SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 200794. June 2, 2014.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs.FELICIANA YADAO y BOLANTE a.k.a. "FELY"/"LIZA", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated02 June 2014which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 200794 (People of the Philippines v. Feliciana Yadao y Bolante a.k.a. "Fely"/"Liza"). — We resolve the appeal, filed by appellant Feliciana Yadao y Bolante a.k.a. "Fely"/"Liza," from the September 30, 2010 decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 03830. The assailed CA decision affirmed the February 24, 2009 decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),Branch 2, Manila, which found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale 3 and illegal possession 4 of shabu under Sections 5 and 11 (3),respectively, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165. 5
In its February 24, 2009 decision, the RTC convicted the appellant of illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu under Sections 5 and 11 (3), respectively, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. It found as legitimate and valid the entrapment operation by the police and the appellant's corresponding warrantless arrest. The RTC added that the appellant failed to show any ill motive on the part of the apprehending police to falsely testify against her; it also found the appellant's defense of frame-up to be baseless for lack of supporting evidence.
For the crime of illegal sale of shabu, the RTC sentenced the appellant to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment, and ordered her to pay a P500,000.00 fine. For the crime of illegal possession of shabu, the trial court sentenced the appellant to suffer the indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months, as maximum. It also ordered her to pay a P300,000.00 fine. SHIcDT
On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC decision. It found valid the buy-bust operation conducted by the police and the appellant's in flagrante delicto arrest. The CA also ruled that the prosecution was able to establish all the elements of the crimes charged. It added that the shabu presented in court during trial had been shown to be the same drugs seized from the appellant. The CA likewise found unmeritorious the appellant's twin defenses of denial and frame-up.
Our Ruling
We dismiss the appeal and affirm the appellant's convictions.
A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment whereby ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan. The essential elements to be established in the prosecution of illegal sale of shabu are as follows: (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 the payment therefor. 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. 6
The presented evidence showed the presence of all the elements of illegal sale of shabu. Police Officer (PO1) Jaycee John Galutera, the poseur-buyer, positively identified the appellant as the person who sold to him one plastic sachet containing shabu in exchange for P200.00. The delivery of the illicit drug to PO1 Galutera and the receipt by the appellant of the marked money successfully consummated the buy-bust transaction.
Illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165, on the other hand, has the following elements: (1) possession by the accused of an item or object identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) the possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the free and conscious possession of the drug by the accused. 7
In the present case, the evidence showed that after PO1 Galutera made the pre-arranged signal, SPO1 Aristedes Marinda rushed to the scene, introduced himself as a policeman, and ordered the appellant to empty her pockets; he then recovered another two plastic sachets from the appellant. Corollarily, the appellant failed to show that she had any legal authority to possess the shabu. Clearly, she freely possessed two additional sachets of shabu — an illegal drug — without legal authority to do so.
We rely on the trial court's assessment of the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, absent any showing that certain facts of weight and substance bearing on the elements of the crime have been overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied. We point out that SPO1 Marinda corroborated PO1 Galutera's testimony on material points. In addition, no improper motive was ever successfully established showing why the witnesses would falsely testify against the appellant. aESICD
We also find that the police officers established an unbroken chain of custody over the seized shabu. The evidence showed that after the police confiscated the three heat-sealed plastic sachets from the appellant, they immediately brought her and the seized sachets to the District Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Group headquarters. There, SPO1 Marinda handed the three seized plastic sachets to the duty investigator, SPO2 Moises Ramos. SPO2 Ramos inventoried the confiscated items, and then marked the three plastic sachets with "FYB-1," "FYB-2" and "FYB-3," respectively. Thereafter, the police brought the marked sachets to the Western Police District (WPD) Crime Laboratory for examination, where they were examined by Police Senior Inspector Elisa Reyes, the WPD forensic chemist. Per Chemistry Report No. D-895-06 of P/Sr. Insp. Reyes, the submitted specimens were found positive for the presence of shabu. Notably, the appellant admitted during pre-trial the presence of the markings "FYB-1","FYB-2" and "FYB-3," on the three seized plastic sachets; SPO1 Marinda likewise identified the sachets presented in court to be the same sachets the police recovered from the appellant. From these circumstances, we hold that the police substantially complied with the requirements of Section 21 8of R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rules; the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs had likewise been properly preserved.
We agree with the CA that the uncorroborated defense of frame-up is a weak, self-serving defense that cannot be given any weight against the positive identification and evidence against the appellant. The testimonies of the police officers deserve full faith and credit, given the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duty, absent any proof that they had any ill motive or were not properly performing their duty.
Finally, we affirm the penalties and fines imposed on the appellant as they are within the range provided in Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165.
WHEREFORE,premises considered, the September 30, 2010 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 03830 is hereby AFFIRMED. aScITE
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon, and concurred in by Associate Justices Mario V. Lopez and Amy C. Lazaro-Javier; rollo,pp. 2-12.
2. CA rollo,pp. 8-15.
3. The Information in Criminal Case No. 06-245629 charged the appellant of selling 0.003 gram of methylamphetamine hydrochloride.
4. The Information in Criminal Case No. 06-245630 charged the appellant of possessing a total of 0.014 gram of methylamphetamine hydrochloride.
5. Otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
6. See Cruz v. People,G.R. No. 164580, February 6, 2009, 578 SCRA 147, 152-153.
7. See People v. Amarillo,G.R. No. 194721, August 15, 2012, 678 SCRA 568, 575.
8. Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments, Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — . . .
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ),and any elected public official who shall be required to sign copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof[.]