People v. Soriano y Tigon

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 223552. June 17, 2020.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. MARILYN SORIANO y TIGON, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated June 17, 2020, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 223552 (People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee,v. Marilyn Soriano y Tigon, Accused-Appellant). — This appeal seeks to reverse and set aside the 13 June 2014 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 01578, which affirmed the 26 December 2012 Joint Judgment 2 of Branch 30, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dumaguete City in Criminal Case Nos. 20043 and 20044. The RTC found Marilyn Soriano y Tigon (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

Antecedents

Two (2) separate Informations were filed against accused-appellant, the accusatory portions of which state:

Criminal Case No. 20043:

That on or about the 10th day of June 2010, in the City of Dumaguete, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, not being then authorized by law, did, then and there[,] willfully, unlawfully[,] and feloniously[,] sell and deliver to poseur-buyer one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet[,] containing 0.09 gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, commonly called ["shabu,"] a dangerous drug.

Contrary to Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. 9165. 3

Criminal Case No. 20044:

That on or about the 10th day of June 2010, in the City of Dumaguete, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, not being then authorized by law, did, then and there [,] willfully, unlawfully[,] and feloniously[,] possess one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.59 gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, commonly called ["shabu,"] a dangerous drug.

That accused is found positive for use of Methamphetamine, as reflected in Chemistry Report No. CDT-033010.

Contrary to Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. 9165. 4

Accused-appellant entered a plea of "not guilty" to both offenses during arraignment. After the consolidation of the two (2) cases, trial on the merits ensued.

Version of the Prosecution

During the first week of June 2010, SPO3 Allen June Germodo (SPO3 Germodo) of the Negros Oriental Provincial Police received information that accused-appellant was selling shabu in her beauty parlor located at lower Luke Wright Street, Barangay Dos, Dumaguete City. A subsequent surveillance operation confirmed that accused-appellant was indeed selling shabu. Consequently, a buy-bust operation was planned on 10 June 2010 with a composite team from the Negros Oriental Provincial Police, National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) operatives. 5

At around 1:00 p.m. on 10 June 2010, the buy-bust team proceeded to the target area. Confidential agent and PO2 Mark Lester Ayunting (PO2 Ayunting) went inside accused-appellant's beauty parlor where he was introduced to accused-appellant as a buyer of shabu. Afterwards, accused-appellant went inside a room and brought out two (2) pieces of plastic sachet allegedly containing shabu. Apparently, the bigger sachet was worth P9,000.00, while the smaller sachet was worth P1,000.00. PO2 Ayunting gave the P1,000.00 marked money to accused-appellant in exchange for the smaller sachet. 6

After the transaction, PO2 Ayunting went outside the parlor and called the rest of the buy-bust team to inform them about the successful transaction. The buy-bust team entered the parlor and spotted accused-appellant holding one (1) transparent plastic sachet of what seemed to be shabu which led to her arrest. Confiscated from accused-appellant's possession where the following: a cell phone, marked money, and transparent sachet. The seized items were turned over to PO2 Ayunting 7 who immediately marked the same. The sachet he bought from accused-appellant was marked as "MS-BB," while the other sachet confiscated from accused-appellant's possession was marked as "MS-P."

After marking the items, PO2 Ayunting formally conducted an inventory of the seized items in the presence of Department of Justice (DOJ) representative Anthony Chilius Benlot, local PDEA representative SI3 Ferdenand Kintanar, media representative Neil Rio, and Barangay Kagawad Virginia Teves. 8 The witnesses signed the Inventory/Receipt of Drugs and other Property Seized along with the members of the buy-bust team and photographs of the inventory were likewise taken. 9

On the same day, accused-appellant and the seized items were brought to the local NBI office. Afterwards, PO2 Ayunting brought the items to the crime laboratory for examination. Police Chief Inspector Josephine Llena (PCI Llena) received the items and re-marked the same as Specimen A and Specimen B for the two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets with markings "MS-BB" and "MS-P," respectively. In Chemistry Report No. CDT-033-10, PCI Llena stated her findings that Specimen A, which weighed 0.09 gram, and Specimen B, which weighed 0.59 gram, were positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. Subsequently, PCI Llena kept the specimens in an evidence vault which she only had access prior to their presentation to the trial court. 10

Version of the Defense

Accused-appellant professed a different version of events. She claimed that on 10 June 2010, she was having lunch with her husband, Pedro Pinili, and daughter, Paulyn Marie Pinili, at her beauty parlor in Luke Wright Street, Dumaguete City. While they were eating, a certain Mr. Merto requested to have a haircut which accused-appellant did. After that, while accused-appellant and her husband were resting in a room inside the parlor, three (3) persons suddenly entered and pointed their gun at them. They were asked where they hid the shabu, and when they answered that they did not have any, the unknown persons, later known as police officers, searched the room. 11

Accused-appellant was asked to provide proper identification. In compliance, she retrieved an identification card from her bag, which also contained P27,000.00. A police officer, later identified as SPO3 Germodo, grabbed her bag and took the money away. Accused-appellant and her husband were again asked where the shabu was. At that point, SPO3 Germodo told accused-appellant, "[h]ere is P9,000.00. I have a [sic] shabu, I was able to buy from you." Thereafter, SPO3 Germodo placed the shabu on the table and the other police officers called for witnesses from the DOJ, a barangay kagawad, and others. Accused-appellant later saw these persons sign a document. Photographs were also taken of accused-appellant. Subsequently, she was brought to the police station where she was detained. 12

Ruling of the RTC

In its Joint Judgment dated 26 December 2012, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165. She was sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and pay a fine of P500,000.00 for the offense of Illegal Sale of Prohibited Drugs and sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 12 years and one (1) day to 14 years and pay a fine of P400,000.00 for the offense of Illegal Possession of Prohibited Drugs. 13

According to the RTC, the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs as it was proved that accused-appellant sold to the poseur-buyer one (1) sachet containing methamphetamine hydrochloride during a valid entrapment operation conducted by the Negros Oriental Provincial Police and was consequently found in possession of one (1) sachet of methamphetamine hydrochloride. The RTC found that the police officers complied with the requirements of the law as the integrity of the confiscated drugs were preserved and disregarded accused-appellant's denial of the charge against her. 14

Ruling of the CA

On appeal, the CA, in its Decision dated 13 June 2014, affirmed accused-appellant's conviction. It held that accused-appellant was validly arrested during a legitimate buy-bust operation and the police officers clearly proved an unbroken chain of custody of the confiscated sachets which established the integrity and evidentiary value of said items. 15

Hence, this appeal.

Issue

The sole issue in this case is whether or not the CA correctly found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165.

Ruling of the Court

The appeal is without merit.

Accused-appellant was charged with the offenses of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, defined and penalized under Sections 5 and 11, both under Article II of RA 9165. In order to be convicted of the offense of illegal sale, the following elements must be proved: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller; (b) the object of the sale and the consideration; and (c) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. 16 On the other hand, the prosecution must establish the following elements in an illegal possession of dangerous drugs to warrant accused-appellant's conviction: (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. 17

Both the RTC and the CA found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165. The prosecution was able to satisfactorily establish the offense charged as accused-appellant sold one (1) plastic sachet of shabu to PO2 Ayunting during a legitimate buy-bust operation. Both courts likewise found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of prohibited drugs as she was found unlawfully possessing a sachet of shabu.

Settled is the rule that factual findings of the RTC, when affirmed by the CA, are entitled to great weight and respect by this Court and are deemed final and conclusive when supported by the evidence on record. 18 Absent any showing that the trial and the appellate courts overlooked certain facts and circumstances that could substantially affect the outcome, their rulings must be upheld. 19 Also, no ill-motive was shown on the part of the police officers to tarnish their positive testimonies. The Court has time and time again held that categorical and consistent positive identification, without any ill motive, prevails over alibi and denial. 20

Further, the Court notes that the buy-bust team had sufficiently complied with the chain of custody rule under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165.

Case law states that in illegal sale and illegal possession of prohibited drugs, it is essential that the identity of the prohibited drug be established with moral certainty. In order to obviate any unnecessary doubts on the identity of the dangerous drugs, the prosecution has to show an unbroken chain of custody of the same. It must be able to account for each link in the chain of custody over the dangerous drug from the moment of seizure up to its presentation in court as evidence of the corpus delicti. 21

In this case, the prosecution was able to clearly establish the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated sachets of shabu. The records show that after accused-appellant was arrested during the buy-bust operation, PO2 Ayunting had possession of the shabu which he bought from accused-appellant. The other items seized after accused-appellant's arrest were likewise turned over to PO2 Ayunting who retained and marked the same in the place of arrest. Thereafter, the inventory was witnessed by a DOJ representative, media representative, local elective official, and a PDEA representative, who all signed in the inventory as witnesses. Photographs were also taken during the conduct of the inventory. PO2 Ayunting then brought the specimens to the laboratory for qualitative examination, the results of which confirmed that the seized items contained methamphetamine hydrochloride. Said specimens were thereafter kept in an evidence vault by PCI Llena which she only had access to prior to their presentation to the court. From the foregoing, the Court holds that the police officers complied with the chain of custody rule. Thus, the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti had been duly preserved.

The prosecution has sufficiently established every single element of both offenses under Article II, Sections 5 and 11 of RA 9165 and proved that the police officers preserved the integrity and identity of the seized items beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, accused-appellant's conviction must be affirmed. Accordingly, the penalties of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 in Criminal Case No. 20043, and the penalty of imprisonment of 12 years and one (1) day, as minimum, to 14 years, as maximum, and a fine in the amount of P400,000.00 in Criminal Case No. 20044, which were imposed by the CA are sustained, being within the range provided by law.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. Accordingly, the Decision dated 13 June 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 01578, affirming the Joint Judgment dated 26 December 2012 of Branch 30, RTC-Dumaguete City, finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165, is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 4-20; penned by Associate Justice Edgardo L. Delos Santos (now a Member of this Court), and concurred in by Associate Justices Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap and Jhosep Y. Lopez of the Court of Appeals, Manila.

2. CA rollo,pp. 26-38; penned by Judge Rafael Crescencio C. Tan, Jr.

3.Rollo, p. 5.

4.Id.

5.Id. at 6; CA rollo, p. 27.

6.Id. at 7; CA rollo, p. 28.

7.Id.

8.Id. at 8; CA rollo, pp. 28-29.

9.Id.; CA rollo, p. 29.

10.Id. at 8-9, CA rollo, p. 29.

11.Rollo, pp. 9-10.

12.Id. at 9-11.

13. CA rollo, p. 38.

14.Id. at 31-38.

15.Rollo, pp. 13-19.

16.People v. Roales, G.R. No. 233656, 02 October 2019; People v. Cadiente, G.R. No. 228255, 10 June 2019.

17.People v. Eda, G.R. No. 220715, 24 August 2016, 801 SCRA 510, 522.

18.People v. Gerola, 813 Phil. 1055-1069; G.R. No. 217973, 19 July 2017, 831 SCRA 469.

19.People v. Jao, 810 Phil. 1028-1039; G.R. No. 225634, 07 June 2017, 157 SCRA 158, 167.

20.People v. Ascarraga, G.R. No. 222337, 23 July 2018, 873 SCRA 1, 8.

21.See People v. Manalao, 703 Phil. 101-115; G.R. No. 187496, 06 February 2013, 690 SCRA 106, 116.