SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 253662. August 15, 2022.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.MANUEL MORILLO y MOLINA A.K.A. 'OGIE,'accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 15, 2022 which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 253662 (People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, v. Manuel Morillo y Molina a.k.a. 'Ogie,' accused-appellant). — Assailed in this ordinary appeal 1 is the Decision 2 dated October 25, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10836, which affirmed the Judgment 3 dated March 16, 2018 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 100 (RTC), convicting accused-appellant Manuel Morillo y Molina (Morillo) of the crimes of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, respectively defined and penalized under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, 4 otherwise known as the 'Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.' aScITE
The Facts
This case stemmed from two Informations 5 filed before the RTC, charging Morillo and his co-accused with the aforesaid crimes, the accusatory portions of which read:
In Criminal Case No. R-QZN-16-06296-CR(Violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165)
That on or about the 13th day of June 2016 in Quezon City, Philippines[,] the above-named accused, without lawful authority, did then and there willfully and unlawfully sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport, or act as broker in said transaction, one (1) big heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing two point four three (2.43) grams of white crystalline substance containing Methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 6
In Criminal Case No. R-QZN-16-06297-CR(Violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165)
That on or about the 13th day of June 2016 in Quezon City, Philippines[,] the above-named accused, not being authorized by law to possess or use any dangerous drugs, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession and control one (1) big transparent plastic bag containing thirteen (13) small heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing the following weight: aScITE
zero point zero three (0.03), zero point zero two (0.02),
zero point zero four (0.04), zero point zero six (0.06),
zero point zero [fourteen] 7 (0.14), zero point zero five (0.05),
zero point zero four (0.04), zero point zero nine (0.9), n
zero point zero six (0.06), zero point zero five (0.05),
zero point zero six (0.06), zero point zero seven (0.07),
and zero point zero eight (0.08) aScITE
all in the total weight of zero point seven nine (0.79) gram of Methamphetamine hydrochloride, known as "SHABU," a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 8
The prosecution alleged that at around 1:00 p.m. of June 11, 2016, acting on a tip from a confidential informant (CI) that P5,000.00 worth of shabu can be purchased from a certain alias 'Ogie,' who was later on identified as Morillo, members of the District Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Group, Quezon City (DAID-SOTG) 9 formed a buy-bust team with Senior Police Officer II Nestor Padilla (SPO2 Padilla) as the poseur buyer. 10 Consequently, the CI ordered P5,000.00 worth of shabu from Morillo, for which the latter replied that it will be available on June 13, 2016. Afterwards, they agreed to meet between 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on that day along 18th Avenue, Barangay San Roque, Quezon City. 11 aScITE
At around 10:10 a.m. of June 13, 2016, the buy-bust team went to the meeting place. Thereat, SPO2 Padilla and the CI approached Morillo while the rest of the buy-bust team strategically positioned themselves within viewing distance. Subsequently, the CI introduced SPO2 Padilla to Morillo as the buyer of shabu. SPO2 Padilla then handed the marked money to Morillo, and in turn, the latter gave one (1) big heat-sealed transparent sachet to the former. 12 While SPO2 Padilla was examining the sachet, Morillo told him 'baka gusto mong tikman yan, halika dun sa loob may humihipat pa dun,' and pointed to a nearby house with an open door. SPO2 Padilla then peeked at the door and saw Ana Cristina C. Calixto (Calixto), Anacleto A. Medrano (Medrano), and Richard R. Basco (Basco) having a pot session. Consequently, Mohammad S. Daud (Daud) arrived and bought shabu from Morillo. SPO2 Padilla then shook Morillo's hand, which was the pre-arranged signal that the transaction was consummated. This prompted the rest of the buy-bust team to rush to the scene and arrest Morillo. After the arrest, they were able to recover from Morillo's pocket 13 small heat-sealed transparent sachets. 13 Afterwards, SPO2 Padilla immediately conducted the marking, photography, and inventory of the seized items in the presence of Morillo, Kagawad Ramil Singson (Kagawad Singson), media representative Alex Mendoza (Mendoza), and the apprehending officers. SPO2 Padilla then turned over the seized items to the duty investigator, Senior Police Officer III Gerardo Quimson (SPO3 Quimson), for the conduct of the proper investigation, as well as the preparation of the necessary documents. 14 Afterwards, SPO3 Quimson gave the seized items and the request for laboratory examination to SPO2 Padilla, who then immediately brought the same to the crime laboratory. At the crime laboratory, the seized items were received by the forensic chemist, Police Chief Inspector Bernardo R. Rogue (PC/Insp. Roque). Thereafter, PC/Insp. Roque conducted the qualitative examination of seized items, where the same tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. PC/Insp. Roque then placed his own markings on the seized items and noted its corresponding weights. Consequently, PC/Insp. Roque turned over the seized items to the evidence custodian, Police Officer I Junia Tuccad (PO1 Tuccad), who delivered the same to the trial court for identification. 15
In his defense, Morillo denied the charges against him, claiming, instead, that during that time, he was buying food when two (2) men in civilian attire approached him, introduced themselves as police officers, handcuffed him, and ordered him to board a car. The men asked him about his live-in partner Calixto, as she has a standing warrant. Consequently, they went to 14th Apartelle, 14th Avenue, P. Tuazon, Cubao, Quezon City, where they were able to arrest Calixto. 16 He further averred that the police officers demanded P50,000.00 in order to settle the case, but they could not produce the same. They were then boarded in two separate cars. While inside the car, Morillo fell asleep, and when he woke up, he saw Daud with him. They were then brought to Camp Karingal, Quezon City, where they saw Basco and Medrano for the first time. Thereafter, they were brought to a house in 18th Avenue, Quezon City, where the police officers laid down P5,000.00, plastic sachets, and foils on a bed. Consequently, a media representative arrived and interviewed one of the police officers. The next day, they were subjected to inquest proceedings. 17
The RTC Ruling
In a Judgment 18 dated March 16, 2018, the RTC convicted Morillo of the crimes charged, and accordingly, sentenced him to suffer the following: (a) for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, the penalty of life imprisonment, and a fine in the amount of P500,000.00 without parole; and (b) for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months, and a fine in the amount of P300,000.00. However, it acquitted Daud, Medrano, and Calixto on the ground of reasonable doubt. 19
The RTC found that the prosecution was able to prove all the elements of the crimes charged insofar as Morillo is concerned, and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. It did not give credence to Morillo's self-serving and negative defense of denial, which cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of the prosecution. 20 aScITE
Aggrieved, Morillo appealed to the CA.
The CA Ruling
In a Decision 21 dated October 25, 2019, the CA affirmed the RTC ruling. It found that a valid entrapment transpired as there was no showing that the CI induced Morillo in selling the drugs to them. It likewise ruled that the integrity of the seized items was duly preserved by the prosecution through the showing of the unbroken chain of custody of the seized items. Finally, it held that Morillo's defense of denial and frame-up cannot prevail over the categorical and positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. 22
Hence, the instant appeal. 23
The Issue Before the Court
The issue before the Court is whether or not Morillo is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.
The Court's Ruling
The appeal is without merit.
'The elements of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 are: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment, while the elements of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 are: (a) the accused was in possession of an item or object identified as a prohibited drug; (b) such possession was not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.' 24
Here, suffice it to say that the courts a quo correctly found that the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt that the elements of the foregoing crimes are present in this case, considering that: (a) Morillo was caught in flagrante delicto selling one (1) big heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 2.43 grams of white crystalline substance to the poseur buyer, SPO2 Padilla, during a legitimate buy-bust operation conducted by the DAID-SOTG; and (b) another big transparent plastic bag containing 13 small heat-sealed plastic sachet weighing a total of 0.79 gram of shabu were recovered from him during the search made incidental to his arrest. 25
'Notably, however, in order to secure a conviction for the foregoing crimes, it remains essential that the identity of the confiscated drugs be established beyond reasonable doubt. To obviate any unnecessary doubts on the identity of the dangerous drugs, the prosecution has to show an unbroken chain of custody over the same. It must be able to account for each link in the chain of custody over the dangerous drug, from the moment of seizure up to its presentation in court as evidence of the corpus delicti.' 26
In this regard, case law instructs that there are four links in the chain of custody of the purported drugs confiscated from the accused, namely: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court. 27 aScITE
The Court finds that all the links in the chain of custody had been established, considering that: (a) after Morillo was arrested, SPO2 Padilla took custody of the seized items, and conducted the marking, inventory, and photography of the seized items at the place of arrest and in the presence of Morillo, Kagawad Singson, Mendoza, and the apprehending officers; (b) SPO2 Padilla turned over the seized items to SPO3 Quimson, the duty investigator, for the conduct of the proper investigation and the preparation of the necessary documents; (c) SPO3 Quimson then turned over the seized items and the request for laboratory examination to SPO2 Padilla, who immediately brought the same to the crime laboratory; (d) at the crime laboratory, the seized items were received by PC/Insp. Roque; (e) after qualitative examination conducted by PC/Insp. Roque, the seized items yielded positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug; (f) PC/Insp. Roque thereafter placed his own markings over the seized items and noted their corresponding weights; and (g) PC/Insp. Roque turned over the seized items to PO1 Tuccad, who delivered the same to the trial court for identification. 28
Given the foregoing, the Court finds no reason to deviate from the findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, as there is no indication that it overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case. In fact, the RTC was in the best position to assess and determine the credibility of the witnesses presented by both parties, and hence, due deference should be accorded to the same. 29
FOR THESE REASONS, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated October 25, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10836 is hereby AFFIRMED. Accused-appellant Manuel Morillo y Molina is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, respectively defined and penalized under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. Accordingly, (a) for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, he is SENTENCED to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment, and to pay a fine in the amount of P500,000.00; and (b) for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, he is SENTENCED to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months, and to pay a fine in the amount of P300,000.00. aScITE
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MA. CONSOLACION GAMINDE-CRUZADADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. See Notice of Appeal dated November 27, 2019; CA rollo, pp. 133-134.
2.Rollo, pp. 3-19. Penned by Associate Justice Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr.
3. CA rollo, pp. 41-61. Penned by Presiding Judge Editha G. Miña-Aguba.
4. Entitled 'AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,' approved on June 7, 2002.
5. See rollo, pp. 3-4.
6. See id. at 4.
7. See CA rollo, p. 44.
8. See id.
9. See id. at 41.
10. See rollo, p. 5.
11. See id.
12. See id.
13. See id. at 6.
14. TSN, August 17, 2017, pp. 32-39.
15. See rollo, pp. 5-6.
16. See id. at 6.
17. See id. at 6-7.
18. CA rollo, pp. 41-61.
19. See id. at 60-61.
20. See id. at 54-60.
21.Rollo, pp. 3-19.
22. See id. at 9-18.
23. See Notice of Appeal dated November 27, 2019; CA rollo, pp. 133-134.
24. See People v. Piñero, G.R. No. 242407, April 1, 2019.
25. See rollo, pp. at 9-17.
26.People v. Alvaro, 823 Phil. 444, 454 (2018), citing People v. Viterbo, 739 Phil. 593, 601 (2014).
27. See People v. Que, 824 Phil. 882, 895 (2018), citing People v. Nandi, 639 Phil. 134, 144-145 (2010).
28. See rollo, pp. 9-17.
29. See Cahulogan v. People, 828 Phil. 742, 749 (2018); citations omitted.
n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from official document. Discrepancy between words and figures.