People v. Tolentino

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 199222. June 13, 2013.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. CRISANTO TOLENTINO, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 13, 2013which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 199222 (People of the Philippines vs. Crisanto Tolentino). — On appeal is the Decision 1 dated March 18, 2011 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03880 which affirmed in toto the Decision 2 dated January 22, 2009 in Criminal Case Nos. 07-634 and 07-635 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Binangonan, Rizal, Branch 67, the fallo of which reads as follows:

We thus find accused Crisanto Tolentino GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violating ยง5 of R.A. No. 9165 and sentence him to suffer a penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of [P]500,000.00. We also find him GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violating ยง11 of R.A. No. 9165 and illegally possessing a total of 0.01 grams of shabu and accordingly sentence him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of 12 years and 1 day as minimum to 13 years as maximum and to pay a fine of [P]300,000.00.

Let the drug samples in this case be forwarded to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper disposition. Furnish PDEA with a copy of this Decision per OCA Circular No. 70-2007.

SO ORDERED. 3

The Facts

Two separate Informations dated October 2, 2007 were filed before the RTC against accused-appellant Crisanto Tolentino (Tolentino) for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 4 (R.A. No. 9165). The Informations read: HEITAD

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 07-634

"That on or about the 30th day of September 2007, in the Municipality of Binangonan, Province of Rizal, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being lawfully authorized to sell any dangerous drug, did, then and there wilfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell, deliver and give away to another, 0.02 gram of white crystalline substance contained in one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet for and in consideration of the amount of Php200.00, which substance was found positive to the test for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, so commonly known as 'shabu', a dangerous drug, in violation of the above cited law.

CONTRARY TO LAW."

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 07-635

"That on or about the 30th day of September 2007, in the Municipality of Binangonan, Province of Rizal, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being lawfully authorized by law to possess any dangerous drug, did, then and there wilfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in possession, custody and control 0.01 gram of white crystalline substance contained in one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet, which substance was found positive to the test for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, so commonly known as 'shabu', a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.

CONTRARY TO LAW." 5

Upon arraignment, Tolentino pleaded not guilty to both charges. 6 AcEIHC

Version of the Prosecution

At around 9:30 a.m. of September 29, 2007, policemen PO1 Arnel Diocena (PO1 Diocena) and PO1 Jeffrey Ditablan (PO1 Ditablan) of Binangonan Police Station received reports that an alias "Jess" was selling shabu at San Roque Street, Cervo Compound, Barangay Bilibiran, Binangonan, Rizal. On the basis of the reports, a buy-bust operation team was formed, consisting of PO1 Ditablan, Police Inspector Alfredo Lim, PO1 Diocena and Dennis Gorospe. Their Chief of Police, Police Superintendent Felipe Oloroso Abigan, Jr., assigned PO1 Diocena to act as a poseur-buyer, handing to him a Two Hundred Peso (P200.00) bill to be used as marked money. 7

Upon their arrival at the target area of operation at around 11:45 p.m., PO1 Diocena and an asset were approached by Jess who asked them, "Pare ano lakad nyo?" The asset answered, "Iiskor sana kami ng kasama ko." Jess replied, "Mayroon ako, magkano kukunin ninyo?" PO1 Diocena told him, "Bigyan mo ako ng kasang dos" and handed the marked P200 bill to "Jess" who took out and showed to him two heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing what was suspected as shabu and passed one to PO1 Diocena. When PO1 Diocena lit his lighter to signal that the sale was already consummated, PO1 Ditablan immediately rushed and assisted the former in arresting "Jess", who turned out to be Tolentino. 8

The marked money and the other sachet of shabu were recovered from Tolentino. The sachet given to PO1 Diocena was marked as "ADD-1" while the one taken after a frisk was marked as "ADD-2". 9 PO1 Diocena placed his initials on the sachets of the suspected shabu, which were later submitted to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory in Camp Crame. 10 A laboratory examination was conducted on the contents of the transparent sachets, revealing that these were indeed positive for the presence of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu). 11 Hence, the two Informations were filed against Tolentino.

Version of the Defense

Tolentino denied the allegations against him and interposed the defense of frame-up. He narrated that on September 29, 2007, at around 10:00 p.m., he bought cigarettes from a store in San Roque Street, Cervo Compound, Barangay Bilibiran, Binangonan, Rizal. He met two unidentified men on his way home and they asked him to get them illegal drugs. Upon his refusal, one of the two men twisted his forearm then asked for the whereabouts of a certain Benjie Borja. When he replied that he did not know such person, the men boxed him. Later on, two men on board a motorcycle arrived and also hurt him. The four men forced him to tell them the whereabouts of Benjie Borja. 12 SIaHTD

The Ruling of the RTC

On January 22, 2009, the RTC rendered its Decision finding Tolentino guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged.

For the trial court, the prosecution was able to present clearly Tolentino's sale and possession of illegal drugs, presenting in detail the sale transaction that eventually led to Tolentino's arrest. The court found credible the testimony of prosecution witness PO1 Diocena, which was "straightforward, candid, unshaken by cross-examination and unflawed by inconsistencies or contradictions in its material points . . . ." 13 Tolentino's defenses, on the other hand, were weak, uncorroborated and self-serving.

Feeling aggrieved, Tolentino appealed to the CA. He argued that denial, like alibi, is not always fabricated and without merit. Further, he contended that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody of the seized items as required under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, resulting in the doubtful integrity of evidence. He claimed that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties cannot apply when there is no showing of substantial compliance with required procedure.

The Ruling of the CA

On March 18, 2011, the CA rendered its Decision 14 affirming in toto the decision of the RTC. For the CA, the prosecution was able to prove the elements of the crimes charged, and the fact that the seized items were not contaminated. The appellate court also explained that the issue on the object evidence's chain of custody could not be raised for the first time on appeal.

Hence, Tolentino's resort to this Court.

Issue

The issue to be resolved is: Whether or not the decision of the CA affirming in toto the ruling of the RTC should be reversed for being contrary to established facts, pertinent laws and jurisprudence. CScTDE

The Court's Ruling

The appeal has no merit.

Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 penalizes any person for the unauthorized sale, trade, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution and transportation of dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals. For the prosecution of illegal sale to prosper, the following must be proved: (1) identities of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. 15 It is imperative for the prosecution to prove that the sale was actually consummated together with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti, i.e., the confiscated shabu and the marked money as evidence.

The law also punishes under Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 any person for unlawful possession of dangerous drugs, regardless of its degree of purity. For a charge of illegal possession of dangerous drugs to be established, the following elements must be proved: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. 16

After weighing the evidence and arguments of both parties, the Court is convinced that the prosecution has duly established the elements of both crimes of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. A buy-bust operation was conducted by police officers. The sachets of shabu purchased and recovered from Tolentino during the legitimate buy-bust operation are admissible as evidence against him. During trial, PO1 Diocena presented a complete picture of a successful buy-bust operation from the initial contact, the offer to purchase, the exchange of consideration and the consummation of sale upon handing over to him of one plastic sachet of shabu. The recovery of another plastic sachet from the possession of Tolentino after his arrest was also established. It is settled in jurisprudence that a search incident to a lawful arrest is one of the recognized exceptions to the rule requiring a warrant before the conduct of a search and seizure. TCASIH

In his Supplemental Brief, 17 Tolentino contends that "[t]he court a quo seriously erred in convicting [him] of the crime charged despite the failure of the apprehending officers to preserve the evidentiary value of the seized items." 18 Contrary to this, however, the prosecution was able to establish the crime's corpus delicti and the unbroken chain of custody thereof.

The integrity of the drugs subject of the crime remained intact, for the crucial links in the chain of custody were satisfactorily proved by the prosecution to be unbroken. Jurisprudence provides the links in the chain of custody of a legitimate buy-bust operation as follows: 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. 19

In the case at bar, the prosecution was able to supply these vital details, leaving no doubt as to the necessary links in the handling of the seized prohibited drug from the time of their seizure until presentation in court. As correctly appreciated by the CA:

The records of the case disclose that after PO1 Diocena seized the sachets of shabu and the buy-bust money, he immediately marked them with his initials in the presence of appellant. Then, appellant was brought for investigation to the police station where the apprehending officers turned over the sachets of shabu to PO1 Dennis Gorospe, police investigator for the preparation of the request for laboratory examination. The specimen together with the request, was subsequently forwarded to the crime laboratory for chemical analysis. Per Chemistry Report Nos. DT-393-07 and D-334-07 of P/Insp. Mark Alain Ballesteros, the specimens were found to be methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). . . . 20 (Citations omitted)

Tolentino even stipulated on the fact that the drugs subject matter of the case were forwarded to the PNP Crime Laboratory for an examination, then yielded a positive result for "shabu". Thus: IEAHca

"PROS. ARAGONES:

May we just stipulate as to the existence of the Chemistry Report No. D-334-07; that the same was made by forensic chemist Mark Alain Ballesteros?

ATTY. MENDOZA:

Stipulated Your Honor.

PROS. ARAGONES:

Will the defense also stipulate as to all the entries appearing on the Chemistry Report?

ATTY. MENDOZA:

Stipulated your Honor.

PROS. ARAGONES:

Will the defense also admit that (sic) existence of the Request for Laboratory Examination made by the Chief of Police?

ATTY. MENDOZA:

Stipulated your Honor.

PROS. ARAGONES:

And that the specimen examined was on this small brown envelope that upon examination proved positive to the test for methylamphetamine hydrochloride.

ATTY. MENDOZA:

Stipulated your Honor." 21 TEAICc

In any case, Tolentino cannot successfully assail for the first time on appeal the issue on the integrity and admissibility of the confiscated shabu. It is an established rule that objections to the admissibility of evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. When evidence offered in court is desired to be rejected by a party, he must so state the same in the form of an objection and in the absence of such objection, the same cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. 22 Otherwise, the basic rules on fair play and due process would be violated. Raising the issue of the alleged non-compliance of the arresting officers with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 then appears to be a mere afterthought resorted to by Tolentino in his desperation to have the scales of justice tilted in his favor.

In addition, settled is the rule that a buy-bust operation conducted by police officers enjoys the presumption of regularity. It is a recognized method of apprehending drug peddlers. It is a form of entrapment, in which the violator is caught in flagrante delicto and the police officers conducting the operation are not only authorized but duty-bound to apprehend the violator and to search him for anything that may have been part of or used in the commission of the crime. 23 In the instant case, the RTC accorded full faith and credence to the testimony of PO1 Diocena for being straightforward, candid and unflawed by inconsistencies. In People v. Llamado, 24 we held that the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses who are police officers presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner with regard to cases involving violations of Dangerous Drugs Act deserves credence in the absence of evidence to the contrary and proof of motive to falsely impute such a serious crime against the appellant. Furthermore, there being no unsubstantiated conclusions or blatant errors and misapprehension of facts shown to have been committed by the RTC and the CA, the Court adheres to the general rule that a lower court's findings of fact involving the credibility of witnesses should not be disturbed. cIEHAC

The foregoing findings of the Court prevail over Tolentino's defenses. Denial is generally frowned upon by the courts. In the absence of clear and convincing evidence that the police officers were impelled by improper motives, Tolentino's denial and defense of frame-up must fail. Frame-up, just like denial, is not accorded by the courts with favor for the same can easily be devised. 25 Thus, Tolentino's bare denial, absent any other evidence to corroborate it, is inherently weak. His uncorroborated testimony, vis-ร -vis the positive identification by the police officers who arrested him in flagrante delicto, warrants no consideration.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated March 8, 2011 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03880 is AFFIRMED."

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Penned by Associate Justice Magdangal M. De Leon, with Associate Justices Mario V. Lopez and Florito S. Macalino, concurring; rollo, pp. 2-15.

2.Penned by Presiding Judge Dennis Patrick Z. Perez; CA rollo, pp. 25-26.

3.Id. at 26.

4.Otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

5.Rollo, p. 3.

6.CA rollo, p. 25.

7.Id. at 63.

8.Id.

9.Id. at 63-64.

10.Rollo, p. 4.

11.CA rollo, p. 15.

12.Rollo, pp. 4-5.

13.CA rollo, p. 26.

14.Rollo, pp. 2-15.

15.People v. Campomanes, G.R. No. 187741, August 8, 2010, 627 SCRA 494, 504.

16.People v. Gaspar, G.R. No. 192816, July 6, 2011, 653 SCRA 673, 687, citing People v. Lagata, 452 Phil. 846 (2003).

17.Rollo, pp. 25-29.

18.Id. at 25.

19.People v. Kamad, G.R. No. 174198, January 19, 2010, 610 SCRA 295, 307-308, citing People v. Garcia, G.R. No. 173480, February 25, 2009, 580 SCRA 259; People v. Gum-Oyen, G.R. No. 182231, April 16, 2009, 585 SCRA 668; People v. Denoman, G.R. No. 171732, August 14, 2009, 596 SCRA 257; People v. Coreche, G.R. No. 182528, August 14, 2009, 596 SCRA 350.

20.Rollo, p. 10.

21.Id. at 9-10.

22.People v. Fundales, Jr., G.R. No. 184606, September 5, 2012, 680 SCRA 181, 193, citing People v. Sta. Maria, G.R. No. 171019, February 23, 2007, 516 SCRA 621, 633-634.

23.People v. Mateo, G.R. No. 179478, July 28, 2008, 560 SCRA 397, 417, citing People v. Ong, G.R. No. 137348, June 21, 2004, 432 SCRA 470, 484 and People v. Juatan, 329 Phil. 331, 337-338 (1996).

24.G.R. No. 185278, March 13, 2009, 581 SCRA 544, 552.

25.People v. Sembrano, G.R. No. 185848, August 16, 2010, 628 SCRA 328, 341-342.