SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 200330. October 17, 2016.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSE SEVA @ DODONG AND LYDIA SEVA Y MORTE @ LYDIA, accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated17 October 2016 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 200330 (People of the Philippines v. Jose Seva @ Dodong and Lydia Seva y Morte @ Lydia). — We decide the appeal, filed by appellants Jose Seva and Lydia Seva, challenging the May 25, 2011 decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03018. The appealed decision affirmed the October 4, 2007 joint decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 103, Quezon City, finding: (a) the appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale 3 of dangerous drugs punished under Section 5 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165; and (b) Lydia guilty of illegal possession 4 of dangerous drugs under Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165.
In its decision of October 4, 2007, the RTC found the appellants guilty of illegal sale of shabu in Criminal Case No. Q-05-134653, and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment. 5 In the same decision, the trial court also convicted Lydia of illegal possession of shabu in Criminal Case No. Q-05-134654, and sentenced her to suffer the indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to thirteen (13) years, as maximum. 6
On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC decision. The CA held that all the elements of illegal sale of shabu had been proven. It explained that the prosecution was able to establish that the appellants sold one plastic sachet of shabu to PO2 Joseph Ortiz in exchange for P200.
The CA also upheld Lydia's conviction for illegal possession of shabu, since it was shown that she had freely and consciously possessed one plastic sachet containing shabu without any legal authority to do so.
The CA found the respective testimonies of PO2 Ortiz and PO1 Teresita Reyes credible and convincing, and refuted the appellants' claim that the witnesses' testimonies were inconsistent. The CA also ruled that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized sachets of shabu had been properly preserved. It explained that the prosecution was able to show that the sachet sold by the appellants and the sachet found in Lydia's possession were the same items marked by the police and submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination.
Our Ruling
The appellants' respective convictions stand.
For the successful prosecution of offenses involving the illegal sale of drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the following elements must be proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, object and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material to the prosecution for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti. 7
In the present case, PO2 Ortiz positively identified the appellants as the persons who sold to him one (1) plastic sachet containing white crystalline substances in exchange for the marked money. Conspiracy between the appellants was evident: Jose transacted with PO2 Ortiz regarding the price and the quantity of the shabu to be sold; Lydia took out one plastic sachet from her bra, and then handed it to the poseur-buyer. The white crystalline substances in the plastic sachets were later on confirmed to be methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, per Chemistry Report No. D-448-2005 issued by the PNP Central Police District Crime Laboratory Forensic Chemical Officer, Police Superintendent Filipinas Papa. Notably, PO1 Teresita Reyes corroborated PO2 Ortiz' testimony on material points.
We rely on the court a quo's assessment of the credibility of PO2 Ortiz and PO1 Reyes absent any showing that certain facts of weight and substance bearing on the elements of the crime have been overlooked. TCAScE
Like the RTC and the CA, we are unpersuaded by the appellants' defenses of denial and frame-up. This Court has invariably viewed with disfavor the defense of denial. Denial is inherently a weak defense and cannot prevail over the positive identification by the prosecution. Negative and self-serving denial deserves no weight in law when unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence. The defense of denial, like frame-up, is a common and standard line of defense in most prosecutions arising from violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act. 8 Notably, the defense failed to impute any ill motive on the part of the police to falsely implicate the appellant; the appellant even admitted that he did not know the police officers who testified against him. We point out, too, that the police coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), as evidenced by the Pre-Operation Report and Certificate of Coordination.
After a meticulous reading of the records, we also find that the prosecution had established the crucial links in the chain of custody of the seized plastic sachets of shabu, from the time they were first confiscated from the appellants, until they were brought for examination and presented in court. The sequence of events established by the evidence shows that the police had substantially complied with the requirements mandated by law for the proper custody of the seized drug.
The records bear out that after PO2 Ortiz received the plastic sachet from Lydia, he made the pre-arranged signal to his companions who then immediately rushed to the scene. The police introduced themselves as police officers, informed the appellants of their rights, and arrested them. PO1 Reyes frisked Lydia, and found the marked money and another plastic sachet containing white crystalline substances in her bra. PO2 Ortiz marked the plastic sachet sold to him, while PO1 Reyes marked the sachet taken out of Lydia's bra. The police inventoried the seized specimen, and the inventory was signed by Police Officer Dante Nagera. 9 Thereafter, the police photographed the appellants and the seized items.
After the police investigator had made a request for laboratory examination, PO2 Ortiz brought this request and the two marked sachets to the PNP Central Police District Crime Laboratory for qualitative analysis. Forensic Chemist Papa examined the sachets. Per Chemistry Report No. D-448-2005, the submitted specimens tested positive for the presence of shabu, a dangerous drug. The sachets remained under the custody of the PNP Crime Laboratory Office until they were presented in court.
Plainly, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were duly proven not to have been compromised. As aptly observed by the CA, the "prosecution was able to present the required unbroken chain in the custody of the subject drugs . . . ." 10
We sustain the penalties and the fines imposed by the RTC (and affirmed by the CA) as provided for by law under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby AFFIRM the May 25, 2011 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03018.
SO ORDERED. Leonen, J., on official leave." cTDaEH
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTO
Division Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 2-25; penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion, and concurred in by Associate Justices Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Japar B. Dimaampao.
2. CA rollo, pp. 21-27; penned by Judge Jaime N. Salazar, Jr.
3. 0.025 grams of shabu.
4. 0.14 grams of shabu.
5. The RTC also ordered the appellants to pay a P500,000.00 fine.
6. The RTC also ordered Lydia Seva to pay a P300,000.00 fine.
7. See People v. Cruz, 667 Phil. 420, 432-433 (2011).
8. See People of the Philippines v. Bienvenido Miranda, G.R. No. 209338, June 29, 2015, see sc.judiciary.gov.ph.
9. The Inventory Receipt was signed by P/Supt. Gerardo Ratuita.
10. Rollo, p. 23.