People v. Mendoza y Mendoza

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 225064. January 19, 2018.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. ROBERTO MENDOZA y MENDOZA, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJanuary 19, 2018which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 225064 — People of the Philippines vs. Roberto Mendoza y Mendoza

Through this appeal, Roberto Mendoza y Mendoza (accused-appellant) seeks a reversal of the Decision 1 dated March 25, 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 05048 which affirmed the Decision 2 dated April 18, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Batangas City, Branch 2, in Criminal Case Nos. 16150 and 16151, finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs defined and penalized under Section 5 and Section 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165. 3

The Antecedents

In separate Informations, accused-appellant was charged before the RTC, the accusatory portions of which read as follows: CAIHTE

Criminal Case No. 16150:

"That on or about September 10, 2009 at around 8:40 o'clock in the evening at Brgy. Sta. Clara Ibaba, Batangas City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, dispense or deliver 0.02 gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, more commonly known as 'Shabu' a dangerous drug, which is a clear violation of the above-cited law.

CONTRARY TO LAW." 4

Criminal Case No. 16151:

"That on or about September 10, 2009 at around 8:40 o'clock in the evening at Brgy. Sta. Clara Ibaba, Batangas City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously possess or have under his custody and control more or less 0.23 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, more commonly known as 'Shabu,' a dangerous drug, which is a clear violation of the above-cited law.

CONTRARY TO LAW." 5

Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges. A joint trial thereafter ensued. 6

The evidence for the prosecution tends to establish the following:

On September 10, 2009 at around 6:00 p.m., an asset of Police Officer 2 Christian Boy Aranza (PO2 Aranza) arrived at the Intelligence Section of the Batangas City Police Station and gave the information that accused-appellant alias "Robot" was selling shabu. Upon receiving the information, a buy-bust operation was planned. PO2 Aranza prepared two five hundred peso-bills and placed his initials "CGA" thereon. PO3 Katherine Bodoy prepared the pre-operation report and coordination form and faxed the same to the office of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). 7

PO2 Jayn Gonda (PO2 Gonda) was assigned by their Chief of Police PSUPT Manuel Abu as team leader. PO3 Lindberg Yap (PO3 Yap) 8 was tasked to frisk the asset and the police officers forming the buy-bust team. Thereafter, the buy-bust team proceeded to Barangay Sta. Clara. PO2 Aranza and the asset rode the motorcycle while the rest of the team composed of PO2 Neil De Guzman (PO2 De Guzman), PO3 Yap and PO2 Gonda rode a van. 9

Upon arriving at Barangay Sta. Clara, the buy-bust team proceeded to the barangay hall to coordinate with barangay councilor Aristeo Macaraig (Macaraig). After which, PO2 Aranza and the asset, followed by the rest of the team inside the van, went to the waiting shed opposite Barangay Sta. Clara Elementary School. 10

After waiting for some 20 to 30 minutes, accused-appellant arrived. The asset introduced PO2 Aranza to "Robot" and said, "kasama ko, kukuha ng bato." PO2 Aranza then handed the two pieces of five hundred-peso bills to accused-appellant who, in turn, took a black coin purse from his pocket where he got a small plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance which he then gave to PO2 Aranza. Thereat, PO2 Aranza placed the small plastic sachet in his pocket, introduced himself as a police officer, and proceeded to arrest accused-appellant. 11

Seeing that accused-appellant was resisting arrest, the rest of the team alighted from the van. PO2 De Guzman recovered from accused-appellant the black coin purse which when opened was found to contain three more plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance. Accused-appellant was then brought to the barangay hall. 12 DETACa

At the barangay hall, the police officers conducted an inventory of the seized items in the presence of accused-appellant, barangay councilor Macaraig, media representative Daniel Jaen (Jaen), and Prosecutor Evelyn Jovellanos (Prosecutor Jovellanos) of the Department of Justice (DOJ). Photographs of the proceedings conducted at the barangay hall were likewise taken. From the barangay hall, accused-appellant was brought to the Batangas City Police Station. An inventory of the seized items was again made at the police station and after which, the items were turned over to SPO1 Pepito Adelantar (SPO1 Adelantar) who prepared the request for laboratory examination, spot report, booking sheet/arrest report and request for drug test for the accused-appellant. SPO1 Adelantar then returned the items to PO2 Aranza who brought the same to the PNP Crime Laboratory. The examination conducted by Police Senior Inspector Jupri C. Delantar showed the items to be positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu. 13

For its part, the defense presented the testimonies of accused-appellant's brother-in-law Joseph Macalalad (Macalalad), and accused-appellant himself.

Macalalad testified that in the evening of September 10, 2009, he and accused-appellant were on their way to the pier to work as stevedore. On their way out of the alley from their house, Macalalad saw that accused-appellant was suddenly arrested by four police officers. When accused-appellant resisted, he was boxed in the eye by one of the police officers. Macalalad then advised accused-appellant to just go with the police officers to avoid being hurt. Accused-appellant was then boarded by the police officers in a van. Later, Macalalad learned that accused-appellant was arrested for selling shabu. 14

Accused-appellant testified that in the evening of September 10, 2009, he was preparing to go to the pier to work as a stevedore. He went to the house of Macalalad and waited for the latter. When Macalalad went out, the two of them began walking to the alley. On their way, they met four persons who, after passing by Macalalad, held accused-appellant's hands and tried to place him in handcuffs. He was then told that he was selling shabu and was boxed in the eye. He was told by Macalalad to just go with the police officers to clear the matter. He boarded the vehicle and was brought to the police station. After around 10 minutes, he was brought to the Philippine Ports Authority and then to the barangay hall of Barangay Sta. Clara. 15 Accused-appellant further testified that he did not file any case against the police officers as he was afraid. He also testified that he met the police officers only during the incident and that he knows no reason why the police officers would arrest him. 16

On April 18, 2011, the RTC rendered its Decision 17 convicting accused-appellant of illegal sale and possession of shabu, a dangerous drug. As between the prosecution's evidence showing that accused-appellant was caught in flagrante delicto through a buy-bust operation and accused-appellant's defense of denial, the RTC gave more weight and credence to the former. The RTC also observed that the witnesses for the prosecution were able to positively identify accused-appellant and their testimonies were consistent as to the material details of the sale, i.e., (1) that the informant was at the scene and it was he who introduced PO2 Aranza to accused-appellant; (2) that PO2 Aranza acted as poseur-buyer; and (3) that PO2 Aranza handed the marked money to accused-appellant who in turn handed a small plastic sachet containing shabu. 18 The RTC thus concluded that all the elements of illegal sale of shabu were proven beyond reasonable doubt. As well, the RTC held that the charge of illegal possession of shabu was proven beyond reasonable doubt since the accused carried with him three more plastic sachets of shabu without legal authority at the time he was caught during the buy-bust operation. 19 aDSIHc

In disposal, the RTC held:

WHEREFORE, finding the [accused-appellant] guilty beyond reasonable doubt, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the following penalty:

a) In Criminal Case No. 16150 for Violation of Section 5, Article II of [R.A.] No. 9165, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00) with costs.

b) In Criminal Case No. 16151 for Violation of Section 11, Article II of [R.A.] No. 9165, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY and to pay a fine of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P300,000.00) PESOS with costs.

The shabu confiscated is hereby ordered destroyed pursuant to the provisions of [R.A.] No. 9165.

SO ORDERED. 20

Accused-appellant interposed his appeal before the CA raising as error the RTC's appreciation of the prosecution's evidence despite its failure to establish every link in the chain of custody of the seized items and thereby, its failure to prove the identity and integrity of the alleged seized drugs. Specifically, accused-appellant points out that the marking of the confiscated sachets was not done immediately after the arrest but only belatedly done at the barangay hall. Also, accused-appellant questions the validity of the inventory, the first of which was made at the barangay hall in the presence of the barangay councilor but without the presence of media and DOJ representatives, while the second inventory was made in the presence of media and DOJ representatives but without any elective official witnessing the same. 21 Accused-appellant also questions the transfer of custody of the seized drugs as the details pertaining as to who received said items for examination and how the items were turned-over from the laboratory to the court were not proven. 22

In disregarding accused-appellant's contentions, the CA held that the procedure laid down by the implementing rules of R.A. No. 9165 was substantially complied with by the police officers. The CA noted that PO2 De Guzman and PO2 Aranza narrated the step by step procedure that they conducted from the pre-arrest stage to the actual buy-bust operation. The CA concluded that it was clearly established that the drugs seized from accused-appellant were marked and reflected in the Certificate of Inventory signed by barangay councilor Macaraig, mediamen Jaen and Prosecutor Javellosa. 23 ETHIDa

Accordingly, the CA disposed as follows:

WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision dated April 18, 2011 of the [RTC], Branch 2, Batangas City is AFFIRMEDin toto.

SO ORDERED. 24

Hence, this appeal. Instead of filing their respective supplemental briefs, accused-appellant through the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) and plaintiff-appellee through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), manifested that they will be adopting their respective briefs filed before the CA. 25

The Issue

The pivotal issue to be resolved is whether or not the guilt of the accused-appellant of violating Section 5 and Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Ruling of the Court

The appeal is dismissed. The RTC, as affirmed by the CA, correctly found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violations of Section 5 and Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 9346. 26

In a prosecution for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the following elements must be established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took place; (2) presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence; 27 and (3) identification of the buyer and seller. 28 What is material in a prosecution for illegal sale of drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti in evidence. 29

On the other hand, in prosecuting a case for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, "the following elements must concur: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object, which is identified as a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug." 30

We find that the prosecution satisfactorily established and proved all the elements of the crimes charged as stated above. The prosecution witnesses corroborated each other's testimonies on the following material facts: (a) on September 10, 2009 an information was received by the police officers who thereafter commenced with the pre-operation procedure; (b) followed by a buy-bust operation; (c) at the place of arrest, the sale was consummated when the asset introduced PO2 Aranza who then gave the two pieces of five hundred-peso bills to accused-appellant and the latter, upon receiving the payment, gave the plastic sachet containing shabu; (d) PO2 De Guzman recovered from accused-appellant the black coin purse which was found to contain three more plastic sachets containing shabu; (e) the seized items were inventoried in the presence of accused-appellant, a barangay councillor and representatives from the media and the DOJ; and (f) the seized shabu were sent to the laboratory for examination which tested positive. Thus, the corpus delicti, as well as the identity of accused-appellant were positively established by the prosecution witnesses during their testimony in court.

As the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items to establish the corpus delicti were proven, substantial compliance with Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 suffices.

In any case, the CA convincingly rebutted accused-appellant's contention that the police officers failed to strictly comply with the procedure in the seizure and custody of the dangerous drugs, thus: cSEDTC

The fact that the marking and inventory were done at the barangay hall and that the said inventory was signed by the representatives of the media and the DOJ at the police station do not detract from the validity and regularity of the performance of the apprehending officers of their duty. Under the circumstances, the barangay hall, which according to [accused-appellant] was fifteen to twenty meters away from the scene of the arrest, was the nearest safe place where inventory and marking can be conducted. As far as the police officers were concerned, it was more practicable than staying at the scene of the crime with a resistant suspect. x x x[.] 31

All told, it has been established by proof beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant sold and possessed shabu. Under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the penalty of life imprisonment to death and fine ranging from P500,000.00 to 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. For the crime of illegal sale of shabu, accused-appellant was properly sentenced to life imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine of P500,000.00.

Accused-appellant was also caught in possession of 0.23 gram of shabu. The crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs is punished under Section 11, paragraph 2 (3), Article II of R.A. No. 9165, which provides an 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 methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. We thus sustain the penalty imposed by the RTC and affirmed by the CA for the crime of illegal possession of shabu.

WHEREFORE, the Decision dated March 25, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 05048 finding accused-appellant Roberto Mendoza y Mendoza guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended by Republic Act No. 9346 and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment without eligibility for parole and to pay the fine of P500,000.00, for violation of Section 5, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165, and imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and one (1) day is AFFIRMED. SDAaTC

SO ORDERED." (Jardeleza, J., no part in view of his prior action in the Office of the Solicitor General; Martires, J., designated additional Member per Raffle dated November 29, 2017.)

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENA

Deputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. Penned by Associate Justice Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles, concurred in by Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Florito S. Macalino; rollo, pp. 2-17.

2. Penned by Judge Maria Cecilia I. Austria; CA rollo, pp. 13-25.

3. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

4. CA rollo, pp. 13-14.

5.Id. at 14.

6.Id.

7.Id. at 14-15.

8. PO3 Yap at sometimes referred to as PO2 Yap in the rollo.

9.Id. at 15.

10.Id.

11.Id. at 15-16.

12. Rollo, p. 5.

13. CA rollo, p. 17.

14. Id. at 20.

15. Id. at 20-21.

16. Id. at 21.

17. Id. at 13-25.

18. Id. at 22-23.

19. Id. at 24.

20. Id. at 24-25.

21. Id. at 50.

22. Id. at 54.

23. Rollo, pp. 9-10.

24. Id. at 16.

25. Id. at 26-34.

26. AN ACT PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY IN THE PHILIPPINES. Approved on June 24, 2006.

27. People v. Pasion, et al., 752 Phil. 359, 371 (2015).

28. People v. Orteza, 555 Phil. 700, 707 (2007).

29. People v. De Mesa, et al., 638 Phil. 245, 250 (2010).

30. People v. Montevirgen, 723 Phil. 534, 542 (2013).

31. Rollo, p. 13.