THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 234771. March 14, 2018.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. ERIC RIVERA y CARIASO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 14, 2018, which reads as follows: TAIaHE
"G.R. No. 234771 (People of the Philippines vs. Eric Rivera y Cariaso). — The Court NOTES:
(1) the letter dated February 9, 2018 of PCSupt. Melvin Ramon G. Buenafe, (Ret.) CEO IV, Officer-in-Charge of the Bureau of Corrections, Deputy Director General for Operations, New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City, informing the Court that accused-appellant was received for confinement at said institution on December 24, 2015;
(2) the letter dated February 15, 2018 of P/Supt. I Roberto R. Rabo, Superintendent of the New Bilibid Prison, Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, confirming the confinement therein of accused-appellant since December 24, 2015;
(3) accused-appellant's Manifestation (in Lieu of Supplemental Brief) dated February 12, 2018 stating that he would no longer file a supplemental brief since his arguments were already thoroughly discussed in the brief he filed before the Court of Appeals, instead, he is adopting said brief as his supplemental brief; and
(4) the Office of the Solicitor General's Manifestation (in Lieu of Supplemental Brief) dated February 20, 2018 stating that it would no longer file a supplemental brief as the brief it previously filed had amply demonstrated the guilt of accused-appellant and thoroughly discussed all the issues presented for resolution.
This treats the appeal of accused-appellant Eric Rivera y Cariaso (Rivera) from the July 28, 2017 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 08021. The assailed ruling upheld Rivera's conviction for illegal possession and sale of methamphetamine hydrochloride in violation of Sections 11 and 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165), otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Facts
On April 7, 2014, two separate Informations were filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Fernando City, La Union, raffled to Branch 28 thereof, charging Rivera thusly: 2
Crim. Case no. 10353 — Section 11
That on or about the 4th day of April, 2014, in the City of San Fernando, La Union, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, have in his possession, control and custody two (2) heat sealed plastic sachets of shabu, with a total weight of one point four two seventy (1.4270) grams, a dangerous drug, without first securing the necessary permit, license or authority from the proper government agency.
Contrary to law.
Crim. Case No. 10354 — Section 5
That on or about the 4th day of April, 2014, in the City of San Fernando, La Union, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously deliver and sell one (1) heat sealed transparent plastic sachet of shabu, with a weight of zero point zero eight twenty three (0.0823) gram to PO3 Dario N. Cahigas, who posed as poseur buyer, and in consideration of said shabu used genuine one thousand peso (P1,000.00) of Philippine Currency bill with serial number YJ982531, without first securing the necessary permit, license or authority from the proper government agency.
Contrary to law.
On arraignment, Rivera pleaded "not guilty" to the charges. Trial on the merits thereafter ensued.
During trial, the prosecution presented PO3 Dario Cahigas (PO3 Cahigas), PO3 Elvis Yaris (PO3 Yaris), Luciano Trinidad, Jr. (Trinidad), and PSI Maria Theresa Manuel (PSI Manuel) in order to establish that:
At about 9:00AM of April 4, 2014, PO3 Cahigas received a call from a confidential informant that Rivera has been selling shabu in his residence at Brgy. Madayegdeg, San Fernando, La Union. PO3 Cahigas advised his asset to personally appear at the police station to report the matter, which the latter did. The report was received by Police Inspector Janito Buaron, Jr. (PI Buaron), who was then instructed by Chief of Police Julius Calima Suriben to conduct a buy-bust operation and apprehend Rivera in flagrante delicto. In view thereof, PI Buaron conducted a briefing for the operation, designating PO3 Cahigas as the poseur-buyer for the transaction with PO3 Yaris as his immediate back-up. Thereafter, PO3 Cahigas prepared the one thousand peso (P1,000.00) bill buy-bust money by affixing his initials "DNC" thereon. PI Buaron executed the necessary Pre-Operational Report and Coordination Report with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency before proceeding as planned.
On the same day, at around 11:10AM, PO3 Cahigas and the rest of his team, with the informant in tow, arrived at Brgy. Madayegdeg, San Fernando, La Union. PO3 Cahigas and the informant then approached Rivera's house where they were met by its owner. The informant introduced PO3 Cahigas as "Bong" who was allegedly interested in buying shabu. Once PO3 Cahigas and Rivera reached an agreement, the latter handed to the poseur-buyer one (1) plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance in exchange for the buy-bust money. PO3 Cahigas then gave the pre-arranged signal to effect Rivera's arrest. A body search immediately conducted by PO3 Cahigas on Rivera upon arrest yielded a brown pouch containing two (2) plastic sachets, also with white crystalline substance inside. cDHAES
Upon the arrival of a barangay official and the representatives from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), PO3 Cahigas marked the items seized. He then prepared the Certification of Inventory, which was attested to by the said officials, and a request for laboratory examination of the confiscated white crystalline substance suspected to be shabu. He submitted the request to the Crime Laboratory at Camp Oscar Florendo, San Fernando City, La Union, wherein he turned over the three (3) confiscated plastic sachets to PSI Manuel. The qualitative examination conducted by PSI Manuel on the seized items gave positive result for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride as evidenced by Chemistry Report No. D-048-2014. Rivera was also subjected to a drug test which likewise yielded a positive result for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
For the part of the defense, Rivera and his neighbor, Licel Aris, were presented as witnesses. In their narration of the events, Rivera was boiling water in his house when a person came looking for him. The said person was about to arrest Rivera's brother-in-law in a case of mistaken identity, but desisted once Rivera's nephew divulged his (Rivera's) whereabouts. Rivera was immediately apprehended thereafter. A search of the comfort room of his house allegedly resulted in the recovery of two (2) plastic sachets of shabu. The sachets and the purported marked money were then placed on a table and pictures thereof were taken. It was only after the staged documentation that the representatives from the media and the local barangay council arrived.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
On November 16, 2015, the RTC rendered a Decision 3 convicting Rivera for violation of Sections 5 and 11 of RA 9165. The dispositive portion of the ruling reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds the accused ERIC RIVERA y CARIASO, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged:
1. In Criminal Case No. 10353, for Violation of Sec. 11, Art. II of RA 9165, accused ERIC RIVERA Y CARIASO, in the absence of any modifying circumstance, is hereby sentenced to a prison term of TWELVE (12) YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY TO FOURTEEN (14) YEARS AND EIGHT (8) MONTHS and to pay the fine of Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) without any subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; and
2. In Criminal Case No. 10354, for Violation of Section 5, Art. II of the same Act, RA 9165, accused ERIC RIVERA Y CARIASO, in the absence of any aggravating circumstance, is hereby sentenced to LIFE IMPRISONMENT, and to pay the fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) without any subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
SO ORDERED. 4
In finding Rivera guilty beyond reasonable doubt, the trial court relied on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions and upheld the validity of the buy-bust operation. This prompted Rivera to elevate the case to the CA.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
On July 28, 2017, the CA promulgated the challenged Decision that dismissed Rivera's appeal in the following manner:
WHEREFORE, the Appeal is DENIED. The Judgment dated November 16, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 28, San Fernando City is hereby AFFIRMED with modification that the three (3) sachets of shabu mentioned in both informations are ordered confiscated in favour of the government and destroyed pursuant to Sec. 21 of RA 9165.
SO ORDERED.5
In affirming the conviction by the trial court, the CA ruled that illegal items were confiscated from Rivera after the latter was caught in flagrante delicto during a legitimate buy-bust operation. Moreover, the prosecution successfully established every link in the chain of custody of the illegal drugs, rendering them admissible as evidence during trial. The appellate court likewise did not detect any irregularity in the conduct of the operation.
Hence, the instant appeal.
The Issue
The primordial issue of this case is whether or not Rivera's guilt had sufficiently been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
While Rivera recognizes that denial is a weak defense, he nevertheless contends that the prosecution must not rest thereon, but on the strength of its own evidence. Rivera maintains that, in this case, the constitutional presumption of innocence was not overcome since the prosecution failed to prove that a valid buy-bust operation was conducted.
According to Rivera, the absence of a legitimate operation may be inferred from the fact that the required third party representatives were only called after the operatives had already laid the allegedly seized prohibited drug on the table, and that the police did not call and seek their presence before embarking on the actual operation. There being no valid buy-bust operation, the items seized from Rivera pursuant thereto are consequently inadmissible as evidence, being fruits of a poisonous tree. All these considered, Rivera postulates that the courts erred in capitalizing on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties.
The Court's Ruling
The appeal is bereft of merit.
On the illegal sale of drugs
The Court has ruled in a plethora of cases that a successful prosecution of offenses involving the pushing of prohibited drugs under Section 5 of RA 9165 requires that the following elements be proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, object and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. 6 These elements were proven by the prosecution to be attendant by convincingly establishing the conduct of a valid buy-bust operation.
A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment whereby ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan. In this jurisdiction, the operation is legal and has been proven to be an effective method of apprehending drug peddlers, provided due regard to constitutional and legal safeguards is undertaken. 7
It was clearly established in the case at bar that the entrapment operation conducted by the police officers to capture Rivera in flagrante delicto was valid. Evidence on record shows that it was the confidential informant who first made contact with Rivera to introduce PO3 Cahigas as an interested buyer of illegal drugs, and that PO3 Cahigas purchased 0.0823 gram of shabu from Rivera using the one thousand-peso marked money. After giving the pre-arranged signal, Rivera was immediately arrested and a brown pouch containing two plastic sachets with white crystalline substance was recovered from his possession. The results of the laboratory test confirmed that the contents of the plastic sachet sold to PO3 Cahigas, as well as of those in Rivera's possession, were indeed methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. ASEcHI
That the barangay official and the representatives of the Department of Justice and the media were not called prior to nor during the operation is of no moment. This does not diminish the legitimacy of the buy-bust operation conducted. It must be remembered that Section 21 of RA 9165 merely requires the presence of the said representatives during the inventory of the seized items, not prior thereto. The pertinent portion of the provision, as worded, reads:
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending 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.
Clear from the foregoing is that the presence of the representatives during the inventory constitutes sufficient compliance with the mandate of Section 21 (1) of RA 9165. Hence, their arrival after Rivera had already been entrapped is not fatal to the validity of the buy-bust operation.
On the illegal possession of drugs
Anent the charge for illegal possession of regulated or prohibited drugs, it was incumbent for the prosecution to establish the following elements: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object, which is identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. 8 Here, a warrantless search on Rivera yielded a brown pouch that contained two plastic sachets with white crystalline substance inside. Based on the results of the laboratory examination, the said contents were positively identified to be shabu, which Rivera did not have authority to possess.
The CA aptly observed that Rivera failed to present countervailing evidence of the possession of the shabu. Instead, Rivera endeavored, but miserably failed, to establish that the items confiscated from him were inadmissible for being the fruit of the poisonous tree.
We are not convinced.
The facts themselves demonstrate that the buy-bust operation leading to Rivera's capture was conducted within the bounds of the law. Since Rivera was arrested in flagrante delicto during a legitimate police operation, the apprehending officers were justified in performing a lawful search as an incident of the arrest, even if unarmed with a warrant. As prescribed under Section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court:
Section 13. Search incident to lawful arrest. — A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant.
The purpose of allowing a warrantless search and seizure incident to a lawful arrest is to protect the arresting officer from being harmed by the person arrested, who might be armed with a concealed weapon, and to prevent the latter from destroying evidence within reach. It is, therefore, a reasonable exercise of the State's police power to protect (1) law enforcers from the injury that may be inflicted on them by a person they have lawfully arrested; and (2) evidence from being destroyed by the arrestee. It seeks to ensure the safety of the arresting officers and the integrity of the evidence under the control and within the reach of the arrestee. 9
In the case at bench, the search on Rivera was justified not only by the aim of protecting the apprehending officers but also for the purpose of recovering the marked money in his possession. The discovery of the brown pouch in his person was then a result of a valid warrantless search. And as We have held in a catena of cases, mere possession of dangerous drugs constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of any satisfactory explanation. 10
Unfortunately, it is Rivera himself who conceded — nothing is more settled in criminal law jurisprudence than that denial is an inherently weak form of defense, particularly when it is not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence just like in the case before Us. 11 We, therefore, find no error in the CA's finding that the presumption of innocence afforded to Rivera had sufficiently been overthrown by the countervailing prosecution evidence. Thus, the assailed rulings must be affirmed.
WHEREFORE, considering the allegations, issues and arguments presented, the Court resolves to DISMISS the appeal for failure to show that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error in its assailed Decision dated July 28, 2017 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 08021 as to warrant the exercise of the Court's appellate jurisdiction.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Carmelita Salandanan Manahan and concurred in by Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Elihu A. Ybañez.
2.Rollo, pp. 3-4.
3. Penned by Acting Presiding Judge Benjamin D. Tugano.
4. CA rollo, p. 53.
5.Rollo, pp. 18-19.
6.People v. Opiana, G.R. No. 200797, January 12, 2015.
7.People v. Miranda, G.R. No. 186419, April 23, 2010.
8.People v. Opiana, G.R. No. 200797, January 12, 2015.
9.People v. Calantiao, G.R. No. 203984, June 18, 2014.
10.People v. Posing, G.R. No. 196973, July 31, 2013.
11.People v. Tancinco, G.R. No. 200598, June 18, 2014.