SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 208721. September 14, 2016.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RAMELITO REYES y LATADE @ "MANONG", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated14 September 2016 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 208721 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RAMELITO REYES y LATADE @ "MANONG"). — We resolve the appeal of accused-appellant Ramelito Reyes (Reyes) of the June 7, 2013 decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR H.C. No. 05505. The CA affirmed the February 19, 2012 decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 4, Batangas City, finding Reyes guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Article II, Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165 (for illegal sale of dangerous drugs).
The Case
On August 18, 2008, at around 9:00 P.M., a confidential asset informed the Batangas City Police Station that Reyes was selling marijuana at the public market in Barangay Cuta, Batangas City. 3 Acting on this information, PO3 Lindbergh Yap IV, PO3 Eric De Chavez (De Chavez), and PO2 Christian Boy Aranza (Aranza) immediately planned an entrapment operation.
After preparing the necessary coordination documents and the buy-bust money, the buy-bust team, along with the asset, went to the public market where Reyes could be found. Upon reaching their destination, the asset was given the marked money before he alighted from the van. The rest of the team, on board a van, parked right across the target place.
Shortly, Reyes approached the asset and talked to him. The asset, in turn, handed the marked money, while Reyes gave him three (3) plastic sachets of marijuana. The asset then raised his hand, signifying that the sale was consummated. 4
Thereafter, the police officers quickly got off the vehicle and apprehended Reyes. PO3 Aranza immediately marked the three sachets of marijuana with "CGA1," "CGA2," and "CGA3 08-18-08," respectively, at the crime scene. The buy-bust team then brought Reyes to the barangay hall where PO3 De Chavez made an inventory 5 and took photographs of Reyes pointing at the confiscated drugs in the presence of the barangay officials. IAcDET
Reyes and the seized items were then brought to the police station. PO3 De Chavez conducted another inventory 6 before the seized drugs were shown to a DOJ representative. Finally, PO3 De Chavez turned over the seized drugs to the Batangas Provincial Crime Laboratory Office for laboratory examination. Chemistry Report No. BD-145-08 shows that the three (3) plastic sachets recovered from Reyes contained 41.53 grams of marijuana. 7
Reyes denied the prosecution's version and alleged that he was about to fetch his live-in partner, Cecilia Maigting (Maigting) that night, when a blue van stopped in front of him and forcibly abducted him.
To corroborate his testimony, Reyes presented Maigting. She claimed that at around 12:00 P.M., Reyes sent her a text message saying that he would fetch her after work. At around 5:30 P.M., Reyes sent another text message informing Maigting that he was leaving Lipa City for Batangas City. Maigting waited for him until 8:00 P.M., but he never came. The following day, she found out that Reyes had been arrested and was being detained at the Batangas City Police Station for illegal sale of marijuana. 8
In its February 19, 2012 decision, the RTC found Reyes guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of marijuana. Relying on the buy-bust team members' testimony and documentary evidence, the RTC held that all the elements of illegal sale of marijuana were proven. It ruled that the seller's identity need not be established because Reyes was caught in flagrante delicto. The trial court found that there was an unbroken chain of custody of the illegal drugs as there was substantial compliance with the procedure laid down by law, notwithstanding the absence of a DOJ representative and media representative during the first inventory at the barangay hall. Finally, the RTC rejected Reyes' defense of denial as, apart from being inherently weak, it was self-serving. Accordingly, Reyes was sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and was ordered to pay a fine of P500,000.00.
On appeal, the CA affirmed Reyes' conviction. It held that the police officers positively identified Reyes as the seller, and that the chain of custody remained secure and unbroken all throughout. It also rejected Reyes's denial as it was not supported by any evidence.
Our Ruling
We dismiss the appeal for lack of merit.
In People v. Partoza, 9 we held that the prosecution must prove the following elements to establish illegal sale of dangerous drugs: (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object and its consideration, and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. 10 Likewise, in People v. Doria, 11 we said that the sale must clearly and adequately show the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the seller, the offer to purchase, the payment of consideration, and the delivery of the illegal drug. 12
A careful consideration of the facts shows that the prosecution has proven all the elements of the crime charged.
First, the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and its consideration were properly established. The buy-bust team identified Reyes during the transaction. In fact, he was caught in the act of selling to the confidential asset.
The non-presentation of the poseur-buyer before the RTC is not fatal when there is enough evidence to prove the sale. It is settled that if fewer witnesses can adequately prove a fact relied upon, the non-presentation of additional witnesses cannot be held against a party. 13 In the present case, the prosecution presented the police officers who actually witnessed the sale during the trial. Since the arrest was made in flagrante delicto, it is not necessary for the poseur-buyer to be presented in open court as witness for identification. TSHEIc
Further, Reyes's reliance in People v. Ong14 is misplaced. In that case, we ruled that the police officers' lack of personal knowledge of the offer, acceptance, and consideration of the sale rendered their testimony as hearsay evidence. The police officers only acquired the information from the civilian informant who made the initial contact to the drug seller without police participation. The informant also accepted the offer of sale from the accused, essentially consummating the sale transaction. The participation of the police officers, therefore, were not crucial in that case. They did not even know the details of the exchange between the informant and the accused.
In contrast, the police officers in this case personally knew about the sale. The police officers actually saw the transaction happen as they were parked right across the street. They were likewise the same officers that were informed by the asset at the police station about Reyes's illegal activities.
Second, the evidence for the prosecution shows there was an actual exchange of drugs and marked money between Reyes and the asset. Upon arrival at the public market, the police asset alighted from the van and met with Reyes. After exchanging pleasantries, Reyes got the subject drugs from the table and handed them to the asset who, in turn, gave the buy-bust money.
It is well-settled that the sale of prohibited drugs is consummated upon its delivery to the buyer. 15 Hence, the sale was consummated the moment Reyes gave the sachets to the asset.
Finally, the prosecution established the corpus delicti by establishing that the identity and integrity of the seized drugs had been preserved.
While, as a rule, Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 should be strictly complied with, we have allowed deviation from the prescribed procedure provided that the integrity and the evidentiary value of drugs itself is preserved. 16 We have ruled that the law does not envision exact and scientific compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. We only require, at least, that the identity of the drugs seized be proven with moral certainty, and that the chain of custody remain unbroken. 17 Procedural infractions does not necessarily mean that the identity of the seized drugs has been compromised. 18
The records clearly show an unbroken chain of custody from the time the sachets of marijuana were confiscated until they were presented in court. Reyes sold the three (3) sachets of marijuana to the asset. During the arrest, the subject items were then turned over to PO3 Aranza who marked them at the crime scene. PO3 Aranza, after placing the markings, gave the confiscated items to PO3 De Chavez. Upon arriving at the barangay hall, PO3 De Chavez conducted an inventory of the items in the presence of Reyes and the barangay officials. Thereafter, they went to the police station where PO3 De Chavez conducted another inventory before presenting the drugs to the DOJ representative. PO3 De Chavez then submitted the drugs for laboratory examination to the Batangas Provincial Crime Laboratory. The drugs were finally presented in court and identified by all the police officers based on the markings they had made. aSIHcT
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we DISMISS the appeal and AFFIRM in toto the June 7, 2013 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR H.C. No. 05505.
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. 2-10; CA rollo, pp. 78-87; penned by Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid, concurred in by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison and Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon.
2. CA rollo, pp. 32-39; penned by Presiding Judge Albert A. Kalalo.
3. TSN, August 25, 2009, p. 14.
4. Id. at 8-13.
5. Records, p. 108.
6. Id. at 105.
7. Id. at 102.
8. TSN, March 3, 2011, pp. 4-12.
9. G.R. No. 182418, May 8, 2009, 587 SCRA 809-810.
10. Id. at 816.
11. G.R. No. 125299, January 22, 1999, 301 SCRA 668.
12. Id. at 698.
13. People v. Simbulan, G.R. No. 100754, October 13, 1992, 214 SCRA 537, 546.
14. G.R. No. 137348, June 21, 2004, 432 SCRA 470.
15. See People v. Unisa, G.R. No. 185721, September 28, 2011, 658 SCRA 305.
16. See People v. Bautista, G.R. No. 177320, February 22, 2012, 666 SCRA 518-521.
17. People v. Pringas, G.R. No. 175928, August 31, 2007, 531 SCRA 828, 842-843; People v. Cortez, G.R. No. 183819, July 23, 2009, 593 SCRA 743, 764.
18. People v. Denoman, G.R. No. 171732, August 14, 2009, 596 SCRA 257, 270, citing People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 175832, October 15, 2008, 569 SCRA 194, 212.