FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 212189. August 24, 2016.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. HILARIO PANGAN y OCAMPO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated August 24, 2016, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 212189 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HILARIO PANGAN y OCAMPO, Accused-Appellant.
This is an ordinary appeal from the September 25, 2013 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 05144, which affirmed the July 27, 2011 Joint Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 172, Valenzuela City in Criminal Case Nos. 858-V-07 and 859-V-07, finding the accused-appellant Hilario Pangan y Ocampo (Pangan) guilty of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Facts of the Case
Two separate Informations, 3 both dated August 29, 2007, were filed against accused-appellant Pangan charging him with illegally selling and possessing methamphetamine hydrochloride, respectively defined and punished under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, committed as follows:
Criminal Case No. 858-V-07
That on or about August 27, 2007, in Valenzuela City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without any authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell to PO1 HARVEY B. ARAÑAS, through Jan Serban Pat Y Padilla, 11 years old, who posed as buyer of zero point zero three gram (0.03) of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu), knowing the same to be a dangerous drug.
Criminal Case No. 859-V-07
That on or about August 27, 2007 in Valenzuela City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without any authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and control one (1) pc. transparent plastic sachet containing zero point zero three gram (0.03) of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu), knowing the same to be a dangerous drug.
Upon his arraignment on December 5, 2007, accused-appellant Pangan pleaded not guilty to both charges.
On July 21, 2010, during the trial, the defense agreed to stipulate on the qualifications and would-be testimony of prosecution witness Police Senior Inspector Jesse A. Dela Rosa (P/S Insp. Dela Rosa), to wit:
1) Police Senior Inspector Jesse A. Dela Rosa (Dela Rosa) is a duly qualified forensic chemist of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory, Northern Police District, Caloocan City;
2) He was the one who examined the specimen labeled A-1 and A-2 submitted by the Valenzuela City Police Station;
3) Upon examination of the specimen, he found the same to contain methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug; and
4) He rendered a report in connection with his findings, i.e., Physical Science Report No. D-294-07. 4 SCaITA
During the trial, the prosecution and the defense tried to establish their respective versions of the facts of this case.
As summarized by the RTC, the prosecution tried to establish from its testimonial and documentary evidence that —
The prosecution's evidence showed that on August 27, 2007 at around 6:00 o'clock p.m., a confidential informant (CI) called the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs-Special Operating Unit of Valenzuela City Police Station informing them of the alleged sale of illegal drugs of the accused at Sitio Kabatuhan, Gen. T. De Leon, Valenzuela City. They recorded the information in their police blotter. They verified the name of the accused at the Barangay Anti-[Drug] Abuse Council (BADAC) and the name of the accused appeared to be at No. 32 of Generated Drug Watchlist of Barangay Gen. T. De Leon as user. P/C Insp. Danilo Bugay formed a team composed of PO3 Louie Martinez, PO2 Marife Malinao, PO1 Reyner Gahite, PO1 Harvy B. Arañas and PO1 Freddie B. Lim to conduct a buy-bust operation. PO1 Harvy B. Arañas was assigned to act as the poseur-buyer. They prepared a buy-bust money consisting of two (2) Php100 peso bills and two (2) Php50 peso bills. They coordinated with [the] PDEA regarding their operation. Thereafter, the team proceeded to the place near Sitio Kabatuhan, Gen. T. De Leon to meet the CI. They arrived at the area at around 8:45 o'clock in the evening and met the CI . . . . While PO1 Harvy B. Arañas and the CI were already at the target area, a child arrived and informed them that he was summoned by the accused. The CI told the child that they will buy shabu. The child left and later returned and asked them how much they will buy. They told the child that they are going to buy shabu worth Php300.00. The child left again and when the child returned[,] the child got the buy-bust money from them and left again. They followed the child and saw the child giving the money to the accused. The latter inserted his hand into his pocket and brought out a shabu. When the accused was about to give the shabu to the child, PO1 Harvy B. Arañas arrested the accused and identified himself as [a] police officer. After identifying himself as police officer, PO1 Harvy B. Arañas took hold from the accused the plastic sachet and then frisked the accused again and he was able to get from the accused another small heat-sealed plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. They proceeded to the Barangay for drug inventory and for the placing of markings on the drugs recovered from the accused. The seized item which the accused was about to give to the child was marked as [HPO-1] while the seized item recovered from the right pocket of the accused was marked as [HPO-2]. The inventory was signed by Barangay Tanod Rolando De Leon and Kagawad Isaac C. Dizon. After the drug inventory, they proceeded to their office to prepare the request to conduct laboratory examination on the recovered items and request for drug test of the accused. After preparing the requests, PO1 Harvy B. Arañas and PO1 Freddie B. Lim brought the marked evidence together with the accused [to] the Northern Police District Crime Laboratory Office, Caloocan City Police Station (NPDO-CLO). The requests were received by the NPDO-CLO together with recovered items and the accused on August 28, 2007 at 1:30 o'clock in the morning. The examination was completed on the same day at around 3:25 o'clock in the morning with the following results:
SPECIMEN SUBMITTED:
A — One (1) brown envelope with markings 'EVIDENCE BAG SAID-SOU, VCPS CONTROL NUMBER 08-27-2007' and description and information contains the following:
A-1 ('HPO-1') = 0.03 gram
A-2 ('HPO-2') = 0.03 gram
PURPOSE OF LABORATORY EXAMINATION
To determine the presence of dangerous drugs.
FINDINGS:
Qualitative examination conducted of the above-stated specimen gave POSITIVE result to the tests for the presence of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. 5
On the other hand, the defense presented accused-appellant Pangan, and one Rolando Cleofas.
Accused-appellant Pangan testified that at around 4:00 p.m. on August 27, 2007, he was outside of his house watching his nephews play. Then a tricycle stopped in front of him, where two passengers alighted. They approached him looking for a certain "Tenyente." He told them that the person they were looking for has been dead a long time ago. Then the two asked him "may bato ba dyan," to which he replied none. One of them asked him where they could buy "bato," and accused-appellant Pangan replied that he did not know. His answer angered the two men and then they forced him to board the tricycle. When his nephews saw what was happening, they tried to help him, but one of them was also forced to board the tricycle. The men brought them to a bridge where a van full of passengers was parked. While the tricycle was parked near the van, the men forced accused-appellant Pangan to tell them where they could buy shabu. Accused-appellant Pangan was then handcuffed and brought inside the van and held there until nighttime. Afterwards, accused-appellant Pangan and his nephew were brought to the police station. aTHCSE
Accused-appellant Pangan further related that while inside the police station, Police Officer (PO) 1 Lim poked a gun on his forehead when he failed to answer where he could buy shabu. Eventually, PO1 Lim shot accused-appellant Pangan several times in different parts of his body using a pellet gun. One of the police officers threatened his nephew and told him that he will suffer the same fate if he will not cooperate with them. Accused-appellant Pangan was brought out of the police station and was made to board the same van that he saw previously, while his nephew was left at the police station. Accused-appellant Pangan was told that he will be brought to the barangay chairman, but he did not see where they brought him as blood was oozing from his forehead. Upon reaching their destination, the police knocked on a door and called to the barangay chairman. When the latter saw accused-appellant, he said "Ano ba yan, baka masabit ako dyan." The police talked to the barangay chairman, while accused-appellant was brought back to the van. Back at the police station, accused-appellant was put in a storage room. While inside, a helper brought in drugs and other paraphernalia and accused-appellant Pangan claims that he was made to use said drugs. Then the used plastic sachets were soaked in a glass of water, after which accused-appellant Pangan was forced to drink the water. Accused-appellant Pangan was forced to urinate in a bottle. He was told that the urine would be brought to the SOCO. Subsequently, he was brought to the SOCO.
Defense witness Rolando Cleofas (Cleofas) claims to be a nephew of accused-appellant Pangan. His testimony corroborated accused-appellant Pangan's version of the story but only up to the point where the latter was allegedly forcibly taken by the police from their residence. Cleofas added that his older brother, Jon Serban Pat, was also taken with his uncle.
The Regional Trial Court Decision
In a Decision dated July 27, 2011, the RTC found accused-appellant Pangan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of both offenses. The dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, the court finds the accused Hilario Pangan y Ocampo guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the offenses charged and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the following: (1) in Crim. Case No. 858-V-07, the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Php500,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; and (2) Crim. Case No. 859-V-07, the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months as maximum and to pay a fine of Php300,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
The period of detention of the accused should be given full credit.
The Acting Branch Clerk of Court is directed to transmit to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), the shabu subject matter of these cases for said agency's appropriate disposition.
The City Jail Warden of Valenzuela City is hereby directed to commit accused Hilario Pangan y Ocampo @ Diko at the New Bilibid Prison, Bureau of Corrections in Muntinlupa City immediately upon receipt of this decision. 6 cAaDHT
The Court of Appeals Decision
Accused-appellant Pangan appealed the above decision. On September 25, 2013, the Court of Appeals promulgated its Decision affirming the RTC's disposition of the cases, viz.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The assailed Decision of the RTC dated 27 July 2011 is hereby AFFIRMED. 7
Undaunted, accused-appellant Pangan filed a Notice of Appeal dated October 21, 2013.
Accused-appellant Pangan raises the following errors before this Court:
1) The trial court gravely erred in not giving weight and credence to accused-appellant's defense; and
2) The trial court gravely erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty of the crime charged notwithstanding the prosecution's failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 8
Accused-appellant Pangan also takes issue at the alleged failure of the prosecution to comply with the provision of the law on the custody of the seized contraband, i.e., Paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.
On the other hand, the appellee People of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, argued that: (1) the prosecution proved accused-appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the offense of illegal sale of shabu, (2) all the elements of illegal possession of shabu are present in this case, (3) the trial court correctly gave credence to the testimony of the prosecution witness PO1 Arañas; and (4) the prosecution was able to prove that the integrity of the seized drugs was preserved.
The Court's Ruling
The appeal lacks merit.
To prosecute the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs, there must be a concurrence of the following elements: (1) the identities of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof. 9 Therefore, to successfully convict an accused for said crime, it is imperative for the prosecution to prove that the transaction or sale actually occurred, coupled with the presentation in court of the substance seized as evidence. 10
In this case, the combined testimonial, documentary, and object evidence of the prosecution generated a detailed account of the buy-bust operation conducted and proved all the essential elements of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drug. The prosecution was able to clearly establish that a buy-bust operation took place on August 27, 2007 between the agent of the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs-Special Operating Unit, Valenzuela City Police Station, namely, PO1 Harvy B. Arañas as the buyer and accused-appellant Pangan as the seller. Being the poseur-buyer, PO1 Arañas categorically identified accused-appellant Pangan as the seller of shabu. PO1 Arañas saw him receive the buy-bust money from the child and was in the act of handing over a sachet of shabu had he not been intercepted and arrested. The object of the sale was a heat-sealed plastic sachet containing shabu, the consideration for which was Three Hundred Pesos (P300.00). The seized items from accused-appellant Pangan were identified during trial.
As to unauthorized possession of prohibited drugs, People v. Bio11 instructs that it is necessary to prove that: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. HCaDIS
In this case, after PO1 Arañas arrested accused-appellant Pangan, he immediately conducted a body search on him and discovered in the latter's right pants pocket another sachet containing white crystalline substance that later tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride. Accused-appellant Pangan failed to produce any evidence showing that he was legally authorized to possess the same. Moreover, his possession of dangerous drugs constituted prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi in the absence of a satisfactory explanation of such possession. 12 Clearly, all the elements of the offense of unauthorized possession of prohibited drugs are present in this case.
Accused-appellant Pangan makes an issue out of the fact that PO1 Arañas marked the sachets at the barangay hall and not at the place of confiscation, in violation of Paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.
The Court finds, however, that the arresting team had substantially complied with the rule on the chain of custody of the dangerous drugs as provided under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. In dangerous drugs cases, the failure of the police officers to make a physical inventory and to photograph the sachets of shabu, as well as to mark the sachets at the place of arrest, do not render the seized drugs inadmissible in evidence or automatically impair the integrity of the chain of custody of the said drugs. 13 What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as these would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. 14 Substantial compliance is allowed as provided for in Section 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165, to wit:
(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 the 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.
In this case, accused-appellant Pangan did not present any evidence to show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items had been compromised at some point. On the contrary, the body of evidence adduced by the prosecution supports the conclusion that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved and safeguarded through an unbroken chain of custody as traced by the Court of Appeals, to wit:
a) the subject illegal drugs were recovered from accused-appellant after he was apprehended by the police operatives;
b) upon PO1 Arañas's seizure of the subject drugs from appellant, the same remained in the former's possession;
c) PO1 Arañas and his back-up PO1 Lim brought appellant, the child and the confiscated items to the Barangay Hall where the seized items were marked and inventoried;
d) PO1 Arañas marked the retrieved sachets of shabu with the initials [HPO-1] and [HPO-2], respectively;
e) the inventory was signed by Barangay Tanod Rolando De Leon and Kagawad Isaac C. Dizon; AHCETa
f) PO1 Arañas and PO1 Lim proceeded to the police station to prepare their requests for laboratory examination of the recovered items and drug test of appellant;
g) PO1 Arañas and PO1 Lim brought their laboratory requests, the marked evidence and appellant to the Northern Police District Crime Laboratory Office, Caloocan City Police Stations (NPDO-CLO); and
h) upon receipt of the subject requests, NPDO-CLO examined the subject specimen and found the same to be positive for shabu. 15
From the foregoing enumeration, it is clear that the failure of the buy-bust team to take pictures of the seized drugs immediately upon seizure and at the site of accused-appellant Pangan's apprehension is not fatal and did not render the seized drug inadmissible in evidence given that the prosecution was able to sufficiently trace and establish each and every link in the chain of custody of the seized drug. Hence, the identity and integrity of the said drugs had been duly preserved.
The defenses of denial and frame-up have been invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor for it can easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in prosecutions for violation of Republic Act No. 9165. In order to prosper, accused-appellant Pangan's defenses of denial and frame-up must be proved with strong and convincing evidence 16 without which, such accusations cannot prevail over the prosecution witness' positive testimony, coupled with the presentation in court by the prosecution of the corpus delicti, including the Certification of Drug Inventory Report executed at the Barangay Hall by PO1 Arañas and witnessed by Barangay Tanod Rolando De Leon.
Furthermore, prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation. In cases involving violations of Republic Act No. 9165, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary. Here, there was none. In fact, while the defense denied having violated Republic Act No. 9165, it offered no evidence that the arresting officers had been improperly or maliciously motivated in effecting the arrest of accused-appellant Pangan. Absent any indication that PO1 Arañas was ill motivated in testifying against accused-appellant Pangan, his testimony deserves full credence. 17 This being so, the categorical and positive identification of accused-appellant Pangan prevails over his bare denial and assertion of frame-up.
In view of the foregoing, this Court is satisfied that neither the RTC nor the Court of Appeals erred in finding accused-appellant Pangan guilty as charged. The prosecution sufficiently proved beyond reasonable doubt accused-appellant Pangan's guilt of unauthorized sale and possession of prohibited drugs.
The penalty for illegal sale of shabu, regardless of the quantity and purity involved, under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, shall be life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00). In this case, the RTC, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, properly imposed upon accused-appellant Pangan the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).
On the other hand, the penalty for illegal possession of shabu under Section 11, Paragraph 2, Subparagraph 3 of Republic Act No. 9165 states that the penalty of imprisonment of twelve years (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) to Four Hundred Thousand Pesos (P400,000.00) shall be imposed. Here, the RTC, as upheld by the Court of Appeals, correctly sentenced accused-appellant Pangan the penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months as maximum of imprisonment, plus a fine in the amount of P300,000.00.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the September 25, 2013 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 05144, which affirmed the July 27, 2011 Joint Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Valenzuela City, Branch 172, in Criminal Case Nos. 858-V-07 and 859-V-07, is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED." ScHADI
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 2-12; penned by Associate Justice Socorro B. Inting with Associate Justices Jose C. Reyes, Jr. and Mario V. Lopez concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 31-36; penned by Hon. Nancy Rivas-Palmones.
3. Id. at 12-13.
4. Records (Criminal Case No. 858-V-07), p. 85.
5. CA rollo, pp. 32-33.
6. Id. at 36.
7. Rollo, p. 11.
8. CA rollo, p. 59. Both parties manifested that they will no longer file supplemental briefs in the present case and that they are adopting their respective briefs filed before the Court of Appeals (rollo, pp. 19, 24).
9. People v. Gani, G.R. No. 198318, November 27, 2013, 711 SCRA 78, 90.
10. People v. Castro, 667 Phil. 526, 541 (2011).
11. G.R. No. 195850, February 16, 2015, 750 SCRA 572, 578.
12. Id.
13. Imson v. People, 669 Phil. 262, 269-270 (2011).
14. People v. Resurreccion, 618 Phil. 520, 530 (2009).
15. Rollo, pp. 9-10.
16. People v. Lazaro, Jr., 619 Phil. 235, 254 (2009).
17. People v. Vicente, Jr., 656 Phil. 189, 201 (2011).