THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 234036. March 14, 2018.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,vs. TOMAS TOLOSA y TUPAZ AND GIL MADULIO y GOMEZ, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 14, 2018, which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 234036 (People of the Philippines vs. Tomas Tolosa y Tupaz and Gil Madulio y Gomez). — The Court NOTES:
(1) the letter dated February 6, 2018 of P/Supt. I Roberto R. Rabo, Superintendent of the New Bilibid Prison, Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, confirming the confinement therein of accused-appellant Tomas Tolosa y Tupaz since October 9, 2015; and REQUIRES P/Supt. Rabo to FULLY COMPLY with the Resolution of November 29, 2017 by confirming the confinement therein of accused-appellant Gil G. Madulio;
(2) the Office of the Solicitor General's Manifestation (Re: Supplemental Brief) dated January 24, 2018 stating that it is adopting its Appellee's Brief of April 15, 2016 as its supplemental brief and is dispensing with the filing of the same to expedite the disposition of this case and to avoid repetition of arguments; and
(3) accused-appellants' Manifestation (in Lieu of Supplemental Brief) dated February 28, 2018 stating that they would no longer file their supplemental brief since no new issues material to the case which were not elaborated upon in the appellants' brief were discovered.
This is an appeal from the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA), Fourteenth Division in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07792, promulgated on May 31, 2017, which affirmed the September 21, 2015 Joint Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City, Branch 127, in Criminal Case Nos. C-90381, C-90382 and C-90383, finding the accused-appellants Tomas Tolosa y Tupaz (Tolosa) and Gil Madulio y Gomez (Madulio) guilty of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. No. 9165), otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
The Facts
Three separate Informations were filed against accused-appellants. In an Information docketed as Criminal Case No. 90381, accused-appellants were both charged with violating Section 5 in relation to Section 26 of Article II of R.A. No. 9165, to wit:
That on or about the 7th day of July 2013, in Caloocan City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused conspiring together and mutually helping one another without being authorized by law did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to PO2 RAYMOND HERNANDEZ, who posed as buyer of METHYLAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE (shabu), weighing 0.06 gram, knowing the same to be such, with Tomas Tolosa y Tupaz @ Jomay receiving the buy bust money from said PO2 Hernandez immediately instructed Gil Madulio y Gomez to get the item and turned over the said item to him (Tomas Tolosa y Tupaz) who, in turn, handed to PO2 Hernadez Raymond Hernandez subject plastic sachet and from whom the buy bust money was recovered.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 3
In an Information docketed as Criminal Case No. 90382, accused-appellant Tolosa was solely charged with violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, to wit:
That on or about the 7th day of July 2013, in Caloocan City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused without authority of law did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control Two (2) small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets each later marked as TOLOSA-1 (RECOVERED) 7-7-13 and TOLOSA-2 (RECOVERED) 7-7-13 containing METYLAMPHETAMINE (sic) HYDROCHLORIDE [Shabu] weighing 0.05 gram which when subjected for laboratory examination gave POSITIVE result to the tests for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in gross violation of the above-cited law. 4
In an Information docketed as Criminal Case No. 90383, accused-appellant Madulio was similarly charged with violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, to wit:
That on or about the 7th day of July 2013, in Caloocan City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused without authority of law did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control One (1) small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet later marked as MADULIO/JA (RECOVERED) 7-7-13 containing METYLAMPHETAMINE (sic) HYDROCHLORIDE (Shabu) weighing 0.04 gram which when subjected for laboratory examination gave positive result to the tests for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in gross violation of the above-cited law. 5 aScITE
Upon arraignment, accused-appellants Tolosa and Madulio pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
Version of the Prosecution
The version of the prosecution, as culled by the CA, is as follows:
The prosecution presented the following witnesses: PO2 Raymond Hernandez (PO2 Hernandez), PO2 Joy Alcoriza (PO1 Alcoriza) (sic), PO2 Jerome Pascual (PO2 Pascual) and Police Chief Inspector Richard Mangalip (P/CI Mangalip), who narrated the following events:
On July 7, 2013, at around 11:45 o'clock in the evening, the Caloocan City Police Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Group (SAID-SOTG), acting on two infotexts about rampant selling of illegal drugs by @ Isko, Jophrek, @ Inday, @ Marte, @ Marlon and @ Joel at Marsman Hotel, Caloocan City, received on 16 April 2013 and 4 July 2013, formed a buy-bust team with SPO1 Edilberto Safuentes as Team Leader, PO2 Raymond Hernadez as poseur buyer, PO2 Joy Alcoriza as back-up and PO1 Benedict Antaran and PO2 Christian Geronimo as members. The pre-arranged signal for the consummation of the sale was PO2 Hernandez's touching of his right shoulder.
PO2 Hernandez was given a P500.00 bill with Serial No. RL050755 as buy-bust money. He marked it with his initials RH. Thereafter, the team proceeded to 3rd Avenue, Teodora Street, Caloocan City and waited for the Regular Confidential Informant (RCI). When the RCI arrived, PO2 Hernandez boarded the RCI's motorcycle and they proceeded to the Marsman Hotel, which was located at 2nd Avenue. When they arrived at Marsman Hotel, the RCI pointed to him the two suspects, whom he identified as @ Jomay and @ Gil, the herein accused-appellant Tomas Tolosa and Gil Madulio. After returning to 3rd Avenue and informing his Chief that he had identified the suspects, PO2 Hernandez, with PO2 Alcoriza behind him, walked back to Marsman Hotel. He approached @ Jomay, who was in front of the hotel, and asked him meron ba?(if he has something). Tolosa asked him how much and he replied that he wanted to buy worth P500.00. Then Tolosa called Madulio and instructed him to give PO2 Hernandez worth P500.00 (of shabu). Madulio left for a while and when he returned, he handed Tolosa three (3) pieces of plastic sachets each containing white crystalline substance suspected to be shabu. PO2 Hernandez then picked one and returned the other two plastic sachets to Tolosa. When PO2 Hernandez placed the plastic sachet in his pocket, he touched his right shoulder to alert the buy-bust team that the sale was consummated and introduced himself as policeman.
PO2 Alcoriza assisted PO2 Hernandez in arresting the accused-appellants. While PO2 Alcoriza was holding the accused-appellants, PO2 Hernandez was able to recover the buy-bust money and the two plastic sachets containing suspected shabu from Tolosa's hand. PO2 Hernandez marked the plastic sachet containing white crystalline granules sold to him with TOLOSA (BUY BUST) 7-7-13 and he placed the markings TOLOSA-1 (RECOVERED) 7-7-13 and TOLOSA-2 (RECOVERED) 7-7-13 on the other two sachets taken from Tolosa. PO2 Alcoriza frisked Madulio and asked him to empty his pocket. It was then that PO2 Alcoriza recovered the plastic sachet, containing crystalline substance suspected to be shabu from Madulio, which she marked with MADULIO/JA 7/7/13, affixing his signature thereon. DETACa
After marking the seized items, the police officers proceeded to the Police Station, wherein PO2 Hernandez and PO2 Alcoriza turned over the seized 4 pcs transparent heat-sealed sachet(s) containing white crystalline granules markings to the duty investigator, PO2 Jerome Pascual (PO2 Pascual) at 12:20 am of July 8, 2013. PO1 (sic) Pascual took photographs of the accused-appellants as well as the confiscated items, and made physical inventory thereof. Subsequently, PO2 Hernandez and PO2 Alcoriza signed the Chain of Custody Form and PO1 (sic) Pascual acknowledged the receipt thereof.
PO2 Pascual prepared the Request for Laboratory Examination of the confiscated items, which were forwarded to the Northern Police District Crime Laboratory for examination at 2 am of 8 July 2013. The receipt of the seized items were recorded by SPO1 Legonon, in the presence of the Forensic Chemist/Police Chief Inspector Richard Allan Mangalip (P/CI Mangalip).
P/CI Mangalip conducted examination on the submitted specimens and found them positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu. Thereafter, he deposited the said specimens to the Evidence Custodian. 6
Version of the Defense
The testimony of the defense, as summarized by the CA, is as follows:
Accused-appellants, on the other hand, interposed the defense of denial.
Tolosa @ Jomay, a room boy at Marsman Hotel located at 2nd Avenue, Caloocan City, recalled that at around 11 o'clock in the evening of 7 July 2013, while he was cleaning room no. 45, four (4) policemen who were not in uniform and carrying guns, arrived at Marsman Hotel and asked him about the persons who checked-in in room 45. When he replied that they already left, the police frisked and handcuffed him. The police recovered nothing from him except the coins given to him as tips and condoms he found in the room. Thereafter, they showed him evidence such as lighter and shabu and then he and his fellow roomboy (Gil Madulio) were brought to the police precinct at Sangangdaan.
Madulio who worked as an all-around roomboy at Marsman Hotel, testified that: he was at the Hotel's parking area waiting for customers at around 11 pm of 7 July 2013, when policemen in civilian clothes entered the hotel looking for somebody in room 45; when he replied that he had no knowledge, they suddenly frisked him and despite finding nothing, they handcuffed him, he then saw his fellow hotel roomboy Tolosa, who was also handcuffed, going downstairs with some police officers; afterwards, he and Tolosa were brought to the SAID-SOTG office; he denied PO2 Hernandez's allegation that he was able to buy P500.00 worth of shabu from him and Tolosa. 7
The Ruling of the RTC
On September 21, 2015, the RTC of Caloocan City, Branch 127, rendered a Joint Decision finding accused-appellants guilty as charged. The RTC held that all the elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale and possession of drugs have been duly proven. Accused-appellants were arrested by reason of the successful buy-bust operation. The dispositive portion of the said Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered declaring accused Tomas Tolosa y Tupaz and Gil Madulio y Gomez in Criminal Case No. 90381 for Violation of Section 5, in relation to Section 26, Art. II, R.A. 9165 guilty beyond reasonable doubt and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) Pesos.
As regards Criminal Case No. 90382 for Violation of Sec. 11, Art. II of R.A. 9165, this Court finds the accused Tomas Tolosa y Tupas guilty beyond reasonable doubt and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as the minimum to seventeen (17) years and eight (8) months as the maximum and to pay the sum of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00).
In Criminal Case No. 90383, this Court, likewise finds accused Gil Madulio y Gomez guilty beyond reasonable doubt for Violation of Section 11, Art. II, R.A. 9165 and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as the minimum to seventeen (17) years and eight (8) months as the maximum and to pay the sum of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00).
The drugs subject of these cases are hereby ordered confiscated in favor of the government to be dealt with in accordance with law.
SO ORDERED.8
The Ruling of the CA
In its assailed Decision dated May 31, 2017, the CA affirmed the Decision of the RTC. The CA observed that the evidence adduced by the prosecution, both testimonial and physical, clearly established beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellants violated Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. 9165.
The CA upheld the ruling of the RTC that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the drug confiscated from accused-appellants during the buy-bust operation were successfully preserved and safeguarded. The chain of custody of the drug subject matter of the case was proven to be unbroken and accused-appellants failed to show that the confiscated items were tampered with, or switched. The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED and the Joint Decision dated 21 September 2015 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 127, Caloocan City in Criminal Case Nos. C-90381, C-90382 and C-90383 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.9
The Issue
The pivotal issue in this case is whether the CA gravely erred in sustaining accused-appellants' conviction of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs.
The Ruling of the Court
The appeal is devoid of merit.
Firstly, the buy-bust operation conducted by the team of police officers was valid. It is legal and has been proved to be an effective method of apprehending drug peddlers, provided due regard to constitutional and legal safeguards is undertaken. It bears stressing that what is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti. 10
The essential elements of the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs are: (1) the accused sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another; and (2) he knew that what he had sold and delivered was a prohibited drug. 11 All these elements were satisfactorily proven by the prosecution in the instant case. Accused-appellants sold and delivered the shabu for PhP500.00 to PO2 Hernandez posing as buyer; the said drug was seized and identified as a prohibited drug and subsequently presented in evidence; and finally, accused-appellants were fully aware that they were selling and delivering a prohibited drug.
For illegal possession of a dangerous drug, like shabu, the elements are: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object that is identified to be a prohibited or dangerous drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. 12 The prosecution was able to prove that PO2 Hernandez recovered two (2) plastic sachets of white crystalline substance from accused-appellant Tolosa while PO2 Alcoriza recovered one (1) plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance from accused-appellant Madulio. Upon laboratory examination, the three (3) plastic sachets recovered from both accused-appellants were found positive for shabu.
Secondly, records show that the prosecution successfully established an unbroken chain of custody over the corpus delicti of the offense — from the seizure and confiscation of the shabu up to the delivery of the specimens to the PNP Crime Laboratory — through the testimony of the police officers. As aptly observed by the CA, the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved by the apprehending officers, to wit: ATICcS
x x x On the other hand, the prosecution was able to prove that the police officers maintained the uninterrupted chain of custody of the confiscated items — from the moment of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court. The sold and recovered sachets of shabu from Tolosa and Madulio were marked at the place of arrest, in the presence of the accused. Although the required physical inventory of the confiscated items was done at the police precinct, it was done in the presence of media. The markings on the seized items were notably kept intact as could be gleaned in the Chain of Custody Form. Thereafter, the seized items with the same markings were submitted for laboratory examination at the PNP Crime Laboratory Office, Valenzuela City in the early morning of 8 July 2013. 13
Lastly, hornbook doctrine is that the failure of the law enforcers to strictly comply with Sec. 21 of RA 9165 is not fatal to the prosecution of the case. It will not render the arrest of an accused illegal or the items seized or confiscated inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. 14 As applied herein, despite the alleged irregularities in the handling of the seized item, no attributable error can be ascribed to the appellate court when it found that the drug item offered as evidence was duly preserved, and that identity and integrity thereof were not compromised via an unbroken chain of custody. Hence, there was sufficient basis for the court a quo to uphold the conviction meted by the trial court.
As regards accused-appellants' denial and claim of frame-up, the appellate court correctly ruled that these defenses cannot stand unless the defense could show with clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired with ill motives or that they were not properly performing their duties. In Quinicot v. People, 15 the Court held that allegations of frame-up and extortion by police officers are common and standard defenses in most dangerous drugs cases. They are viewed by the Court with disfavor, for such defenses can easily be concocted and fabricated. 16
After a careful examination of the records of this case, this Court is satisfied that the prosecution's evidence established accused-appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It is hornbook doctrine that the factual findings of the CA affirming those of the trial court are binding on this Court unless there is a clear showing that such findings are tainted with arbitrariness, capriciousness or palpable error. 17 In People v. Velasquez, 18 this Court held:
In a prosecution for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law, a case becomes a contest of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies. When it comes to credibility, the trial court's assessment deserves great weight, and is even conclusive and binding, if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence. The reason is obvious. Having the full opportunity to observe directly the witnesses' deportment and manner of testifying, the trial court is in a better position than the appellate court to evaluate testimonial evidence properly. The rule finds an even more stringent application where the said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals. (Emphasis supplied)
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Court of Appeals' Decision dated May 31, 2017 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07792 is hereby AFFIRMED. Accused-appellants Tomas Tolosa y Tupaz and Gil Madulio y Gomez are found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165."
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Leoncia Real-Dimagiba and concurred in by Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia and Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting.
2. Penned by Presiding Judge Victoriano B. Cabanos.
3. As cited in the CA Decision, rollo, p. 3.
4.Id.
5.Id. at 4.
6.Id. at 4-7.
7.Id. at 7.
8. CA rollo, pp. 47-48.
9.Rollo, p. 17.
10.People v. Pagkalinawan, G.R. No. 184805, March 3, 2010.
11.Id.
12.People v. Bautista, G.R. No. 177320, February 22, 2012, citing People v. Naquita, G.R. No. 180511, July 28, 2008, 560 SCRA 430, 449.
13.Rollo, p. 15.
14.People v. Abedin, G.R. No. 179936, April 11, 2012.
15. G.R. No. 179700, June 22, 2009, 590 SCRA 458.
16.Id.
17. Fuentes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109849, February 26, 1997, 268 SCRA 703, 708-709.
18. G.R. No. 177224, April 11, 2012.