THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 239328. July 8, 2020.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. ROEL TOLENTINO, JR. y MARTINEZ, alias "JUN-JUN", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated July 8, 2020, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 239328 (People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.Roel Tolentino, Jr. y Martinez, alias "Jun-Jun,"Accused-Appellant). — We dismiss the appeal 1 from the 19 February 2018 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02055, affirming the 10 March 2015 Joint Judgment 3 of Branch 30, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Negros Oriental in Criminal Case Nos. 2014-22219 and 2014-22218, which found accused-appellant Roel Tolentino, Jr. y Martinez, alias Jun-Jun (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, 4 as amended, through the illegal sale of .03 gram and the illegal possession of 35.72 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as shabu, for failure to show that the CA committed reversible error in affirming the RTC. HTcADC
In his appeal, accused-appellant argues the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 5 He claims that testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were full of contradictions 6 and the origin of the seized items was unclear. 7
The appeal lacks merit.
In illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must establish the following elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and its payment. What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence. The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction. 8
In illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the elements are: (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. 9
The Court agrees with the uniform findings of the CA and the RTC. The prosecution successfully established all elements for both crimes charged. The prosecution witnesses positively identified accused-appellant as the person engaged in illegal drug trade and found in possession of illegal drugs. In particular, Police Officer 2 Peter Sarita (PO2 Sarita), who acted as the poseur-buyer, categorically narrated the circumstances of the consummated drug transaction with accused-appellant:
Q: Now after seeing a man standing at the door of the house, what did you do?
A: My informant said that that is Jun-Jun, Your Honor.
Q: How far were you from that person, more or less, from the person whom your informant said that that is Jun-Jun?
A: More or less seven (7) meters as we approached Jun-Jun, Your Honor.
Q: And then what did you do after being informed that that is Jun-Jun?
A: As we approached Jun-Jun, Your Honor, because Jun-Jun and our informant know each other, he said "Pila imo kuhaon na bunga Brod?" (How much shabu are you going to get Brod?)
Q: Who said that?
A: Jun-Jun, Your Honor.
Q: To whom did he address that question?
A: To the two (2) of us, Your Honor.
Q: And did the two (2) of you reply to his question?
A: I said, Your Honor, "kenye."
Q: What does "kenye" mean?
A: Five Hundred, Your Honor.
Q: And then what happened next after you replied?
A: He asked the money, Your Honor.
Q: And what did you do after he asked?
A: I gave to him the money, Your Honor.
Q: What money did you give?
A: The marked money, Your Honor, the five hundred peso bill, Your Honor.
Q: Can you still recall if you can recognize that five hundred peso bill marked money?
A: If I can see the initials of Laquinon, Your Honor.
Q: So after you gave him the marked money, what happened next?
A: He invited me to go inside his house, Your Honor.
Q: How about the informant?
A: My informant stayed outside, Your Honor.
Q: Did you get inside?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: And then what happened once you got inside?
A: He took something from his pocket, Your Honor, a black pouch and he got a small piece inside a transparent plastic sachet, Your Honor, and he gave it to me, your Honor. HEITAD
xxx xxx xxx
Q: And what did you do after he gave it to you?
A: I received it, Your Honor, I examined it, Your Honor, if it is really [a] shabu.
Q: How did you examine it?
A: By merely touching it, Your Honor, and squeezing it slowly, if it will easily break, Your Honor, meaning to say it is really a shabu but when you squeezed it very hard and it will not be broken then it is not a shabu.
Q: And how did you learn about that kind of test?
A: Through our experiences and training, Your Honor, and based also on our Seniors, Your Honor, they taught us how to examine a shabu by merely touching it your Honor.
Q: And what was the finding from that mere test?
A: As I touched it, Your Honor, when I confirmed that it is really a shabu, Your Honor, then I immediately touched my cell phone and miscalled PO2 Dexter Banua, Your Honor. 10
Further, accused-appellant's illegal possession of 35.72 grams of shabu was sufficiently established when PO2 Sarita testified on how the subsequent body search yielded seven (7) additional sachets containing the dangerous drug:
Q: And what was your findings after you conducted a body search?
A: I got the black pouch, Your Honor.
Q: From where did you get it?
A: From his pocket, Your Honor.
Q: And what is the significance of this black pouch?
A: It was full of shabu, Your Honor.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Okay, when you say shabu, there were shabu in the black pouch, please describe the shabu that you said were placed in the black pouch?
A: It was placed in a transparent plastic sachet, Your Honor?
Q: How many?
A: There were seven (7), Your Honor.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Seven (7) sachets?
A: Yes, Your Honor. 11
Finally, no license or permit to possess dangerous drugs was offered in evidence by accused-appellant. 12 Accused-appellant even admitted during pre-trial that he was not authorized by law to possess dangerous drugs subject of these cases. 13
The minor inconsistencies in the testimonies raised by accused-appellant fail to cast doubt on the credibility of the witnesses. The perceived discrepancies pointed out by accused-appellant mainly involved the manner of coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) and the prior surveillance operations conducted by the police officers.
As correctly found by the CA, these inconsistencies are but trivial. These neither negate nor discredit the positive identification of accused-appellant as the person who dealt with the poseur-buyer during the buy-bust operation. 14 Jurisprudence is replete with pronouncements that inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses, which refer only to minor details and collateral matters, do not affect the veracity and weight of their testimonies where there is consistency in relating the principal occurrence and the positive identification of the accused. 15
Likewise, accused-appellant's challenge against the origin of the seized drugs is unavailing. As the arresting officers complied with the procedural rules under RA 9165 regarding the chain of custody, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs remain preserved.
At the crime scene, PO2 Sarita marked the sachet of shabu bought from accused-appellant and the seven (7) other sachets of shabu found in his possession. An inventory of these items was conducted in the presence of the accused-appellant, a barangay kagawad, and representatives from both the DOJ and the media at the crime scene. Photographs of the seized items were taken in the presence of the accused and all three (3) witnesses. At all times, PO2 Sarita had custody of the confiscated drugs and submitted the same to the Negros Oriental Provincial Crime Laboratory within the same day of the arrest. Police Officer 3 Edilman Manaban, the duty officer of the crime laboratory, received the items, and delivered the same to the forensic chemist, Police Chief Inspector Josephine Llena (PCI Llena). The qualitative examination confirmed the white crystalline substance inside sachets to be positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. After examination, PCI Llena kept the items inside the evidence vault of the crime laboratory which only she could access. PCI Llena eventually submitted the seized items together with her chemistry reports to the RTC during trial. 16
Upon review of the records, the Court is likewise convinced that the police officers maintained each link for an unbroken chain of custody; from the time PO2 Sarita marked the seized evidence, to its delivery and receipt by PO3 Manaban of the Negros Oriental Provincial Crime Laboratory, who then submitted the same to PCI Llena for examination, until its presentation before the trial court. TIADCc
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DENIED. Accordingly, the 19 February 2018 Decision rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02055, affirming the 10 March 2015 Joint Judgment of Branch 30, Regional Trial Court of Negros Oriental which found accused-appellant Roel Tolentino, Jr. y Martinez, alias "Jun-Jun," guilty for violating Sections 5 and 11 of RA 9165 and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Php500,000.00 for each charge, is hereby AFFIRMEDin toto.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. See Notice of Appeal dated 20 March 2018; CA Rollo, pp. 153-154.
2.Rollo, pp. 4-21; penned by Associate Justice Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig and concurred in by Associate Justices Edward B. Contreras and Louis P. Acosta of the Special Twentieth Division, Court of Appeals, Cebu City.
3. CA rollo, pp. 37-49; penned by Presiding Judge Rafael Crescencio C. Tan, Jr.
4. Otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
5. CA rollo, p. 60.
6.Id. At 66.
7.Id. At 72.
8.People v. Baticolon, G.R. No. 193388, 01 July 2015, 761 SCRA 192, 200.
9.People v. Serrano, G.R. No. 179038, 06 May 2010, 620 SCRA 315, 344, citing People v. Pringas, G.R. No. 175928, 31 August 2007, 531 SCRA 828, 846.
10. TSN, 22 January 2015, pp. 6-7.
11.Id. at 10-11.
12. CA rollo, p. 87.
13. Records, p. 136.
14.Rollo, p. 15.
15.People v. Bis, G.R. No. 191360, 10 March 2014, 718 SCRA 250, citing People v. Sarcia, G.R. No. 169641, 10 September 2009, 599 SCRA 20, 34.
16.Rollo, pp. 19-20.