SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 225631. September 27, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.DIVINO PELAEZ y EMILIO A.K.A "JOE", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated27 September 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 225631 (People of the Philippines v. Divino Pelaez y Emilio a.k.a "Joe"). — Accused-Appellant Divino Pelaez y Emilio a.k.a. "Joe" (Pelaez) assails the March 31, 2016 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01754 which affirmed with modification the October 1, 2013 Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 69 of Silay City, Negros Occidental, convicting Pelaez of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of marijuana in violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 or the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
The Antecedents:
On October 7, 2011, two (2) Informations were filed against Pelaez charging him with Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165, viz.:
Criminal Case No. 8373-69 (Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs):
That on September 30, 2011 in Silay City, Negros Occidental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this honorable court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously sell two (2) marijuana cigarettes, a prohibited drug to an asset of the Silay City PNP posing as a poseur buyer in exchange for four (4) marked twenty pesos (Php20.00) bills with serial numbers JK521975, JR820424, HT020129, and XL279849.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 3
Criminal Case No. 8372-69 (Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs):
That on September 30, 2011 in Silay City, Negros Occidental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this honorable court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and control 22 rolled sticks of marijuana cigarettes with a total weight of 3 grams, a prohibited drug without any license or (sic) possess the same.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
During his arraignment, Pelaez entered the plea of not guilty for the two offenses charged. 5 The joint pre-trial and trial of the cases ensued. 6
The prosecution presented the following witnesses: (1) Police Chief Inspector Engr. Paul Jerome Puentespina (P/Ch. Insp. Puentespina), (2) Police Officer (PO) 2 Christopher Panes, (3) PO2 Ian Libo-on (PO2 Libo-on), (4) PO2 Reynaldo Bernil, Jr. (PO2 Bernil), (5) Crisostomo Dilag, (6) PO2 Ariel Magbanua (PO2 Magbanua), and (7) Ireneo Celis, Jr. On the other hand, the defense presented Pelaez, John Abellar (Abellar) and Ian Espino (Espino). 7 AHCETa
Version of the Prosecution:
In September 2011, the Philippine National Police (PNP)-Silay City Police Station (PNP Silay City) received reports from concerned citizens that Pelaez was peddling marijuana near a waiting shed located in Sitio Estaca, Barangay Lantad, Silay City, approximately 50 meters away from an elementary school. To confirm the reports, the PNP Silay City conducted a surveillance and test-buy operations through a confidential agent. 8
Thereafter, the PNP Silay City organized a buy-bust operation. On September 29, 2011, the pre-operation report and the coordination form were transmitted to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). The confidential agent was designated as the poseur buyer, while the back-up team included PO3 Rayjay Rebadomia, PO2 Bernil and PO2 Libo-on. Four P20 bills with underscoring on the last digit of their serial numbers were prepared as marked money. 9
In the afternoon of September 30, 2011, the confidential agent proceeded to the waiting shed in Sitio Estaca. The back-up team followed and positioned themselves strategically. They waited for about an hour until they spotted Pelaez approaching the waiting shed. The confidential agent acknowledged Pelaez and met him halfway. The illegal sale transaction, particularly Pelaez's act of handing something to their confidential agent, then the latter's act of giving the marked money to Pelaez were witnessed by the back-up police officers. After the transaction, the confidential agent immediately surrendered the two sticks of suspected marijuana to PO2 Libo-on. 10
Forthwith, PO2 Bernil followed and arrested Pelaez. Subsequently, 22 more sticks of suspected marijuana were found in Pelaez's possession during the search incidental to his arrest. PO2 Bernil handed these over to PO2 Libo-on after the latter marked the previous two sticks subject of the illegal sale. Similarly, PO2 Libo-on marked the additional sticks with "JOE-3" to "JOE-24." Thereafter, Pelaez was brought to Silay City Police Station where the photograph taking and the inventory of seized items in the presence of a barangay official, a councilor, and representatives from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), transpired. 11
P/Ch. Insp. Puentespina testified that their office, Negros Occidental Provincial Crime Laboratory Office in Bacolod City, received a request for a chemical examination of a total of 24 sticks of suspected marijuana. On October 1, 2011, the said examination yielded positive results for marijuana per Chemistry Report No. D-182-2011. 12
Version of the Defense:
As corroborated by Abellar 13 and Espino, 14 Pelaez testified that on September 30, 2011, he proceeded to a furniture shop after selling fish in the market. Suddenly, five individuals entered the shop and asked whether he was "Joe." When he answered in the affirmative, these individuals immediately arrested him and conducted a search of his person. Pelaez alleged that the police officers found no marijuana in his possession. However, two sticks were found on the floor near him. Moreover, when he arrived at the police station, he was brought directly inside a room where he saw sticks of marijuana on top of a table allegedly confiscated from him. He maintained that he was not in possession of the marijuana sticks. 15
Ruling of the RTC:
In its Decision 16 dated October 1, 2013, the trial court convicted Pelaez of the offenses charged. It gave credence to the testimonies of PO2 Libo-on and PO2 Bernil that they witnessed the illegal transaction between Pelaez and their confidential agent, and recovered 22 more sticks during the incidental search. 17 The trial court noted that Pelaez failed to impute ill or improper motive on the part of police officers in ascribing such offenses against him. Pelaez's defenses of alibi and frame up were likewise disregarded as he failed to prove that it was impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime or to overcome the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties on the part of police officers. 18
The fallo of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED:
In Criminal Case No. 8372[3]-69, this Court finds accused DIVINO PELAEZ Y EMILIO, A.K.A. "JOE," GUILTY of "Violation of Section 5 of Article II of Republic Act No. 9165" (The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), as the Prosecution had proven his guilt beyond any reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, this Court sentences accused, Divina Pelaez y Emilio, a.k.a. "Joe," to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment, the same to be served by him at the National Penitentiary, Muntinlupa City, Rizal.
Accused is, further, ordered to pay a fine of P500,000.00.
In Criminal Case No. 8373[2]-69, this Court finds accused, DIVINO PELAEZ Y EMILIO, A.K.A. "JOE," GUILTY of "Violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165" (The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), as his guilt had been proven by the prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt. ScHADI
Accordingly, and in application of the pertinent provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, this Court sentences accused, Divino Pelaez y Emilio, a.k.a. "Joe," to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for a period of from (sic) TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY as Minimum, to SEVENTEEN (17) Years and FOUR (4) Months as Maximum, the same to be served by him at the National Penitentiary, Muntinlupa City, Rizal.
Accused named (sic) is, further, ordered to pay a fine of P400,000.00.
xxx xxx xxx
SO ORDERED. 19
Ruling of the CA:
On appeal, Pelaez argued in his Brief for the Accused-Appellant 20 that only the confidential agent acting as the poseur-buyer had clear and definite knowledge of the illegal sale transaction, from the offer to the payment and delivery of the marijuana. Following this, he contended that the testimony of the confidential agent was significant in the prosecution of the case against him. 21 With regard to the other 22 sticks of marijuana, Pelaez averred that since the illegal sale was unsubstantiated due to the prosecution's failure to present the confidential agent, the recovery of these could not have been validated because the search made was illegal. 22
In its Decision 23 dated March 31, 2016, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment of conviction for Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs against Pelaez. It clarified that the non-presentation of the poseur-buyer would only be fatal to the cause of the prosecution when there were no other witnesses to the transaction, which is not obtaining in this case since PO2 Bernil and PO2 Libo-on testified that they saw the illegal transaction transpire between Pelaez and their confidential agent. 24 Furthermore, it found that the search was incidental to a lawful warrantless arrest through the buy-bust operation. The appellate court, however, modified the penalty to be imposed against Pelaez.
The dispositive portion of the appellate court's Decision reads:
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Court hereby AFFIRMS with MODIFICATION the assailed Decision dated October 1, 2013, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 69, Silay City.
In Criminal Case No. 8373[2]-69, for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, accused-appellant DIVINO PELAEZ y EMILIO is found GUILTY of the crime of illegal possession of three (3) grams of marijuana, and is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty 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 Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php300,000.00).
In Criminal Case No. 8372[3]-69, for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, accused-appellant DIVINO PELAEZ y EMILIO is found GUILTY of the crime charged and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php500,000.00).
The trial court's disposition of the subject two (2) marijuana cigarettes and twenty-two (22) rolled sticks of marijuana subject of the two (2) cases, is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 25
Issue:
In this appeal, both parties manifested that they will adopt the arguments raised in their respective briefs. 26 Hence, the sole assignment of error —
THAT THE COURT A QOU(sic) ERRED IN CONVICTING DIVINO PELAEZ DESPITE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. 27
Our Ruling
The appeal lacks merit.
It is a hornbook doctrine in criminal cases that an appeal opens the entire case for review. The Court declared in People v. Estonilo, 28viz.:
The appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and renders such court competent to examine records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law. 29
After a careful perusal of the records, We find Pelaez supplication to be acquitted for Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs as unwarranted.
In order to secure a conviction for the said offenses, the following two-fold requirement shall be observed. First, the prosecution has the burden of proving every element of the offense charged beyond reasonable doubt. Second, the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti, which are the seized dangerous drugs, shall be preserved from the time of confiscation until presentation in court as evidence.
For Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the elements are the following: (1) identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and its consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. On the other hand, the offense of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11 of the same law has the following elements: (1) the accused was in possession of dangerous drugs; (2) such possession was not authorized by law; and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of such dangerous drugs. 30
Indisputably, the illegal transaction was consummated. Pelaez's postulation that the non-presentation of the confidential agent who acted as poseur-buyer during the trial was fatal to the prosecution's cause, does not persuade. As correctly resolved by the CA, this only applies when no other people witnessed the crime. People v. Magalong31 expounded, to wit: aICcHA
Contrary to the position of Magalong, the confidential informant need not be presented in order to successfully hold him criminally liable. Confidential informants are usually not presented in court because of the need to hide their identity and preserve their invaluable service to the police. Where the sale was actually witnessed and adequately proved by prosecution witnesses, like in this case, the non-presentation of the confidential informant is not fatal since the latter's testimony will merely be corroborative of the apprehending officers' eyewitness testimonies. Presentation of confidential informant is necessary, if not indispensable, when the accused vehemently denies selling prohibited drugs and there are material inconsistencies in the testimonies of the arresting officers, or there are reasons to believe that the arresting officers had motives to testify falsely against the accused, or when the informant was the poseur-buyer and the only one who actually witnessed the entire transaction. These exceptional circumstances are not present here. 32 [Citations Omitted]
The exceptions mentioned in the above-cited case are likewise not availing in this case. First, PO2 Libo-on's and PO2 Bernil's testimonies corroborated each other. Second, Pelaez failed to prove any ill motive on the part of the police officers in imputing such offenses against him. Hence, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties remains intact. Lastly, while the confidential agent was the poseur buyer himself, PO2 Libo-on categorically declared that he saw the exchanges between Pelaez and their confidential agent — that Pelaez handed the two sticks of marijuana to the latter upon payment therefor. Clearly, the presentation of the confidential agent as a witness was properly dispensed with since the accounts of PO2 Libo-on and PO2 Bernil sufficiently established the elements of the illegal sale transaction.
Considering the consummation of the illegal sale transaction, the police officers perforce validly searched the person of Pelaez incidental to his arrest, which yielded 22 more sticks of marijuana. While consciously having possession of said dangerous drugs and without authority to do so, Pelaez was properly indicted for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, which the prosecution had successfully established during trial.
In fine, the prosecution satisfactorily proved all the elements of said offenses.
In addition to proving all the elements of the offenses, the prosecution is likewise tasked to satisfactorily establish that the chain of custody of the seized illegal drugs remained unbroken. The prosecution must therefore prove that each of the following links have been duly observed: 33first, the seizure and marking 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 illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court. 34
Records show that the prosecution properly complied with the chain of custody rule. Prior to its amendment by RA 10640 35 on July 15, 2014, Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 requires three witnesses, namely: (a) a media representative, (b) a representative from the DOJ, and (c) any elected public official, to be present during the inventory and photograph taking, and to sign the copies of the inventory report. To stress, the rule only requires the presence of the insulating witnesses during the conduct of inventory and photograph taking and the same may be performed at the place of seizure, at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending team.
In this case, there is no dispute that the following were present during the conduct of the inventory and taking of photograph at the Silay City Police Station: accused-appellant himself, a barangay official, a councilor, and representatives from the media and the DOJ. 36 The three witnesses also signed the Certificate of Inventory. 37
Anent the four links in the chain of custody, the same were sufficiently established by the prosecution. As may be gleaned from the documentary evidence proffered, such as the Certificate of Inventory, 38 Chain of Custody Form, 39 and the photographs 40 taken during the inventory at the Silay Police Station, the police officers diligently documented the transfer of seized items from the time they were confiscated until the same were submitted for laboratory examination then presented to the court as evidence.
On the first link, apprehending police officer PO2 Libo-on seized and marked the two sticks of marijuana subject of the sale as "JOE-1" and "JOE-2" 41 while the 22 sticks of marijuana recovered during the incidental search were marked as "JOE-3" to "JOE-24" accordingly. 42 As to the second link, PO2 Libo-on and PO2 Bernil brought the seized items to the PNP Crime Laboratory at Bacolod City. Police Superintendent Rosauro B. Francisco, Jr. accomplished a request form for the laboratory examination of the seized items, which was received by PO2 Magbanua. The third link was likewise secured since the seized items were turned over to P/Ch. Insp. Puentespina, the Forensic Chemical Officer of the PNP Crime Laboratory, for laboratory examination. 43 Finally, the fourth link was established when the said seized items were turned over and submitted to the court as evidence of the corpus delicti. 44
People v. Villalon, Jr.45 expounded on the significance of the forensic chemist's testimony or the stipulation of the parties anent the handling, examination and analysis of the dangerous drugs in order to establish the fourth link. Relevant details include the description and identifying labels of the specimen, the time and key person from whom the dangerous drug was received, the method of examination to determine the components of the specimen, 46 and similar matters that would point to the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized dangerous drugs.
In the instant case, P/Ch. Insp. Puentespina testified that PO2 Magbanua turned over 24 specimens consisting of two large rolled sticks and 22 rolled sticks of suspected marijuana, when the former was on duty on October 1, 2011. 47 He immediately examined said specimens by doing qualitative examination through physical, chemical, and confirmatory tests. He further described how the tests were conducted, resulting to his conclusion that the seized items were positive for marijuana 48 as reflected in Chemistry Report No. D-182-2011. 49 Hence, this testimony highlighting the turnover and description of the specimens, the methodology of examination and identification of pertinent documents, among others, proved the fourth and last link. EHaASD
In fine, having established every link of the chain of custody, We hold that the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti were never compromised. Considering that the prosecution had complied with the two-fold requirement in order to secure a conviction in drugs cases, the CA properly affirmed the RTC's finding of conviction for Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs as committed by Pelaez.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The March 31, 2016 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01754 is AFFIRMED in full.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 5-17. Penned by Associate Justice Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and concurred in by Associate Justice Pablito A. Perez and Gabriel T. Robeniol.
2. CA rollo, pp. 45-57. Penned by Presiding Judge Felipe G. Banzon.
3. Records (Criminal Case No. 8373-69), p. 1.
4.Id.
5. CA rollo, p. 46.
6.Id.
7.Id. at 46-47.
8. TSN, April 30, 2012, pp. 3-25.
9. Records (Criminal Case No. 8373-69), p. 16.
10. TSN, April 30, 2012, pp. 3-25.
11.Id. at 3-25.
12. TSN, February 20, 2012, pp. 3-13.
13. TSN, November 19, 2012, pp. 3-11.
14. TSN, May 23, 2013, pp. 3-9.
15.Rollo, p. 9. See also CA rollo, pp. 35-36.
16. CA rollo, pp. 45-57.
17.Id. at 52 and 54.
18.Id. at 53-55.
19.Id. at 56-57.
20.Id. at 29-44.
21.Id. at 38-41.
22.Id. at 40-42.
23.Rollo, pp. 5-17.
24.Id. at 13.
25. CA rollo, pp. 16-17.
26.Rollo, pp. 33-35 and 44-46.
27. CA rollo, p. 29.
28. G.R. No. 248694, October 14, 2020.
29. G.R. No. 248694, October 14, 2020, citing People v. Bagamano, 793 Phil. 602, 607 (2016).
30.People v. Buesa, G.R. No. 237850, September 16, 2020.
31. G.R. No. 231838, March 4, 2019.
32.People v. Magalong, G.R. No. 231838, March 4, 2019.
33.People v. Claudel, G.R. No. 219852, April 3, 2019, citing People v. Manansala, 826 Phil. 578, 586 (2018).
34.People v. Miranda, G.R. No. 218126, July 10, 2019, citing People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 231 (2015).
35. Entitled "An act to further strengthen the anti-drug campaign of the government, amending for the purpose Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
36. Records (Criminal Case No. 8373-69), pp. 3-25.
37.Id. at 12.
38.Id.
39.Id. at 13.
40.Id. at 17.
41. CA rollo, p. 52.
42.Id. at 54.
43.Id. at 55.
44.Id. at 52.
45. G.R. No. 249412, March 15, 2021, citing People v. Omamos, G.R. No. 223036, July 10, 2019.
46.Id.
47. TSN, February 20, 2012, pp. 5-7.
48.Id. at 7-10.
49. Records (Criminal Case No. 8373-69), p. 15.