THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 208643. December 05, 2016 ]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. SUSAN M. TAMAÑO AND JAFFY B. GULMATICO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
of Iloilo City, Branch 36, in Criminal Case Nos. 0459517 to 0459521,
convicting herein appellants Susan M. Tamaño and Jaffy B. Gulmatico of
Violation of Sections 5, 11 and 12, Article II of Republic Act No. (R.A.
No.) 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
On July 30, 2004,[3] appellants were charged with Violation of Section 5 (Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs),
Section 11 (Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs) and Section 12
(Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drug Paraphernalia), Article II of R.A.
No. 9165 in five (5) separate Informations,[4] the accusatory portions of which read as follows:
Criminal Case No. 0459517
(Violation of Section 5 against accused Tamaño and Gulmatico)
That on or about the 27th day of July 2004 in the
City of Iloilo, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, said accused, conspiring and confederating between
themselves, working together and helping one another, with deliberate
intent and without any justifiable motive, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and criminally sell/distribute/and deliver to a PNP
poseur-buyer one (1) plastic sachet containing 0.220 gram of
methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug, in
consideration of P500.00 without the authority to sell and distribute
the same; that one (1) P500.00 marked bill with Serial No. LL-637648 was
recovered from the possession of herein accused as proceeds of the
sale/buy-bust money.
Criminal Case No. 0459518
(Violation of Section 11 against accused Tamaño and Gulmatico)
That on or about the 27th day of July 2004 in the
City of Iloilo, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Court,
said accused, with deliberate intent and without any justifiable motive,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in her
possession and control three (3) small heat-sealed transparent
plastic bags marked “Susan Kelly and Merriam” placed in a heat-sealed
transparent plastic bag marked “B2” containing a total weight of 0.345 gram of methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug, without the authority to possess the same.
Criminal Case No. 0459519
(Violation of Section 12 against accused Tamaño)
That on or about the 27th day of July 2004 in the
City of Iloilo, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Court,
said accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
have in her possession and control two (2) pieces disposable lighters
and four (4) pcs. empty plastic sachets, paraphernalia/equipment fit and
intended for administering, consuming and introducing into the body
methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug, without the
authority to possess the same.
Criminal Case No. 0459520
(Violation of Section 11 against accused Gulmatico)
That on or about the 27th day of July 2004 in the
City of Iloilo, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Court,
said accused, with deliberate intent and without any justifiable motive,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his
possession and control twenty-four (24) small heat-sealed transparent
plastic bags containing a total weight of 8.695 grams of
methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) and two (2) small heat-sealed
transparent plastic bags of 0.192 gram of methylamphetamine
hydrochloride (shabu), all with the aggregate weight of 8.887 grams of
methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug, without the
authority to possess the same.
Criminal Case No. 0459521
(Violation of Section 12 against accused Gulmatico)
That on or about the 27th day of July 2004 in the
City of Iloilo, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Court,
said accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
have in his possession and control fifteen (15) pieces of empty plastic
sachets, one (1) plastic straw used in scooping shabu, one (1) piece of
blade, one (1) pair of scissors, and nine (9) sliced aluminum foils, all
paraphernalia/equipment fit and intended for administering, consuming
and introducing into the body methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), a
dangerous drug, without the authority to possess the same.
Upon arraignment on September 13, 2004, both appellants pleaded not guilty[5]
to the respective charges against them. During the pre-trial
conference, the parties entered into the following stipulation of facts:
the afternoon, appellants were brought by the members of the Philippine
Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) at Camp Delgado, Iloilo City;
the Iloilo City Prosecutor’s Office, together with Prosecutor Espanola
and other persons in the morning of on July 28, 2004;
Chemistry Report No. D- 173-04 and the expertise of Police Senior
Inspector Agustina Ompoy, the Forensic Chemical Officer of the
Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory who examined the items
subject of the cases.[6]
Thereafter, joint trial on the merits ensued. The prosecution
presented the testimonies of four (4) members of the PDEA who
participated in the apprehension of appellants, namely, PO3 Rudy
Gepaneca, P/Sr. Inspector Leroy Rapiz, PO1 Rommel Aguenido and SPO3
Novemito Calaor. The prosecution also presented SPO4 Glicerio Gafate,
Exhibit Custodian of the PDEA, who took initial custody of the items
seized from appellants, and P/Insp. Agustina Ompoy, the one who examined
the items subject of the cases.[7]
The evidence of the prosecution may be summed up as follows: On
July 22, 2004, PO3 Gepaneca of the PDEA was informed by a confidential
agent that one alias “Susan Kana” was selling shabu in Brgy.
Gustilo, Zone 6, Lapaz, Iloilo City. The following day, PO3 Gepaneca and
the agent conducted a surveillance of the said area wherein the agent
pointed to a woman identified as “Susan Kana.”[8]
On July 27, 2004, after confirmation from the agent that that
they could purchase shabu from “Susan Kana,” a buy-bust team was formed
by P/Sr. Inspector Rapiz. Around 11:30 in the morning, the team
proceeded to the target area in Brgy. Gustilo. After waiting for a
while, appellants arrived. PO3 Gepaneca was introduced by the agent to
one Susan Kana who turned out to be appellant Susan Tamaño. Then, PO3
Gepaneca took the P500 buy-bust money and handed it to appellant Tamaño
who, in turn, told appellant Gulmatico to give a sachet of shabu to PO3 Gepaneca. After appellant Gulmatico handed to PO3 Gepaneca one (1) plastic sachet of shabu weighing 0.220 gram (Exhibits “J-1”),
the latter took off his cap as a signal that the transaction was
consummated. At that point, PO1 Aguenido immediately arrested and
searched the persons of appellants. The P500.00 bill (Exhibits “M-1”)
was recovered from the right hand of appellant Tamaño; and from her
right pocket, a big plastic sachet was recovered containing three (3)
plastic sachets of suspected shabu with markings “Susan”, “Merriam and “Kelly” (Exhibits “I-2 “, “I-3 “, “I-4”) with a total weight of 0.345 gram. Also, four (4) empty plastic sachets and two (2) pieces of disposable lighters (Exhibits “P-1 ” and “P-2”),
among others, were recovered from the bag of appellant Tamaño. On the
other hand, PO1 Aguenido recovered from the right pocket of appellant
Gulmatico twenty four (24) sachets of suspected shabu (Exhibits “K-2” to “K-25 “, “E-2-A”) with a total weight of 8.695 grams and two (2) small sachets of suspected shabu (Exhibits “K-27” and “K-28”); and, from his plastic bag were recovered fifteen (15) empty plastic sachets, one (1) plastic straw (Exhibits “L-1”) and nine (9) sliced aluminum foils (Exhibits “T-1” to “T-9”).
The seized items were brought to the police officers’ office and were
accordingly marked by SPO3 Calaor and turned over to PDEA Exhibit
Custodian SPO4 Gafate. The following day, SPO3 Calaor took the same
items to the Iloilo City Prosecution Office where they were all
inventoried. Thereafter, SPO3 Calaor submitted some of the items,
including the sachets of suspected shabu, to the PNP Crime
Laboratory for examination. P/Insp. Ompoy, Forensic Chemical Officer,
examined the sachets, and the contents turned positive to the test for
methampheatmine hydrochloride (shabu), while the plastic straw revealed traces of shabu, as stated in Chemistry Report No. D-17304 (Exhibits “E” and “E-3”).
The defense, on the other hand, presented appellants and offered a
different version of what transpired on the day of the arrest.
Appellants narrated that around 9:00 o’clock in the morning of July 27,
2004, appellant Tamaño was helping her aunt at the latter’s “carenderia”
situated at the Lapaz Public Market. She was, at the same time, waiting
for appellant Gulmatico because they agreed to visit their friend, Joel
Amihan, in Brgy. Gustilo, Lapaz. Appellant Tamaño’s friend named Gigi
arrived and requested appellant Tamaño to bring to Gigi’s boyfriend, in
Bo. Obrero, Iloilo City, pieces of clothing placed in a plastic bag.
When appellant Gulmatico arrived, the two appellants proceeded to Brgy.
Gustilo. Along the way, appellant Tamaño got suspicious of the contents
of the plastic bag, so she let appellant Gulmatico carry the same. When
the two were at the house of Joel Amihan, Jeffrey Valenzuela, who is a
common friend, arrived. After some conversations, the four decided to
leave the place. While leaving, appellants were accosted by the police
officers and brought to Camp Delgado where they were searched. As a
result of the search, sachets of suspected shabu and shabu paraphernalia, among others, were recovered from the plastic bag of Gigi which was then being carried by appellant Gulmatico.[9] During the trial of the cases, two other witnesses corroborated some portions of the testimonies of appellants.[10]
On May 29, 2007, the RTC rendered a Decision convicting appellants of
Violation of Sections 5, 11 and 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The
pertinent portions of the fallo read as follows:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1. Finding accused Susan Tamaño y Marcelino and Jaffy Gulmatico y
Banal GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article
II of Republic Act No. 9165 in Criminal Case No. 04-59517 and
sentencing both accused to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and
to pay individually the fine of Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00)
Pesos;2. Finding accused Susan Tamaño y Marcelino GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act
No. 9165 in Criminal Case No. 04-59518 and sentencing said accused to
suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from Twelve (12)
Years and One (1) Day, as minimum, to Fourteen (14) Years, as maximum,
and to pay the fine of Three Hundred Thousand (P300,000.00) Pesos;3. Finding accused Susan Tamaño y Marcelino GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of violation of Section 12, Article II of Republic Act
No. 9165 in Criminal Case No. 04-59519 and sentencing said accused to
suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from Six (6)
Months and One (1) Day, as minimum, to Two (2) Years as maximum, and to
pay the fine of Ten Thousand (P10,000.00) Pesos;4. Finding accused Jaffy Gulmatico y Benal GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act
No. 9165 in Criminal Case No. 04-59520 and sentencing said accused to
suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from Twenty (20)
Years and One (1) Day, as minimum, to Life Imprisonment, as maximum,
and to pay the fine of Three Hundred Thousand (P300,000.00) Pesos;5. Finding accused Jaffy Gulmatico y Banal GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of violation of Section 12, Article II of Republic Act
No. 9165 in Criminal Case No. 04-59521 and sentencing said accused to
suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from Six (6)
Months and One (1) Day, as minimum, to Two (2) Years, as maximum, and to
pay the fine of Ten Thousand (P10,000.00) Pesos;Insofar as Criminal Case Nos. 04-59518 to 04-59521 both accused
are entitled to the full benefits of their preventive detention provided
they voluntarily agree in writing to abide by the conditions imposed on
convicted prisoners pursuant to the provision of Article 29 of the
Revised Penal Code.[11]
Aggrieved, appellants appealed the aforesaid Decision to the CA via a Notice of Appeal.
On August 31, 2012, the CA affirmed the appellants’ conviction. The fallo of the Decision reads, thus:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court convicting both appellants is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.[12]
Still unsatisfied, appellants elevated the aforesaid Decision of the CA to this Court via a Notice of Appeal.
In a Resolution dated October 9, 2013, this Court required the parties
to submit their respective Supplemental Briefs if they so desire.[13] Both parties manifested that they are no longer filing a Supplemental Brief.
In their Brief,[14]
appellants stated that the trial court has “misapplied some facts of
value which if considered could probably alter the result of the
decision convicting both accused-appellants of the crime/crimes as
charged, such as:”
- THAT THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES COMMITTED CONTRADICTION AS TO
THE IDENTITY OF THEIR SUBJECT PERSON WHICH POINTS TO THE FACT THAT THERE
WAS NO BUY-BUST OPERATION AT ALL; - THE TIME OF THE RECORDING OF THE BUY-BUST MONEY CAME LATER THAN THE TIME OF ARREST;
- THAT NO INVENTORY OF THE RECOVERIES WERE MADE AT THE PLACE WHERE THE ALEGED BUY-BUST WAS HELD;
- THAT THERE IS NO CLEAR STATEMENT AS TO WHO ACTUALLY CARRIED THE
ARTICLES SEIZED FROM THE PLACE OF THE ALLEGED BUY-BUST OPERATION; - THAT THE EXAMINATION CONDUCTED BY THE FORENSIC OFFICER OF THE
SPECIMEN SUBJECT OF THE CASE IS NOT SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE UNDER SECTION
21 OF R.A. 9165.
We dismiss the appeal. From the issues raised by the appellants,
they are basically questioning the validity of the buy-bust operation
and the compliance with the chain of custody rule.
In every prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu
in this case, the following elements must be sufficiently proved to
sustain a conviction therefor: (1) the identity of the buyer, as well as
the seller, the object and consideration of the sale; and (2) the
delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material is
proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with
the presentation in court of the dangerous drugs seized as evidence. The
commission of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs requires
merely the consummation of the selling transaction, which happens the
moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller. Settled is the rule
that as long as the police officer went through the operation as a buyer
and his offer was accepted by appellant and the dangerous drugs
delivered to the former, the crime is considered consummated by the
delivery of the goods.[15]
In Criminal Case No. 04-59517, We agree with the lower courts that the
aforesaid elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs were adequately
and satisfactorily established by the prosecution.
The appellants who were caught in flagrante delicto
were positively identified by the prosecution witnesses as the same
persons who sold one (1) plastic sachet containing 0.220 gram of white
crystalline substance, later confirmed as shabu, for a consideration of P500.00. The said plastic sachet of shabu
was presented in court, which the prosecution identified to be the same
object sold by appellants. Likewise, the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses established how the transaction with appellants happened from
the moment the informant introduced PO3 Gepaneca, the poseur-buyer, to
appellants, as someone interested in buying their stuff, up to the time
PO3 Gepaneca handed to appellant Tamaño the P500.00 bill and, in turn,
appellant Gulmatico handed to him the plastic sachet of suspected shabu, thus, consummating the sale transaction between them. SPO3 Calaor caused the plastic sachet of suspected shabu
be examined at the PNP Crime Laboratory. The item weighing 0.220 gram
was tested positive to the test for methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu),
as evidenced by Chemistry Report No. D-17304 prepared by P/Insp. Ompoy,
the Forensic Chemical Officer. It must be noted that the defense
admitted the expertise of P/Insp. Ompoy who examined the drug specimens.
Thus, the collective evidence presented during the trial by the
prosecution adequately established that a valid buy-bust operation was
conducted. Appellants conspired and confederated with each other to sell
shabu. Appellant Tamaño received the P500 bill, while
appellant Gulmatico handed the shabu to the buyer. Their respective acts
lead to no other conclusion except that they have a common design and
purpose – to sell shabu.
Appellants argue that the prosecution
witnesses committed contradiction as to the identity of their subject
person which was identified as one Susan Kana, and which allegedly
points to the fact that there was no buy-bust operation at all. This
argument is flawed. The fact that appellants were caught in flagrante delicto
makes the discrepancies between the names of the suspects in the
surveillance reports and the names of the accused immaterial. What is
material is that the transaction or sale actually took place, as in this
case. What matters is not the existing familiarity between the buyer
and the seller or the time and venue of the sale, but the fact of
agreement and the acts constituting sale and delivery of the prohibited
drugs.[16]
With respect
to the prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the
following facts must be proved: (a) the accused was in possession of
dangerous drugs, (b) such possession was not authorized by law, and (c)
the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of
dangerous drugs.[17]
In
the cases under consideration specifically Criminal Case Nos. 04-
595118 and 04-59520, We also conform to the lower courts’ findings that
all the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs were
adequately proven by the prosecution. When an accused is caught in flagrante delicto
in accordance with Section 5(a) of Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on
Criminal Procedure, the police officers are not only authorized, but are
duty-bound, to arrest him even without a warrant.[18] Thus, since appellants’ arrest was legal, the search and seizure that resulted from it were likewise lawful.[19]
As a result of the lawful search on the persons of appellants,
appellant Tamaño was found to be in possession of a big plastic sachet
containing three (3) plastic sachets of shabu, a dangerous drug, with markings “Susan”, “Merriam and “Kelly”, and with a total weight of 0.345 gram (Exhibits ”I-2 “, “I-3 “, “I-4”).
On the other hand, appellant Gulmatico was found to be in possession of
twenty-four (24) sachets of shabu with a total weight of 8.695 grams (Exhibits “K-2” to “K-25 “, “E-2-A”) and two (2) small sachets of shabu (Exhibits “K-27” and “K-28”).
Both could not present any proof or justification that they were fully
authorized by law to possess the same. The mere possession of a
prohibited drug constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi (intent to possess) sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of any satisfactory explanation.[20] Both appellants were found in possession of dangerous drugs.
We find untenable the contention of appellants that since the provision
of Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 was not strictly
complied with, the prosecution allegedly failed to prove the identity
and integrity of the seized prohibited drugs.
Section 21, paragraph 1, of Article II of R.A. No. 9165 reads:
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized
and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs,
Controlled Precursors and Essentials Chemicals,
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. – The PDEA
shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources
of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as
well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so
confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the
following manner:(1) The apprehending officer/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 the copies of the inventory and
be given a copy thereof.
Further, Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 similarly provides that:
(a) The apprehending officer/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 the copies of the inventory and
be given a copy thereof: x x x Provided, further, that non-compliance
with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and
invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.
In the prosecution of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and, in sustaining a conviction therefor, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must
definitely be shown to have been preserved. This requirement
necessarily arises from the illegal drug’s unique characteristic that
renders it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to
tampering, alteration or substitution either by accident or otherwise.
Thus, to remove any doubt or uncertainty on the identity and integrity
of the seized drug, evidence must definitely show that the illegal drug
presented in court is the same illegal drug actually recovered from the
accused-appellant; otherwise, the prosecution for illegal possession of
dangerous drugs under R.A. No. 9165 fails.[21]
In this regard, the aforesaid provisions outline the procedure to be
observed by the apprehending officers in the seizure and custody of
dangerous drugs.
Similarly, in the prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti
of the offense, and the fact of its existence beyond reasonable doubt,
plus the fact of its delivery and/or sale, are both vital and essential
to a judgment of conviction. And more than just the fact of sale, of
prime importance is that the identity of the dangerous drug be likewise
established beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, it must be
established with unwavering exactitude that the dangerous drug presented
in court as evidence against the accused is the same as that seized
from him in the first place. The chain of custody requirement performs
this function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the
identity of the evidence are removed.[22]
However, under the same proviso aforecited, non-compliance with the
stipulated procedure, under justifiable grounds, shall not render void
and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items, for as long as
the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved by the apprehending officers.[23]
While nowhere in the prosecution’s evidence would show the “justifiable
ground” which may excuse the police operatives involved from making an
immediate physical inventory of the drugs confiscated and/or seized,
such omission shall not render appellants’ arrest illegal or the items
seized/confiscated from them as inadmissible in evidence. Said
“justifiable ground” will remain unknown in the light of the apparent
failure of appellants to specifically challenge the custody and
safekeeping or the issue of disposition and preservation of the subject
drug before the trial court. They cannot be allowed too late in the day
to question the police officers’ alleged non-compliance with Section 21
for the first time on appeal.[24]
Moreover, the rule on chain of custody under the foregoing enactments
expressly demands the identification of the persons who handled the
confiscated items for the purpose of duly monitoring the authorized
movements of the illegal drugs from the time they are seized from the
accused until the time they are presented in court.[25]
The chain of custody requirement performs the function of ensuring that
the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved,
so much so that unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the evidence
are removed. To be admissible, the prosecution must show by records or
testimony, the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit at least between
the time it came into possession of the police officers until it was
tested in the laboratory to determine its composition up to the time it
was offered in evidence.[26]
Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002,
implementing R.A. No. 9165, defines chain of custody as follows:
Chain of Custody means the duly recorded authorized movements
and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of
dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of
seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to
safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of
movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and
signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item,
the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course
of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition.
In the cases at bar, PO1 Aguenido immediately searched the persons
of appellants. From the right pocket of appellant Tamaño, a big plastic
sachet was recovered containing three (3) plastic sachets of shabu
with a total weight of 0.345 gram. On the other hand, PO1 Aguenido
recovered from the right pocket of appellant Gulmatico twenty-four (24)
sachets of shabu with a total weight of 8.695 grams and two (2) small sachets of shabu.
The seized items were brought to the police officers’ office and were
accordingly marked by SPO3 Calaor and turned over to PDEA Exhibit
Custodian SPO4 Gafate. The following day, SPO3 Calaor took the same
items to the Iloilo City Prosecution Office where they were all
inventoried. Thereafter, SPO3 Calaor submitted some of the items
including the sachets of shabu to the PNP Crime Laboratory for
examination. P/Insp. Ompoy, Forensic Chemical Officer, examined the
sachets and the contents were positive to the test for methampheatmine
hydrochloride (shabu). During the trial of the cases, PO3
Gepaneca, P/Sr. Inspector Rapiz, PO1 Aguenido, SPO3 Calaor, SPO4 Gafate
and P/Insp. Ompoy testified for the prosecution. They properly
identified the Chemistry Report and the subject specimens when presented
in court.
From the foregoing, the prosecution was able to
demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated
drugs had not been compromised because it established the crucial link
in the chain of custody of the seized item from the time it was first
discovered until it was brought to the court for examination.[27]
The chain of custody rule requires the identification of the persons
who handled the confiscated items for the purpose of duly monitoring the
authorized movements of the illegal drugs and/or drug paraphernalia
from the time they were seized from the accused until the time they are
presented in court.[28]
In these subject cases, the facts persuasively proved that the sachets of shabu,
including the drug paraphernalia presented in court, were the same
items sold/seized from appellants. The integrity and evidentiary value
thereof were duly preserved. The marking and the handling of the
specimens were testified to by PO1 Aguenido, SPO3 Calaor, SPO4 Gafate
and P/Sr. Inspector Agustina Ompoy. It must be noted that appellants
admitted the expertise of Police Senior Inspector Ompoy, the chemist who
conducted the laboratory tests. Hence, the aforesaid prosecution
witnesses testified about every link in the chain, from the moment the
seized items were picked up to the time they were offered into evidence
in court.
To reiterate, We discussed in the case of Mallillin v. People[29] how the chain of custody of seized items should be established, thus:
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody
rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence
sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the
proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link
in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is
offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the
exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was
and what happened to it while in the witness’ possession, the condition
in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to
the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the
precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the
condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to
have possession of the same.[30]
However, while the procedure on the chain of custody should be
perfect and unbroken, in reality, it is almost always impossible to
obtain an unbroken chain.[31]
Thus, failure to strictly comply with Section 21(1), Article II of R.A.
No. 9165 does not necessarily render an accused’s arrest illegal or the
items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible. The most important
factor is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized item.[32]
In a number of cases[33]
We held that with the implied judicial recognition of the difficulty of
complete compliance with the chain of custody requirement, substantial
compliance is sufficient as long as the integrity and evidentiary value
of the seized item are properly preserved by the apprehending officers.
We ruled that the failure to photograph and conduct physical inventory
of the seized items are not fatal to the case against the accused, and
do not ipso facto render inadmissible in evidence the items
seized. What is important is that the seized item marked at the police
station is identified as the same item produced in court.[34]
Therefore, in the cases under consideration, even though there was no
inventory of the items at the place where the buy bust was held, this
will not render appellants’ arrest illegal or the items seized from them
inadmissible. There is substantial compliance by the police officers as
to the required procedure on the custody and control of the confiscated
items. The succession of events established by evidence and the overall
handling of the seized items by the prosecution witnesses all show that
the items seized were the same evidence subsequently identified and
testified to in open court.[35]
Specifically, in People v. Padua,[36]
We stated that the purpose of the procedure outlined in the
implementing rules is centered on the preservation of the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items. We also reiterated in People v. Hernandez, et al.[37]
that non-compliance with Section 21 would not render an accused’s
arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him 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.
We now go to the charge of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia. The
elements of illegal possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus and
other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs under Section 12, Article II of
R.A. No. 9165 are: (1) possession or control by the accused of any
equipment, apparatus or other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking,
consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing any
dangerous drug into the body; and (2) such possession is not authorized
by law.[38]
In Criminal
Case Nos. 04-59519 and 04-59521, the prosecution has convincingly
established that appellants were in possession of drug paraphernalia,
particularly (2) pieces of disposable lighters, plastic straw and nine
(9) sliced aluminum foils, all of which were offered and admitted in
evidence.
To reiterate, considering that appellants’ arrest was
legal, the search and seizure that resulted from it were likewise
lawful. The various drug paraphernalia that the police officers found
and seized from appellants are, therefore, admissible in evidence for
having proceeded from a valid search and seizure. The confiscated drug
paraphernalia are the very corpus delicti of the crime charged.[39]
However, the four (4) empty plastic sachets recovered from appellant
Tamaño and the fifteen (15) empty plastic sachets recovered from
appellant Gulmatico are not drug paraphernalia. They are not instruments
or equipment which could be used to inject, administer or introduce
into the body any dangerous drug as defined in Section 12 of Article II.
As correctly held by the RTC, they could be merely used to pack or
repack shabu for safekeeping. Nor are scissors and the blade considered
drug paraphernalia in view of the limited explanation made by the
prosecution, and they do not appear to be instruments that could be
directly used to introduce shabu into the body.
All told, We
therefore sustain the judgment of conviction of herein appellants. Their
mere denial cannot prevail over the positive and categorical
identification and declarations of the police officers. The defense of
denial, frame-up or extortion, like alibi, has been invariably
viewed by the courts with disfavor for it can easily be concocted and is
a common and standard defense ploy in most cases involving violation of
the Dangerous Drugs Act.[40] As evidence that is both negative and self-serving, this defense of alibi
cannot attain more credibility than the testimony of the prosecution
witness who testified clearly, providing thereby positive evidence on
the crime committed.[41] One
such positive evidence, in this case, is the result of the laboratory
examination conducted on the drugs recovered from the appellants which
revealed that the plastic sachets tested positive for the presence of “shabu.”[42]
Furthermore, the defense of frame-up or denial in drug cases requires
strong and convincing evidence because of the presumption that the law
enforcement agencies acted in the regular performance of their official
duties. The presumption that official duty has been regularly performed
can only be overcome through clear and convincing evidence showing
either of two things: (1) that they were not properly performing their
duty, or (2) that they were inspired by any improper motive.[43]
In the present cases, appellants failed to overcome such presumption.
The bare denial of the appellants cannot prevail over the positive
testimony of the prosecution witnesses[44] that appellants are the persons who sold shabu.
As correctly stated by the RTC, the version of the appellants appeared
to be a well-rehearsed prefabricated story, not worthy of credence. It
is not natural that the friends of appellants would simply walk away
while appellants were accosted for no apparent reason. If indeed
appellants were accosted for no apparent reason, it was easy for their
friends to intervene, as it happened in a busy place and around
noontime. They could have even reported the incident to the barangay
officials or to the nearest police station. It is hard to believe that
appellant Tamaño would simply receive a plastic bag from a friend
without knowing or verifying its contents, considering that the bag
could be easily opened and somewhat transparent. And that it was harder
to believe that appellant Tamaño would continue to hold on to the bag
even if she already suspected that the contents thereof are illegal.[45]
Settled is the rule that, unless some facts or circumstances of weight
and influence have been overlooked or the significance of which has been
misinterpreted, the findings and conclusion of the trial court on the
credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect and will not be
disturbed because it has the advantage of hearing the witnesses and
observing their deportment and manner of testifying.[46] The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the CA as in these cases.[47]
Hence, We find no compelling reason to deviate from the CA’s findings
that, indeed, the appellants’ guilt were sufficiently proven by the
prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
Turning now to the imposable
penalty, We sustain the penalty imposed by the RTC and affirmed by the
CA in Criminal Case Nos. 04-59517 to 04- 59519 and 04-59521. But, We
modify the penalty imposed in Criminal Case No. 04-59520.
The penalty for illegal sale of shabu
regardless of its quantity and purity, as provided for in Section 5,
Article II of R.A. No. 9165, is life imprisonment to death and a fine
ranging from P500,000.00 to P10 million. With the enactment of R.A. No.
9346, only life imprisonment and fine shall be the imposed. Thus, the
penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 imposed on the
appellants in Criminal Case No. 04-59517 is proper.
The penalty
for illegal possession of dangerous drug paraphernalia, as provided for
in Section 12, Article II of the same law, is imprisonment ranging from
six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and a fine ranging from
Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) to Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00).
Hence, the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6)
months and one (1) day, as minimum, to two (2) years, as maximum, and a
fine of P10,000.00 was correctly imposed on both appellants in Criminal
Case Nos. 04-59519and 04-59521.
For illegal possession of dangerous drugs, Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 provides:
Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs.– The penalty
of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall
be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall
possess any dangerous drug in the following quantities, regardless of
the degree of purity thereof:xxxx
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be graduated as follows:
xxxx
(2) Imprisonment of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to
life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P400,000.00) to Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are five (5) grams or more but less than ten (10) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or “shabu”,
or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or
“ecstasy”, PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly
introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic
value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic
requirements; or three hundred (300) grams or more but less than five
hundred (500) grams of marijuana. (Emphasis supplied).(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to
twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos
(P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams
of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine, or cocaine hydrochloride,
marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or
“shabu,” or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or
“ecstacy,” PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly
introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic
value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic
requirements; or three hundred (300) grams or more but less than five
hundred (500) grams of marijuana.[48]
From the aforecited provision, if the quantity of the dangerous
drug is less than five (5) grams, the penalty for illegal possession of
dangerous drugs is imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to
twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from P300,000.00 to P400,000.00. In
Criminal Case No. 04-59518, appellant Tamaño was found to have been in
illegal possession of 0.345 gram of shabu. She was properly
meted the penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one
(1) day to 14 years and to pay a fine of P300,000.00.
Moreover,
if the quantity of the dangerous drug is five (5) grams or more but less
than ten (10) grams, the penalty for illegal possession of dangerous
drugs is imprisonment of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to life
imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P400,000.00) to Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00). In Criminal
Case No. 04-59520, appellant Gulmatico was found to have been in illegal
possession of twenty-four (24) sachets of shabu with a total weight of 8.695 grams and two (2) small sachets of shabu
weighing 0.192 gram, all with the aggregate weight of 8.887 grams. He
was correctly sentenced to imprisonment ranging from twenty (20) years
and one (1) day to life imprisonment.[49] But the imposed fine of P300,000.00 is not in accord with law. Therefore, for the illegal possession of shabu in the amount of 8.887 grams, the fine that must be imposed is Four Hundred Thousand Pesos (P400,000.00).
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED and the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated August 31, 2012 in CA-G.R. CEB-CR-H.C. No. 00762 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION on the fine imposed in Criminal Case No. 04-59520. For Violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, JAFFY B. GULMATICO
is hereby sentenced to suffer a penalty of imprisonment of TWENTY (20)
YEARS and ONE (1) DAY TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT and a fine of FOUR HUNDRED
THOUSAND PESOS (P400,000.00).
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Del Castillo,[*] Perez and Reyes, JJ., concur.
December 16, 2016
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs / Mesdames:
Please take notice that on December 5, 2016 a
Decision, copy attached hereto, was rendered by the Supreme Court in the
above-entitled case, the original of which was received by this Office
on December 16, 2016 at 11:00 a.m.
|
Very truly yours, (SGD) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN |
[*] Designated Additional Member in lieu of Associate Justice Francis H. Jardeleza, per Raffle dated October 1, 2014.
[1] Penned by Associate
Justice Edgardo L. Delos Santos, with Associate Justices Pamela Ann
Abella Maxino and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles, concurring; rollo, pp. 3-27.
[2] Id. At 107-139.
[3] Id. at 6.
[4] Id. at 108 to 109.
[5] Id. at 110.
[6] Id. at 110-111.
[7] Id. at 111.
[8] Id. at 111-118.
[9] Id. at 118-119
[10] Id. at 111.
[11] Id. at 136-137.
[12] Id at 26. (Emphasis in the original)
[13] Id. at 34.
[14] Id. at 63-106.
[15] People v. Villarta, G.R. No. 205610, July 30, 2014, 731 SCRA 497, 509.
[16] People v. Dela Rosa, G.R. No. 185166, January 26, 2011, 640 SCRA 635.
[17] Valencia v. People, 725 Phil. 268, 277 (2014); People v. Abedin, 685 Phil. 552, 563 (2012); Asiatico v. People, 673 Phil. 74, 81 (2011).
[18] People v. Pavia, G.R. No. 202687, January 14, 2015, 746 SCRA 216, 221.
[19] People v. Enrique Hindoy, 410 Phil. 6, 21 (2001).
[20] People v. Tancinco, 736 Phil. 610, 623 (2014).
[21] Fajardo v. People, 691 Phil. 758-759 (2012); People v. Alcuizar, 662 Phil. 794, 801 (2011).
[22] People v. Havana, G.R. No. 198450, January 11, 2016.
[23] People v. Ventura, 619 Phil. 536, 552 (2009).
[24] Saraum v. People, G.R. No. 205472, January 25, 2016, citing People v. Campomanes, et al., 641 Phil. 610, 623 (2010).
[25] People v. Bautista, 682 Phil. 487, 501 (2012).
[26] People v. Dela Rosa, supra note 16.
[27] People v. Pavia, supra note 18, at 224.
[28] People v. Alivio, et al., 664 Phil. 565, 577-578 (2011).
[29] 576 Phil. 576 (2008).
[30] Mallillin v. People, supra, at 587. (Citations omitted)
[31] Zalameda v. People, 614 Phil. 710, 741 (2009).
[32] Id
[33] People v Marate, G.R. No. 201156, January 29, 2014,715 SCRA 115; People v. Cerdon, G.R. No. 201111, August 6, 2014, 732 SCRA 335.
[34] People v. Yable, G.R. No. 200358, April 7, 2014, 721 SCRA 91, 99.
[35] Saraum v. People, supra note 24; People v. Mark Lester Dela Rosa, supra note 16, at 650.
[36] 639 Phil. 235, 248 (2010).
[37] 607 Phil. 617, 638 (2009).
[38] Saraum v. People, supra note 24.
[39] Id.
[40] People v. Mariano, 698 Phil. 772, 785 (2012); Ambre v. People, 692 Phil. 681, 697 (2012); People v. Villahermosa, 665 Phil. 399, 418 (2011); Zalameda v. People, 614 Phil. 710, 729 and 733 (2009).
[41] People v. Nicart, 690 Phil. 263, (2012).
[42] People v. Pavia, supra note 18.
[43] Miclat, Jr. v. People, 672 Phil. 191, 210 (2011); People v. Pagkalinawan, 628 Phil. 1011, 118 (2010).
[44] People v. Mariano, 698 Phil. 772, 785 (2012); People v. Villahermosa, 665 Phil. 399, 418 (2011); and People v. Saulo, G.R. No. 201450, April 7, 2014.
[45] Id. at 119.
[46] People v. Villahermosa, supra note 44, at 420; People v. Campomanes, 641 Phil. 621, 622 (2010); People v. Canaya, G.R. No. 212173, February 25, 2015 (Third Division Resolution).
[47] People v. Villahermosa, supra note 44, at 420.
[48] Emphasis ours.
[49] People v. Dela Rosa, supra note 26; People v. Tancinco, G.R. No. 200598, June 18, 2014, 726 SCRA 659, 674.
Date created: March 06, 2019
Leave a Reply