SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 198821. June 4, 2014.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs.VENICE OCTAVIANO y ELISEO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated04 June 2014which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 198821 (People of the Philippines v. Venice Octaviano y Eliseo). — We decide the appeal, filed by appellant Venice Octaviano, from the March 14, 2011 decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04067. The appealed decision affirmed the August 3, 2009 decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),Branch 103, Quezon City, finding the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
In its Decision dated August 3, 2009, the RTC convicted the appellant in Criminal Case No. Q-05-135247 for illegal sale of 0.13 gram of shabu, penalized under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The RTC held that the prosecution was able to prove, through testimonial and documentary evidence, that the appellant sold shabu to Police Officer (PO) 3 Reynaldo Bayago, the poseur-buyer. The RTC also found unworthy the appellant's claim that he had been set up by the arresting officers in order to extort money from him, as the buy bust operation had been authorized by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency. The RTC added that there was a discrepancy between the testimonies of the appellant and his common-law wife: the latter claimed that the arresting officers who entered their room were looking for a certain Dennis, while the appellant never mentioned this information in his testimony. It further held that there was an unbroken chain of custody over the shabu, and that the integrity of the seized illegal drug had been properly preserved. Accordingly, the RTC sentenced the appellant to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment, and imposed on him a P500,000.00 fine.
On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC decision. The CA found that all the elements of illegal sale of shabu had been proven. It added that the prosecution was able to show an unbroken chain of custody over the seized item. It reasoned out that the marking of the specimen at the police station, instead of at the place of arrest, did not render the appellant's arrest illegal or the item seized inadmissible, as long as the confiscated item's integrity had been properly preserved.
Our Ruling
We dismiss the appeal and affirm the appellant's conviction.
Illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165 and jurisprudence has the following elements: "(1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and its payment." 3 What is material is the proof that the transaction actually took place, coupled with the presentation before the court of the prohibited or regulated drug or the corpus delicti.
Our examination of the records confirms the presence of all these elements. PO3 Reynaldo Bayago narrated in detail how the police conducted the buy-bust operation, with him as the poseur-buyer. He positively identified the appellant as the person who sold to him one (1) transparent plastic sachet in exchange for the P500.00 marked money. Per Chemistry Report No. D-515-05 of Engr. Leonard M. Jabonillo, the substance bought from the appellant (and subsequently brought to the laboratory for examination) was confirmed to be methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.PO3 Roberto Bersal corroborated PO3 Bayago's testimony on significant points. We rely on the RTC's assessment of the arresting officers' credibility, in the absence of showing that certain facts of weight and substance bearing on the elements of the crime have been overlooked.
As the lower courts did, we are unpersuaded by the appellant's defenses of extortion and frame-up, as he failed to substantiate these defenses. Frame-up is generally disfavored since, like alibi, it is an easy excuse and is a frequently utilized defense in most prosecutions for violations of the Dangerous Drugs Law. To prove extortion, the evidence must be clear and convincing and should show that the buy-bust team was motivated by indecent objective or was not properly performing its duty. 4 In the absence of proof to falsely accuse the appellant of such a grave offense, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and the findings of the trial court regarding the credibility of witnesses shall prevail over the appellant's bare allegations. 5HacADE
After a careful reading of the records, we also find the chain of custody unbroken. "Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of confiscated substances or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court. 6
The prosecution was able to prove that after PO3 Bayago received the transparent plastic sachet from the appellant, he held onto it from the appellant's arrest until they reached the police station. Upon reaching the police station, PO3 Bayago gave the sachet to the desk officer/police investigator in charge who, in turn, marked the sachet with his initials and the date of seizure. The police investigator prepared a request for examination of the seized sachet, and then had it signed by Police Superintendent Gerardo Bulosan Ratuita. Thereafter, PO3 Bersal delivered the marked sachet to the laboratory, where it was received by Engr. Jabonillo. Engr. Jabonillo examined the submitted specimen, and found it positive for the presence of methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.Moreover, PO3 Bayago positively identified in court the presented heat-sealed plastic with shabu to be the same item he confiscated from the appellant. Equally noteworthy is the fact that the prosecution's documentary evidence demonstrated the movement of the drug from the preparation of the Request for Laboratory Examination 7 by Superintendent Gerardo Bulosan Ratuita until it was delivered by PO3 Bersal 8 and received by Engr. Jabonillo. 9
We also rule that failure to strictly comply with Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 is not fatal and will not necessarily render the items confiscated from an accused inadmissible. What assumes 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. 10 The succession of events established by evidence in the present case shows that the item seized was the same item tested and subsequently identified and testified to in court.
Finally, we sustain the penalty of life imprisonment and the P500,000.00 fine imposed on the appellant, as these are in accord with law. 11
WHEREFORE,premises considered, the decision of the Court of Appeals dated March 14, 2011 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04067 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo,pp. 2-15; penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, and concurred in by Associate Justices Rebecca de Guia-Salvador and Sesinando E. Villon.
2. CA rollo,pp. 51-56; penned by Presiding Judge Jaime N. Salazar, Jr.
3. People v. Blanco,G.R. No. 193661, August 14, 2013, 703 SCRA 597, 604.
4. Ibid.
5. People v. De Leon,G.R. No. 186471, January 25, 2010, 611 SCRA 118, 136.
6. People v. Salvador, et al.,G.R. No. 190621, February 10, 2014.
7. Records, p. 12.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.
10. See People v. Campomanes,G.R. No. 187741, August 9, 2010, 627 SCRA 494, 507; and People v. Sta. Maria,G.R. No. 171019, February 23, 2007, 516 SCRA 621.
11. Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions. (R.A. 9165).