SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 198109. June 11, 2014.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. HENRY SARMIENTO Y CERVANTES, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 11 June 2014 which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 198109 — (People of the Philippines v. Henry Sarmiento y Cervantes).
We decide the appeal, filed by appellant Henry Sarmiento y Cervantes, from the February 23, 2011 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03852. The appealed decision affirmed the November 21, 2008 Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 21, Imus, Cavite, finding the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of the Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 (otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002).
In its Decision dated November 21, 2008, the RTC convicted the appellant in Criminal Case No. 609-04 for illegal sale of 178.28 grams of dried marijuana fruiting tops, penalized under Section 5, Article II of the Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165. The RTC held that the prosecution proved, through testimonial and documentary evidence, that an illegal sale of drugs took place between the appellant and the poseur-buyer. On the other hand, the appellant's defense of denial is a very weak excuse and could not stand against the straightforward and trustworthy testimonies of the NBI agents. Moreover, in the absence of controverting evidence, as is in the present case, the testimonies of the arresting officers are given full faith and credence as they are presumed to be in the regular performance of their duties.
The CA affirmed the RTC's decision. The CA confirmed that the buy-bust operation was valid, regardless of the utilization of boodle money, as what are important are the delivery of the prohibited drug to the buyer and the presentation of the drug before the court. The CA moreover held that minor inconsistencies do not impair the credibility of the witnesses, especially where there is consistency in relating the principal occurrence and positive identification of the accused. In sum, the prosecution fully established the elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs: 1) the identity of the buyer, the seller, the object, and the consideration; and 2) the delivery of the drug purchased and the payment thereof.
Our Ruling
We dismiss the appeal and affirm the appellants' conviction.
Illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165 and jurisprudence has the following elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and its payment. 3 What is material is the proof that the transaction actually took place, coupled with the presentation before the court of the prohibited or regulated drug or the corpus delicti.4
Our examination of the records confirms the presence of all these elements. Special Investigator III Winmar de Ramos (de Ramos) narrated in detail how they conducted the buy-bust operation, with an NBI asset introducing him as a poseur-buyer to the appellant. He positively identified the appellant as the person that sold to him one (1) pack of dried marijuana fruiting tops wrapped in newspaper and scotch tape in exchange for the two (2) marked P100.00 bills and P1,000.00 worth of boodle money, amounting to P1,200.00. Upon examination, Forensic Chemist II Rommel G. Patingo of the NBI Forensic Chemistry Division certified that the dried fruiting tops bought from the appellant were confirmed to be marijuana. Agent Reynold Tabbu (Tabbu) corroborated de Ramos's testimony on significant points. We rely on the RTC's assessment of the arresting officers' credibility, in the absence of showing that certain facts of weight and substance bearing on the elements of the crime, have been overlooked. AEIcTD
Albeit not raised by the appellant, the Court rules that the chain of custody was preserved intact. "Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of confiscated substances or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court. 5
The prosecution was able to prove that when the appellant handed de Ramos the newspaper pack, de Ramos searched it first to verify if it indeed contained the subject of the sale — the marijuana. Satisfied, de Ramos then handed the appellant the boodle money (P1,000.00) and the two (2) marked P100.00 bills, amounting to P1,200.00. De Ramos then made the prearranged signal prompting his fellow NBI agents Tabbu and Allan Lino to arrest the appellant. Tabbu then recovered the marijuana subject of the sale from de Ramos and marked it with his initials RT. Tabbu likewise recovered the marked purchase money from the appellant.
After the arrest, the appellant was brought to the nearby barangay where the inventory of the marijuana was made before a member of the media and the barangay chairman. The appellant was then brought to the NBI head office for photographing, finger-printing, drug-testing and physical and medical examination. Thereafter, the seized marijuana Tabbu was keeping hold of was submitted to the NBI Forensic and Chemistry Division. Upon laboratory examination, Forensic Chemist II Rommel G. Patingo of the NBI Forensic Chemistry Division certified that the dried fruiting tops bought from the appellant were confirmed to be marijuana. The defense even admitted the existence and due execution of the laboratory tests confirming the dried fruiting tops to be marijuana. Finally, when de Ramos testified before the court, he positively identified the presented specimen baring initials RT as the same specimen he bought from the appellant, which Tabbu initialed with his names.
The appellant does not persuade us that the arresting officers did not observe the procedures imposed by the RA 9165 in the conduct of buy-bust operations.
First. The appellant's argument that the sale was unlikely considering that P1000.00 out of the P1,200.00 purchase money was boodle is wrong. As aptly observed by the CA, the Court has affirmed buy-bust convictions where the seller saw that the purchase money was boodle. 6 In fact, it is only necessary that proof is presented that the transaction actually took place, coupled with the presentation before the court of the prohibited or regulated drug or the corpus delicti. 7 In the present case, when presented with the seized marijuana during his testimony, de Ramos identified the marijuana as the subject of the buy-bust operation.
Second. The Court is not convinced that it was improbable for the appellant to have first approached de Ramos, to have introduced himself as the pusher's representative, and to have openly sold marijuana. On the contrary, the reverse seems very likely. In fact, in People of the Philippines v. Arnel Clarite y Salazar, 8 we observed that drug pushers sell their prohibited commodities to any interested buyer, be he a stranger or not, in private as well as in public places, be it day or nighttime. These illegal sellers have become bolder and more defiant of the law. Therefore, to convict for illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the time, venue, and manner of the sale are not material; what matters is the fact of agreement and the acts constituting sale and delivery of the prohibited drug. 9
Third. Contrary to the appellant's claim, inconsistencies in the testimonies of Special Agent de Reyes and Agent Tabbu regarding the presence of the NBI asset during the buy-bust operation do not prove that the sale did not happen. In the first place, while de Ramos stated that he was with the NBI asset when the sale took place, Tabbu's not mentioning the presence of the NBI asset during the sale did not necessarily mean that de Ramos was alone in transacting with the appellant. More importantly, the presence of the NBI asset during the sale is not an essential element of the crime of illegal sale of drugs — it is a minor detail. Inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses regarding minor details and collateral matters do not affect the substance of their declaration, its veracity or the weight of their testimonies. 10 Truth of the matter is, minor inconsistencies enhance the credibility of the witnesses, for they remove any doubt that their testimonies were contrived or rehearsed. 11
Finally, we approve the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 imposed against the appellant, as these are the penalties provided for by law. 12
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we AFFIRM the decision of the Court of Appeals dated February 23, 2011 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03852. SDAaTC
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 2-18. Penned by Associate Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla, and concurred in by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios.
2. CA rollo, pp. 18-28. Penned by Executive Judge Norberto J. Quisumbing, Jr.
3. People v. Blanco, G.R. No. 193661, August 14, 2013 (citations omitted).
4. People v. Salvador, et al., G.R. No. 190621, February 10, 2014.
5. People v. Salvador, et al., G.R. No. 190621, February 10, 2014.
6. Su Zhi Shan v. People, G.R. No. 169933, March 9, 2007.
7. See note 6.
8. G.R. No. 187157, February 15, 2012.
9. See note 7.
10. People of the Philippines v. Brian Blanco y Sangkula, G.R. No. 193661, August 14, 2013.
11. People v. Peteluna, et al., G.R. No. 187048, January 23, 2013.
12. Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions. (R.A. 9165)