People v. Mon, Jr. y Villanueva

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 227874. June 7, 2017.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. TEOFILO MON, JR. Y VILLANUEVA, 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. 227874 (People of the Philippines vs. Teofilo Mon, Jr. y Villanueva). — Before the Court is an appeal from the Decision 1 dated April 29, 2016 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 07422, which affirmed the Decision dated March 9, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Fernando City, La Union, Branch 29 in Criminal Case No. 9996, finding accused-appellant Teofilo Mon, Jr. y Villanueva guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165), otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

The Facts

In an Information dated September 4, 2013, accused-appellant was charged with the crime of violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, committed as follows:

That on or about the 27th day of August 2013, in the City of San Fernando, Province of La Union, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, above named accused, for and in consideration of the sum of FIVE HUNDRED PESOS (Php500.00), Philippine Currency, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver methamphetamine hydrochloride otherwise known as "SHABU" weighing zero point zero two zero five (0.0205) gram placed in a heat sealed transparent plastic sachet to PO3 Elvis L. Yaris who posed as buyer thereof and used marked money, one (1) piece five hundred pesos bill (Php500.00) bill [sic] bearing serial no. EW136912, without the necessary authority or permit from the proper government authorities.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 2

Accused-appellant entered a plea of not guilty during his arraignment. 3

Pre-trial and trial on the case proceeded.

Version of the Prosecution

The prosecution presented four (4) witnesses, namely: 1) PO3 Elvis Yaris; 2) PO1 Gerald Ian Tavas; 3) PSI Maria Theresa Amor Manuel; and 4) Rico Valdez. Their testimonies, as culled from the assailed CA Decision, are as follows:

PO3 Elvis Yaris testified that he is a member of the San Fernando City Police Station assigned at the Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operating Task Group. On 27 August 2013 at around 3:40 in the afternoon, a Confidential Informant (CI) came to their station and reported the illegal drug selling activity of accused-appellant Teofilo Mon, Jr. a.k.a. AGA near Borja's Eatery at Barangay 3, San Fernando City, La Union. The CI further told him that he could set up a drug deal with accused-appellant. PO3 Yaris immediately relayed the information to their chief, P/Supt. Manuel Apostol, who in turn, ordered their team leader P/Sr. Insp. Danilo Ligayo to conduct a briefing in preparation for the entrapment operation.

On the same day at about 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon, a briefing was conducted. PO3 Yaris was tasked to act as the poseur buyer while his co-police officers PO1 Gerald Tavas, PO2 Francisca Bermudez and PO2 Walter Lucena were to serve as the perimeter back-up. PO2 Yaris prepared the five hundred peso bill with serial no. EW136912 to be used as buy-bust money. PO3 Yaris marked the bill with his initials "ELY." With prior coordination with the PDEA, the team proceeded to the area of operation on board a motorcycle. Upon their arrival, accused-appellant was already there standing near Borja's Eatery. PO3 Yaris and the CI approached accused-appellant while the rest of the team strategically positioned themselves within the vicinity. The CI introduced PO3 Yaris to accused-appellant in Ilocano dialect "Pare isuna ti gumatang" (as an interested buyer). Accused-appellant asked PO3 Yaris how much he would buy to which the latter replied, "worth Php500.00." PO3 Yaris gave to accused-appellant the money and in exchange, accused-appellant took out one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet from the right pocket of his pants and handed the same to PO3 Yaris. By its look and texture, he confirmed that the heat-sealed transparent sachet containing white crystalline substance handed to him by accused-appellant is a suspected shabu. PO3 Yaris identified himself as a police officer and arrested accused-appellant. However, accused-appellant who was then surprised tried to elude arrest. PO1 Tavas who was in a viewing distance came to the aid of PO3 Yaris. They were able to subdue the accused-appellant who was then trying to fight back against the arresting police officers. aScITE

PO3 Yaris informed accused-appellant in Ilocano dialect of his constitutional rights. The other members of the team called for a member of the media and a barangay official to witness the marking of the seized items at the place of the operation. However, the marking was not forthwith made because the wife and daughter of the accused-appellant arrived at the scene and created a commotion. The daughter of accused-appellant slapped PO2 Walter Lucena. When the team cannot pacify the family members of accused-appellant, who were shouting and uttering unsavoury words, their team leader instructed them to proceed to the station for the marking and inventory of the seized items. While they were boarding accused-appellant to their patrol car, the Barangay Official and a representative from the media arrived but the police officials just told them to follow at the police station. From the place of arrest up to the police station, PO3 Yaris took custody of the confiscated items.

Upon arrival at the station, PO3 Yaris marked the heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance with his initials "ELY" 08-27-13 and affixed his signature at the back thereof and then conducted the inventory of the items. The marking and inventory of the items were done in the presence of accused-appellant, Barangay Captain Pepito Lim and Media Representative Rico Valdez. After the inventory and photograph taking, PO3 Yaris personally delivered the request for laboratory examination prepared by PO2 Bermudez and the heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance to the PNP Crime Laboratory.

During his court testimony, PO3 Yaris identified the accused-appellant, the Affidavit of Arrest he jointly executed with PO1 Gerald Ian Tavas, the Certificate of Inventory, Pre-Operational Report, Initial Laboratory Chemistry Report, Coordination Report, buy-bust money, the plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance confiscated from accused-appellant, the photographs taken by PO2 Bermudez and the Request for Laboratory Examination.

PO3 Yaris's testimony on material details surrounding the actual commission of the crime was substantially corroborated by PO1 Gerald Ian Tavas, one of the members of the buy-bust team. PO1 Tavas also affirmed the respective roles of the team members during the operation.

The testimony of PSI Maria Theresa Amor Manuel, Forensic Chemist of the PNP Regional Office I was dispensed with in view of the stipulation of the parties that she: conducted the laboratory examination of the white crystalline substance contained in a heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with markings "ELY-08-27-13"; that she personally received the item from PO3 Yaris as evidenced by the rubber stamp mark "received by PSI Manuel"; that she issued Chemistry Report No. D-079-2013 indicating that the specimen submitted for laboratory examination yielded positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu; after the examination, she placed the submitted evidence inside a brown envelope, secured it with a masking tape and put the following markings "D-079-2013-A" with her signature; and that the brown envelope with marking "D-079-2013-A" she presented to the Public Prosecutor is the same specimen subject of the laboratory examination.

Rico Valdez, a radio announcer of DZNL testified that on 27 August 2013 at around 4:30 o'clock in the afternoon, he received a call from a member of the San Fernando Police to witness the inventory of the items confiscated during the buy-bust operation against a certain Teofilo Mon (accused-appellant). He immediately proceeded to Tangui Police Station and upon arrival thereat, he was shown a sachet of white crystalline substance and a five hundred peso bill utilized as buy-bust money. Thereafter, the police officer prepared the inventory of the said items. He was made to sign as a witness thereon. The accused-appellant and the Barangay Chairman of Barangay III, Pepito Lim were also present during the preparation of the inventory. 4

Version of the Defense

For the defense, a different version of the facts was presented by accused-appellant, as gathered from the assailed CA Decision, to wit:

At around 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon of 27 August 2013[,] accused TEOFILO MON, JR. (Mon) went to buy their food at Borja's Eatery, but the eatery was already closed. Mon was urinating against the wall beside the eatery when PO3 Yaris and PO1 Tavas arrested and handcuffed him. He had not even zipped his pants. PO3 Yaris then put his hands inside the pocket of Mon and brought out his wallet which contained one hundred pesos (P100.00) and his identification card. PO3 Yaris made a phone call, and after which, he again checked the pockets of Mon. While PO3 Yaris was checking the pockets of Mon, his wife and daughter arrived and asked him if he did something wrong to which he replied in the negative. The patrol car of the police shortly arrived. The wife of Mon protested when they dragged and brought her husband to the patrol car. She insisted to board the car if they would bring her husband. Thus, Mon and his wife and other members of the police boarded the patrol car which proceeded to the police station. While Mon was being arrested, he noticed Larry de Vera near the eatery.

At the police station, Mon was brought inside a room where he was bodily searched. When PO3 Yaris and PO1 Tavas found nothing, they went outside the room. After five (5) minutes, Mon went outside of the room and there he saw PO3 Yaris and PO1 Tavas preparing a sachet and a five hundred peso (P500.00) bill on a table. He also saw a female person writing on a piece of paper. When he complained of the actuations of PO3 Yaris and Tavas, Mon was brought to the city health office and immediately taken to the jail where he was detained. HEITAD

Larry De Vera (Larry) was on his way to buy construction materials at Glassbuilt Hardware when he noticed Mon urinating against the wall beside Borja's Eatery. While Mon was urinating, Larry, who was about six (6) meters away, saw two (2) male persons approached and immediately handcuffed Mon. After Mon was arrested and handcuffed, the man showed to Mon a plastic sachet which he denied ownership. Then, they frisked Mon and brought out from his pocket a wallet containing money and identification cards. Larry saw that Mon was again frisked but nothing was recovered from him. At this instance, the wife and daughter of Mon arrived. A commotion ensued when the daughter argued with one of the policemen on the existence of the plastic sachet allegedly recovered from Mon. Afterwards, the policemen called their patrol.

Helen Mon (Helen), the wife of the accused, was at their home when she learned that her husband[,] Mon, was arrested at Borja's Eatery. She and her daughter, April, immediately went thereat. She saw Mon, whose zipper was lowered[,] already handcuffed. She tried to zip the pants up. She saw PO3 Yaris frisked Mon without the presence of barangay officials, but discovered nothing except a wallet containing bill of money [sic] and the identification cards of Mon. She noticed that Mon was frisked for the second time and, this time, a small plastic sachet was shown to him which she heard Mon denied ownership of. April reacted and protested on the instant existence of the small plastic sachet discovered from her father after he was frisked for the second time. Helen also argued and said, "you already brought out the contents of his pocket and everything was already laid on the ground and what is that you are showing? That did not exist awhile back." PO3 Yaris then called the police patrol to get Mon. They boarded the patrol car which proceeded to the police station, where they showed a five hundred peso (P500) bill, together with the small plastic sachet, to Mon. They made an inventory of the items, and the same were taken to the chemists for examination. 5

Ruling of the RTC

On March 9, 2015, the trial court rendered a Decision 6 finding accused-appellant guilty, the dispositive portion of which reads:

Wherefore, premises duly considered, the Court hereby finds the accused TEOFILO MON, JR. GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Sale of Shabu and sentences him to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of P500,000. The period of his preventive imprisonment shall be credited in his favor.

The sachet of shabu subject of the case is hereby confiscated and ordered transmitted to the PDEA to be disposed of in accordance with law.

SO ORDERED.

The trial court found credibility in the prosecution's version of the events. It ruled that the prosecution successfully established all the elements of the crime of illegal sale of drugs. As to accused-appellant's defense of frame-up, the trial court found no merit thereon considering the credible testimonies of the prosecution witnesses vis-à-vis the conflicting statements of the defense witnesses.

Accused-appellant elevated the case on appeal to the CA.

Ruling of the CA

In the assailed Decision, the CA affirmed the findings of the trial court, to wit:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated 09 March 2015 of the Regional Trial Court, First Judicial Region, Branch 29, San Fernando City, La Union in Criminal Case No. 9996 is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

The CA agreed with the trial court that the prosecution established accused-appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It concluded that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses satisfactorily established the elements of the crime charged and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated shabu and the buy-bust money were duly preserved. The CA also affirmed the penalty imposed by the trial court. 7

Hence, this appeal.

The Issue

The issue in this case is whether the CA erred in affirming the accused-appellant's conviction.

The Court's Ruling

There is no merit in the appeal.

The accused-appellant argues that the prosecution failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt considering the alleged sweeping guarantees of the prosecution as to the identity and integrity of the seized drugs. In this regard, however, both the trial court and the CA ruled otherwise.

It is settled that great weight is accorded to the factual findings of the trial court, especially when they are affirmed by the appellate court. This can only be discarded or disturbed when it appears in the record that the trial court had overlooked, ignored or disregarded some fact or circumstance of weight or significance which if considered would have altered the result. 8 ATICcS

A review of the assailed Decision shows that the appellate court committed no error in affirming the conviction of accused-appellant.

As found by the trial court, the prosecution satisfactorily established the elements of violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, as amended, which are: (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. It is material to prove that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug in evidence. 9

Where there is a buy-bust operation, the crime is consummated when the police officer makes an offer to buy that is accepted by the accused, and there is an ensuing exchange between them involving the delivery of the dangerous drugs to the police officer. 10

In the present case, the testimony of PO3 Yaris clearly established that during the buy-bust operation, he was introduced to accused-appellant by the CI as an interested buyer of five hundred pesos worth of shabu. Accused-appellant thereafter sold him a packet of shabu in exchange for Five Hundred Pesos (P500.00). Upon receiving the plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance, PO3 Yaris immediately placed accused-appellant under arrest and the team monitoring the transaction from a viewing distance arrived and assisted the former. This testimony was corroborated by PO1 Tavas, who also positively identified accused-appellant as the subject of the entrapment operation. Clearly, the trial court correctly ruled that the elements of the crime of sale of illegal drugs were established by the prosecution.

Anent the alleged irregularity in the chain of custody of the illegal drugs seized from accused-appellant, particularly on the arresting team's failure to mark the seized illegal drugs at the crime scene, We find no merit in said argument.

While the inventory and photograph taking of the confiscated illegal drugs were not made at the site of accused-appellant's arrest, both the trial court and the CA found that the members of the buy-bust team had a justifiable reason in doing so. Based on the testimonies of PO3 Yaris and PO1 Tavas, the buy-bust team was prevented from conducting the inventory and photograph taking of the seized illegal drugs because accused-appellant's wife and daughter created a commotion. Thus, the buy-bust team decided for proper documentation to be made at the police station to preserve the evidence they obtained and to secure their safety. 11

We do not find the ruling in People v. dela Cruz, 12 which was relied upon by accused-appellant, to be applicable in this case. There, the accused was charged for two separate crimes, first being the sale of illegal drugs, and second for possession of illegal drugs. In the said case, the arresting officer recklessly placed some plastic sachets of the illegal drugs in one pocket and placed the rest in his other pocket, without distinguishing which plastic sachet was the subject of the illegal sale and which plastic sachets were discovered upon the bodily search of the accused. Moreover, the prosecution in the said case failed to give any justifiable reason for the buy-bust team's failure to conduct the inventory and photograph taking of the illegal drugs upon arresting the accused. These circumstances are not on all fours with the present case.

We agree with the CA's discussion on this matter, to wit:

On the chain of custody, Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 requires that the physical inventory and photograph taking of the seized drug be made by the apprehending team immediately after seizure and confiscation in the presence of the accused, the media and other government officials.

By way of exception, Republic Act No. 9165 and its IRR both state that the non-compliance with the procedures thereby delineated and set would not necessarily invalidate the seizure and custody of the dangerous drugs provided there were justifiable grounds for the non-compliance, and provided that the integrity of the evidence of the corpus delicti was preserved. But the non-compliance with the procedures, to be excusable, must have to be justified by the State's agents themselves.

In the instant case, marking of the confiscated illegal drug, inventory and photograph taking thereof were not forthwith made upon accused-appellant's arrest. However, this deviation from the regular procedure was justifiably explained by the members of the buy-bust team. As testified to by PO3 Yaris and PO1 Tavas, the wife and daughter of accused-appellant suddenly appeared at the scene and created a commotion. The daughter even slapped PO2 Walter Lucena, a member of the buy-bust team. The violent reaction of accused-appellant's daughter while his father was being arrested cannot be denied by the image depicted in the photographs on record and it is for this reason, that their team leader ordered that the proper documentation be made at the police station in order to preserve the evidence obtained and to secure their safety.

The primordial consideration is always 'has the identity of the drugs been compromised by the failure of the police operatives to observe immediate inventorying and photographing of the seized items?' In the case of People vs. Hernandez, the Supreme Court declared — "We have held in several cases that non-compliance with Section 21 is not fatal and will not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. 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." TIADCc

In this case, the prosecution established clearly the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated shabu. There is no evidence that PO3 Yaris lost possession and control of the seized shabu from the time it was recovered from the appellant until its turnover to the police station. He marked the seized item with his initials immediately upon arrival at the police station, prepared the certificate of inventory in the presence of the accused-appellant, radio announcer Rico Valdez and Barangay Captain Pepito Lim. On the same day, PO3 Yaris personally brought the letter request for laboratory examination prepared by PO2 Bermudez and specimen to the PNP Crime Laboratory where it was received by Forensic Chemist PSI Manuel who conducted the examination on the specimen submitted. This fact was confirmed by PSI Manuel during her testimony in court that it was PO3 Yaris who indeed delivered to her the transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance with marking "ELY 08-27-13."

Evidently, the identities of the drug and buy-bust money recovered from appellant had been duly preserved and established by the prosecution. With regard to the handling of the seized drugs, there had been substantial compliance with the legal requirements and there are no conflicting testimonies on the part of the prosecution witnesses that would cast doubt on the integrity thereof as evidence presented and scrutinized in court.

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 has been tampered with. Appellant bears the burden of showing that the evidence was tampered or meddled with to overcome a presumption that there was regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers, and that the latter properly discharged their duties. Accused-appellant failed to produce convincing proof that the evidence submitted by the prosecution had been tampered with. The evidence showing the transfer of the seized drug from the apprehending officer to the crime laboratory is clear and unambiguous. The integrity of the item seized has been preserved. 13 (citations omitted; emphasis in the original)

Based on the foregoing, We find no reason to disturb the findings of the CA as to the guilt of accused-appellant.

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 April 29, 2016 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 07422 as to warrant the exercise of the Court's appellate jurisdiction and, thus, AFFIRM said Decision.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Penned by Associate Justice Leoncia Real-Dimagiba and concurred in by Associate Justices Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla and Maria Elisa Sempio Diy; rollo, pp. 2-12.

2.Id. at 2-3.

3.Id. at 3.

4.Id. at 3-5.

5.Id. at 5-7.

6. Rendered by Presiding Judge Asuncion F. Mandia; CA rollo, pp. 12-19.

7.Rollo, p. 11.

8.People of the Philippines v. Luis Antonio Garchitorena, G.R. No. 184172, May 8, 2009; citing Tommy Ferrer v. People of the Philippines and Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 143487, February 22, 2006, 483 SCRA 31, 50.

9.People of the Philippines v. Manolito Opiana y Tanael, G.R. No. 200797, January 12, 2015, citing People of the Philippines v. Philip Dilao y Castro, G.R. No. 170359, July 27, 2007.

10.People of the Philippines v. Erlinda Mali y Quimmo a.k.a. "Linda," G.R. No. 206738, December 11, 2013.

11. CA rollo, p. 54; rollo, p. 4.

12. G.R. No. 205821, October 1, 2014.

13.Rollo, pp. 9-10.