FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 250932. November 18, 2020.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. ARTURO SEMITARA y CARIOS, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated November 18, 2020which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 250932 (People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arturo Semitara y Carios,Accused-Appellant). — This appeal 1 seeks the reversal of the Decision 2 dated 15 March 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09497, which affirmed the Consolidated Decision 3 dated 22 May 2017 of Branch 56, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Libmanan, Camarines Sur in Criminal Case Nos. L-5906 & L-5907, finding accused-appellant Arturo Semitara y Carios (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. 4
Antecedents
Accused-appellant was charged with violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, in two (2) separate Information, the accusatory portions of which read:
Criminal Case No. L-5906
On or about 8:20 in the evening of July 23, 2015 in Barangay Church Site, Libmanan, Camarines Sur and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority in law, not being authorized to sell any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell, deliver and give away, to a poseur-buyer and for a consideration of P700.00, Philippine currency, one (1) small heat-sealed transparent sachet containing methamphetamine hydrochloride locally known as 'SHABU,' a dangerous drug, with marking and net weight A (GVBN-1) = 0.087 gram, to the damage and prejudice of the Republic of the Philippines.
Acts contrary to law. 5
Criminal Case No. L-5907
On or about 8:20 in the evening of July 23, 2015 in Barangay Church Site, Libmanan, Camarines Sur and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority in law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession, control and custody two (2) small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, with their corresponding recorded net weights: B (GVBN-9) = 0.053 gram; and C (GVBN-10) = 0.016 gram, a dangerous drug, to the damage and prejudice of the Republic of the Philippines.
Acts contrary to law. 6
Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges. After termination of pre-trial, trial on the merits ensued. 7
Version of the Prosecution
On 22 July 2015, Police Officer 1 Glenn Venson V. Nacion (PO1 Nacion), from the Libmanan, Camarines Sur station of the Philippine National Police (PNP), together with a confidential informant (CI), conducted a test-buy from one alias Peti, later identified as the accused-appellant. The procured item tested positive for shabu. The following day, a team was formed to conduct a buy-bust operation against accused-appellant. PO1 Nacion, designated as the poseur-buyer, arranged to meet accused-appellant at Brgy. Station Churchsite.
That evening, the team proceeded to the area. Accused-appellant sold Php700.00 worth of shabu to PO1 Nacion. After exchanging the money with the drugs, PO1 Nacion arrested accused-appellant. At that instance, Punong Barangay David Samaniego, Barangay Kagawad Alejandro, and media representative Ed Saliva arrived and witnessed PO1 Nacion conduct a body search on accused-appellant. The search yielded the Php700.00 buy-bust money and two (2) plastic sachets with suspected shabu. PO1 Nacion immediately marked the seized items and conducted inventory, while PO1 Jean Sheryl Cristo took photographs. Afterwards, they proceeded to the police station for documentation purposes. PO1 Nacion then bought the seized items to the crime laboratory. Upon examination, the seized drugs tested positive for shabu. 8
Version of the Defense
Accused-appellant denied the charges. He claimed that in the evening of 23 July 2015, he received a text message from one of his frequent habal-habal passengers, asking to be picked up at Centro, Brgy. Station near the church. Upon reaching the area, his passenger together with a male companion approached him. The male companion asked him if he wanted to buy shabu, but he refused. While he was turning his back, his passenger's male companion, which he later came to know as PO1 Nacion, began twisting his arms. Two (2) other police officers came, one (1) of whom placed something inside his pockets while the other pointed a gun on his forehead. Thereafter, PO1 Nacion searched his pocket and allegedly found Php700.00 and three (3) plastic sachets. He denied that these items were his, but he was nonetheless brought to the police station and was detained. 9
Ruling of the RTC
On 22 May 2017, the RTC rendered its Consolidated Decision, 10 convicting accused-appellant of the offenses charged:
Wherefore, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding ARTURO SEMITARA y Carios aka "Peti" GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged in both Informations. For drug selling, he is hereby sentenced to Life Imprisonment and ordered to pay a Fine in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand (Php500,000.00) Pesos. For drug possession, he is hereby sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months, as maximum. He is likewise ordered to pay a Fine of Three Hundred Thousand (PhP300,000.00) Pesos.
Let the confiscated drug items be turned-over to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for its appropriate disposition.
SO ORDERED. 11
The RTC found that the prosecution duly established the elements of both illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu. 12 It gave credence to the testimonies of the police officers and accorded them the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties. 13 The RTC was also convinced that there was an unbroken chain of custody of the seized items from the time they were seized until they were presented in court, and the integrity of the same has not been compromised. 14
Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed to the CA.
Ruling of the CA
In its Decision 15 dated 15 March 2019, the CA affirmed accused-appellant's conviction. The dispositive portion of said decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED. The Consolidated Decision dated 22 May 2017 issued by the Regional Trial Court of Libmanan, Camarines Sur, Branch 56 in Criminal Case Nos. L-5906 and L-5907, is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.16
The CA held that the prosecution duly established all the elements of the illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu by accused-appellant. It likewise held that the prosecution was able to prove an unbroken chain of custody over the seized dangerous drugs, thus preserving its integrity and evidentiary value. The CA disregarded accused-appellant's denial which was unsubstantiated by any credible and convincing evidence. 17
Hence, this appeal.
Issue
The sole issue in this case is whether the CA correctly affirmed accused-appellant's conviction for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs punishable under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA No. 9165.
Ruling of the Court
The appeal is dismissed.
Verily, the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Art. II of RA No. 9165 are: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and its payment. 18 The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummate the illegal sale transaction. What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited drug, the corpus delicti, as evidence. 19 On the other hand, the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of RA No. 9165 are: (a) the accused was in possession of an item or object identified as a prohibited drug; (b) such possession was not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. 20
The RTC, as affirmed by the CA, found that the prosecution established all the foregoing elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu. The Court sees no reason to disturb their common findings. Factual findings of the appellate court, 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, which accused-appellant failed to establish in this case. 21
In Criminal Case No. L-5906, the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellant for illegal sale of shabu. Accused-appellant was caught in flagrante selling shabu to PO1 Nacion during a legitimate buy-bust operation. PO1 Nacion positively identified accused-appellant as the one who sold the shabu to him for Php700.00. The sale was consummated after the exchange of buy-bust money and shabu between PO1 Nacion and accused-appellant. PO1 Nacion likewise identified the sachet subject of the sale, marked as "GVBN-1," as well as the buy-bust money used for the transaction. 22
Meanwhile, in Criminal Case No. L-5907, the prosecution established the elements of illegal possession with the testimony of PO1 Nacion and the presentation of the corpus delicti in court. Apart from the sachet of shabu sold by accused-appellant, PO1 Nacion found the Php700.00 buy-bust money and two (2) plastic sachets containing 0.053 gram ("GVBN-9") and 0.016 gram ("GVBN-10") of shabu from accused-appellant's pocket. Accused-appellant freely and consciously possessed the said prohibited drug, without any authority or license to possess the same. 23
The Court likewise upholds the common findings of the RTC and the CA that there was compliance with chain of custody requirements, as well as those on preservation and disposition of dangerous drugs, as provided by Section 21 of RA 9165 as amended by RA 10640. 24 The amendatory law, the applicable law at the commission of the offense, specifically mandates the presence of an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service OR the media during the inventory and taking of photographs of the seized drug.
In this case, after arresting accused-appellant and conducting the body search that yielded the buy-bust money and additional two (2) sachets containing shabu, PO1 Nacion marked the seized evidence. Afterwards, the inventory and taking of photographs ensued. All the required witnesses under RA 10640 were present during the search, marking, inventory and taking of photographs. In fact, not just one, but two elected public officials, i.e., the Punong Barangay and Barangay Kagawad, witnessed the mandatory procedures, along with the required representative from the media, and accused-appellant himself. Thereafter, PO1 Nacion placed the seized items inside a brown envelope. Later, PO1 Nacion himself brought the same to the crime laboratory, and after examination by the forensic chemist Police Senior Inspector Vina Macaro Zaldua (PSI Zaldua), the sachets were found to be positive for shabu. PSI Zaldua marked the seized items and kept the same in the evidence room before presenting it in court. 25
Accused-appellant claims that the trial court erred in giving weight and credence to the inconsistent statements of prosecution witnesses over his denial. 26 It is settled, however, that denial is a weak form of defense, especially when it is not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, as in this case. 27 Accused-appellant likewise failed to show any ill motive on the part of PO1 Nacion and the rest of the buy-bust team. Hence, credence should be given to the direct account of the police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner. 28
All the foregoing considered, the Court affirms the conviction of the accused-appellant for the offenses of illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu. The Court likewise affirms the penalties imposed by the CA for being in accordance with the law.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated 15 March 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09497, finding accused-appellant GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, is AFFIRMED.
The letter dated August 6, 2020 of CSInsp. Jeremy L. Argonza, Officer-in-Charge, Superintendent, New Bilibid Prison, East Correctional Facility, Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, confirming the confinement therein of accused-appellant since September 16, 2017; the accused-appellant's manifestation (in lieu of supplemental brief) dated August 26, 2020, stating that it would no longer be filing a supplemental brief since no new issues material to the case which were not elaborated upon the appellant's brief were discovered; the Office of the Solicitor General's manifestation (in lieu of supplemental brief) dated September 8, 2020, stating that it no longer desires to file a supplement to its Appellee's Brief, considering that issues in their case had already been sufficiently and exhaustively discussed and argued by Plaintiff-appellee in its Appellee's Brief dated December 4, 2018, are all NOTED.
SO ORDERED." Carandang, J., on official leave.
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 20-21; see Notice of Appeal dated 02 April 2019.
2.Id. at 3-19; penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion and concurred in by Associate Justices Maria Elisa Sempio-Diy and Maria Filomena D. Singh of the Special Sixteenth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
3. CA rollo, pp. 67-88; penned by Acting Presiding Judge Manuel G. Salumbides.
4. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
5.Rollo, p. 4
6.Id. at 4-5.
7.Id. at 5
8.Id. at 5-8.
9. CA rollo, pp. 73-74.
10.Id. at 67-88.
11.Id. at 88.
12.Id. at 75.
13.Id. at 86.
14.Id. at 85-86.
15.Rollo, pp. 3-19.
16.Id. at 18.
17.Id. at 12-13, 16-17.
18.People v. Cuevas, G.R. No. 238906, 05 November 2018 [per J. Perlas-Bernabe].
19.See People v. Amaroi, G.R. No. 207517, 01 June 2016 [per J. Peralta].
20.Supra at note 18.
21.People v. Bontuyan, G.R. No. 206912, 10 September 2014, 742 Phil. 788-803 (2014) [per J. Perez].
22.Rollo, p. 12.
23.Id. at 13.
24. Republic Act No. 10640 (An Act to further strengthen the Anti-Drug Campaign of the Government, Amending for the purpose Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, Otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002") which was approved on 15 July 2014 and became effective on 7 August 2014 or 15 days after its publication on 23 July 2014.
25.Rollo, pp. 15-16.
26. CA rollo, p. 48.
27.People v. Dali, G.R. No. 234163, 06 March 2019.
28.See People v. Cabiles, G.R. No. 220758, 07 June 2017, 810 Phil. 969-978 (2017) [per J. Tijam].