PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FRANTE RECOLIZADO Y GARCIA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
SORONGON, E. D., J.:
The two Informations read:
In Criminal Case No. II-10056
“The undersigned Inquest Prosecutor accused FRANTE RECOLIZADO y GARCIA for Violation of Section 5, of Republic Act No. 9165, committed as follows:
That on or about APRIL 5, 2007, in the municipality of Aparri, province of Cagayan, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without any legal authority thereof, conspiring together and helping each other, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and/or dispose of one (1) piece heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, locally known as Shabu, a dangerous drug, weighing more or less 0.01 gram, to a poseur/buyer of the elements of the Philippine National Police force 201st PMG stationed at Punta, Aparri, Cagayan for and in consideration of the amount of P300.00, the said accused knowing fully well and aware that it is prohibited for any person to sell, dispose, contribute and/or give away to another any dangerous drug unless authorized by law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”
In Criminal Case No.II-10057
“The undersigned Inquest Prosecutor accuses FRANTE RECOLIZADO y GARCIA for Violation of Section 11, of Republic Act No. 9165, committed as follows:
That on or about APRIL 5, 2007, in the municipality of Aparri, province of Cagayan, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without any legal authority thereof, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and under his control and custody two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets each containing white crystal substance, with an aggregate weight of .04 gram, which substance gave positive result to the tests of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, the said accused knowing fully well and aware that it is prohibited for any person to possess or use any dangerous drug regardless of quantity or purity, unless authorized by law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”
When arraigned on October 8, 2008 accused-appellant entered a “not guilty” plea. Trial on the merits thereafter ensued.
The version of the People as summarized by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) in their brief runs thuswise:
“On April 5, 2007, at around 7:00 in the morning, PO2 Richard Arellano was at the police office in Punta, Aparri, Cagayan, when an asset arrived and apprised him that illegal drugs were being sold by appellant at Barangay San Antonio, Aparri, Cagayan. PO2 Arellano informed their director about the tip from the asset. Thereafter, a police team was formed in order to conduct a buy-bust operation, which team included PO2 Arellano as the poseur-buyer.
At about 8:00 in the morning of the same date, the police team, with the asset, proceeded to Gallarza St., Barangay San Antonio, Aparri, Cagayan. Upon arriving thereat, the police positioned themselves outside appellant’s house while PO2 Arellano and the asset went inside the house of appellant. Thereat, PO2 Arellano told appellant that he wanted to buy shabu. Appellant asked PO2 Arellano how much he wanted to buy while retrieving in his pocket a plastic sachet containing shabu. PO2 Arellano then said that he wanted to buy three hundred peso worth of shabu and gave the marked money amount to appellant. Appellant then handed the shabu to PO2 Arellano. PO2 Arellano made the pre-arranged signal to his back up team to indicate that the sale of shabu was consummated. The back-up team, which included SPO1 Loreto Rasac, arrived and introduced themselves as police officers. The police apprised appellant of his rights and was thus arrested.
Appellant was frisked and two additional plastic sachets were found in his possession together with the marked money. PO2 Arellano put his initials “RCA” on the plastic sachet he bought from the appellant while SPO1 Ragsac placed his initials “LHR1” and LHR2” on the plastic sachets he found in the possession of appellant.
On April 6, 2007 P/Insp. Prestant Antonio, Forensic Chemical Officer of the Crime Laboratory, Camp Adduru, Tuguegarao, conducted a chemical examination on the sachets recovered from appellant. The chemical examination yielded positive for the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu.”[2]
For his defense, accused-appellant alleged:
“On April 5, 2007, accused FRANTE RECOLIZADO (Recolizado for brevity) was in his house and he just woke up when two (2) male persons, Jayson Mata and one Alariao, went to him and asked him for an errand to buy shabu from his cousin Ely. The two (2) gave him Five Hundred Pesos (Php500.00). Recolizado acceded, went to buy shabu for the two (2), then went home. After thirty (30) minutes, the two (2) arrived in their house and while they were in front of their house, they were brandishing two (2) pieces of plastic shabu. Suddenly, the companion of Jayson Mata grabbed Recolizado and they bodily carried him asking him about the marked money. The two (2) also frisked his pockets and took hold of his Six Hundred Fifty Pesos (Php650.00) they found in his pocket. Then, they brought him to the police headquarters. Upon arrival, Recolizado asked regarding his money and the police replied that they have to photocopy it. The shabu that he was requested to buy from his cousin Ely is in possession of the police officers. When Recolizado was apprehended by PDEA agents, he asked the latter why he was being arrested, but the PDEA agents did not utter anything. He even complained when he was brought to the police station.”[3]
The trial court convicted the accused-appellant by Decision[4] dated May 7, 2012. The dispositive portion of the said decision states:
“Wherefore, premises considered, accused Frante Recolizado is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. II-10056, for violation of Sec. 5, of RA 9165, and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of one million (P1,000,000.00) pesos.
Likewise, the accused is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. II-10057, for violation of Sec. 11, of RA 9165, and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of twelve (12) years and one day to fifteen (15) years imprisonment and a fine of three hundred thousand (P300,000.00) pesos.
SO ORDERED.”
By way of this appeal, accused-appellant alleged:
I. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO ACCUSED-APPELLANT’S DEFENSE OF DENIAL;
II. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROSECUTION’S FAILURE TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT; and
III. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE IMPROBABLE AND INCONSISTENT TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES.
In sum, accused-appellant claims that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were unbelievable and inconsistent with one another; that his arrest was illegal there being no buy bust operation that took place; and the arresting officers did not observe the requirements of Section 21 of the Implementing Rules of RA 9165.
We will discuss accused-appellant’s arguments in seriatim.
Accused-appellant assails the credibility of the prosecution witnesses because of the inconsistencies in their testimonies by giving different accounts as to the identity of the asset who informed them about the selling of shabu and whether the asset accompanied the buy-bust team to the house of accused-appellant or not.
These inconsistencies referred to are inconsequential for what is important in the prosecution of the sale of illegal drugs are: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereto.[5] These elements were adequately proved by the prosecution in this case. The identity of the buyer and the seller were both established with accused-appellant as the seller and PO2 Arellano as the poseur-buyer. The object of the transaction was the sachet of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu and the consideration was the P300.00 marked money which were positively identified by PO2 Arellano when he testified in court. As the poseur-buyer he caught accused-appellant in flagrante delicto selling and delivering the prohibited substance to him and at the same time accepting from him the marked money as payment thereof.
In fine, the alleged minor infirmities, upon which accused-appellant bank this appeal, do not in any way detract from the veracity and weight of the prosecution’s evidence.
The trial court, which has the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses and examine first-hand the documentary exhibits presented before it, said in its decision, thus:
“Settled is the rule that the law enforcers or any official for that matter are presumed to have performed their duties and functions regularly and in accordance with law (Rule 131, Sec. 3 (m). therefore, the sole and uncorroborated denial of the accused cannot overcome the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty by the police officers.
Likewise, no ill motive was shown to impeach the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. Where there is no evidence showing devious reasons or improper motives why a prosecution witness would falsely testify against or implicate an accused in a heinous crime, the testimony is worthy of full faith and credit.
As between the positive allegation of the police that the accused sold to a police-poseur buyer a sachet containing shabu and the counter-allegation of the accused that he did not commit the act complained of, the Court believes that of the law enforcers.”[6]
Basically, in the prosecution of violation of RA 9165, a case becomes a contest of the credibility of witnesses[7] and well settled is the rule that the assessment made by the trial court deserves utmost respect and is even conclusive and binding upon the appellate courts absent any arbitrariness or inadvertent oversight on the part of the trial court.
In a nutshell, what is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti[8].
The trial court was correct in holding that the prosecution’s evidence as well as the testimonies of the arresting officers, have adequately established the foregoing elements to sustain a judgment of conviction. We cannot, therefore, substitute a contrary ruling sans impelling basis to do so.
In his last-ditch effort to exculpate liability, accused-appellant also asserted that his arrest suffered from factual and legal infirmities because the arresting officers did not comply with certain procedures in the seizure and custody of the illegal drugs allegedly seized from him during the buy bust operation.
This issue had already been put to rest by the Supreme Court in the cases of People vs. Niquita y Cibulo[9] and People vs. Agulay[10]. In both cases, it was held that non-compliance with the required procedure on the seizure and custody of drugs as embodied in Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of RA 9165 is not fatal and will not render the arrest of the accused-appellant illegal or the items seized from him inadmissible in evidence. What is, nonetheless important, 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.
In a more recent case, the Supreme Court thoroughly explicated the principle on the proper custody of the seized illegal drugs, saying,
“The “chain of custody” is 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. As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of the 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 thus include a testimony about the every link in the chain, from the moment the item was seized to the time it was offered in court as evidence, such that every person who handled the same would admit as to 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. The same 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.[11]
Here, We believe that the integrity of the seized items were duly preserved. The prosecution has presented and offered in court the key witnesses who had sufficiently established the chain of custody of the seized illegal drugs, that is from the confiscation of the same from herein accused-appellant, then marking of the seized drugs and thereafter forwarding thereof to the Crime Laboratory for examination to determine the presence of any dangerous drug, which ultimately tendered a positive result.
Anent the penalty imposed by the trial court, We likewise find the penalties it imposed against the accused-appellant to be in accordance with law[12], thus We sustain.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. The assailed Joint Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Aparri, Cagayan , Branch 9 in Criminal Cases HC Nos. 11-10056 and 11-10057 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Reyes, JR., A.B. Chairperson, and Rosario, R.R., JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 35-51
[2] Rollo, pp. 56-66
[3] Rollo, pp. 15-33
[4] Supra at note 1
[5] People vs. Sembrano, 628 SCRA 328, 339 (2010)
[6] Supra at note 1
[7] People vs. Evangelista, G.R. No. 175281, 27 September 2007
[8] People v. Nicolas, G.R. No. 170234, 8 February 2007 cited in the case of Niquita (note 10)
[9] G.R. No. 180511, 28 July 2008
[10] G.R. No.181747, 26 September 2008
[11] People of the Philippines vs. Erlinda Capuno y Tison, G.R. No. 185715, January 19, 2011.
[12] Sec. 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Pre-cursors and Essential Chemicals.- 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 imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or distribute, including any or all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transaction.
SEC. 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:
(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 “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 less than three hundred (300) grams of marijuana.