THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 222202. April 10, 2019.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RANDY ALVARADO MERCED, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated April 10, 2019, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 222202 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, v. RANDY ALVARADO MERCED, accused-appellant). — The sole testimony of the poseur-buyer, together with the dangerous drug itself, is more than sufficient to prove the crime of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. 1
This resolves an appeal of the August 24, 2015 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Regional Trial Court May 8, 2014 Joint Judgment. 3 The trial court found Randy Alvarado Merced (Merced) guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Article II, Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Two (2) Informations were filed against Merced for violation of Article II, Sections 5 and 11 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act.
The Information in Criminal Case No. 21631 read:
That on or about the 23rd day of March, 2013, in the City of Dumaguete, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, not being then authorized by law did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to a police poseur buyer one (1) heat sealed transparent plastic sachet of white crystalline substance of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, locally known as shabu, weighing 0.01 gram, a dangerous drug. DETACa
Contrary to Sec. 5, Art. II of RA 9165. 4
The Information in Criminal Case No. 21630 read:
That on or about the 23rd day of March, 2013 in the City of Dumaguete, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, not being then authorized by law, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally keep and possess four (4) heat sealed transparent plastic sachets containing a total aggregate weight of 0.14 gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, locally known as "shabu," a dangerous drug.
Contrary to Sec. 11, Art. II, RA 9165. 5
On arraignment, Merced pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged. Pre-trial was then set and trial on the merits ensued. 6
The prosecution presented Police Chief Inspector Josephine Llena (Chief Inspector Llena) and Police Officer 3 Rex Oliver Tan (PO3 Tan) as its witnesses. It was supposed to present other witnesses, but the parties agreed to stipulate on the facts instead. 7 All in all, the prosecution alleged that:
In the morning of March 23, 2013, a confidential informant called Police Senior Inspector Benedick Poblete (Senior Inspector Poblete) and reported that Merced was selling illegal drugs at the corner of Colon and Sta. Catalina Streets, Barangay 3, Dumaguete City. 8
Senior Inspector Poblete called on PO3 Tan and Police Officer 2 Placido Xandro Paclauna (PO2 Paclauna) and briefed them for a buy-bust operation. PO3 Tan was designated as the poseur-buyer to be accompanied by the informant. He was then given three (3) P100.00 bills with Serial Numbers VZ180090, CZ867200, and TH989734. He entered these serial numbers in the police blotter and memorized them. 9
Around 12:40 p.m. that day, the buy-bust team arrived at the corner of Colon and Sta. Catalina Streets, Barangay 3, Dumaguete City, where the informant and Merced had earlier agreed to meet. 10
Merced arrived at around 1:15 p.m. He immediately took out a sachet of what appeared to be methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, which PO3 Tan then exchanged for the three (3) P100.00 bills.
As soon as Merced took the bills, PO3 Tan introduced himself as a police officer conducting a buy-bust operation. After informing Merced of his impending arrest and constitutional rights, PO3 Tan frisked him and found four (4) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets of shabu. 11
PO3 Tan arrested Merced immediately and proceeded to mark the items. The item seized during the sale was marked as RAM-BB-3/23/13, while the four (4) other sachets frisked were respectively marked as RAM-P1-3/23/13 to RAM-P4-3/23/13. 12
Afterwards, PO3 Tan conducted an inventory of the seized items. The Receipt/Inventory of Property Seized was signed by Prosecutor Angela Cortes, Neil Rio of the local media, and Barangay Captain Anthony Ozoa. PO3 Tan also signed as the seizing officer, while PO1 Paclauna signed as the photographer. 13
PO3 Tan sealed the confiscated items in a brown envelope marked with his signature, then brought them to the Dumaguete City Police Station for booking procedures. There, he also prepared a Memorandum Request for Laboratory Examination and Drug Test before bringing the seized items to the crime laboratory for examination. 14
PO3 Tan handed the items over to Police Officer 1 Robert John Pama (PO1 Pama), the duty officer at the Negros Oriental Provincial Crime Laboratory in Dumaguete City. PO1 Pama also took custody of the urine sample taken from Merced. 15 aDSIHc
At around 4:10 p.m., PO1 Pama turned the seized items over to Chief Inspector Llena, who placed her signature on them. She then weighed the items and conducted a qualitative examination on them. The items tested positive for shabu, which Chief Inspector Llena indicated in Chemistry Report No. D-048-13. 16
Merced's urine sample also tested positive for shabu, which Chief Inspector Llena indicated in Chemistry Report No. DT-029-13. 17
On the other hand, Merced raised the defense of alibi and claimed that he was Ely Sandy Merced, not Randy Alvarado Merced. 18
Merced, a welder, claimed that he had been at a former schoolmate's house to repair her gate when he was wrestled and brought to a nearby restaurant by two (2) persons whom he did not know. Minutes later, he was made to board a car and was brought to the police station, where he was detained. Later, he was brought to the hospital for examination before being put back in his cell. 19
In its May 8, 2014 Joint Judgment, 20 the Regional Trial Court found Merced guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violating Article II, Sections 5 and 11 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. The dispositive portion read:
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the Court hereby renders judgment as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. 21631, the accused Randy Alvarado Merced is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of illegal sale of 0.01 gram of shabu in violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 and is hereby sentenced to suffer a penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).
The one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with markings "RAM-BB-3/13/13" containing 0.01 gram of shabu is hereby confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government and to be disposed of in accordance with law.
2. In Criminal Case No. 21630, the accused Randy Alvarado Merced is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of illegal possession of 0.14 gram of shabu in violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum term to fourteen (14) years as maximum term and to pay a fine of Four Hundred Thousand Pesos (P400,000.00).
The four (4) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets with markings "RAM-P1" up to "P4-3/13/13," respectively, containing a total aggregate weight of 0.14 gram of shabu are hereby confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government and to be disposed of in accordance with law.
In the service of sentence, the accused Randy Alvarado Merced shall be credited with the full time during which he has undergone preventive imprisonment, provided he agrees voluntarily in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners.
SO ORDERED. 21 (Emphasis in the original)
In his Appellant's Brief 22 before the Court of Appeals, Merced argued that the trial court erred in convicting him despite the prosecution's failure to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He pointed out that the supposed "one-man show" 23 conducted by PO3 Tan posed a doubt on whether a buy-bust operation was really conducted. Assuming that it was, Merced noted that the trial court had overlooked that the bills PO3 Tan had used were not marked. 24
In its August 24, 2015 Decision, 25 the Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that all the elements of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs were present. Moreover, it found that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items had been preserved. PO3 Tan was able to show the complete and unbroken sequence of events from the time the dangerous drugs were seized from Merced up to their presentation in court. Thus, the Court of Appeals sustained Merced's conviction. 26 ETHIDa
The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals Decision read:
WHEREFORE, the Appeal is DENIED. The Joint Judgment dated May 8, 2014 of Branch 30, Dumaguete City Regional Trial Court of Negros Oriental is Criminal Case Nos. 21630 and 21631, is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 27 (Emphasis in the original)
On September 16, 2015, Merced filed before this Court his Notice of Appeal. 28
In its March 9, 2016 Resolution, 29 this Court noted the records of this case forwarded by the Court of Appeals, and required the parties to file their supplemental briefs.
In its June 20, 2016 Resolution, 30 this Court noted the separate manifestations filed by accused-appellant and plaintiff-appellee, through the Office of the Solicitor General, stating that they would adopt their respective briefs before the Court of Appeals as their supplemental briefs.
The sole issue for this Court's resolution is whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the conviction of accused-appellant Randy Alvarado Merced for violating Article II, Sections 5 and 11 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act.
The Court of Appeals correctly upheld the conviction of accused-appellant.
The prosecution proved that all the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs were present:
(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and its consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. 31
In the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, there must be "proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of [the] corpus delicti." 32 The offense "merely requires the consummation of the selling transaction, which happens the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller." 33
That the money was not marked at all was not fatal to the case, since its presentation is not required. In People v. Cruz: 34
This Court held that neither law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any of the money used in a buy-bust operation, much less is it required that the boodle money be marked. The only elements necessary to consummate the crime is proof that the illicit transaction took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence. Both elements were satisfactorily proven in the present case. There is also no rule that requires the police to use only marked money in buy-bust operations. This Court has in fact ruled that failure to use marked money or to present it in evidence is not material since the sale cannot be essentially disproved by the absence thereof. Its non-presentation does not create a hiatus in the prosecution's evidence for as long as the sale of the illegal drugs is adequately established and the substance itself is presented before the court. 35 (Emphasis in the original, citations omitted) cSEDTC
Here, the prosecution was able to prove that the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs were present:
(1) the accused is in possession of an item or object, which is identified to be prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. 36
Moreover, PO3 Tan did not act alone, contrary to accused-appellant's claim. Chief Inspector Llena corroborated his testimony. Other witnesses were also supposed to be presented, although the parties agreed to stipulate on their testimonies.
An affirmative testimony from a credible witness "is far stronger than a negative testimony[.]" 37 Alibi and denial, which are "not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence[,] are . . . self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law." 38 Because they can be easily concocted, they are inherently weak and unreliable. 39
Accused-appellant has not raised any substantial ground to warrant the relief he seeks.
WHEREFORE, this Court AFFIRMS the Court of Appeals August 24, 2015 Decision in CA G.R. CEB-CR HC No. 01865. Accused-appellant Randy Alvarado Merced is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violating Article II, Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. For violating Section 5, he shall serve the penalty of life imprisonment and pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00). For violating Section 11, he shall serve an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum, to fourteen (14) years as maximum, and pay a fine of Four Hundred Thousand Pesos (P400,000.00).
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.People v. Bayani, 577 Phil. 607 (2008) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division].
2.Rollo, pp. 4-24. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, and concurred in by Associate Justices Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob and Germano Francisco D. Legaspi of the Special Twentieth Division, Court of Appeals, Cebu City.
3. CA rollo, pp. 14-26. The Joint Judgment for Criminal Case Nos. 21631 and 21630 was penned by Judge Rafael Crescencio C. Tan, Jr. of Branch 30, Regional Trial Court, Dumaguete City.
4.Id. at 14.
5.Id. at 14-15.
6.Rollo, p. 7.
7.Id.
8.Id.
9.Id. at 7-8.
10.Id.
11.Id. at 8-9.
12.Id. at 9. In the RTC Decision, the cited page erroneously read, "RAM-P4-3/23/14," as noted in the CA Decision.
13.Id. at 10.
14.Id.
15.Id. at 10-11.
16.Id. at 11-12.
17.Id. at 12.
18.Id. at 13.
19.Id. at 13-14.
20. CA rollo, pp. 14-26.
21.Id. at 25-26.
22.Id. at 34-43.
23.Id. at 40.
24.Id. at 15-16 and CA rollo, pp. 39-42.
25.Id. at 4-24.
26.Id. at 16-23.
27.Id. at 23.
28.Id. at 25-27.
29.Id. at 30-31.
30.Id. at 43.
31.People v. Sagana, G.R. No. 208471, August 2, 2017, 834 SCRA 225, 240 [Per J. Leonen, Second Division) citing People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21 [Per J. Del Castillo, First Division].
32.People v. Unisa, 674 Phil. 89, 108 [Per J. Perez, Second Division].
33.Id.
34. 667 Phil. 420 (2011) [Per J. Perez, First Division].
35.Id. at 438.
36.People v. Zaragoza, G.R. No. 223142, January 17, 2018, <http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/63775 [Per J. Martires, Third Division].
37.People v. Togahan, 551 Phil. 997, 1013 (2007) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
38.Id. at 1014.
39.Id.