People v. Saulo y Sordan

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 201450. April 7, 2014.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GABRIEL SERAFIN SAULO y SORDAN a.k.a. "GABBY" or "COCO", accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 7, 2014which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 201450 — People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GABRIEL SERAFIN SAULO y SORDAN a.k.a. "Gabby" or "Coco," Accused-Appellant.

On February 10, 2006, accused-appellant Gabriel Serafin Saulo y Sordan a.k.a "Gabby" or "Coco" was charged under two Informations, docketed as Criminal Case Nos. MC06-9866-D and MC06-9867-D, for violation of Section 11 (illegal possession of dangerous drugs) and Section 12 (illegal possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs) of Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The cases were raffled and consolidated in Branch 210 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaluyong City in the sala of Judge Maria A. Cancino-Erum.

On March 6, 2006, the accused-appellant filed an Omnibus Motion (To Quash Search Warrant MC06-078, Information and to Suppress Evidence). In an Order dated May 5, 2006, Judge Erum denied the above motion of the accused-appellant. Thereafter, on May 23, 2006, the accused-appellant filed a Motion for Voluntary Inhibition, praying that Judge Erum voluntarily inhibit herself from trying the above cases. Judge Erum granted the said motion and the cases were re-raffled to Branch 214.

On July 25, 2006, the accused-appellant entered a plea of not guilty to the charges against him. The cases were then tried jointly. As succinctly summarized by the Court of Appeals, the pertinent factual allegations of the prosecution and the defense are as follows:

The Version of the Prosecution

On February 4, 2006, at around ten (10) o'clock in the morning, after reporting and coordinating with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) and the Mandaluyong police, a team of NBI operatives composed of SI Otic, SI Escurel, Roy Sunega, Czar Eric Nuqui, Rolan Fernandez, Dario Sabilano, and Atty. Henry de Vera went to Cityland Pioneer Condominium located at Pioneer Street, Mandaluyong City to enforce Search Warrant No. MC06-078 and search the premises of the Accused-Appellant's unit thereat. The search warrant, issued on the basis of previous surveillance and undercover operations, authorized the NBI operatives to search and seize an undetermined amount of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, otherwise known as shabu, in possession or control of the Accused-Appellant at Unit 746, 7th Floor, Cityland Pioneer Condominium, Mandaluyong City. SCaDAE

After about an hour, the NBI team saw the Accused-Appellant outside the condominium. SI Otic immediately served the search warrant and told him to bring them to his unit at the seventh (7th) floor, which he did. Representatives from the media and the condominium administration and security, as well as Barangay officials from Barangay Highway Hills, joined the NBI operatives. Upon arriving at Unit 746, the members of the NBI team began their search. They easily saw the following items on top of the dining table: 1) an improvised water pipe; 2) an improvised burner; 3) several pieces of unused transparent plastic sachets contained inside another plastic bag; 4) a used aluminum foil strip with brown residue; 5) two (2) electronic weighing scales contained in a transparent plastic bag; 6) a pair of scissors; and, 7) a disposable lighter. SI Otic and SI Escurel thereafter searched the bedroom of the Accused-Appellant and found inside the drawer of a small bedside table one (1) transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance suspected to be shabu. SI Escurel then prepared the inventory sheet and listed the items seized. SI Otic, SI Escurel, all the other witnesses, and the Accused-Appellant signed the inventory sheet at the said unit. The seized items, marked (with SI Escurel's initials, "MEE") and photographed during the inventory, were all placed in a plastic bag. SI Escurel took custody thereof until the same were surrendered for laboratory examination.

Thereafter, the Accused-Appellant was brought to the NBI headquarters in Taft Avenue, Manila. SI Otic prepared the Post-Operation Report, booking sheet, joint affidavit of arrest, and the charge sheet. On the other hand, SI Escurel submitted to the NBI Forensic Chemistry Division the confiscated items. According to the laboratory examination conducted by Forensic Chemist Rommel G. Patingo (Patingo), the sachet of the suspected shabu weighing fifty point eleven fifty-eight (50.1158) grams and the brown residue on the aluminum foil gave positive results for the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. In view of Patingo's resignation, the RTC ordered a re-examination of the drug specimens and P/Supt. Rosales was tasked to do the same. She confirmed that the specimens were positive for the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu.

The Version of the Defense

The Accused-Appellant testified that on the date and time material to the case, he was waiting for a taxicab across the Cityland Pioneer Condominium to go to the impounding garage of the Traffic Management Office of Mandaluyong City in Shaw Boulevard, where his car was towed the previous night. While [he was] waiting, an unidentified man approached him and introduced himself as an NBI agent. The latter invited him to go to the lobby of the condominium where they could talk. He noticed several men were already posted thereat. Upon inquiry, the NBI agent, whom he later identified as SI Otic, told him that they were serving a search warrant against him. As he was shown the original and machine copies of the same, he immediately tried to call his lawyer but SI Otic grabbed his cellular phone. The other agents took his wallet, car key, and key to his condominium unit. Thereafter, he was handcuffed and escorted to his unit at the seventh (7th) floor. When they reached the same, he noticed that the door was partially open and some men went inside ahead of him. He was allowed to enter after five (5) minutes.

The Accused-Appellant recalled that several agents were busy roaming around his unit which has a bedroom, a living room, and a dining area. There were two (2) groups which conducted the search, one led by SI Otic and the other by SI Escurel. He was still in handcuffs when allowed to observe the conduct of the search. While SI Otic was searching his cabinet inside the bedroom, SI Escurel uttered, "O ano 'to?" referring to a plastic sachet [of] suspected shabu which he found inside the drawer of the bedside table. When asked about it, he told them that it was not his and that they probably brought it to his unit. Because of his answer, SI Escurel punched him in the stomach. He also denied ownership of the various drug paraphernalia found on his dining table and insisted that the same were planted by the NBI operatives. After the search which lasted for about thirty (30) minutes, he was brought to [the] NBI headquarters in Taft Avenue, Manila. 1

In a Joint Decision 2 dated July 26, 2010, the RTC found the accused-appellant guilty of the crimes charged. The trial court decreed:

WHEREFORE, the court finds accused GABRIEL SERAFIN SAULO y SORDAN GUILTY in the above-entitled cases beyond reasonable doubt, and hereby sentences him, thus:

(1) In Criminal Case No. MC06-9866-D, accused is sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and a fine of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND (Php500,000.00) PESOS, Philippine Currency considering that the quantity of the sachet of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu" is 50.1158 grams; and, TIaCcD

(2) In Criminal Case No. MC06-9867-D, accused is sentenced to suffer the penalty ranging from SIX (6) MONTHS AND ONE (1) DAY TO FOUR (4) YEARS and a fine of TEN THOUSAND (Php10,000.00) PESOS, Philippine Currency.

The preventive imprisonment of accused shall be credited in his favor in accordance with Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code.

The seized items consisting of one (1) plastic sachet of shabu weighing 50.1158 grams and drug paraphernalia are ordered confiscated and forfeited and referred to the PDEA for disposal and destruction in accordance with law. 3

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the above ruling in its Decision 4 dated September 15, 2011 in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 04626.

Thus, the accused-appellant filed the instant appeal. 5 According to the accused-appellant, the RTC Order dated January 27, 2006 was invalid as a search warrant since there was no probable cause for the offense of possession of prohibited drugs under Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165. The accused-appellant pointed out that a mere order, not a search warrant, was issued. The accused-appellant further averred that the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) agents failed to comply with the requirements of Sections 8, 11 and 12 of Rule 126 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. He likewise faulted the NBI agents for failing to strictly comply with Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. Moreover, the accused-appellant insisted that the prosecution did not adduce competent evidence that the seized items were photographed and weighed at his condominium unit and in his presence. He asserted that photographs purporting to be those of the seized items were belatedly presented when Special Investigator (SI) Escurel testified on rebuttal, but the latter admitted that he (SI Escurel) was not the one who took the pictures. SI Escurel allegedly failed to testify as to the correctness and accuracy of the photographs.

The Court finds the appeal unmeritorious.

The validity of the search warrant issued in this case cannot be assailed anymore at this late a stage. The accused-appellant filed an Omnibus Motion (To Quash Search Warrant MC06-078, Information and to Suppress Evidence) after Judge Erum issued the search warrant in the form of an Order dated January 27, 2006. This omnibus motion was, however, denied in an Order dated May 5, 2006. Thereafter, the accused-appellant no longer challenged the latter order of the trial court. This omission on the part of the accused-appellant constituted a clear waiver of his right to assail the validity of the said search warrant. We proceed to resolve the other issues raised in the appeal.

The crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 carries the following elements: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. 6 In People v. Tira, 7 we explained that:

This crime is mala prohibita, and, as such, criminal intent is not an essential element. However, the prosecution must prove that the accused had the intent to possess (animus posidendi) the drugs. Possession, under the law, includes not only actual possession, but also constructive possession. Actual possession exists when the drug is in the immediate physical possession or control of the accused. On the other hand, constructive possession exists when the drug is under the dominion and control of the accused or when he has the right to exercise dominion and control over the place where it is found.

On the other hand, the elements of illegal possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs under Section 12, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 are: (1) possession or control by the accused of any equipment, apparatus or other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body; and (2) such possession is not authorized by law. 8

In this case, the positive, straightforward and categorical testimonies of SI Otic and SI Escurel proved all the elements of the crimes charged. The testimonies of both NBI operatives provided a clear picture of the events that transpired on February 4, 2006, when they searched the condominium unit of the accused-appellant in accordance with the search warrant they obtained for that purpose. SI Escurel specifically testified that, while he was searching the room of the accused-appellant, he found a transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline granules inside the drawer of a bedside table. When Forensic Chemist Rosales later examined the contents of this transparent plastic sachet, the same gave a positive result for shabu. CcAIDa

SI Otic also testified that as soon as their team entered the accused-appellant's unit to implement their search warrant, they immediately saw the drug paraphernalia on top of a dining table. Thus, even if the search warrant of the NBI agents pertained only to the crime of "possession of an undetermined amount of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or Shabu in Violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165," 9 the seizure of the drug paraphernalia was valid as the same fell within the purview of the "plain view" doctrine. 10 The accused-appellant had exclusive dominion and control over the said condominium unit as he himself testified that, since 2005, he resided alone in said unit, which was owned by a certain Jonathan Neyra. The accused-appellant, thus, had constructive possession of the shabu and the drug paraphernalia found inside his condominium unit.

Anent the procedural lapses that were allegedly committed by the NBI agents in this case, the Court is likewise not convinced. Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 provide the procedural guidelines that law enforcement officers must carefully observe in the handling of seized illegal drugs in order to preserve the identity and integrity thereof.

In this case, the NBI agents were able to establish the existence and identity of the seized evidence, which constituted the corpus delicti of the crimes charged. SI Escurel identified in court the seized shabu and the drug paraphernalia, which bore the markings he placed thereon at the time of confiscation. SI Escurel testified that he immediately prepared an inventory of the seized evidence in the presence of the accused-appellant while the team was still in the premises of the condominium unit. SI Escurel had the inventory signed by the accused-appellant and the witnesses 11 to the search. SI Escurel also testified that he left a copy of the inventory with the accused-appellant. SI Escurel and SI Otic both testified that SI Escurel took custody of the seized evidence from the time of confiscation up to the submission thereof to the forensic chemistry laboratory for examination.

The prosecution also submitted in evidence photographs taken during the conduct of the search of the accused-appellant's premises, among which were photographs of the seized shabu and drug paraphernalia (Exhibits "Z-rebuttal," "AA-rebuttal," "BB-rebuttal," and "CC-rebuttal"). 12 The Court rejects the accused-appellant's argument that the photographs cannot be given any probative value in view of SI Escurel's admission that he was not the one who took the photographs and his failure to testify on their correctness and accuracy. It has been settled in Sison v. People13 that:

The correctness of the photograph as a faithful representation of the object portrayed can be proved prima facie, either by the testimony of the person who made it or by other competent witnesses, after which the court can admit it subject to impeachment as to its accuracy. Photographs, therefore, can be identified by the photographer or by any other competent witness who can testify to its exactness and accuracy.

SI Otic positively stated that the pictures were taken during the conduct of their operation and it was SI Sabilano who took the photographs and caused negatives thereof to be developed. 14 Both SI Otic and SI Escurel were competent to testify on the exactness and accuracy of the photographs since they were present when the same were taken during the search of the accused-appellant's premises and the agents' presence therein were prominently depicted in some of the photographs. Notably, the defense counsel himself expressed before the trial court that he was not interested to hear the testimony of the person who actually took the photographs when the prosecutor manifested her intent to request for the issuance of a subpoena to said person. Thus, the defense cannot now raise the objection that the photographs offered as rebuttal evidence were not properly identified.

The accused-appellant's defense of denial and frame-up failed to overcome the positive and corroborated testimonies of SI Otic and SI Escurel. The defense of denial and frame-up must be proved by the accused-appellant with strong and convincing evidence. 15 In this case, the accused-appellant presented no such corroborative evidence. The accused-appellant failed to ascribe, and much less prove, any ill motive on the part of the NBI agents as to why they would choose to implicate him in the crimes charged. The accused-appellant himself testified that prior to the search operation conducted by the NBI team on his premises, he did not know SI Otic and SI Escurel or any of the other members of their team. Given the foregoing circumstances, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties on the part of the NBI agents remained unrebutted. STaHIC

Finally, we find that the penalties imposed by the RTC in Criminal Case Nos. MC06-9866-D and MC06-9867-D were in accordance with law and should not be disturbed on appeal.

WHEREFORE, the Court of Appeals Decision dated September 15, 2011 in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 04626 is hereby AFFIRMED. No costs.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 5-8.

2. CA rollo, pp. 23-42; penned by Acting Presiding Judge Ofelia L. Calo.

3. Id. at 41.

4. Rollo, pp. 2-21; penned by Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro with Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Amelita G. Tolentino, concurring.

5. The prosecution and the accused-appellant respectively manifested that, in lieu of filing their supplemental briefs before this Court, they were each adopting and repleading the briefs they respectively filed before the Court of Appeals. (Rollo, pp. 29-31, 38-40.)

6. People v. Pringas, 558 Phil. 579, 596 (2007).

7. G.R. No. 139615, May 28, 2004, 430 SCRA 134, 151-152; recently cited and reiterated in Del Castillo v. People, G.R. No. 185128, January 30, 2012, 664 SCRA 430, 445-446.

8. Zalameda v. People, 614 Phil. 710, 727 (2009); see also People v. Mariano, G.R. No. 191193, November 14, 2012, 685 SCRA 592, 604.

9. Records, Vol. I, p. 234.

10. Miclat, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 176077, August 31, 2011, 656 SCRA 539, 553.

11. SI Escurel and SI Otic searched the unit in the presence of the accused-appellant and the accompanying witnesses, namely: Barangay Highway Hills Kagawad Alfredo S. Quero, Barangay Highway Hills Assistant Executive Officer Francisco Avila, media representative Norman Araga from the newspaper Police Files Tonight, Cityland Condominium security member Aniano Elvin and Cityland Condominium Administrator Nenita De Asis.

12. Records, Vol. II, pp. 536-541.

13. 320 Phil. 112, 132 (1995).

14. SI Sabilano was also referred to as Mr. Savellano in the transcript of stenographic notes of this case. (TSN, January 27, 2009, pp. 28-29.)

15. People v. Hernandez, 607 Phil. 617, 635 (2009); People v. Ocfemia, G.R. No. 185383, September 25, 2013.