THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 229510. October 9, 2017.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. SALVACION SALTING Y RANADA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 9, 2017, which reads as follows: CAIHTE
"G.R. NO. 229510 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee v. SALVACION SALTING Y RANADA, Accused-Appellant.
The Case
The case pertains to the Appeal filed by accused-appellant Salvacion Salting y Ranada (Salting) assailing the January 19, 2016 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA), Ninth Division in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07051. The assailed CA Decision upheld the September 19, 2014 Joint Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City — Branch 127 which found Salting guilty for violating Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002).
The Charge
The State, through State Prosecutor Diosdado S. Azarcon, 3 filed the following Informations 4 against Salting:
Criminal Case No. 86763
That on or about the 18th of August, 2011, in Caloocan City, Metro Manila, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law and without corresponding license or prescription therefor, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to SPO3 ALEJANDRO GERARDO R. LIWANAG, who posed as buyer, MARIJUANA weighing 0.46 gram, 0.48 gram, 0.42 gram, 0.46 gram & 0.43 gram, which when subjected for laboratory examination gave POSITIVE result to the tests for Marijuana, a dangerous drug, and knowing the same to be such.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Criminal Case No. 86764
That on or about the 18th of August, 2011, in Caloocan City, Metro Manila, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in her possession, custody and control One (1) yellow plastic container labeled "Mister Donut," Spongebob Squarepants with markings "AGRL P-C" containing One (1) unsealed transparent plastic bag containing twelve (12) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets each with dried MARIJUANA fruiting tops weighing 0.56 gram, 0.46 gram, 0.62 gram, 0.53 gram, 0.57 gram, 0.55 gram, 0.46 gram, 0.59 gram, 0.43 gram, 0.34 gram, 0.57 gram & 0.37 gram, Twenty-four (24) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets each containing dried MARIJUANA fruiting tops weighing 0.64 gram, 0.46 gram, 0.48 gram, 0.57 gram, 0.55 gram, 0.53 gram, 0.44 gram, 0.68 gram, 0.58 gram, 0.60 gram, 0.51 gram, 0.46 gram, 0.39 gram, 0.38 gram, 0.55 gram, 0.48 gram, 0.50 gram, 0.37 gram, 0.50 gram, 0.58 gram, 0.54 gram, 0.42 gram, 0.47 gram & 0.45 gram, One (1) floral coin purse with markings "AGRL W" containing One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet and marked as E-1 with 0.57 grams of dried MARIJUANA fruiting tops, which when subjected for laboratory examination gave POSITIVE result to the tests for Marijuana, a dangerous drug, in gross violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Antecedents
Version of the Prosecution:
On August 18, 2011 at around 9:00 A.M., Christine Camarillo (Camarillo), a crew of Tutok Tulfo News Team of TV-5, showed to the Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Force (AIDSOTF) a video footage of Salting selling marijuana. 5 In reaction to Camarillo's video footage, AIDSOTF's Police Chief Superintendent Ismael Fajardo, Jr. C/Supt. Fajardo) ordered SPO3 Alejandro Gerardo R. Liwanag (SPO3 Liwanag) to build up a case against Salting and conduct a test buy along with a confidential informant. 6
During the test buy, SPO3 Liwanag and the confidential informant purchased five (5) tea bags of suspected marijuana from Salting at her mini store located in front of the Barangay Hall and Bagong Silang Elementary School along Maria Clara Street, Caloocan City. 7 After taking the money and handing the purchased items wrapped in a Marlboro cigarette wrapper, Salting uttered: "Balik lang kayo kung kailangan ninyo ng gulay."8
The items purchased turned out to be five (5) pieces of heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing specimens suspected to be marijuana. 9 These items were turned over to SPO1 Jerry Barit (SPO1 Barit) who, in turn, transmitted the same along with a request for laboratory examination to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory Office in Camp Crame, 10 Quezon City (the crime laboratory). 11 The specimens were then examined and found to be positive for marijuana. 12 After which, SPO1 Barit requested for the ultraviolet powder dusting of five (5) pieces of P20.00 bills to be used for the follow-up buy-bust operation. 13 These bills were later on given to SPO3 Liwanag for use as marked money. 14
Later in the afternoon of the same day, PC/Supt. Fajardo formed a buy-bust team consisting of, among others, SPO3 Liwanag as the poseur-buyer, the confidential informant, and PO3 Annalyn Quintana as the arresting officer. 15
Thereafter, the buy-bust team went to Salting's mini store where SPO3 Liwanag and the confidential informant were asked if they needed to buy some gulay (referring to marijuana). 16 The confidential informant then retorted: "Sige, pa-score ng piso itong tropa ko (referring to SPO3 Liwanag)." 17 DETACa
Salting handed to SPO3 Liwanag and the confidential informant five (5) pieces of plastic sachets containing specimens suspected to be marijuana after receiving the marked money. 18 At that instant, SPO3 Liwanag gave a pre-arranged signal to the rest of the buy-bust team for them to commence the arrest. 19 Subsequently, the buy-bust team approached Salting, arrested her, informed her of her constitutional rights, and incidentally searched her person and mini store where they found several more containers 20 with specimens suspected to be marijuana. 21
All of the seized items were marked, photographed and inventoried on the scene in the presence of Salting, Barangay Kagawad Arturo Caleon, Barangay Kagawad Antonio Sapia, and Camarillo from TV-5. 22 After the inventory, the buy-bust team brought Salting to their office along with the seized items for proper booking and documentation. 23 Here, SPO3 Liwanag turned over the seized items to SPO1 Barit (the case's investigator) who, in turn, submitted the same items to the crime laboratory for examination. 24
On examination, Police Chief Inspector Sandra Decena Go of the crime laboratory examined the specimens submitted by SPO1 Barit and found the same items positive for the presence of marijuana. 25
At around 10:25 P.M. of the same day and almost seven (7) hours following the conduct of arrest, Salting was brought to the crime laboratory's Physical Identification Division for ultraviolet testing. 26 Although the test conducted by Police Chief Inspector Vivian Sumobay (PC/I Sumobay) on the marked money yielded positive for the presence of ultraviolet powder, the test conducted on Salting's hands tested negative for the presence of the same powder. 27 When PC/I Sumobay conducted an interview after the test, Salting admitted to have washed her hands at the police station's comfort room. 28
Version of the Accused:
On the day of her arrest at around 2:00 P.M., Salting was doing her laundry near her makeshift junk food and candy stall when a non-uniformed policeman approached and told her that he wanted to buy something. 29 When she asked what he wanted, the policeman responded: "Alam mo no yun."30 At that moment, Salting ignored the policeman as she had no idea what he wanted.
However, the policeman did not leave and, instead, called out his companions which included some barangay officials to come to them. He showed Salting the marijuana, made her sign a document, brought her to Camp Crame where she was scolded because the police officers could not get anything from her, and eventually detained her. 31
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
On September 19, 2014, the RTC rendered a Joint Decision 32 with the dispositive portion as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in this wise:
In Criminal Case No. 86763, the Court finds Accused Salvacion Salting y Rañada (sic) GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, for selling five (5) sachets of marijuana, a dangerous drug, and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and a Fine of Five Hundred thousand pesos ([P]500,000.00).
In Criminal Case No. 86764, the Court also finds Accused Salvacion Salting y Rañada (sic) GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of indeterminate imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as the minimum to seventeen (17) years and eight (8) months as the maximum, and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos ([P]300,000.00).
With the judgment of conviction, the Jail Wardress of CAMANAVA Female District Jail, New Malabon City Jail, City of Malabon, Metro Manila, is hereby directed to cause the immediate transfer of custody of the said accused to the National Correctional Institute for Women, Mandaluyong City, for the service of her sentence, and for the said Jail Wardress to forthwith submit a written report of her compliance or reason for non-compliance herewith, within ten (10) days from receipt hereof.
The drug subject matter of these cases are hereby ordered confiscated in favor of the government. In this regard, the Branch Clerk of Court of this Sala is hereby directed to turn over Exhibits "E", "E-1", "E-2", "E-3", "E-4", and "E-5", while for the Evidence Custodian, PNP Crime Laboratory, Camp Crame, Quezon City to turn over the specimens depicted on the pictures marked as Exhibits "K" to "P" and their submarkings, to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for their immediate destruction in accordance with law.
SO ORDERED.
Here, the trial court found that: (a) Salting freely and consciously possessed sachets of dried marijuana fruiting tops; 33 (b) the integrity and authenticity of the drug specimens were duly preserved; 34 and (c) the defenses of alibi, denial and frame-up were the only ones proffered by the defense which can be easily concocted. 35 Consequently, the RTC sentenced Salting to suffer the penalties of life imprisonment with a fine of P500,000.00 for sale of dangerous drugs and "indeterminate imprisonment" of twelve (12) years and (1) day, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and eight (8) months, as maximum, with a fine of P300,000.00. 36 aDSIHc
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
On January 19, 2016, the CA rendered a Decision 37 with the decretal portion as follows:
ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is DISMISSED and the appealed Decision dated September 19, 2014, AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
In affirming the RTC, the CA held that: (a) the testimonies of the arresting officers stand because they were not tainted by any irregularity; 38 (b) the warrantless arrest and accompanying warrantless search was valid; 39 (c) the entrapment operation was valid; 40 (d) the elements of the aforementioned charges were duly proven by evidence; 41 and (e) the findings of trial courts are entitled to great weight on appellate courts. 42
Positions of the Parties
Since both the prosecution and the accused filed separate manifestations adopting their arguments before the CA, 43 the Court summarizes them as follows:
Salting argues that: (a) the police officers could have easily secured a warrant of arrest considering that they had already conducted a couple of "test-buys" prior to the actual arrest itself which, in turn, became illegal; 44 (b) the sale never actually happened considering that she purportedly tested negative for the presence of ultraviolet powder coming from her handling of the marked money; 45 and (c) the defense of denial may be appreciated when a truly innocent accused has no other defense. 46
The State, for its part, argues that: (a) SPO3 Liwanag had positively identified Salting in open court as the seller of the contraband specimens; 47 (b) SPO3 Liwanag categorically testified and narrated the manner on which the illegal sale transpired; 48 (c) the negative result of the ultraviolet powder test does not negate the fact that Salting was caught in flagrante delicto for selling marijuana; 49 and (d) the RTC was correct in holding that alibi and denial are invariably viewed by courts with disfavor as they can be easily concocted. 50
Issue
WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR IN FINDING THE ACCUSED GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT FOR SELLING AND POSSESSING DANGEROUS DRUGS
Ruling of the Court
The Court affirms the CA.
The assailed Decision is not tainted with any reversible error. In this case, the Court agrees with the CA's detailed and aptly applied ratiocinations that: (a) the testimonies of officers who caught the accused red-handed is given more weight over the claim of unsubstantiated denial or frame-up; 51 (b) Salting failed to prove ill motive on the part of SPO3 Liwanag and all the other police officers who were with him during the subject buy-bust operation; 52 (c) the defenses of alibi, denial and frame-up cannot prevail over affirmative testimonies of truthful witnesses; 53 (d) the absence of a warrant does not make a consequent warrantless arrest illegal because of the very nature of a buy-bust operation; 54 (e) Salting was validly apprehended on the spot even without a warrant because she was caught in the act of possessing and selling dangerous drugs; 55 (f) a buy-bust operation is a valid form of entrapment as long as there is proof that the transaction actually took place coupled with the presentation of the corpus delicti as evidence; 56 (g) Salting failed to prove the presence of improper motive on the part of SPO3 Liwanag and his companions; 57 (h) the testimonies of SPO3 Liwanag and his companions were credible for being consistent and in conformity with knowledge and common human experience; 58 (i) all the elements of the crime were successfully proven by the prosecution; 59 and (j) the findings of credibility by the RTC, being a trial court, are accorded with great weight and respect by appellate courts. 60
As to the penalties imposed, the Court finds that the CA correctly upheld the RTC's Joint Decision regarding the penalty for illegal sale 61 and illegal possession 62 of dangerous drugs.
Thus, Salting's appeal failed to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in rendering its January 19, 2016 Decision as to warrant its reversal.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, accused-appellant Salvacion Salting y Ranada's appeal is DISMISSED and the January 19, 2016 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC NO. 07051 is AFFIRMED. ETHIDa
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by: Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier and concurred by: Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Melchor Q. C. Sadang.
2. Penned by: Presiding Judge Victoriano B. Cabanos.
3. CA Rollo (CA-G.R. CR NO. 07051), p. 7.
4.Id. at pp. 147-148.
5.Id. at p. 149.
6.Ibid.
7.Id. at p. 150
8.Ibid.
9.Ibid.
10.Ibid.
11.Ibid.
12.Ibid.
13.Ibid.
14.Id. at p. 151.
15.Ibid.
16.Ibid.
17.Ibid.
18.Ibid.
19.Ibid.
20. Five (5) tea bags and one (1) yellow plastic box labeled "Mister Donuts (Spongebob Squarepants)" which, in turn, contained one (1) transparent plastic containing twelve (12) tea bags, twenty-four (24) pieces of separate tea bags, and one (1) floral pouch containing one (1) tea bag — all of which contained specimens suspected to be marijuana leaves.
21. CA Rollo (CA-G.R. CR NO. 07051), pp. 151-152.
22.Id. at p. 152.
23.Ibid.
24.Ibid.
25.Id. at p. 153.
26.Ibid.
27.Ibid.
28.Ibid.
29.Id. at p. 154.
30.Ibid.
31.Ibid.
32.Id. at pp. 62-86.
33.Id. at p. 84.
34.Id. at pp. 84-85.
35.Id. at p. 85.
36.Id. at pp. 85-86.
37.Rollo, pp. 2-24.
38. Id. at pp. 13-15, 18-19.
39. Id. at pp. 15-17.
40. Id. at pp. 17-18.
41. Id. at pp. 19-21.
42. Id. at p. 21.
43. Id. at pp. 33-34, 39-41.
44. Id. at pp. 56-57.
45. Id. at pp. 57-58.
46. Id. at p. 58.
47. Id. at p. 111.
48. Ibid.
49. Id. at p. 112.
50. Id. at p. 114.
51. Id. at pp. 13-14, citing: People v. Roa, G.R. No. 186134, May 6, 2010.
52. Id. at pp. 14-15, citing: Sy v. People, G.R. No. 182178, August 15, 2011.
53. Id. at p. 15, citing: People v. Roa, supra, note 16.
54. Ibid, citing: People v. Villamin, G.R. No. 175590, February 9, 2010.
55. Id. at p. 16, citing: People v. Marcelino, G.R. No. 189278, July 26, 2010.
56. Id. at pp. 17-18, 20, citing: Cruz v. People, G.R. No. 164580, February 6, 2009; People v. Del Monte, G.R. No. 179940, April 23, 2008; People v. Nicolas, G.R. No. 170234, February 8, 2007.
57. Id. at pp. 18-19, citing: Cruz v. People, supra.
58. Id. at pp. 19-20, citing: People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 192250, July 11, 2012.
59. Id. at pp. 20-21, citing: People v. Adam, G.R. No. 143842, October 13, 2003; People v. Lagata, G.R. No. 135323, June 25, 2003; People v. Khor, G.R. No. 126391, May 19, 1999.
60. Id. at p. 21, citing: People v. Asis, G.R. No. 179935, April 19, 2010; People v. Obina, et al., G.R. No. 186540, April 14, 2010.
61. See: Belmonte v. People, G.R. No. 224143, June 28, 2017; People v. Catan, G.R. No. 92928, January 21, 1992.
62. See: People v. Saldivar, G.R. No. 207664, June 25, 2014; People v. Dela Rosa, G.R. No. 185166, January 26, 2011.