THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 229715. November 20, 2017.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. BENJAMIN UZMAN Y BETICAN, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated November 20, 2017, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 229715(People of the Philippines v. Benjamin Uzman y Betican). — On appeal is the August 11, 2016 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 07111, which affirmed the August 7, 2014 Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 82 (RTC), finding accused-appellant Benjamin Uzman y Betican (appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. No. 9165) otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Antecedents
On August 16, 2010, appellant was charged in an Information 3 for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA No. 9165. The Information read as follows:
That on or about the 30th day of July, 2010, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law to sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any dangerous drug, did then and there[,] willfully and unlawfully sell, dispense, deliver, transport, distribute or act as broker in the said transaction One (1) heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing zero point zero one (0.01) gram of [Methamphetamine] Hydrochloride also known as "Shabu", a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
During arraignment, 5 appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
Version of the Prosecution:
On July 30, 2010 at around 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon, PSI Roberto Razon (PSI Razon), Chief of the District Anti-Illegal Drugs-Special Operation Task Group in Camp Karingal, Quezon City (DAID-SOTG) received an information from a confidential informant (CI) about the illegal drug activities of appellant at Dahlia corner Regalado Avenue, Barangay Fairview, Quezon City. PSI Razon called PO3 Pedro Cuison (PO3 Cuison) and instructed him to conduct a buy-bust operation. A team was organized composed of PO3 Cuison, PO3 Wilfredo Corona (PO3 Corona), PO2 Joel Almasan (PO2 Almasan) and PO3 Wilfredo Blanco (PO3 Blanco), who was designated as the poseur-buyer. The buy-bust money consisting of three (3) 100-peso bills was prepared and marked. The team then proceeded to Dahlia corner Regalado Avenue, Barangay Fairview, Quezon City for the buy-bust operation.
Upon arrival at the area, PO3 Blanco and the CI alighted from the vehicle and walked along Dahlia Avenue where they waited for the appellant for more than an hour. When appellant arrived, the CI approached him and introduced PO3 Blanco as the poseur-buyer. PO3 Blanco then showed appellant the marked money to show his intention to buy drugs. Appellant told PO3 Blanco that he only brought P300.00 worth of shabu and handed to him a small plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance. After receiving the plastic sachet, PO3 Blanco examined the same, gave the marked money to appellant and executed the pre-arranged signal signifying that the transaction was consummated. PO3 Almasan and PO3 Cuison rushed to the scene and assisted PO3 Blanco in arresting the appellant. The team recovered the buy-bust money worth P300.00. PO3 Blanco immediately marked the plastic sachet with the initials "BU-30-07-10" in the presence of appellant. Thereafter, they brought the appellant to the police station.
At the police station, PO3 Blanco turned over the seized items to the investigator, PO3 Corona, who prepared the inventory receipt in front of the appellant. PO3 Corona then brought the plastic sachet to the crime laboratory for examination. 6
PSI May Andrea A. Bonifacio, the Forensic Chemist, issued Chemistry Report No. D-284-10, 7 which stated that the seized specimen yielded positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, also known as shabu, a dangerous drug.
Version of the defense
On July 28, 2010 at around 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon, appellant was inside his house at 113 Orlina Street, Fairview, Quezon City. While he was cooking rice, three (3) men suddenly entered his house and asked about a certain "Jabir" to which he answered in the negative. The men then forced appellant to go with them. When appellant asked why he was being forced to come with them, he was told to just explain at the police station.
At the police station, appellant was asked again to point a certain "Jabir." When he could not pinpoint "Jabir," he was told to call his parents and asked for Forty Five Thousand Pesos (P45,000.00) for his liberty. 8
The Ruling of the RTC
On August 7, 2014, the RTC rendered judgment 9 finding appellant guilty of the offense charged. The RTC found that all the elements of illegal sale of drugs were duly established as the appellant was caught in flagrante delicto via a buy-bust operation. The RTC rejected appellant's defenses of denial and extortion and accorded weight and credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. The dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Benjamin Uzman y Betican "Guilty" beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
Accordingly, this Court sentences accused Benjamin Uzman y Betican to suffer the penalty of Life Imprisonment and to pay a Fine in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) Pesos without eligibility for parole in accordance with R.A. 9346.
The Branch Clerk of Court is hereby directed to transmit to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency the dangerous drug subject of this case for proper disposition and final disposal.
SO ORDERED. 10
The Ruling of the CA
On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. The CA ruled that the prosecution was able to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The CA stated that the buy-bust operation was a legitimate process employed by the police officers in order to apprehend lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan. It further stated that the unsubstantiated allegations of the appellant are not sufficient to overturn the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties accorded to the buy-bust team. 11
The fallo of the CA Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in light of all the foregoing, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated August 7, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 82, in Criminal Case No. Q-10-165889 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 12
On April 5, 2017, the Court required the parties to submit supplemental briefs if they so desire. 13 In compliance with the Court's Resolution, both the appellant and the Office of the Solicitor General filed their respective manifestations stating that they would no longer file their supplemental briefs; and that they were adopting all the allegations, issues and arguments adduced in their respective briefs filed before the Court of Appeals.
The Issues:
I
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE IMPROBABLE TESTIMONY OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESS.
II
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT'S TESTIMONY.
III
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT'S WARRANTLESS ARREST ILLEGAL.
IV
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT APPLYING THE "FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE" DOCTRINE WITH RESPECT TO THE SHABU ALLEGEDLY SEIZED FROM THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
V
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY DESPITE THE POLICE OFFICERS' NON-COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 21 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165 AND ITS IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS.
VI
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY DESPITE THE BROKEN CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF THE ALLEGEDLY CONFISCATED SHABU. 14
In sum, the issue for resolution is whether or not the appellant committed the crime of illegal sale of drugs.
This Court's Ruling
The Court finds the appeal without merit.
The illegal sale of dangerous drugs was duly established
In a successful prosecution for offenses involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must concur: (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. 15
The Court agrees with the CA that appellant's guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of PO3 Blanco, who acted as the poseur-buyer in the buy-bust operation, identified the appellant as the seller of the plastic sachet containing shabu for a consideration of P300.00. His identity could not be questioned as he was caught in flagrante delicto in a legitimate entrapment operation. The sale of the illegal drugs was completed after the delivery of contraband to the poseur-buyer and receipt of the buy-bust money by the appellant. Clearly, the sale transaction of illegal drugs between the poseur-buyer and the appellant was successfully consummated.
Appellant's contention that his arrest was illegal as the police officers were not armed with a warrant of arrest was bereft of merit.
A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment employed by peace officers to apprehend criminals in the act of committing an offense. 16 The buy-bust operation deserves judicial sanction if carried out with due regard for constitutional and legal safeguards. 17 Accordingly, an arrest made after an entrapment operation does not require a warrant inasmuch as it is considered a valid warrantless arrest pursuant to Rule 113, Section 5 (a) 18 of the Rules of Court. 19 In the case of People v. Juatan, 20 the Court elucidated that:
A buy-bust operation is far variant from an ordinary arrest; it is a form of entrapment which has repeatedly been accepted to be a valid means of arresting violators of the Dangerous Drugs Law. In a buy-bust operation 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. 21
Undoubtedly, the warrantless arrest of the appellant is permissible and the sachet of shabu recovered from him during the legitimate buy-bust operation was properly admitted in evidence against him.
The chain of custody was unbroken
Appellant also averred that the evidence adduced by the prosecution were obtained in violation of Section 21 (a) of R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rules regarding the proper preservation of the identity and integrity of the seized dangerous drugs.
On the contrary, the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized shabu were properly preserved. As aptly observed by the CA, thus:
The records reveal that right after the consummation of the sale between accused-appellant and PO3 Blanco, the latter put markings (BU-30-07-10) on the plastic sachet right at the scene of the crime, and informed the accused-appellant of his violation as well as his constitutional rights. Then they brought him to their station. At the police station, the police officers turned over accused-appellant to the Desk Officer, and the specimen recovered from accused-appellant was also turned over to the police investigator, PO3 Corona, who prepared an inventory receipt in front of the police team and the accused-appellant. PO3 Corona, assisted by PO3 Blanco, brought the plastic sachet to the crime laboratory for examination. When PSI Bonifacio examined the contents of that small plastic sachet, it was confirmed to be positive to the test for [Methamphetamine] Hydrochloride or shabu. 22
Clearly, the chain of custody of the seized prohibited drugs remained intact, from the time the shabu was recovered until it was submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory for testing. It was duly shown by documentary, testimonial, and object evidence including the markings "BU-30-07-10" on the plastic sachet containing the shabu, that the substance tested by the forensic chemist was the same as that taken from appellant and ultimately presented as evidence of corpus delicti before the trial court.
Parenthetically, the defense of denial and alibi proffered by the appellant deserves scant consideration and will not overcome the straightforward and positive testimony of the prosecution witnesses pointing to him as the perpetrator of the offense. Also, his contention that he was framed up because the police officers attempted to extort money from him will not prosper. In the absence of proof to the contrary, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty shall prevail. 23 Moreover, these defenses are viewed by the Court with disfavor for it can easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. 24
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The August 11, 2016 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 07111 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Noel G. Tijam with Associate Justices Francisco P. Acosta and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr., concurring; Rollo, pp. 2-12.
2. CA rollo, pp. 41-46.
3. Records, p. 1.
4. Records, p. 1.
5. Records, p. 49.
6. CA rollo, pp. 59-60.
7. Records, p. 24.
8. Brief for the Accused-Appellant, CA rollo, p. 32.
9. CA rollo, pp. 41-46.
10. CA rollo, p. 46.
11. Decision, dated August 11, 2016, rollo, pp. 2-12.
12.Rollo, pp. 11-12.
13. Resolution, Rollo, p. 18.
14. CA rollo, pp. 29-30.
15. People of the Philippines v. Pascua, 672 Phil. 276, 283-284 (2011).
16. People of the Philippines v. Jocson, 565 Phil. 303, 309 (2007).
17. People of the Philippines v. Cruz, 667 Phil. 420, 435 (2011).
18. Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
xxx xxx xxx.
19. People of the Philippines v. Agulay, 588 Phil. 247, 272 (2008).
20. 329 Phil. 331 (1996).
21. Id., pp. 337-338.
22. Rollo, p. 10.
23. People of the Philippines v. Bongalon, 425 Phil. 96, 116 (2002).
24. People of the Philippines v. Encila, 598 Phil. 165, 190 (2009).