THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 234687. October 6, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.FRANCIS SY y CONDE AND IRENE MELON, accused,
FRANCIS SY y CONDE, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 6, 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 234687 — (People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Francis Sy y Conde and Irene Melon, Accused; Francis Sy y Conde, Accused-Appellant.) — This is an appeal seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision 1 dated 30 June 2017 of the Court of Appeals-Cebu City station (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB-CR HC No. 02047. The CA affirmed the Judgment 2 dated 23 February 2015 of Branch 30, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dumaguete City, in Criminal Case No. 2014-22137.
Antecedents
Francis Sy y Conde (appellant) was charged with violating Section 5, 3 Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 4 in the 2nd Amended Information, the accusatory portion of which states:
That on or about the 17th day of February 2014, in the City of Dumaguete, Negros Oriental, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, FRANCIS SY y' (sic) CONDE and IRENE MELON conspiring, confederating, and mutually helping and aiding one another, not being authorized by law, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally sell and deliver to a poseur-buyer one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing an approximate weight of 0.26 gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, commonly known as ["shabu"], a dangerous drug under R.A. No. 9165.
Both accused have been found positive for the use of Methamphetamine, a dangerous drug, as reflected in Chemistry Report No. DT-059/060-14.
Contrary to Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165. 5
Upon arraignment, appellant and his co-accused, Irene Melon (Melon), entered a plea of "not guilty." Trial on the merits thereafter ensued. 6
Version of the Prosecution
On 06 February 2014, P/Insp. Ryan Jay Orapa (P/Insp. Orapa), Chief Intelligence Officer of the Provincial Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Group (PAIDSOTG), briefed PO1 Retoni Jun Escala (PO1 Escala) on appellant's alleged involvement in illegal drug activities at his residence in Katada Street, Barangay 5, Dumaguete City. PO1 Escala was then instructed to conduct a brief casing and surveillance on appellant. 7
In the morning of 17 February 2014, PO1 Escala, PO1 Irene Tomarong (PO1 Tomarong), and an asset executed a test-buy operation. The two (2) police officers were able to buy a sachet of suspected shabu from appellant, who was with Melon. PO1 Escala and appellant also agreed to meet that night for the purchase of more shabu. As a result, a buy-bust team was organized at 10:30 p.m. to entrap appellant. PO1 Escala was designated as poseur-buyer while PO1 Tomarong would serve as back-up. PO1 Escala marked the buy-bust money with his initials "RJCE." 8
Thereafter, the team proceeded to the target area. PO1 Escala and PO1 Tomarong walked towards appellant's house. When they saw appellant and Melon leave the house, the police officers approached them. PO1 Escala then asked appellant if he had the item with him. Appellant showed them one heat-sealed plastic sachet of what appeared to be shabu and said it was worth "lima ka bulig" or Php5,000.00.
Appellant handed the sachet to PO1 Escala who asked PO1 Tomarong for the money. PO1 Tomarong gave the money to PO1 Escala after executing the pre-arranged signal. However, before PO1 Escala could give the money to appellant, the latter turned his back to close the gate. Melon then told PO1 Escala to give her the payment instead, which he did. 9
After closing the gate, appellant turned around and saw the approaching buy-bust team, causing him to run into his house. The buy-bust team then gave chase, eventually apprehending appellant and informing him of his rights. Meanwhile, PO1 Tomarong arrested Melon, apprised her of her rights, and recovered from her the buy-bust money. 10
PO1 Escala marked the plastic sachet subject of the sale with "FS/IM-BB-02-17-14." After assessing that the surrounding area was unsafe and because people had already started to gather around, the team brought appellant and Melon, together with the seized evidence, to the nearest police station. Appellant and Melon, as well as Department of Justice (DOJ) representative Atty. Dominador Cimafranca, media practitioner Neil Rio, and Barangay Captain Nelson Ablir witnessed the inventory of the items bought and seized. The three (3) witnesses signed the Inventory of Property Seized. The inventory was photographed by PO1 Tomarong. The seized specimen remained in PO1 Escala's custody the whole time. 11
Later, at around 8:30 a.m., PO1 Escala and PO1 Tomarong took the seized specimen as well as the Request for Laboratory Examination to the crime laboratory, where they were received by PO3 Edilmar Managuan 12 (PO3 Managuan) who, in turn, turned over the specimen to PCI Josephine Llena (PCI Llena), the Forensic Chemical Officer. Upon examination, PCI Llena found that the specimen was positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, as shown in Chemistry Report No. D-057-14. Thereafter, she put the seized specimen in the crime laboratory's evidence vault that only she had access to. When PCI Llena testified in court, she retrieved the specimen from the evidence vault and submitted the same together with the aforesaid chemistry report. 13
Version of the Defense
On the day and time of the alleged buy-bust operation, appellant claims that he was in his room with Melon, Junisa Timbol (Timbol), and Bienn Curativo (Curativo) when there was a banging on the door. They heard someone ordering them to come out, but appellant refused to open the door when the men outside did not reply to his queries as to their identities, their authority, and whether they had a warrant. After an hour, appellant opened the door. The four (4) people inside the room were led to the sala where they waited while police officers searched the room. Thereafter, all four (4) were brought to the police station. 14
Ruling of the RTC
On 23 February 2015, the RTC rendered its Judgment, 15 the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the two (2) accused FRANCIS SY y CONDE and IRENE MELON are hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of illegal sale of 0.26 gram of shabu in violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 and are hereby sentenced each to suffer a penalty of life imprisonment and each to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).
The one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with markings "FS/IM-BB-02-17-14," with signature, containing an approximate weight of 0.26 gram of shabu is hereby confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government and to be disposed of in accordance with law.
In the service of sentence, the accused FRANCIS SY y CONDE and IRENE MELON shall be credited with the full time during which they have undergone preventive imprisonment provided they agree voluntarily in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners.
SO ORDERED. 16
The RTC found that the prosecution successfully established all the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, as well as the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated shabu. 17
Aggrieved, appellant and Melon appealed to the CA.
Ruling of the CA
In its Decision 18 dated 30 June 2017, the CA affirmed appellant's conviction. It ruled that the prosecution satisfactorily established the elements of illegal sale of shabu and the unbroken chain of custody over the seized drugs. 19
Hence, this appeal.
For purposes of this appeal, the Office of the Solicitor General and the Public Attorney's Office manifested that they were no longer filing their respective supplemental briefs. 20
Issue
The issue in this case is whether or not the CA correctly found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the offense of illegal sale of prohibited drugs under RA 9165.
Ruling of the Court
The Court finds the appeal without merit.
The CA and the RTC uniformly held that the prosecution established the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs, as defined under RA 9165. The Court sees no reason to disturb the united findings of the courts a quo.
For the prosecution of the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the following elements must be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and its consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. 21
In this case, the prosecution was able to establish the elements of illegal sale of the drugs beyond moral certainty. PO1 Escala, the poseur-buyer, positively identified appellant as the person who sold him the shabu and Melon as the person who received the payment. Settled is the rule that as long as the police officer went through the operation as a buyer and his offer was accepted by appellant and the dangerous drugs delivered to the former, the crime is considered consummated by the delivery of the goods.
It is essential for the prosecution to show that the identity and integrity of the illegal drugs have been preserved. To remove any doubt or uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the seized drugs, evidence must definitely show that the illegal drugs offered in court as exhibit are the same as those recovered from the accused. 22 This requirement is known as the chain of custody rule under RA 9165, created to safeguard doubts concerning the identity of the seized drugs. 23
Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 lays down the chain of custody rule and outlines the procedure police officers must follow in handling the seized drugs in order to preserve their integrity and evidentiary value. 24 Said provision was amended by RA 10640, 25 which was approved on 15 July 2014. Considering, however, that the offense charged was committed on 17 February 2014, the earlier version of Section 21, and its corresponding Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR), shall apply.
The following procedure must be observed under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, before it was amended by RA 10640:
Sec. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
The IRR of RA 9165 further provides:
SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.
It is well-settled that the following links should be established in the chain of custody of the confiscated item: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court. 26
In the present case, there was compliance with the procedures laid down in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 as to the custody and disposition of the seized item from its seizure up to its presentation in court.
First, the buy-bust team immediately marked the seized item at the place of seizure and took custody of the same. Second, considering that the buy-bust team deemed the area unsafe, the inventory and taking of photographs were done at the nearest police station in the presence of the three (3) mandatory witnesses, i.e., an elected public official, and representatives from the DOJ and the media, together with appellant and Melon. Third, PO1 Escala and PO1 Tomarong brought the seized item to the crime laboratory, duly received by PO3 Managuan, who subsequently turned it over to PCI Llena. And fourth, after the seized item tested positive for shabu, the same was kept in the evidence vault of the crime laboratory to which only PCI Llena had only access. Thus, the Court upholds the findings of both the RTC and the CA that there was compliance with the law as to the preservation and disposition of the dangerous drug and the chain of custody requirements.
Appellant's defense of denial is invariably viewed by the courts with disfavor because such defense can easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in most cases involving violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. 27 It deserves scant consideration in light of the positive testimonies of the police officers. 28
In order to prosper, appellant's defense of denial must be proven with strong and convincing evidence. Without proof of any intent on the part of the police officers to falsely impute to appellant the commission of a crime, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and the principle that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect, should prevail over bare denials and self-serving claims. 29
The prosecution has successfully demonstrated that the police officers faithfully adhered to the rules on chain of custody, including compliance with the inventory and three-witness requirements. As such, the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti had been properly preserved. Necessarily, appellant's conviction for the offense charged must stand. 30
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. Accordingly, the Decision dated 30 June 2017 of the Court of Appeals Cebu City station in CA-G.R. CEB-CR HC No. 02047 is AFFIRMEDin toto.
SO ORDERED." (Dimaampao, J., designated additional member per Special Order No. 2839 dated 16 September 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 4-13; penned by CA Associate Justice Germano Francisco D. Legaspi and concurred in by Executive Justice Gabriel T. Ingles and Associate Justice Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap of the Eighteenth (18th) Division, Court of Appeals, Cebu City.
2. CA rollo, pp. 79-93; penned by RTC Presiding Judge Rafael Crescencio C. Tan, Jr.
3. Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals.
4. Otherwise known as "An Act Instituting the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, Repealing Republic Act No. 6425, Otherwise Known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as Amended, Providing Funds Therefor, and Other Purposes."
5. Rollo, p. 5; CA rollo, p. 79.
6. Id.
7. Id.; CA rollo, p. 80.
8. Id. at 5-6.
9. Id. at 6; CA rollo, p. 81.
10. Id.; CA rollo, pp. 81-82.
11. Id. at 7; CA rollo, p. 82.
12. PO3 Edilmar Manaban in some parts of the record.
13. Rollo, p. 7; CA rollo, pp. 82-83.
14. Id. at 7-8; CA rollo, pp. 84-85.
15. CA rollo, pp. 79-93.
16. Id. at 93.
17. Id. at 86, 91.
18. Rollo, pp. 4-13.
19. Id. at 10.
20. Id. at 21-23.
21. People v. Pantallano, G.R. No. 233800, 06 March 2019 [Per J. A.B. Reyes, Jr., Third Division].
22. People v. Macaumbang, G.R. No. 208836, 01 April 2019 [Per J. Gesmundo, First Division]; see People v. Lumaya, 827 Phil. 473 (2018), G.R. No. 231983, 07 March 2018 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division].
23. People v. Bangcola, G.R. No. 237802, 18 March 2019 [Per J. Gesmundo, First Division].
24. People v. Alvaro, 823 Phil. 444 (2018), G.R. No. 225596, 10 January 2018 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division].
25. 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."
26. People v. Ubungen, 836 Phil. 888 (2018), G.R. No. 225497, 23 July 2018 [Per J. Martires, Third Division].
27. People v. Meneses, G.R. No. 233533, 30 June 2020 [Per J. Peralta, First Division].
28. People v. Lung Wai Tang, G.R. No. 238517, 27 November 2019 [Per J. Zalameda, Third Division], citing People v. Bala, G.R. No. 203048, 13 August 2014, 733 SCRA 50, 65 [Per J. Perez, Second Division].
29. Id., citing People v. Chi Chan Liu, G.R. No. 189272, 21 January 2015, 746 SCRA 476, 498 [Per J. Peralta, Third Division].
30. People v. Jaime y Duran, G.R. No. 232083, 27 November 2019 [Per J. Zalameda, Third Division].