THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 208167. April 21, 2014.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROLANDO VENTURA Y ANDRADE, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated April 21, 2014, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 208167 (People of the Philippines v. Rolando Ventura y Andrade). — The Public Prosecutor charged the accused-appellant Rolando Ventura y Andrade (Ventura) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City with violations of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) 9165 in Criminal Case C-68959 and Section 11 of the same law in Criminal Case C-68958.
The Public Prosecutor presented PO2 Amadeo Tayag who testified that around 7:30 p.m. on August 21, 2003 the police received a tip from an informant that Ventura was selling illegal drugs in Magtanggol Street, Maypajo, Caloocan City. 1 After confirming the report, the police formed a buy-bust team and designated him as the poseur-buyer.
Upon arrival in Magtanggol Street, the informant pointed at Ventura and then left. 2 PO2 Tayag approached the latter and asked him if he (PO2 Tayag) can buy shabu from him. Ventura gave him a plastic sachet upon receiving payment. He told the officer at this point that he had one more sachet. 3 PO2 Tayag signalled for his backup to come. PO2 Rizalino Rangel (PO2 Rangel), one of them, succeeded in retrieving the buy-bust money and another plastic sachet from Ventura. 4 The two officers then surrendered the articles they seized to SPO1 Rommel Ibanez (SPO1 Ibanez) who marked them with RVA-1-buy-bust and RVA-2-recovered, respectively. 5 SPO1 Ibanez then forwarded the specimens to the crime laboratory and these tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride. 6 Both SPO1 Ibanez and PO2 Rangel corroborated PO2 Tayag's testimony. 7
For his part, Ventura denied both charges. He testified that at around 3:00 p.m. on August 21, 2003, he was about to go to his mother's house in Magtanggol Street, just four houses from his, with his two-year-old son, when he saw the police running after some persons. 8 He left his son with his mother so he could see what was going on. While he was looking, however, a policeman in civilian clothes handcuffed him. 9 Ventura's mother Hernanda and Necitas de Luna, a neighbor, corroborated his story. 10TAaHIE
After trial, the RTC found Ventura guilty of both charges. The RTC imposed on him the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 in Criminal Case C-68959 and the penalty of imprisonment for 6 years and 1 day to 12 years and a fine of P300,000.00 in Criminal Case C-68958. 11 The RTC held that the prosecution established all the elements of each crime as well as the corpus delicti. It also found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses credible. On appeal, the Court of Appeals 12 affirmed the RTC Decision.
Ventura insists that his arrest was invalid because of the lack of a warrant. It must be stressed, however, that questions as to the validity of an arrest must be raised before arraignment. 13 Ventura is now estopped from questioning the validity of his arrest for his failure to raise this issue at the proper time.
Further, the Court is convinced that Ventura committed the crimes charged against him. In prosecutions for violations of R.A. 9165, the State has the burden to prove the existence of all the elements of the crime 14 and the corpus delicti. 15 Here, the prosecution has proven all the elements of both crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of drugs as well as the corpus delicti. The testimony of PO2 Tayag shows that the drugs which he and PO2 Rangel confiscated from Ventura were the same drugs that were presented in court. In the absence of any ill motive on the part of PO2 Tayag, the Court must rely on the lower courts' findings as to his credibility.
WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES the appeal and AFFIRMS the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated October 17, 2012 in CA-G.R. CR-HC 05178. DTcHaA
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. TSN, September 6, 2004, p. 6.
2. Id. at 9-10.
3. Id. at 11.
4. Id. at 13.
5. Id. at 15.
6. Physical Science Report D-1105-03, records, p. 8.
7. The testimonies of SPO1 Ibanez as well as PO2 Rangel were dispensed with after the defense admitted the substance of their testimonies. See TSN, April 12, 2005, pp. 2-4 and TSN, September 6, 2004, pp. 2-4.
8. TSN, May 16, 2005, pp. 3-4.
9. Id. at 4.
10. See TSN, May 16, 2005, pp. 18-21; TSN, August 15, 2005, pp. 4-9.
11. Decision dated November 9, 2005, records, pp. 145-159.
12. Decision dated October 17, 2012, docketed as CA-G.R. CR-HC 05178.
13. Rebellion v. People, G.R. No. 175700, July 5, 2010, 623 SCRA 343, 348.
14. In order to successfully prosecute an accused for illegal sale of drugs, the prosecution must be able to prove the following elements: (1) identities of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. 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. People v. Partoza, G.R. No. 182418, May 8, 2009, 587 SCRA 809, 816.
15. People v. Ditona, G.R. No. 189841, December 15, 2010, 638 SCRA 835, 839.