THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 233831. February 19, 2018.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant,vs. ROGER SANGILAN y POLILI @ "ROGER" and MICHAEL CASTROVERDE y SINGCO @ "MIKE", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedFebruary 19, 2018, which reads as follows: ATICcS
"G.R. No. 233831 (People of the Philippines vs. Roger Sangilan y Polili @ "Roger" and Michael Castroverde y Singco @ "Mike"). — The Court resolves to NOTE:
(1) the letters dated January 21, 2018 of P/Supt. I Roberto Rabo, Superintendent of the New Bilibid Prison, Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, confirming the confinement therein of accused-appellants since September 18, 2013; and
(2) the Office of the Solicitor General's Manifestation (in Lieu of Supplemental Brief) dated February 1, 2018 stating that it would no longer file a supplemental brief as it had already exhaustively argued all the issues relevant to the case in its appellee's brief before the Court of Appeals.
This is an appeal from the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA), Special Ninth Division in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06367, promulgated on November 9, 2016, which affirmed the July 18, 2013 Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Las Piñas City, Branch 200, in Criminal Case Nos. 10-0450 and 10-0451, finding the accused-appellants Roger Sangilan y Polili @ "Roger" and Michael Castroverde y Singco @ "Mike" guilty of violating Sections 5 and 26 (b), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. No. 9165), otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
The Facts
Two Informations were filed charging accused-appellants Roger and Mike together with one Olegario Perlado y Pilar (Perlado) for violating Sections 5 and 26 (b), Article II of R.A. No. 9165, to wit:
Criminal Case No. 10-0450
That on or about the 29th day of May 2010, in the City of Las Piñas, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and all of them mutually helping and aiding one another, without being authorized by law did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and unknowingly sell, dispense, deliver, transport and give away by means of motor vehicle, a Nissan Sentra color Blue with Plate No. ZGB-440 to PO3 WILSON A. PAULE, then posing as a buyer one (1) heat-sealed plastic sachet containing Four Hundred Eighty Nine point Seventy Eight (489.78) grams of Cocaine, a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.
That the crime is qualified by the fact that accused Roger Sangilan y Polili and Michael Castroverde y Singco are members of the Philippine National Police and therefore are government officials and employees.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 3
Criminal Case No. 10-0451
That on or about the 29th day of May 2010, in the City of Las Piñas, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and all of them mutually helping and aiding one another, without being authorized by law did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and unknowingly attempt to sell, dispense, deliver, transport by means of a motor vehicle, a Nissan Sentra color Blue with Plate No. ZGB-440 or distribute Four Hundred Eighty Nine point Seventy Eight (489.78) grams of Cocaine, a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.
That the crime is qualified by the fact that accused Roger Sangilan y Polili and Michael Castroverde y Singco are members of the Philippine National Police and therefore are government officials and employees.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
Upon arraignment, accused-appellants Roger, Mike and Perlado pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
Version of the Prosecution
The prosecution presented the following witnesses, namely: PO3 Wilson Paule (PO3 Paule), SPO1 Junnifer Tuldanes (SPO1 Tuldanes), PO3 Benjie De Villa (PO3 De Villa), PO3 Rodel Ordinaryo (PO3 Ordinaryo), PO3 Michael Holanda (PO3 Holanda), Police Chief Inspector/Forensic Chemist Abraham Verde Tecson (Tecson) and Barangay Kagawad Jaime Padera (Padera).
At around 5 o'clock in the afternoon of May 29, 2010, a male confidential informant (CI) of PO3 Ordinaryo reported to the police station that someone is going to drop off cocaine worth PhP500,000.00. The information was relayed to P/Supt. Noel Mercayer (P/Supt. Mercayer) who then formed a team to conduct an entrapment operation. PO3 Paule was designated as the poseur-buyer with SPO Tuldanes, PO3 Ordinaryo and PO3 De Villa as back-up officers. The operation was coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency. 5 P/Supt. Mercayer marked a PhP1,000.00 bill with his initials "NM" to be used as the buy-bust money. The marked bill was placed on top of 100 pieces of cut-out newspaper that served as "boodle money." 6 During the briefing, the CI called accused-appellant Roger through his cellphone, with the speaker on. Accused-appellant Roger agreed to deliver a half kilo of cocaine worth PhP500,000.00 at Cecile Drive, Talon Dos, Las Piñas City at around 8 o'clock in the evening. The team proceeded to the meeting place without any firearms because of the election ban. cSEDTC
PO3 Paule and the CI waited at the corner of Cecile Drive. Thereafter, a blue Nissan Sentra with Plate No. ZGB 440 arrived at the scene and accused-appellant Roger alighted from the vehicle. PO3 Paule and the CI approached him and the CI introduced PO3 Paule to accused-appellant Roger. Accused-appellant Roger then called accused-appellant Mike to bring the item from the car. Accused-appellant Mike handed the red paper bag to accused-appellant Roger. Accused-appellant Roger asked the money and PO3 Paule handed him a blue paper bag containing the marked money bill and boodle money. Accused-appellant peeped inside the blue paper bag and then gave the red paper bag to PO3 Paule. PO3 Paule then introduced himself as a police officer and waved his right hand, the pre-arranged gesture signifying that the sale has been completed. 7 PO3 Paule arrested accused-appellant Roger with the help of SPO1 Tuldanes. PO3 Ordinaryo apprehended accused-appellant Mike while PO3 De Villa arrested Perlado, the driver.
For security reasons and because of the commotion, the team immediately brought all those arrested to the police station and turned them over to the duty investigator, PO3 Holanda, together with the red paper bag containing the suspected cocaine, other confiscated items, and the Nissan Sentra car. The pieces of evidence were then marked, inventoried and photographed. However, there was no representative from the Department of Justice or media or local elective official during that time. The suspects also refused to sign the receipt of the property seized. 8 The specimen was then personally delivered by the team to the crime laboratory where PO3 Cayat received it from PO3 Paule. Forensic Chemist Tecson received the specimen from PO3 Cayat and examined the substance. The results of the examination show that the contents thereof yielded positive for cocaine.
The prosecution also offered documentary and object evidence such as: (1) affidavit of arrest executed by PO3 Paule; (2) request for laboratory examination; (3) cocaine wrapped in newspaper and transparent packing tape with label "RP S2-29"; (4) receipt of property seized; (5) barangay blotter; (6) initial laboratory report; (7) laboratory report No. D-184-10 by PCI Tecson; (8) pre-operation report; (9) PDEA coordination form; (10) photographs of the evidence; and (11) booking and information sheet. 9
Version of the Defense
Accused-appellant Roger testified that at the time of his arrest, he had been a policeman for twenty-four (24) years and was then assigned with accused-appellant Mike at the Police and Security Protection Group (PSPG) in Camp Crame. In the early evening of May 29, 2010, he and accused-appellant Mike were at Cecile Drive in Las Piñas City waiting for accused-appellant Mike's cousin who was supposed to refer them to VIP for escort services. While they were standing on the road, three men in civilian clothes approached them with a gun and immediately arrested them and brought them to the police station. Perlado, who was not known to them, arrived at the police station 30 minutes later. During investigation, the arresting officers found their police IDs in their wallets. 10 Accused-appellant Roger claimed that they only learned that they were being charged of violation of R.A. No. 9165 when the investigation report was prepared.
Perlado, a retired policeman, testified that he does not know accused-appellants Roger and Mike and he was alone when he parked his blue Nissan Sentra at the 7-11 store to buy snacks. As he was walking back to his car, somebody covered his head with a polo shirt and poked a gun at him. He removed the shirt and parried the gun but another person pointed a gun at him. He was frisked but nothing illegal was found in his person. 11 He was then brought to the police station.
In an Order dated September 19, 2011, Perlado's petition for bail was granted at PhP250,000.00 for each criminal charge.
The Ruling of the RTC
On July 18, 2013, the RTC of Las Piñas City, Branch 200 rendered a Decision finding accused-appellants Roger and Mike guilty as charged. The RTC held that all the elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs have been duly proven. The dispositive portion of the said Decision reads:
WHEREFORE AND IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered to wit:
1. In Criminal Case No. 10-0450, this Court finds the accused, ROGER SANGILAN y POLILI @ "ROGER" and MICHAEL CASTROVERDE y SINGCO @ "MIKE" GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. They are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a Fine of Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) considering the presence of aggravating circumstances as both accused are members of the Philippine National Police and a (sic) public officers.
2. In Criminal Case No. 10-0451, this Court finds the accused, ROGER SANGILAN y POLILI @ "ROGER" and MICHAEL CASTROVERDE y SINGCO @ "MIKE" GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 26 (b), Article II of RA 9165. They are hereby sentenced to suffer the maximum penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a Fine of Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) considering the presence of aggravating circumstances as both accused are members of the Philippine National Police and a (sic) public officers.
3. Accused OLEGARIO PERLADO y PILAR is hereby ACQUITTED of both violations of Section 5 and Section 6 (b), Article II of RA 9165, for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Let a commitment order be issued for the immediate transfer of the custody of accused to the National Bilibid Prison, Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, pursuant to SC OCA Circulars Nos. 4-92-A and 26-2000. While the bond posted by accused Perlado is CANCELLED and ordered RELEASED to the accused or their duly authorized representative. SDAaTC
The one block of Cocaine consisting of Four Hundred Eighty Nine point Seventy Eight (489.78) grams (Exh. "R", inclusive of sub markings), a dangerous drug, is hereby confiscated and forfeited in favor of the Government. The Branch Clerk of Court is directed to turn over the same to the PDEA for proper disposal thereof.
Finding merit on the Manifestation of the arresting police officers to conduct PURITY TEST on the subject COCAINE, the same is hereby GRANTED.
In view thereof, SPO1 Wilson Paule, SPO1 Michael Holanda, SPO2 Junnifer Tuldanes, SPO1 Rodel Ordinaryo, and PO3 Benjie De Villa are hereby directed to coordinate with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency as to the manner of conducting the purity test on the said cocaine.
SO ORDERED.12
Accused-appellants Roger and Mike's Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the RTC in an Order dated September 16, 2013.
The Ruling of the CA
In its assailed Decision dated November 9, 2016, the CA affirmed with modification the Decision of the RTC. The CA observed that the evidence adduced by the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellants Roger and Mike violated Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165.
The CA upheld the ruling of the RTC that a buy-bust operation was, indeed, validly conducted. Moreover, the chain of custody of the drug subject matter of the case was proven to be unbroken. The CA ruled that although there was no strict compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, it has been shown that the prosecution established every link in the chain of custody.
The CA, however, deemed it proper to delete the portion of the judgment finding accused-appellants Roger and Mike guilty of violation of Section 26 (b) of R.A. No. 9165 because there was only one sale transaction that took place and the sale was consummated. The evidence shows that accused-appellants Roger and Mike did not merely attempt or conspire to sell cocaine but, in fact, sold cocaine to the poseur-buyer. 13
The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The June 27, 2013 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City, Branch 200, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that the portions of the judgment finding accused Roger Sangilan y Polili and Michael Castroverde y Singco guilty of violation of Section 26 (b), Article II, RA 9165 and acquitting Olegario Perlado of violation of the same provision are DELETED for want of factual and legal basis.
SO ORDERED.14
The Issue
The pivotal issue in this case is whether the CA gravely erred in sustaining accused-appellants Roger and Mike's conviction of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drug.
The Ruling of the Court
The appeal lacks merit.
It is well-settled that the factual findings of the CA affirming those of the trial court are binding on this Court unless there is a clear showing that such findings are tainted with arbitrariness, capriciousness or palpable error. 15 In People v. Velasquez, 16 this Court held:
In a prosecution for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law, a case becomes a contest of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies. When it comes to credibility, the trial court's assessment deserves great weight, and is even conclusive and binding, if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence. The reason is obvious. Having the full opportunity to observe directly the witnesses' deportment and manner of testifying, the trial court is in a better position than the appellate court to evaluate testimonial evidence properly. The rule finds an even more stringent application where the said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals. (Emphasis supplied)
The CA did not err in affirming the conviction of accused-appellants Roger and Mike for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. This Court is satisfied that the prosecution's evidence established accused-appellants Roger and Mike's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The essential elements of the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs are: (1) the accused sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another; and (2) he knew that what he had sold and delivered was a prohibited drug. 17 All these elements were satisfactorily proven by the prosecution in the instant case. Accused-appellants Roger and Mike sold and delivered 489.78 grams of shabu for PhP500,000.00 to PO3 Paule posing as buyer; the said drug was seized and identified as a prohibited drug and subsequently presented in evidence; and finally, accused-appellants Roger and Mike were fully aware that they were selling and delivering a prohibited drug. acEHCD
It has also been proven that the buy-bust operation conducted by the team of police officers was valid. It is legal and has been proved to be an effective method of apprehending drug peddlers, provided due regard to constitutional and legal safeguards is undertaken. It bears stressing that what is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti. 18
The records also show that the prosecution successfully established an unbroken chain of custody over the corpus delicti of the offense — from the seizure and confiscation of the shabu up to the delivery of the specimens to the SPD Crime Laboratory — through the testimony of the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation. As observed by the CA, the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer, to wit:
The evidence shows that PO3 Paule, the poseur-buyer and arresting officer, assumed custody of the cocaine immediately after the arrest and brought it to the police station where he put the markings "RPS1-29 May 10" on the red paper bag containing the cocaine and the marking "RPS-29 May 10" on the cocaine wrapped newspaper. Although the drugs were marked at the police station and not the place of arrest, it is settled that marking of the seized drugs at the police station is within the contemplation of the law. After marking the cocaine, Paule turned it over to PO3 Holanda, the duty investigator. Holanda inventoried and photographed the cocaine and prepared a request for laboratory examination, all in the presence of Paule. Thereafter, Holanda returned the cocaine to Paule who, together with the buy-bust team, brought it to the SPD Crime Laboratory. At the crime laboratory, Paule delivered the cocaine to PO3 Cayat who, in turn, handed it to Forensic Chemist Tecson. After conducting the necessary tests, Tecson resealed the cocaine with packing tape and put the markings "D-184-10S A-1" and his initials thereon before forwarding it to the evidence custodian. Finally, Tecson delivered the cocaine to the prosecutor's office. The cocaine was presented in court still sealed with the plastic packing tape placed by Tecson. 19
Although there was no strict compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, it has been shown that every link in the chain of custody was established by the prosecution. 20 It is a hornbook doctrine that the failure of the law enforcers to strictly comply with Sec. 21 of RA 9165 is not fatal to the prosecution of the case. It will not render the arrest of an accused illegal or the items seized or confiscated inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. 21
As regards accused-appellants Roger and Mike's denial, the appellate court correctly ruled that this defense cannot stand unless the defense could show with clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired with ill motives or that they were not properly performing their duties. In People v. dela Rosa, 22 the Court held that denial or frame-up, like alibi, has been viewed with disfavor for it can just as easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. The defense of frame-up or denial in drug cases requires strong and convincing evidence because of the presumption that the law enforcement agencies acted in the regular performance of their official duties. 23 Bare denial of appellant cannot prevail over the positive testimony of the prosecution witness. 24
Anchored on the evidence extant on record, the Court finds no reason to disturb the findings of the CA. The decisions of the trial court and the CA must, therefore, be sustained.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Court of Appeals' Decision dated November 9, 2016 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06367 is hereby AFFIRMED. Accused-appellants Roger Sangilan y Polili and Michael Castroverde y Singco are found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Ten Million Pesos (PhP10,000,000.00).
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Melchor Q.C. Sadang and concurred in by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier and Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios.
2. Penned by Presiding Judge Leopoldo E. Baraquia.
3. As cited in the CA Decision, rollo, p. 3; RTC Decision, CA rollo, pp. 64-65.
4.Id.
5.Id. at 4.
6.Id.
7.Id. at 5.
8.Id.
9.Id. at 6.
10.Id.
11.Id.
12. CA rollo, pp. 92-93.
13.Rollo, p. 165.
14.Id. at 10.
15.Fuentes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109849, February 26, 1997, 268 SCRA 703, 708-709.
16. G.R. No. 177224, April 11, 2012.
17.Id.
18.People v. Pagkalinawan, G.R. No. 184805, March 3, 2010.
19.Rollo, pp. 15-16.
20.Id. at 16.
21.People v. Abedin, G.R. No. 1799936, April 11, 2012.
22. G.R. No. 185166, January 26, 2011.
23.Id.
24.Id., citing People v. Soriano, G.R. No. 173795, 3 April 2007, 520 SCRA 458, 468.