THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ANDOY MOHAMMAD Y MASILIN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
LOPEZ, J.:
The antecedent facts are as follows:
This case finds its origin in two separate informations filed against the appellant on June 2, 2005 before the court a quo. For the sale of prohibited drugs in violation of Section 5, Article II of RA No. 9165, the information [Criminal Case No. 5775 (21686)] against appellant reads as follows:
That on or about June 01, 2005, in the City of Zamboanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law to sell, deliver, transport, distribute or give away to another any dangerous drugs, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, SELL AND DELIVER to PO2 ALLAN FABIAN PANTELEON, a member of the PNP, who acter (sic) as buyer, one (1) piece heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance having a total weight of 0.0085 grams, which when subjected to qualitative examination gave a positive result to the tests for the presence of METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE (shabu), knowing the same to a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[2]
The other information [Criminal Case No. 5776 (21687)] charged appellant with possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165, reads:
That on or about June 01, 2005, in the City of Zamboanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law to sell, deliver, transport, distribute or give away to another any dangerous drugs, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, and under his custody and control, two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets each containing white crystalline substance having a total weight of 0.0686 grams, which when subjected to qualtitative examination gave positive result to the tests for the presence of METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE (shabu), knowing the same to a (sic) dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]
Upon arraignment, appellant pleaded “not guilty” to both charges.[4] Thereafter, cases were tried on the merits.
The evidence for the prosecution consisting of the testimonies of PO2 Allan Fabian Pantaleon, PO2 Bensar Elhano, and P/Insp. Melvin Manuel is summarized, thus:
In the morning of June 1, 2005, PO2 Pantaleon, a member of the Sangali Police Station Anti-Drugs Unit, received a tip from his confidential informant that appellant was selling shabu at barangay Sangali, Zamboanga City. PO2 Pantaleon immediately relayed the information to P/Insp. Luciano Ramos, the chief of police. A briefing was then conducted, during which PO2 Pantaleon was designated as poseur-buyer, while PO1 Elhano and PO1 Aldrine Perez were assigned as back-up. SPO2 Panteleon was handed a Php100.00 bill with serial number BA 893948 to be used as marked money. The team also agreed that PO2 Panteleon was to hold his right shoelace as a signal to PO1 Perez and PO1 Elhano that the transaction has been consummated.
At around 1:00 in the afternoon, the team proceeded to the target area and positioned themselves strategically. PO2 Pantaleon was met by the confidential agent and was introduced to the appellant. Thereafter, PO2 Pantaleon gave the Php100.00 marked money to the appellant, who in turn handed one (1) heat-sealed sachet with contents suspected to be shabu and one aluminum foil. After the exchange, PO2 Pantaleon executed the pre-arranged signal by holding his right shoelace. Upon seeing the same, PO1 Elhano and PO1 Perez, immediately rushed to the place and arrested the appellant. PO1 Elhano recovered the Php100.00 bill marked money and two (2) more heat-sealed sachets in the possession appellant. PO1 Elhano and PO1 Perez then brought appellant to the police station for investigation. At the police station, PO2 Pantaleon immediately marked the one (1) heat-sealed sachet with his initials “AFP” (Allan Fabian Pantaleon) and turned it over to PO3 Luis Catamco, the designated investigator. PO2 Elhano on the one hand, turned over to PO3 Catamco the two (2) other recovered heat-sealed sachets at the police station. The two (2) sachets and the marked money were then marked by PO3 Catamco with his initials “LBC”. PO3 Catamco likewise prepared an inventory[5] of the confiscated items and a letter request[6] addressed to the Regional Crime Laboratory, Region IX, Zamboanga City.
P/Insp. Manuel, a forensic chemist from the Regional Crime Laboratory, Zamboanga City, conducted the laboratory examination on the seized drugs. His testimony was however, dispensed with after the parties stipulated:[7] that he is an expert in forensic chemistry; that he was the forensic chemist of the PNP Crime Laboratory on June 1, 2005 when said office received a Request for Laboratory Examination on one sachet of white crystalline substance which when examined gave positive result of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu as indicated in Chemistry Report No. D-172-2005; that he has no personal knowledge of the origin of the said specimen shabu; and that he did not personally receive the said specimen when transmitted to their Office.
The evidence for the defense on the one hand, which consists of the lone testimony of appellant raised denial and frame-up as defense, thus:
He averred that on June 1, 2005, while walking home after work, he was approached by two (2) men in civilian clothes near the Sangali Shell gas station. They asked him if he knew Mumin Elias and when he replied in the affirmative, they asked him to accompany them to the latter’s house. When they reached Mumin’s house, there was no one there. He was then surprised when one of the men poked a gun at him and when he protested and asked why and what his fault was, they told him not to protest and to just go with them so he would not be hurt. They brought him straight to the Sangali Police Station, where they told him that if he could not help them find Mumin, they will accuse him of the illegal sale of dangerous drugs since his height and appearance were the same.
After due proceedings, the court a quo on February 23, 2011 issued the assailed Order, thus:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, this Court finds accused ANDOY MOHAMMAD y MASILIN guilty beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 5775 (21686) for violation of Section 5, Article II of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (R.A. No. 9165) and sentences him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay the fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
Criminal Case No. 5776 (21687) for violation of Section 11, Article II of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (R.A. No. 9165) is ordered DISMISSED and said accused acquitted of the charge for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
SO ORDERED.[8]
In ruling for the conviction of appellant on the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the court a quo held that there was a consummated exchange of the marked money and the seized drugs between appellant and PO2 Pantaleon (poseur buyer). The court a quo likewise gave probative value to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses who positively identified appellant as the person who sold the illegal drugs. The court a quo added that against the positive and clear evidence of the prosecution and despite the straightforward and consistent testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, appellant offered only alibi and frame-up as defense which is viewed with disfavor by the courts as it can be easily concocted and it is one of the most hackneyed line of defense in dangerous drug cases.
The court a quo however dismissed the charged for illegal possession with a finding that there is no showing that appellant exerted effort to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the thing seized from his possession. The court a quo likewise noted the testimony of PO2 Elhano that the other two (2) heat-sealed sachets recovered from appellant were marked by the investigator with initials “LBC”, and through this initial that PO2 Elhano identified the sachets. This notwithstanding, the prosecution failed to present the investigator to identify them. Moreover, while the testimony of the forensic chemist was dispensed with by the parties, there was no showing that the two (2) sachets allegedly confiscated from appellant were subjected for laboratory examination to determine whether the same was a prohibited or regulated drug. Only the sachet subject of the sale, as stipulated was found positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Hence, the appeal.
Assignment of Error:
In this appeal, appellant raised a lone assignment of error, thus:
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE APPELLANT OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED NOTWITHSTANDING THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.[9]
The Court’s Ruling:
The appeal for acquittal is without merit.
For the successful prosecution of the illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must be established: (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.[10] Thus, the delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction.[11]
In the case at bar, the prosecution positively identified appellant as the person who sold the drug to the poseur buyer (PO2 Pantaleon) for a sum of Php100.00. PO2 Pantaleon recalled:
| Q |
While you were at Sangali Police Station on said date and time, what happened thereat, if any?
|
| A |
My confidential informant called me through cell phone and informed that a certain Andoy is selling shabu.
|
| Q |
And did he inform you where was Andoy selling Shabu?
|
| A |
At Sangali, sir.
|
| Q |
So, after you were informed by your confidential informant about this Andoy, what did you do after that?
|
| A |
I told him to proceed to Sangali police station, sir.
|
| Q |
And, did he go to Sangali police as told by you?
|
| A |
Yes, sir.
|
| Q |
So, what happened after he arrived there?
|
| A |
When he arrived at Sangali Police Station, he informed (sic) that a certain Andoy is continuously selling shabu and I told him to, from time to time monitor him.
|
| xxx | |
| Q |
So how about you, what did you do when you said you went to the area?
|
| A |
I informed to my (sic) Chief of Police, the late Senior Inspector Luciano Ramos about a certain Andoy.
|
| Q |
What did Senior Inspector Ramos doing (sic) when you informed him about this certain Andoy?
|
| A |
A short briefing was conducted by Ramos.
|
| Q |
What was the purpose of that briefing which was conducted by Ramos?
|
| A |
The briefing was conducted by Ramos, who was the poseur buyer and the back up.
|
| Q |
And so, what were taken up during that briefing, if any?
|
| A |
I was designated as poseur buyer and gave me the P100.00 bill marked money.
|
| Q |
Who designated you as poseur buyer?
|
| A |
Our Chief of Police, Ramos, sir.
|
| Q |
And so, what else will you do if designated poseur buyer?
|
| A |
That I will be the one to buy shabu and the signal.
|
| Q |
What is that signal you are referring to?
|
| A |
When the transaction was already done by holding my right shoelace.
|
| Q |
And to whom will you make that signal?
|
| A |
To PO1 Aldrin Peez (sic) and PO1 Bensal Elhano, sir.
|
| Q |
After that briefing, what happened?
|
| A |
After that, my confidential agent called me through cellphone that a certain Andoy is continuously selling shabu.
|
| Q |
After you received that call from your agent about the report that Andoy is continuously selling shabu, what did you do after that?
|
| A |
After that we proceeded to the area where the asset is waiting for us, we were riding in a single motorcycle.
|
| Q |
Where is this area that you proceeded to?
|
| A |
Sangali gas station, sir.
|
| Q |
Who proceeded to the gas station at Sangali?
|
| A |
I, Elhano and Perez.
|
| Q |
And, did you arrive at said gas station?
|
| A |
Yes, sir.
|
| xxx | |
| Q |
So, after that, what happened?
|
| A |
After that, when we reached the area, the asset introduced me as a good customer, this Andoy.
|
| Q | And then what happened after that? |
| A |
After that, I gave the P100.00 bill marked money to Andoy and Andoy gave me also the one small sachet suspected to be shabu and the one aluminum foil; and after he gave you, you (sic) said sachet of suspected shabu and aluminum foil, what happened?
|
| A |
I gave my signal to PO1 ELhano and PO1 Perez.
|
| Q |
After you said you executed your pre-arranged signal, what happened next?
|
| A |
I saw PO1 Perez arrested and handcuffed the suspect and Elhano confiscated the P100.00 bill marked money and two small heat sealed sachet.
|
| xxx | |
| Q |
If you see this person again, can you identify him?
|
| A |
Yes, sir.
|
| Q |
Is he right now in Court?
|
| A |
Yes, sir.
|
| Q |
Please point to him.
|
| A |
That one, sir.
|
| COURT | |
| Q |
Which one?
|
| A |
The first one, Your Honor.
|
| Interpreter | |
|
Witness pointed to the person seated at the prisoners’ bench, and when asked for his name, he gave as Andoy Mohammad.[12]
|
|
PO2 Elhano, one of the arresting officers corroborated that upon seeing the pre-arranged signal given by PO2 Pantaleon, he and PO1 Perez proceeded to arrest appellant where he recovered the marked money in the possession of appellant. The subject shabu weighing 0.0085 grams and the marked money were likewise identified by the prosecution witnesses when presented in court. It has been held that as long as there is proof that the sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence, a conviction for illegal sale of shabu can be sustained.[13]
Appellant however argues that the prosecution failed to faithfully comply with the provisions of Section 21 of RA 9165 regarding the custody and disposition of the seized shabu. Appellant specifically cited the absence of representatives from the media and the DOJ during
the inventory of the seized items. Appellant also pointed out that the alleged sachet of shabu was not marked immediately after the appellant was arrested. Rather, the marking was done only later at the police station.
We are not persuaded.
On the absence of the representative from the media and the DOJ during the inventory, the Supreme Court has held in Valleno v. People,[14] that the absence of a member of media or the DOJ, pursuant to Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 is not fatal and will not render an accused’s arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. The Supreme Court has also clarified that the failure on the part of the apprehending officers to mark the seized shabu at the crime scene, is likewise not fatal, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated illegal substance was properly preserved.[15]
In the case at bar, appellant was arrested in flagrante delicto selling prohibited drugs when the poseur buyer gave him the marked money in exchange for one sachet of shabu. PO1 Elhano confiscated the marked money from appellant, and the latter was immediately
brought to the Sangali Police Station where he was investigated by PO3 Catanco. At the police station, PO2 Pantaleon, the poseur buyer) immediately marked the one (1) heat-sealed sachet with his initials “AFP” (Allan Fabian Pantaleon) and turned it over to PO3 Catamco, the designated investigator. The seized items were marked by PO2 Pantaleon with his initials “AFP”. A receipt for inventory16 was prepared by PO3 Catanco and was witnessed by barangay captain Agustin and the appellant himself. It was then signed by PO2 Pantaleon, PO1 Perez, PO1 Elhano, and SPO1 Solis. PO3 Catanco subsequently prepared a request for laboratory analysis on the seized sachet bearing the initials “AFP” to determine the presence of dangerous drugs, to which test yielded positive result.17 Thus, the foregoing indicates substantial compliance of the law.
The adherence to the substantial compliance with the procedure in Section 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA No. 9165 is recognized by the Supreme Court in a number of cases. In People v. Llanita, et al.,[18], it was held:
Jurisprudence supports the acceptance of substantial compliance with the procedure on custody of evidence in drug cases. As held in People of the Philippines v. Ara:
RA 9165 and its subsequent Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) do not require strict compliance as to the chain of custody rule. xxx We have emphasized that what is essential 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.”
Briefly stated, non-compliance with the procedural requirements under RA 9165 and its IRR relative to the custody, photographing, and
drug-testing of the apprehended persons, is not a serious flaw that can render void the seizures and custody of drugs in a buy-bust operation.
In People v. Lorena:
People v. Pringas, teaches that non- compliance by the apprehending/buy-bust team with Section 21 is not necessarily fatal. Its non- compliance will not automatically 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 recognize that the strict compliance with the requirements of Section 21 may not always be possible under field conditions; the police operates under varied conditions, and cannot at all times attend to all the niceties of the procedures in the handling of confiscated evidence.
The argument of appellant that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody with moral certainty because there was no mention who turned over the illegal drug to the forensic chemist is likewise untenable.
We noted that the prosecution and the defense have already stipulated on the testimony of Forensic Chemist, hence, what is left are the examination and appreciation of the pertinent pieces of evidence.[19] In the instant case, an examination of Exhibits “A” and “C” of the prosecution, i.e., the Request for Laboratory Examination and Chemistry Report respectively shows that there was a proper turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court.[20] Notably, the Request for Examination[21] shows that the PNP, Sangali, Zamboanga City Police
Office requested the Chief of the PNP Crime Laboratory, Zamboanga City for a laboratory examination of one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic packs containing white crystalline substance suspected to be shabu with initial markings “AFP” of the Poseur-Buyer. The samples were received by the crime laboratory on the same day at 2330H 01 June 2005. The examination eventually yielded positive results for methamphetamine hydrochloride as verified by the Forensic Chemist.[22] This result is submitted to the Court as Exhibit “C” and stipulated on by both parties. We are convinced therefore that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated/seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team.[23]
On the other hand, appellant’s defense of alibi and frame-up cannot stand in the face of proof beyond reasonable doubt of the illegal sale. The defense of alibi and frame-up is viewed with disfavor for it can easily be concocted and is a common defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act.[24]
After an exhaustive review of the Records, We find no reason to disturb the findings of the court a quo. Accused-appellant was correctly convicted of the offense of illegal sale of shabu.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The February 23, 2011 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 13, Zamboanga City is affirmed in toto.
SO ORDERED.
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
Camello, J., Ch., and Inting, JJ., concur.
[1] Records, p. 122.
[2] Records, p. 1.
[3] Records, p. 3.
[4] Records, p. 63.
[5] Rollo, Exhibit “L”, p. 16.
[6] Rollo, Exhibit “A”, p. 11.
[7] Records, p. 106.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Rollo, p. 14.
[10] Cruz v. People, G.R. No. 164580, February 6, 2009
[11] Ibid.
[12] TSN, September 2, 2009, pp. 4-9
[13] supra
[14] G.R. No. 192050, January 9, 2013, citing People v. Concepcion, G.R. No. 178876, 27 June 2008, .
[15] supra
[16] Rollo, Exhibit “L”, p. 16.
[17] Rollo, Exhibit “C”, p. 12.
[18] G.R. No. 189817, October 3, 2012, citing People v. Ara, G.R. No. 185011, 23 December 2009, and People v. Lorena, G.R. No. 184954, I 0 January 2011.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Rollo, Exhibit “A”, p. 11
[22] Rollo, Exhibit “B”, p. 12
[23] Ibid.
[24] People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 175832, October 15, 2008.