FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 179276. April 10, 2013.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JULIO TARROZA TEOPE and ROY ORDAMI COMANDAO, accused;
JULIO TARROZA TEOPE, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated April 10, 2013 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 179276 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JULIO TARROZA TEOPE and ROY ORDAMI COMANDAO, Accused; JULIO TARROZA TEOPE, Accused-Appellant.
Julio Tarroza Teope appeals the affirmance by the Court of Appeals (CA) of his conviction for the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. 1
The antecedents follow. SCIAaT
On December 16, 2002, an informant reported to the Drug Enforcement Unit (DEU) of the Parañaque Police Station that alias July was engaged in illegal drug trade in the area of Riverside 1, Barangay Tambo, Parañaque City. P/Sr.Insp. Wilfredo Calderon (PSI Calderon) of the DEU forthwith formed a team to entrap July. Named to the team were PO2 Elmer Magtanong, who was to be the poseur buyer, and SPO3 Hyacinth Ocfemia, SPO1 Mario Vidallon, PO3 Gregorio Ojas, Jr. and PO1 Edwin Plopinio, who would be Magtanong's back-up men. After preparing the marked money for the entrapment consisting of three P100.00 bills, the team proceeded to the target site, and arrived there at around 6 p.m. Magtanong and the informant approached a house where they were met by two persons (who were later identified as appellant Teope and his co-accused Roy Comandao). The informant introduced Magtanong to Teope as someone desirous of buying shabu (Iiskor kami ng shabu, kung pwede pagbilhan niya ako ng halagang P300.00). 2 Magtanong then delivered the marked money to Teope, who in turn handed Magtanong a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. Upon receiving the item, Magtanong removed his cap to signal the back-up officers that the transaction had been consummated. The back-up officers approached. Plopinio recovered the marked money from Teope himself. After apprising Teope about his rights, the officers arrested him. When Ojas asked him to empty his pockets, Comandao took out the contents, which included a small plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. After the officers apprised him about his rights, they also arrested Comandao.
The officers brought Teope and Comandao to the DEU office for investigation. The plastic sachet confiscated from Teope, containing 0.03 gram of white crystalline substance, was marked as JTT 12/16/02, while the sachet confiscated from Comandao, also containing 0.03 gram of white crystalline substance, was marked as RCO 12/16/02. Teope and Comandao and a representative of the media signed the inventory dated December 16, 2002 that listed the confiscated items. 3
Teope and Comandao were later on respectively charged in the Regional Trial Court in Parañaque City (RTC) with illegal sale of dangerous drugs and illegal possession of dangerous drugs as defined and punished under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. They pleaded not guilty to the respective informations.
The Prosecution presented Magtanong and Ojas to narrate the details of the buy-bust operation itself. They positively identified Teope as the person who had sold the shabu to Magtanong. 4 Also presented in evidence were: (a) pinagsamang sinumpaang salaysay of the members of the buy-bust team; 5 (b) request for laboratory examination; 6 (c) Physical Sciences Report No. D-1753-02S finding that Specimen A (referring to the item marked as JTT 12/16/02) tested positive for methy lamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug; 7 (d) photocopy of the three marked P100.00 bills; 8 (e) the corpus delicti (already turned over to the PDEA); and (f) inventory of recovered/seized items. 9
Considering that Comandao had jumped bail during trial, only Teope was presented by the Defense. 10 Teope attested that at around 6 p.m. of December 16, 2002, he was feeding his chickens at home when the buy-bust team, clad in civilian clothes, arrived and searched his house; that his niece and her husband, Comandao, were then at his house paying him a visit; and that Comandao was fixing Teope's VCD player at the time of their arrest.
On December 14, 2005, the RTC (Branch 259) convicted Teope and Comandao as charged 11 to wit: EASCDH
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the prosecution having established the guilt of accused Julio Teope and Roy Comandao beyond any reasonable doubt. This Court hereby pronounces Julio Teope GUILTY for Violation of Section 5(,) Art. II (of) RA 9165 and he is hereby sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of PhP500,000.00; also found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt is Roy Comandao for Violation (of) Section 11(,) Art. II (of) RA 9165 and he is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day and to pay a fine of PhP300,000.00.
The Clerk of Court is directed to prepare the Mittimus for the immediate transfer of Julio Teope from Parañaque City Jail to the New Bilibid Prisons, Muntinlupa City and to forward the physical evidence in this case to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency pursuant to Administrative Order No. 145-2002 for proper disposition.
SO ORDERED.
The RTC found that no ill-motive or wrongdoing had motivated the arresting officers who were only performing their duties. It noted that Magtanong had positively identified Teope in court as the person who sold to him the sachet of shabu and Comandao as Teope's companion who had also been found in possession of a sachet of shabu. It rejected the explanation of the two accused finding that there was no corroborating evidence showing them to be victims of injustice and police oppression. 12
Teope and Comandao appealed.
On April 24, 2007, the CA affirmed the conviction of Teope and Comandao. It dismissed the appeal of Comandao because he had jumped bail during the trial, and affirmed Teope's conviction because it found no infringement of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 during the entrapment. It pointed out that the inventory of recovered/seized items showed that the inventory of the confiscated items was signed by a representative of the media, as well as by Teope and Comandao themselves. HIEAcC
In this appeal, Teope reiterates that the officers violated Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165; that the State did not establish an unbroken chain of custody of the shabu because the investigator who had received the evidence from the apprehending officers and the forensic chemist who had received the shabu from the investigator did not themselves testify in court; that such omission showed the possibility of an irregularity in the handling of the shabu during its transportation to the crime laboratory, thereby engendering a measure of reasonable doubt that warranted his acquittal.
The appeal has no merit.
The non-compliance by the buy-bust team with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 was not necessarily fatal, 13 as to automatically make an accused's arrest illegal or to render the seized or confiscated items inadmissible. What was of utmost importance was the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized or confiscated items, being the very material to be relied upon in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. 14 This proceeds from the recognition by the law of situations that would not permit the strict compliance with the requirements of Section 21 under field conditions. Indeed, the officers operate under varied conditions, and cannot always be expected to observe all the rigorous procedures prescribed for the handling of confiscated drug-related evidence. 15
Based on a scrutiny of the records, the Court finds that the integrity of the shabu seized from Teope was preserved within the context of Section 21. As the CA noted, Teope signed the inventory together with Comandao and a representative of the media. Equally worth noting is that the buy-bust team did not waste time following their arrest of Teope at around 6:00 p.m. by immediately requesting the laboratory examination to be conducted by the PNP Crime Laboratory on the confiscated shabu, which Ocfemia, a member of the buy-bust team, then brought forthwith to the crime laboratory. The records show that the request for the laboratory examination indicated that the specimen was received from Ocfemia at "2335H" of December 16, 2002, while the Physical Science Report relative to Specimen A (marked JTT) was completed at "0230H" of December 17, 2002, 16 or just over three hours from the time that the crime laboratory had received the request and the specimen.
Absent any proof of ill-motive for falsely imputing the crime to Teope, the Court must presume the regularity in the performance of official duty in favor of the buy-bust operation. SaICcT
Consequently, we affirm the finding that the State proved against Teope all the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt, namely: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of Appeals promulgated on April 24, 2007; and ORDERS Julio Tarroza Teope to pay the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-13; penned by Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. (retired), with Associate Justice Mario L. Guariña III (retired) and Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe (now a Member of this Court) concurring.
2.Records, p. 72.
3.Id. at 221.
4.Id. at 78-79.
5.Id. at 219-220.
6.Id. at 216.
7.Id. at 217.
8.Id. at 6.
9.Id. at 221.
10.Id. at 225-240.
11.Id. at 259-260.
12.Id. at 259.
13.People v. Pringas, G.R. No. 175928, August 31, 2007, 531 SCRA 828, 842-843.
14.Id.
15.People v. Pagaduan, G.R. No. 179029, August 9, 2010, 627 SCRA 308, 321.
16.Records, pp. 216-217.