FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 213593. February 14, 2018.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. JASEN T. NUÑEZ, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedFebruary 14, 2018which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 213593 (People of the Philippines v. Jasen T. Nuñez). — We resolve the appeal of accused-appellant from the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA), 1 which affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) 2 finding him guilty of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165. 3
THE RTC RULING
The RTC found that the following elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs had been established: (1) methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu was delivered and sold by appellant to the police officer designated as the poseur-buyer; (2) the object of the sale was 0.02 grams of shabu valued at P200; and (3) the buyer was Police Officer (PO) 2 Yvien Trangia, while the seller was appellant Jasen Nuñez.
The RTC convicted Nuñez based on the straightforward accounts of the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation. According to the trial court, their direct and positive testimonies prevailed over his bare denial. Petitioner was then sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.
THE CA RULING
The CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC despite the inconsistent testimonies of PO2 Trangia and PO2 Joel Cunan. PO2 Trangia contradicted himself by stating on cross-examination that it was the asset who had first received shabu from appellant, but narrating on direct testimony, the former had first received the item. PO2 Cunan gave conflicting testimonies as to who had called the office of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency — whether it was he or another officer, PO1 Eborlas. The appellate court simply explained that these inconsistencies pertained only to minor details that did not refer to the elements of the crime.
Neither did the CA believe the defense of Nuñez that he was a victim of instigation. It maintained that he was caught red-handed selling shabu to PO2 Trangia during a valid buy-bust operation. It also considered irrelevant the allegations that the police officers had failed to conduct prior surveillance, and that appellant did not have any other packet of illegal drug with him when he was arrested. Finally, the integrity of the chain of custody of the seized drug was also upheld by the appellate court.
We now rule on the case on final review.
OUR RULING
We deny the Petition.
After a careful review of the records of the case, we see no reason to reverse or modify the findings of the RTC, much more so in the present case in which its findings were affirmed by the CA.
Appellant insists that the inconsistent statements of the buy-bust officers would cast doubt on their credibility. As correctly appreciated by the courts a quo, the aforementioned discrepancies were not only few, but also minor ones that did not destroy the testimonies of the witnesses. 4 The appellate court aptly held: 5
Whether the pack of shabu was first given by appellant to the police asset or directly to PO2 Trangia and that it was PO2 Cunan or PO1 Eborlas who actually called the PDEA office, are matters that are not so important in proving the commission of the crime. Rather, what is material is the fact that the sale of illegal drugs was actually consummated x x x. Also, it bears emphasis that what is important is the fact that said shabu was, nevertheless, placed in the possession of PO2 Trangia evincing the consummation of the illegal transaction or sale.
Nuñez next claims that he was instigated into committing a criminal act when P02 Trangia offered to purchase shabu from him. However, a police officer's mere act of "soliciting drugs from the accused during a buy-bust operation, or what is known as a 'decoy solicitation,' is not prohibited by law and does not render invalid the buy-bust operations." 6 In People v. Legaspi, 7 we stressed that the alleged deception by the police officer would not even exonerate the accused, if the latter had committed the offense free from force, coercion, or inducement.
Here, right after PO2 Trangia and the police asset announced that they intended to buy shabu, Nuñez quickly got the money, walked several meters to retrieve a sachet of the illegal substance, and readily turned it over to them. From that swift transaction, the lower courts did not appreciate any form of influence forcing appellant to sell shabu. 8 The CA even noted that per information from the police asset, appellant had already been engaged in selling drugs; and based on that report, the police officers conducted a buy-bust operation. All these circumstances, collectively considered, fully support the conclusion that appellant sold shabu on his own volition and without much prodding from PO2 Trangia. 9 aScITE
The allegation of appellant that none of the officers found sachets of shabu in his pocket during his arrest would not result in his acquittal either. The delivery to the poseur-buyer of the corpus delicti of the crime charged, i.e., the 0.02 grams of shabu, and the receipt by the seller of the marked money, successfully consummated the buy-bust transaction. 10
Appellant further assails the failure of the police officers to investigate him before conducting a buy-bust operation. This Court, however, has left to the discretion of police authorities the selection of effective means by which to apprehend drug dealers. 11 We have consistently ruled that the conduct of prior surveillance does not invalidate the entrapment of the accused, especially in this case in which the buy-bust officers were accompanied to the scene by the police asset. 12
Finally, Nuñez reiterates his attacks on the observance of the rule on the chain of custody. 13 He claims that the confiscated item was belatedly marked in the precinct, and that its inventory was not attended by an elected public official and representatives from the media and the Department of Justice. In addition, he alleges that the prosecution failed to identify the persons handling the specimen after its laboratory examination.
We point out that the marking of confiscated items in a police station has already been deemed valid by this Court, 14 considering that R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rules do not limit the labeling of the contraband in the place of the buy-bust operation. 15 Anent the handling of the illegal drug, based on the factual findings below, 16 the persons who handled it after its laboratory examination have been identified and their testimonies even stipulated by both the prosecution and appellant through counsel. 17 It should be emphasized that the parties are bound by the stipulations they made in the trial court. 18
Notably, appellant does not question the unbroken chain of evidence. His only contention is that the buy-bust team did not inventory the specimen on site in the presence of a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official. Indeed, Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 requires that "a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official x x x shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof."
Here, we could not wholly discredit the inventory of its probative value considering that both the arresting officer and appellant himself signed it. 19 The absence of the signatures of representatives from the media, DOJ, and elected official then becomes a singular lapse. Minor deviations, as opposed to a gross, systematic, or deliberate disregard of the procedural safeguards, would not necessarily result in an acquittal. 20
Recently, in People v. Tamaño, 21 we reiterated the judicial recognition 22 that it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain:
However, while the procedure on the chain of custody should be perfect and unbroken, in reality, it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain. Thus, failure to strictly comply with Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 does not necessarily render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible. The most important factor is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item.
In a number of cases, We held that with the implied judicial recognition of the difficulty of complete compliance with the chain of custody requirement, substantial compliance is sufficient as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item are properly preserved by the apprehending officers.
Furthermore, the absence of the aforesaid representatives and its lack of effect to the conviction of the accused have already been maintained by this Court in People v. Manlangit23 and People v. Rosialda. 24 In those cases, we emphasized that as long as the chain of custody is observed, even though the procedural requirements provided for in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was not faithfully followed, the guilt of the accused will not be affected.
Considering the above-mentioned standards, this Court proceeds to review the observance of the chain of custody. This can be deduced from the detailed findings of the CA, to wit: 25
In the present case, it must be recalled that right after the illegal sale took place, PO2 Trangia made the pre-arranged signal by touching his head using his right hand. This prompted the back-up police officers to rush to the area and arrest the appellant. Satiembre, however, was able to elude the arrest. The illicit drug which was in the possession of PO2 Trangia was later turned over to PO2 Cunan while they were still in the crime scene. Thereafter, appellant and the seized drug were brought to the police station and on their way, PO2 Cunan remained in possession of the illicit drug. At the station, PO2 Cunan marked it with the initials "JN" representing appellant Jasen Nuñez. PO2 Cunan then took photograph of the pack containing suspected shabu; conducted an inventory on the seized item; recorded the arrest incident in the police blotter and prepared a letter-request for laboratory examination of the subject drug. Subsequently, PO2 Cunan submitted the subject drug and letter-request to the PNP Crime Laboratory which were received by a certain Police Officer I Tero. Thereafter, P/Insp. Mutchit Salinas conducted a laboratory examination on the specimen submitted and the result yielded positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, or commonly known as shabu as shown in the Chemistry Report No. D-523-2009. The subject specimen and the other necessary documents were then submitted by the Forensic Chemist to their Evidence Custodian for safekeeping and were later turned over to the Prosecution for their presentation in court. HEITAD
The foregoing facts evidently show that the prosecution has properly established the whereabouts of the illegal drug from the time it came into possession of the apprehending officers, during its testing in the laboratory to determine its composition and up to the time it was offered in evidence.
We find that the prosecution preserved the integrity of the evidence given the observance of the chain of custody rule. That rule requires the presentation of the following links, especially in a buy-bust situation: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover to the investigating officer of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending 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 to the court of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist. 26
Here, as discussed by the CA, PO2 Trangia seized the drug from Nuñez and turned it over to PO2 Cunan. Thereafter, PO2 Cunan submitted the subject drug for laboratory examination, which was received in the PNP Crime Laboratory by PO1 Tero. 27 Thereafter, the forensic chemist, after examining the seized item, submitted to the evidence custodian the specimen for safekeeping, which was later turned over to the Prosecution for their presentation in court. 28
All told, given that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item have been preserved, this Court will not reverse the uniform finding of guilt on the basis of a single lapse in the observance of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. We similarly conclude as the courts a quo and convict appellant.
WHEREFORE, the Court of Appeals Decision dated 21 May 2014 in CA-G.R. CEB-CR H.C. No. 01587, affirming the conviction of Jasen Torres Nuñez for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."JARDELEZA, J., took no part; BERSAMIN, J., designated additional member per raffle dated February 12, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 4-19. The CA Decision dated 21 May 2014 in CA-G.R. CEB-CR HC No. 01587 was penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, with Associate Justices Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla and Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 25-28. The Cebu City RTC Branch 57 Judgment dated 8 November 2012 in Criminal Case No. CBU-86353 was penned by Presiding Judge Enriqueta Loquillano-Belarmino.
3. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
4.People v. Alviz, 703 Phil. 58 (2013); People v. Utinas, G.R. No. 105832, 22 December 1994.
5.Rollo, p. 10.
6.People v. Bayani, 577 Phil. 607 (2008).
7. 677 Phil. 181 (2011).
8.See People v. Bartolome, 703 Phil. 148 (2013).
9.See People v. Dansico, 659 Phil. 216 (2011).
10.People v. Gonzales, 430 Phil. 504 (2002); see also People v. Montano, 392 Phil. 378 (2000).
11.Cruz v. People, 597 Phil. 722 (2009).
12.People v. Rafols, G.R. No. 214440, 15 June 2016; People v. Adrid, 705 Phil. 654 (2013); People v. Concepcion, 578 Phil. 957 (2008); People v. Gonzales, 430 Phil. 504 (2002); People v. Lacbanes, 336 Phil. 933 (1997); People v. Bay, G.R. No. 101310, 28 May 1993.
13. R.A. No. 9165, Sec. 21.
14.People v. Brillantes, G.R. No. 206371, 29 June 2016; People v. Unisa, 674 Phil. 89 (2011); Imson v. People, 669 Phil. 262 (2011).
15.People v. Yable, G.R. No. 200358, 7 April 2014; People v. Bautista, 669 Phil. 262 (2011); People v. Resurreccion, 618 Phil. 520 (2009); People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214 (2008).
16.Rollo, pp. 17-18; CA rollo, p. 28.
17. TSN, 11 February 2010, p. 4.
18.Palo v. People, G.R. No. 192075, 10 February 2016.
19. Records, p. 10.
20.People v. Dacuma, G.R. No. 205889, 4 February 2015; People v. Edaño, G.R. No. 188133, 7 July 2014; People v. Umipang, 686 Phil. 1024 (2012); People v. Ulama, 678 Phil. 861 (2011).
21. G.R. No. 208643, 5 December 2016.
22.People v. Badilla, G.R. No. 218578, 31 August 2016; People v. Morate, 725 Phil. 556 (2014).
23. 654 Phil. 427 (2011).
24. 643 Phil. 712 (2010).
25.Rollo, pp. 17-18.
26.People v. Arriola, G.R. No. 187736, 8 February 2012, citing People v. Kamad, 610 SCRA 295 (2010).
27. Records, p. 64.
28. TSN, 11 February 2010, p. 4.