant knock[ed] at the gate
Q Then what happened?
A There was a male person who open[ed] the door of the gate
Q Then what else?
A We were ask[ed] by that male person if what we want
Q Then what happened?
A The confidential informant was calling the name of the subject (referring to that person who open[ed] the door).
Q [Which] subject?
A Ronie Maodani
Q Then what did that male person answered when he was called?
A The confidential informant also was recognized by that person who open[ed] the door because he was a regular customer of that person. ATICcS
Q What happened next?
A Ronie Maodani approach[ed] us. He recognize[d] the confidential informant and he also [knew] that we [wanted] to buy shabu.
Q Then what did Ronie tell you?
A Ronie was bringing the shabu and we were asked how much are we going to buy
Q Then what did you answer?
A I said only P500.00
Q Then what did he answer also?
A He said only 500? And afterwards I handed over to him the money
Q Then after you handed to him the money what happened?
A He gave to me the shabu and after that he called his wife and he handed over the money to his wife.
Q What happened after that?
A I gave the pre-arranged signal by scratching my head using my right hand. SPO3 Edgar Fernandez rush[ed] to the scene.
Q What else happened at that time?
A Then when Roni Maodani noticed that I gave the pre-[arranged] signal he immediately close[d] the gate.
Q When Ronie Maodani closed the gate what did you do?
A We introduced ourselves that we are from PDEA.
Q Then did he open the gate again after you introduced yourselves that you are from the PDEA?
A No sir
Q Then what did you do?
A There was a store passing to the house and there where (sic) we passed at that store.
xxx xxx xxx
Q Were you able to get inside the house?
A Yes Sir
Q What happened next?
A We went up to the 2nd floor of the house
Q Did you see Ronie Maodani inside the house?
A Yes sir
Q What was he doing there?
A He was hiding inside the ceiling of the house sir 21
As found by the trial court and affirmed by the CA, PO1 Ladja, together with the CI and other PDEA officers, went to the accused-appellant's house. Upon meeting the accused-appellant, PO1 Ladja received a plastic sachet containing shabu from him in exchange for the P500.00. 22 Accused-appellant's possession of the 0.1419 gram of shabu was not proved to be authorized by, or in accordance with, law. His awareness and knowledge of the illegality of his possession of the drug is further highlighted by his sudden flight upon being conscious of the entrapment operation.
The prosecution satisfactorily
Following the arrest of the buyer or seller, it must be shown that the apprehending team complied with the required procedure for the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized and/or surrendered dangerous drugs set forth in Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, 23 or the chain of custody of the illegal drugs seized.
Case law provides, however, that non-compliance with the above-quoted provision of R.A. No. 9165 is not fatal and will not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. 24 As stated in Section 21, Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 and in accordance with jurisprudence, non-compliance with Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 shall not necessarily render the arrest of an accused as illegal, or the items seized as inadmissible, if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved in compliance with the chain of custody rule. 25 Thus, substantial compliance with the procedure to establish a chain of custody is allowed as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item are properly preserved by the apprehending officers. 26 This proceeds from the reality that strict compliance with the requirements of Section 21 may not always be possible under field conditions; the police operates under varied conditions, and cannot at all times attend to all the formalities of the procedures in the handling of confiscated evidence. 27
As can be gleaned from the prosecution witnesses' testimony, the procedure adopted by the police officers had preserved the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items:
Fiscal Eisma
Q Earlier you stated that you handed over the shabu to PO3 Jesus Formento
A Yes sir TIADCc
Q Would you describe what exactly you handed over to Formento?
A The shabu sir
Q Was there any container?
A Yes sir contained in a plastic wrapper
Q If that shabu will be [shown] to you again can you still recognized it?
A Yes sir
Q How will you [be able to recognize] that again?
A I marked my initial IUL Sir
Q I am showing to you this plastic wrapper which contained white crystalline substance inside will you please point out you[r] initial?
A Here is my initial sir IUL (witness pointed out his initial IUL on the specimen) 28
xxx xxx xxx
Fiscal Eisma
Q What happened when you arrived up stair?
A Scattered five hundred bills were picked up by Fernandez and turned over to me.
Q What else?
A And then, we found out that the two suspects were at the ceiling of the house hiding, sir, ceiling of the house, sir.
Q What you are trying to say, who were they?
A They were identified as Ronie Aukasa and Hadji Walda Maodani.
Q And you said they were hiding, what happened?
A After some pleadings, the two went down, sir, from the ceiling, to the floor and then we took them to the office.
Q And what about PO1 Ladja, where was he?
A Also together with us went inside. And then, at the scene, he turned over to me the plastic sachet of shabu that he bought from the suspect.
Q And when he turned over to you, what did you do?
A I secured those and brought it to the office, sir.
Q If it is shown to you would you recognize it?
A Yes, sir.
Q How would you recognize it?
A I marked those plastic sachets.
Q With what?
A With pentel pen, sir.
Q What were the markings?
A The initial JLF and Exhibit A.
Q And I am showing to you plastic sachet, will you please go over this and see to it and identify them?
A Yes, sir. Exhibit A-JLF. 29
PO1 Ladja established that he handed the plastic sachet containing the shabu over to PO3 Formento. Upon reaching the police station, PO1 Ladja and PO3 Formento marked the specimen with their respective initials of "IUL" and "JLF." PO3 Formento likewise prepared an inventory of the items seized from the accused-appellant and prepared the request for laboratory examination. 30 Thereafter, upon the instruction of P/Insp. Cañete, PO1 Ladja brought the plastic sachet confiscated from the accused-appellant to P/Insp. Diestro of the PNP Regional Office IX Crime Laboratory for examination.
P/Insp. Diestro corroborated this narrative and testified that, upon receiving a written request for laboratory examination, she determined the starting weight of the whole substance at 0.1419 gram before conducting various tests on the specimen. Thereafter, she marked the specimen as D-474-2002 with her signature and stated her findings in Chemistry Report No. D-474-2002. It bears to note that P/Insp. Diestro likewise stated in Report No. D-474-2002 that the specimen was contained in plastic wrapper with the marking "JLF," 31 and testified on cross-examination that it was PO1 Ladja who brought the specimen to her office. 32
The chain of events, therefore, evinces that the identity and integrity of the drugs seized from accused-appellant, from his arrest until the illegal drugs were turned over to the SPD Crime laboratory, had been preserved and constitute substantial compliance with the procedure laid down in Section 21.
In the absence of any showing that substantial or relevant facts bearing on the elements of the crime have been misapplied or overlooked, the Court can only accord full credence to such factual assessment of the trial court which had the distinct advantage of observing the demeanour and conduct of the witnesses at the trial. Absent any proof of motive to falsely charge an accused of such a grave offense, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and the findings of the trial court with respect to the credibility of witnesses shall prevail over his/her bare allegation. 33
Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165 provides that the penalty for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, regardless of quantity or purity, is life imprisonment to death and a fine of P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00. In view of Section 2 34 of R.A. No. 9346, the penalty of life imprisonment and payment of P500,000.00 fine that the RTC imposed, as affirmed by the CA, are proper.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court hereby resolves to DISMISS the appeal for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error in its assailed Decision dated February 29, 2012 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00771-MIN as to warrant the exercise of the Court's appellate jurisdiction and, thus, AFFIRM said Decision, affirming the September 26, 2008 Judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga City, Branch 14, convicting accused-appellant Ronie Maodani y Aukasa of violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. (Jardeleza, J., no part, due to his prior action as Solicitor General;Leonen, J., designated additional Member per Raffle dated June 7, 2017) AIDSTE
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Pamela Ann Abella Maxino, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles; rollo, pp. 3-16.
2. CA rollo, p. 22.
3.Rollo, p. 4.
4.Id.
5.Id. at 4-5.
6.Id. at 5.
7. Cross-examination of PO3 Formento, Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN) dated March 13, 2003.
8.Rollo, pp. 5-6.
9. Records, p. 63.
10.Rollo, p. 6.
11.Id.
12.Id. at 6-7.
13.Id. at 7.
14.Id.
15.Id. at 7-8.
16. CA rollo, pp. 22-42.
17. CA rollo, pp. 10-11; Appellant's Brief.
18.People v. Rivera, et al., G.R. No. 205610, July 30, 2014. (citations omitted)
19.People v. Morales, 630 Phil. 215, 227-228 (2010).
20.People v. Dela Peña and Delima, G.R. No. 207635, February 18, 2015, citing People v. Bautista, G.R. No. 177320, February 22, 2012, 666 SCRA 518.
21. TSN, March 6, 2003, direct examination of PO1 Ladja.
22.Rollo, p. 13.
23. 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:
(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; x x x
24.People v. Bis, G.R. No. 191360, March 10, 2014.
25.People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 205414, April 4, 2016, citing People v. Edwin Dalawis y Hidalgo, G.R. No. 197925, November 9, 2015, reiterating Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165.
26.Id.
27. People v. Yable, G.R. No. 200358, April 7, 2014, citing People v. Pringas, 558 Phil. 579, 593 (2007).
28. Direct examination of PO1 Ladja, TSN, March 6, 2003.
29. Direct examination of PO3 Formento, TSN, March 13, 2003.
30. Id.
31. Records, p. 63.
32. Testimony of P/Sr. Mercedes Delfin Diestro; TSN dated March 6, 2003.
33. People v. Alcala, G.R. No. 201725, July 18, 2014, citing People v. Soriaga, G.R. No. 191392, March 14, 2011, 645 SCRA 300.
34. SEC. 2. In lieu of the death penalty, the following shall be imposed.
(a) the penalty of reclusion perpetua, when the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code; or
(b) the penalty of life imprisonment, when the law violated does not make use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code.