THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 213382. March 14, 2016.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANTONIO OCAYA Y NANTIZA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 14, 2016, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 213382 (People of the Philippines vs. Antonio Ocaya y Nantiza). — This is an appeal from the Decision 1 dated October 24, 2013 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05423 which affirmed the Decision 2 dated November 30, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Binangonan, Rizal, Branch 67 in Criminal Case Nos. 10-211 and 10-212 which modified the conviction of Antonio Ocaya y Nantiza (Ocaya) for violations of Sections 5 (illegal sale of dangerous drugs) and 11 (illegal possession of illegal drugs) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, 3 otherwise known as "The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
Factual Background
On April 19, 2010, two (2) criminal informations 4 were filed against Ocaya for violations of Sections 5 and 11 of R.A. No. 9165, the accusatory portions of which read:
Criminal Case No. 10-211
That on or about the [17th] day of April 2010 in the Municipality of Binangonan, Province of Rizal, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without having been authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell, deliver and give away to another 0.05 gram of white crystalline substance, contained in one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet, which substance was found positive to the tests for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in consideration of Php500.00, in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
Criminal Case No. 10-212
That on or about the 17th day of April 2010 in the Municipality of Binangonan[,] Province of Rizal, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly possess and have in his custody and control 0.04 gram of white crystalline substance, contained in one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet, which substance was found positive to the tests for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 6
When arraigned, Ocaya pleaded "not guilty." Trial on the merits then ensued.
The prosecution presented the testimonies of PO1 Remson Colacion (PO1 Colacion) and Police Senior Inspector Beaune V. Villaraza (PS/Insp. Villaraza). 7
It was established by the prosecution that on April 17, 2010, at about 12:30 p.m., an information was received by PO1 Colacion of the Philippine National Police (PNP) of Binangonan, Rizal about the illegal drug peddling of a certain alias "Hika" in Sitio Wawa, Barangay Libis, Binangonan, Rizal (Sitio Wawa). 8
PO1 Colacion had the information recorded in the police blotter by the desk officer. He then informed their Chief of Police, who, in turn, instructed him to form a buy bust team to verify the same. 9
A group consisting of the members of the PNP Intel Section including PO1 Colacion, PO1 Alejo, PO1 Barcelo and Inspector Garcia and the informant proceeded to Sitio Wawa. Upon reaching the area, PO1 Colacion and the informant headed towards an alley where Ocaya suddenly appeared. Ocaya inquired, "pare, iiskor ka ba?" to which the informant responded, "oo sige pare, bigyan mo ko ng Php500.00." Ocaya instantly reached for his pocket and pulled one (1) plastic sachet filled with white crystalline substance. PO1 Colacion immediately confiscated the sachet from Ocaya and arrested him. The bodily search he conducted on Ocaya yielded another plastic sachet from the latter's possession. 10 CAIHTE
Ocaya and the confiscated items were taken to the police station. PO1 Colacion marked the two (2) plastic sachets as "ANT-1" and "ANT-2" which he also photographed in the presence of PO1 Barcelo, PO1 Alejo and Ocaya. 11
Police Superintendent Rodino Decamora Elfa afterwards made a letter requesting for the laboratory examination of the white crystalline substance contained in the confiscated plastic sachets. The specimen and the letter-request were taken by PO1 Colacion to the Rizal Provincial Crime Laboratory Office which were received by PS/Insp. Villaraza, the forensic chemist, whose findings yielded positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu, a dangerous drug, as indicated in Chemistry Report No. D-97-10. 12
The defense, on the contrary, presented Ocaya, who denied both charges and averred that he was sleeping inside the bedroom of their house on April 17, 2010, at about 3:00 p.m., when he was abruptly awakened by a loud noise. He opened the door and saw a man holding a gun together with two other men. He identified the men as PO1 Colacion and PO1 Alejo. They pushed him inside his house. He later learned through his friends that the other man was Albert. Ocaya claimed that PO1 Colacion handcuffed and punched him twice on the abdomen. When he asked why, they told him that he was selling shabu. PO1 Alejo and Albert searched his house but found nothing. The latter even took certain items such as the mobile phone of his son, a silver necklace and P400.00. Then, Ocaya was brought to the police station where he was detained. 13
Ruling of the RTC
In its Decision dated November 30, 2011, the RTC found Ocaya guilty beyond reasonable doubt of both charges. The RTC disposed the case, as follows:
In light of the above, we find accused Antonio Ocaya GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 and sentence him to suffer a penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00. We likewise find him GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 11, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 and illegally possessing a total of 0.05 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu and accordingly sentence him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of 12 years and 1 day as minimum to 13 years as maximum and to pay a fine of P300,000.00. The bail posted for his provisional liberty in both cases is hereby revoked and we DIRECT that he be arrested and taken into custody.
Let the drug samples in this case be forwarded to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper disposition. Furnish PDEA with a copy of this Decision per OCA Circular No. 70-2007.
SO ORDERED. 14 aScITE
In convicting Ocaya, the RTC gave great weight and merit to the testimonies of the police officers regarding the buy-bust operation. On violation of Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165, the RTC ruled that the prosecution was able to present the shabu that was seized from Ocaya during the entrapment operation. On violation of Section 11 of the same Act, the RTC ratiocinated that: (1) the prosecution featured a clear picture detailing the drug-sale transaction from the time of initial contact with Ocaya, the offer to purchase, and his delivery or giving of shabu to the asset in the presence of PO1 Colacion; (2) that the police officers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their official duties absent any evidence to the contrary; (3) that the chain of custody of the shabu confiscated was sufficiently established. On the contrary, the denial of Ocaya was brushed aside for being intrinsically weak and self-serving. 15
On appeal, the CA affirmed the conviction of Ocaya. The CA stated that PO1 Colacion positively identified Ocaya as the shabu peddler during trial, and that the latter was caught inflagrante delicto by the former while attempting to sell one (1) plastic sachet of shabu to the informant with whom he was with. It was narrated that Ocaya asked "pare, iiskor ka ba?," then brought out a plastic sachet of shabu. The informant replied, "oo sige pare, bigyan mo ko ng Php500.00". The supposed sale was aborted when PO1 Colacion immediately confiscated the plastic sachet filled with white crystalline substance from Ocaya before he was able to hand it over to the informant, and the latter to pay for the same. The physical search conducted on Ocaya resulted in the discovery of another plastic sachet filled with shabu recovered from his possession. Such plastic sachets of shabu were presented in court as evidence of the corpus delicti. Thus, the elements of attempted sale of illegal drugs were sufficiently established by evidence. 16
The CA further considered the chain of custody of the shabu seized, as proved by the prosecution in accordance with Section 21 17 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165.
Hence, this petition.
The Court finds no cogent reason to deviate from the findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA.
The elements of the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drug are: (a) the accused is in possession of an item or object that is identified to be a prohibited or dangerous drug; (b) such possession is not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. 18
The prosecution successfully proved that Ocaya: (1) was in possession of one (1) plastic sachet of shabu which was discovered after a bodily search was conducted on his person immediately right after the arrest; (2) had no authority to possess the said shabu; and (3) failed to overcome the presumption that he had no knowledge regarding his possession of the shabu within his pocket. As consistently held, "possession of dangerous drugs constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of a satisfactory explanation of such possession." 19
Anent the charge for illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must be sufficiently proved: (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. 20
Here, the prosecution duly established: (1) the identity of Ocaya as the seller of shabu while the informant was the buyer; (2) the object of the sale which was one (1) small plastic sachet filled with white crystalline substance PO1 Colacion confiscated from Ocaya; (3) the P500.00 consideration for the sachet of shabu. The crime was, however, not consummated because PO1 Colacion swiftly arrested Ocaya upon seeing the sachet of shabu to be handed by the latter to the informant. Hence, the crime was merely attempted because no exchange of money and drugs took place.
The Court further finds no viable defense presented by Ocaya except his self-serving denial which has been invariably viewed with disfavor for it can easily be concocted and is a common defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of R.A. No. 9165. 21 There being no clear and convincing evidence to substantiate it, Ocaya's denial has no merit.
The Court further opines that non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 does not automatically render illegal the arrest of an accused or inadmissible the items confiscated so long as there is no showing that the integrity or evidentiary value of the shabu has been compromised at some point from the time of its seizure and confiscation from the accused until its presentation as proof of the corpus delicti before the RTC, such as in the instant case.
The marking of the seized items at the police station and in the presence of the accused was sufficient in showing compliance with the rules on chain of custody. Marking upon immediate confiscation contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team. 22 Also, inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses, when referring only to minor details and collateral matters, do not affect either the substance of their declaration, their veracity, or the weight of their testimony. Such minor inconsistencies even enhance their veracity as the variances erase any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony. 23
Taken altogether, the categorical and straightforward testimonies of the prosecution witnesses including Chemistry Report No. D-97-10 and the sachets of shabu confiscated undoubtedly pinpoint to Ocaya's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court agrees with the Office of the Solicitor General that Section 26 (b) 24 of R.A. No. 9165 provides that an attempt to commit illegal sale of prohibited drugs in Criminal Case No. 10-211 shall merit the same penalty prescribed by the law under Section 5 of the same Act. As ruled in People v. Laylo, 25 the attempt to sell shabu was shown by the overt act of appellant therein of showing the substance to the poseur-buyer. The sale was aborted when the police officers identified themselves and placed appellant under arrest. HEITAD
Therefore, the Court affirms the penalties imposed by the RTC, as affirmed by the CA. Ocaya was correctly meted the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00 for illegally selling 0.05 gram of shabu in accordance with Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165. He was also correctly meted with the penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to thirteen (13) years of imprisonment and to pay P300,000.00 as fine for illegally possessing 0.04 gram of shabu pursuant to Section 11 of the same Act.
WHEREFORE, in consideration of all the foregoing, the Decision dated October 24, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05423 is AFFIRMED." (Jardeleza, J., no part in view of his participation in the office of the Solicitor General; Del Castillo, J., designated additional member per Raffle dated September 17, 2014.)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Michael P. Elbinias, with Associate Justices Isaias P. Dicdican and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela concurring; CA rollo, pp. 96-111.
2. Rendered by Presiding Judge Dennis Patrick Z. Perez; id. at 21-23.
3. AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE 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.
4. CA rollo, pp. 97-98.
5. Id. at 97.
6. Id. at 97-98.
7. Id. at 98.
8. Id.
9. Id.
10. Id. at 98-99.
11. Id. at 99.
12. Id. at 45-46, 99.
13. Id. at 46, 100.
14. Id. at 22-23.
15. Id. at 21-22.
16. Id. at 103-104.
17. Sec. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof; Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance 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.
xxx xxx xxx
18. People v. Bautista, 682 Phil. 487, 498 (2012).
19. People v. Villahermosa, 665 Phil. 399, 417 (2011).
20. People v. Montevirgen, G.R. No. 189840, December 11, 2013, 712 SCRA 459, 467.
21. People v. Gutierrez, 622 Phil. 396, 409 (2009).
22. People v. Ocfemia, G.R. No. 185383, September 25, 2013, 706 SCRA 312, 333-334, citing People v. Resurreccion, 618 Phil. 520, 531-532 (2009).
23. People v. Fang, G.R. No. 199874, July 23, 2014, 730 SCRA 642, 653; People v. Monceda, G.R. No. 176269, November 13, 2013, 709 SCRA 355, 367-368.
24. Sec. 26. Attempt or Conspiracy. — Any attempt or conspiracy to commit the following unlawful acts shall be penalized by the same penalty prescribed for the commission of the same as provided under this Act:
xxx xxx xxx
(b) Sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution and transportation of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical; . . .
25. 669 Phil. 111 (2011).