SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 196533. October 5, 2015.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. REGINO NARCA y LAGRIMAS, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 05 October 2015 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 196533 — (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, v.REGINO NARCA y LAGRIMAS, accused-appellant). — We resolve the appeal of accused-appellant Regino Narca y Lagrimas (Narca) assailing the October 01, 2010 decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 32170. The CA Decision modified the July 03, 2008 decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 72, Malabon City, finding Narca guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of shabu.
The Case
The information filed against Narca states that on or about August 25, 2005 in the Municipality of Navotas, Metro Manila, he willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously sold and delivered, without authority of law, one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing shabu to SPO1 Alexander V. Acusin (SPO1 Acusin). Narca pleaded not guilty to the charge during his arraignment.
During trial, the prosecution presented SPO1 Acusin as its lone witness. He testified that on August 25, 2005, at around 7:00 p.m., he was at the Anti-Narcotics Unit, Navotas Police Station, when a confidential informant arrived and reported that Narca and other drug pushers were selling shabu at Market III, Fishport Complex, Navotas, Metro Manila. After making the necessary preparations, the buy-bust team and the informant proceeded to the target area.
SPO1 Acusin, accompanied by the informant, proceeded to the house of Narca. When SPO1 Acusin, acting as poseur-buyer, was right beside the two of them, the informant asked Narca if he had any shabu. Narca replied that he only had one left and asked how much they were going to buy. SPO1 Acusin answered that he was going to buy P200 worth and handed him two P100 bills. Narca then handed him one (1) heat-sealed plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance believed to be shabu. SPO1 Acusin arrested Narca right after identifying himself as a police officer.
The evidence for the defense, on the other hand, expectedly presented an entirely different version. Narca testified that he was immediately arrested by four (4) police officers, accompanied by the informant who was a known thief in their area, right after alighting from a tricycle at Market III. At the police station, Narca claimed that SPO1 Acusin demanded money for his release. Since he did not have any money at that time, Narca could not pay off his arresting officers.
In its July 03, 2008 Decision, the RTC found Narca guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violating Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, despite being charged for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5. Bearing in mind that it was the informant who negotiated with Narca and yet he was not presented as a witness for the prosecution, the trial court recognized SPO1 Acusin's testimony as hearsay. However, it found that Narca had illegally possessed shabu. It considered Narca's defense of denial and frame-up weak and could not prevail over the evidence of the prosecution. Accordingly, the RTC sentenced Narca to suffer the penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months, as maximum. It also ordered him to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) Pesos.
On appeal, the CA modified the July 03, 2008 RTC decision and convicted Narca of illegal sale of shabu under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The CA essentially held that the prosecution was able to satisfactorily establish that the police conducted a valid buy-bust operation. It disregarded the RTC's position that the testimony of SPO1 Acusin was hearsay because he had personal knowledge of the transaction. Thus, the prosecution no longer needed to present the informant's testimony as this would merely corroborate the testimony of SPO1 Acusin. In addition, it found that the chain of custody was established and the integrity of the confiscated item was preserved. Accordingly, the CA sentenced Narca to suffer life imprisonment and ordered him to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) Pesos.
Our Ruling
We AFFIRM Narca's conviction.
As a general rule, the trial court's findings of fact, especially when affirmed by the CA, are entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal. We find the evidence adduced was sufficient to prove that Narca illegally sold shabu. Therefore, considering that no circumstance exists to put the trial court's findings in error, we apply the time-honored precept that findings of the trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve credibility are accorded respect when no glaring errors, gross misapprehensions of facts, and speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings.
Variance between the allegation in.
In the present case, Narca was charged for illegal sale but was convicted by the RTC for illegal possession of dangerous drugs. We find this to be procedurally acceptable considering that our Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure allow a conviction of an offense different from what was charged in the information, provided it necessarily includes the offense proved. 3 In People v. Posadas, we held that possession of illegal drugs is necessarily included in illegal sale. 4
Regardless, the CA corrected this variance because it had already found Narca guilty for committing illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
Informant's testimony was merely.
Section 3 (e), Rule 131 of the Revised Rules on Evidence provides that evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced, unless contradicted and overcome by other evidence. However, it is settled that the adverse presumption from a suppression of evidence is not applicable when the evidence suppressed or withheld is merely corroborative or cumulative. It has been held that the testimony of the poseur-buyer would at best be corroborative when the police officers were able to see the actual transaction. 5
SPO1 Acusin's testimony was not hearsay because he had personal knowledge of what transpired between Narca and the informant. SPO1 Acusin testified based on what he actually observed and not simply based on the informant's narration of what happened. In other words, his narration was not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, but to merely confirm what was said during the transaction. Thus, the CA correctly ruled that SPO1 Acusin's testimony should not be excluded because it was an independent relevant statement and not banned under the hearsay evidence rule.
The warrantless arrest was legal and.
For a warrantless arrest of a person caught in flagrante delicto to be valid, the following must concur: (a) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (b) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. 6 An arrest made after an entrapment or buy-bust operation is considered a valid warrantless arrest. 7
In the sale of illegal drugs pursuant to a buy-bust operation, the details of the purported transaction must clearly and adequately show: (1) the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, (2) the offer to purchase, (3) the payment of consideration, and (4) the delivery of the illegal drug. 8
All four stages were adequately shown in this case. Based on SPO1 Acusin's testimony, Narca answered the door when PO1 Acusin and the informant went to his house to buy shabu. Narca then asked how much they were going to buy. SPO1 Acusin replied that he was going to buy P200 worth and gave him the buy-bust money. Narca afterwards handed him a heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance. The Physical Science Report No. D-368-05 9 showed that the heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet, with the marking "RLN," contained 0.04 grams of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu.
From the foregoing facts, the required stages for a valid buy-bust operation were met and the elements of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs were duly established. TIADCc
The identity and integrity of the
A successful prosecution for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs pursuant to a buy-bust operation requires the following to be proved with moral certainty: (1) the identities of the buyer and seller, (2) the transaction or sale of the illegal drug, and (3) the existence of the corpus delicti.
The existence of the corpus delicti heavily relies on whether the identity and integrity of the confiscated drug itself was shown to have been preserved. Thus, to remove any doubt or uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the seized drug, R.A. 9165 outlines the prescribed procedure on how to handle confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered dangerous drugs. While recent jurisprudence has accepted the provisio in the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 9165 saying noncompliance with the prescribed procedure is not fatal to the prosecution's case, we find it proper to set a standard when strict compliance can be excused.
As a rule, strict compliance with the prescribed procedure is required because of the illegal drug's unique characteristic that renders it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration, or substitution either by accident or otherwise. 10 By complying with the proscribed procedure, the prosecution may invoke, with limitation, the presumption of regularity of performance of official duty.
Thus, by not complying strictly with the prescribed procedure, the exception found in the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 9165 operates. 11 This saving clause, however, applies only where the prosecution recognized the procedural lapses, and thereafter explained the cited justifiable grounds, and when the prosecution established that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized had been preserved. The prosecution, thus, loses the benefit of invoking the presumption of regularity and bears the burden of proving — with moral certainty — that the illegal drug presented in court is the same drug that was confiscated from the accused during his arrest. cSEDTC
We have recognized the following links that must be established to ensure the preservation of the identity and integrity of the confiscated drug should there be no strict compliance of the procedure provided in Section 21, Article II of R.A. 9165: 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 seized illegal drug by the forensic chemist to the court. 12 After a careful reading of the records, we also find that the prosecution was able to establish all four links.
Based on his testimony on record, PO1 Acusin was handed the heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet right after he gave two P100 bills to Narca. The investigating officer, P/Insp. Roy C. Bugtong (P/Insp. Bugtong), subsequently marked the seized item with Narca's initials, or "RLN", at the place of his arrest. P/Insp. Bugtong thereafter sent the illegal drug to the crime laboratory, evidenced by the Letter Request dated August 25, 2005, 13 after it was inventoried before a media representative and barangay officials. In open court, SPO1 Acusin identified the heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing shabu with the marking "RLN" as the same item that was handed to him by Narca. The succession of events in this case shows that the items seized were the same items tested and subsequently identified and testified to in court.
We thus hold that the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs seized from the accused-appellants were duly proven not to have been compromised.
The penalty imposed was correct.
We sustain the penalty imposed by the CA as it is in accordance with the penalty prescribed under Sections 5, Article II of RA No. 9165, in relation to Section 1 of RA No. 4103, as amended, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
WHEREFORE, the October 01, 2010 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 32170 is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.''
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTO
Division Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
* Carpio, J., on official leave; Brion, J., designated as acting Chairperson, per Special Order No. 2222 dated September 29, 2015; Peralta, J., designated as acting Member in lieu of Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio, per Special Order No. 2223 dated September 29, 2015; Jardeleza, J., designated as acting Member in lieu of Associate Justice Jose C. Mendoza, per Special Order No. 2246 dated October 5, 2015.
1. Rollo, pp. 2-20; penned by Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr., concurred in by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr., and dissented by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and Associate Justice Florito S. Macalino.
2. CA rollo, pp. 27-30; by Presiding Judge Benjamin M. Aquino, Jr.
3. See Sections 4 & 5, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.
4. G.R. No. 194445, March 12, 2012, citing People v. Lacerna, G.R. No. 109250, September 5, 1997, 344 Phil. 100, 121 (1997); See also People v. Tabar, G.R. No. 101124, May 17, 1993, 222 SCRA 144, 151-153.
5. See People v. Fernandez, G.R. No. 86495, May 13, 1992, 209 SCRA 1.
6. Section 5 (a), Rule 113, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.
7. People v. Cabugatan, G.R. No. 172019, February 12, 2007, 515 SCRA 537, 552, citing Teodosio v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124346, June 8, 2004, 431 SCRA 194, 207.
8. See People v. Doria, G.R. No. 125299, January 22, 1999, 301 SCRA 668.
9. RTC records, p. 59.
10. People v. Sabdula, G.R. No. 184758, April 21, 2014, 722 SCRA 90.
11. ". . . Provided, further, that noncompliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items . . . ."
12. People v. Kamad, G.R. No. 174198, January 19, 2010, 610 SCRA 295, 307-308.
13. RTC records, p. 60. AIDSTE