People v. Punzalan y Mendoza

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 188564. August 16, 2017.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARICEL PUNZALAN y MENDOZA, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated August 16, 2017, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 188564 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARICEL PUNZALAN y MENDOZA, Accused-Appellant.) — The accused appeals the decision promulgated on March 31, 2009 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03141, 1 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the judgment of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 31, in San Pedro, Laguna 2 finding her guilty of violating Section 5 and Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). 3

Two informations separately charging the accused with illegal sale of dangerous drugs in violation of Section 5 and illegal possession of dangerous drugs in violation of Section 11, both of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, were filed in the RTC. 4 The CA summarized the Prosecution's version of the antecedents, as follows:

The People's version of the incident, as summarized by the trial court in the judgment herein assailed, is as follows: HTcADC

That around 8:00 in the evening of 4 July 2003, PO1 Rommel Bautista, together with PO1 Oliver Corpuz, PO1 Rachel Vito, their asset and others, conducted a buy-bust operation at Ricarte Street, San Antonio, San Pedro, Laguna, where the house of accused Maricel Punzalan (Maricel), the subject of the buy bust operation was located. Boarded on [sic] a van, they proceeded to the said place. Upon reaching Ricarte Street, PO1 Rommel Bautista together with their asset proceeded at the house of Maricel. Maricel came out of the house after having been called by their asset twice. Maricel handed one small plastic sachet to PO1 Rommel Bautista who acted as the poseur buyer, in exchange of the P100.00 bill marked money. After Maricel handed the stuff, PO1 Rommel Baustista held the hand of Maricel and introduced himself as a police officer. PO1 Rommel Bautista was able to recover another small plastic from Maricel when she emptied her pockets. Maricel was then arrested and brought to the San Pedro Police Station together with the recovered stuff. The recovered items were marked as "MMP-S" for the stuff product of the buy bust operation and "MMP-P" for the recovered stuff from the pocket of Maricel. 5

On her part, the accused cried frame-up. She asserted that she was taking a bath inside the bathroom of her house when the police officers just came barging in, 6 and ordered her to come out of the bathroom; that as soon as she opened the bathroom door, the policemen pulled her out; that the officers went inside the bathroom and searched her wet clothing; 7 that one of them then presented to her a plastic sachet and a P100.00 bill saying that said items were hers; 8 that she denied owning the plastic sachet and the P100.00; 9 that she explained that it was physically impossible for her to keep the objects if she was only in her underwear; 10 and that the police officers, ignoring her denial, brought her with them to the San Pedro Municipal Jail and detained her there. 11

On October 9, 2007, the RTC rendered judgment, disposing:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in Criminal Case No. 3950-SPL, finding MaricelPunzalanyMendozaGUILTY of the crime of Violation of Section 5 of R.A. 9165 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and sentencing her to suffer the penalty of LIFEIMPRISONMENT and to pay fine of P500,000.00.

In Criminal Case No. 3951-SPL, judgment is hereby rendered, finding MaricelPunzalanyMendozaGUILTY of the crime of Violation of Section 11 of R.A. 9165, sentencing her to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of TWELVE (12) YEARSANDONE(1)DAYTO FIFTEEN (15) YEARS and to pay a fine of P300,000.00.

The period of her preventive imprisonment will be credited in full in her favor.

The prohibited drug and paraphernalia seized from the accused are hereby confiscated in favor of the government and should be turned over to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for disposition in accordance with law.

SOORDERED.12

The accused appealed, but the CA promulgated the assailed decision on March 31, 2009 affirming her convictions. 13

Hence, this appeal.

The People, through the Office of the Solicitor General, and the accused adopted their respective briefs filed in the CA, and respectively manifested that they would no longer file supplemental briefs. 14

In the appellant's brief submitted to the CA, the accused contended that the RTC wrongfully based her convictions on the inconsistent and incredible testimony of the poseur-buyer, PO1 Rommel Bautista; 15 that PO1 Bautista's testimony cast doubt on the identity of the dangerous drugs seized from her because PO1 Bautista was not able to thereby properly describe the same; 16 that the Prosecution also failed to present as evidence the marked money used to purchase the shabu; 17 and that the evidence presented by the Prosecution was inadmissible because the buy-bust operation that led to her arrest was not authorized by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency. 18

Ruling of the Court

The appeal lacks merit.

We have no reason to depart from the factual findings of the CA. We have repeatedly held that the trial court's factual findings, especially when affirmed by the CA, are generally binding and conclusive upon the Court unless such findings were tainted by palpable error, capriciousness and arbitrariness. 19 We find no error, capriciousness and arbitrariness in the CA's evaluation of the records of this case. Indeed, the CA explained the legal bases for upholding the RTC's factual fndings. 20

The non-presentation of the marked money as evidence did not negate the factual findings against the accused. The CA correctly ruled that the failure to present the marked money was not indispensable in successfully prosecuting drug-related offenses. 21 For one, the non-presentation did not necessarily disprove the sale of the dangerous drugs. At best, the marked money only corroborated the guilt of the accused. 22

Moreover, the lack of coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) did not invalidate the buy-bust operation that led to the arrest of the accused. The consequences of the failure to coordinate with the PDEA were fittingly discussed in People v. Sta. Maria, 23 as follows:

Appellant would next argue that the evidence against him was obtained in violation of Sections 21 and 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 because the buy-bust operation was made without any involvement of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). Prescinding therefrom, he concludes that the prosecution's evidence, both testimonial and documentary, was inadmissible having been procured in violation of his constitutional right against illegal arrest.

The argument is specious. aScITE

Section 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 reads:

SEC. 86. Transfer, Absorption, and Integration of All Operating Units on Illegal Drugs into the PDEA and Transitory Provisions. — The Narcotics Group of the PNP, the Narcotics Division of the NBI and the Customs Narcotics Interdiction Unit are hereby abolished; however they shall continue with the performance of their task as detail service with the PDEA, subject to screening, until such time that the organizational structure of the Agency is fully operational and the number of graduates of the PDEA Academy is sufficient to do the task themselves: Provided, That such personnel who are affected shall have the option of either being integrated into the PDEA or remain with their original mother agencies and shall, thereafter, be immediately reassigned to other units therein by the head of such agencies. Such personnel who are transferred, absorbed and integrated in the PDEA shall be extended appointments to positions similar in rank, salary, and other emoluments and privileges granted to their respective positions in their original mother agencies.

The transfer, absorption and integration of the different offices and units provided for in this Section shall take effect within eighteen (18) months from the effectivity of this Act: Provided, That personnel absorbed and on detail service shall be given until five (5) years to finally decide to join the PDEA.

Nothing in this Act shall mean a diminution of the investigative powers of the NBI and the PNP on all other crimes as provided for in their respective organic laws: Provided, however, That when the investigation being conducted by the NBI, PNP or any ad hoc anti-drug task force is found to be a violation of any of the provisions of this Act, the PDEA shall be the lead agency. The NBI, PNP or any of the task force shall immediately transfer the same to the PDEA: Provided, further, That the NBI, PNP and the Bureau of Customs shall maintain close coordination with the PDEA on all drug related matters.

Cursorily read, the foregoing provision is silent as to the consequences of failure on the part of the law enforcers to transfer drug-related cases to the PDEA, in the same way that the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act No. 9165 is also silent on the matter. But by no stretch of imagination could this silence be interpreted as a legislative intent to make an arrest without the participation of PDEA illegal nor evidence obtained pursuant to such an arrest inadmissible.

It is a well-established rule of statutory construction that where great inconvenience will result from a particular construction, or great public interests would be endangered or sacrificed, or great mischief done, such construction is to be avoided, or the court ought to presume that such construction was not intended by the makers of the law, unless required by clear and unequivocal words. 24 (Emphasis supplied)

WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of Appeals promulgated on March 31, 2009 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03141; and ORDERS the accused to pay the costs of suit. HEITAD

SOORDERED."

 

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court

 

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 2-18; penned by Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr., with the concurrence of Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr. and Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizzaro.

2. CA rollo, pp. 68-73.

3.Id. at 73.

4.Id. at 11 and 12.

5.Rollo, pp. 4-5.

6.Id. at 5.

7.Id. at 6.

8.Id.

9.Id.

10.Id.

11.Id.

12.Supra note 3.

13.Supra note 1.

14.Rollo, p. 34.

15. CA rollo, pp. 56-60.

16.Id. at 61-62.

17.Id. at 62-63.

18.Id. at 64-65.

19.People v. Quiamanlon, G.R. No. 191198, January 26, 2011, 640 SCRA 697, 706.

20.Rollo, pp. 9-12.

21.Id. at 12.

22.People v. Rebotazo, G.R. No. 192913, June 13, 2013, 698 SCRA 452, 467.

23. G.R. No. 171019, February 23, 2007, 516 SCRA 621.

24.Id. at 630-631.