PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BENITO PALARAS Y LAPU-OS, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
QUIJANO-PADILLA, J.:
The Antecedents
Accused-appellant Benito Palaras y Lapu-os (appellant) was indicted in Criminal Cases Nos. 8561-69 and 8562-69 for violating Sections 5 and 11, respectively, of Article II of Republic Act 9165 under the following Informations, viz.:
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 8561-69[3]
That on February 22, 2012 in Silay City, Negros Occidental, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell one sachet of shabu marked as “BIT1”, a prohibited drug to an asset of the Silay City PNP posing as a poseur buyer in exchange for two One Hundred peso bills with serial numbers SQ914777 & ZE353426 and one fifty peso bill with serial number SB19053 all marked with an underline at the last digit of each serial number.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 8562-69[4]
That on February 22, 2012 in Silay City, Negros Occidental, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and control four sachets of shabu marked as Bit2, Bit3, Bit4 & Bit5, a prohibited drug without any license or permit to possess the same.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
When arraigned, appellant pleaded not guilty to both offenses charged.[5] After the pre-trial,[6] the two cases were jointly tried.
The prosecution’s account was testified to by P./Insp. Hernand Donado, PO2 Christopher Panes, PCI Paul Jerome Puentespina, PO2 Reynado Bernil, Jr., Hon. Ireneo Celis, Jr., SPO1 Rayjay Rebadoma, PO1 Henry Ramos, PO2 Ian Libo-on and Noel Lacson. Their version was summarized[7] by the OSG, as follows:
The Intelligence Section of the Philippine National Police of Silay City (PNP Silay City) received reports that a certain Benito Palaras y Lapu-os a.k.a. “Bitoy”, a resident of Sitio Matagoy, Barangay Rizal, Silay City, was actively engaged in selling shabu in the said area together with his brother, Joemarie Palaras, who had been previously arrested for a similar offense.
Pursuant to the said reports, P/Supt. Rosauro R. Francisco, Jr., the Chief of Police of PNP Silay City ordered surveillance, monitoring and casing operation on appellant Palaras. A test buy operation was then undertaken with the use of a confidential asset, who acted as the poseur-buyer. A sachet of shabu was purchased by the poseur-buyer from Palaras for the sum of Two Hundred Fifty Pesos (P250.00). The item purchased from the accused in said test buy was brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory of Negros Occidental Provincial Police Office (NOPPO) on 14 December 2011. The contents of the said plastic sachet was “Positive” for methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug, as shown in Chemistry Report No. D-241-2011[8].
A buy-bust operation was thus set on 22 February 2012, to be conducted by the same police unit on appellant Palaras. Two (2) 100.00 bills and a P50.00 bill were marked by underlining the last digit of the serial numbers in each of them.[9] The same were subscribed to before Prosecutor Ma. Lisa Lorraine H. Atotubo, as the money to be used in said buy-bust operation. This was entered in the blotter logbook of PNP Silay City as Entry No. 024885.[10]
The planned buy bust operation was coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), Regional Office 6. A Pre-operation Report[11] and Coordination Form[12] were likewise issued. A short briefing was done at the office of the Intelligence Section of PNP Silay City where the details of the operation were planned. The members of the buy bust oepration were PO2 Bernil, PO2 Libo-on, and a number of civilian agents of the police unit, with PO2 Bernil as the lead police officer.
The marked bills were given by PO2 Bernil to the confidential asset, who was to act as the poseur-buyer. Ahead of the other members of the buy bust team, the latter proceeded to Burgos Street, Barangay Rizal, Silay City, where the accused was plying his illegal trade. He was instructed to immediately call PO2 Bernil the moment he sees Palaras at the said place. Shortly, the poseur-buyer made the call that he had already seen Palaras in the area. The other members of the buy-bust team soon followed. They positioned themselves a few meters away from where the poseur-buyer was at the time in a manner that their presence would not be noticed by Palaras, but sufficient for them to clearly see Palaras and the poseur-buyer.
The poseur-buyer approached a person seated on a tricycle parked at the street. Since the former was a previous customer of Palaras, the latter did not become suspicious. The poseur-buyer took out from his pocket the marked bills and handed them to Palaras, who readily received it and placed it in his pocket. Palaras, thereafter, took something from his pocket and gave it to the poseur-buyer. As they parted ways, the poseur -buyer gave the pre-arranged signal that the sale had already been consummated by placing his right hand on top of his head. The other members of the buy bust team, specifically PO2 Bernil, SPO1 Rebadomia, and PO2 Libo-on, hurriedly proceeded towards Palaras. Palaras, upon noticing the police officers approaching, attempted to escape but was promptly apprehended.
A search on the body of Palaras was done by PO2 Bernil. The latter recovered, from the left pocket of the pants of Palaras, the marked bills, as well as four (4) small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substances. These transparent plastic sachets were handed by PO2 Bernil to PO2 Ian Libo-on, who marked them at the place where the same were recovered as “BIT2”, “BIT3”, “BIT4” and “BIT5”, respectively.
On the other hand, the poseur-buyer handed to PO2 Bernil a small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing a crystalline substance which the former received from Palaras, PO2 Bernil, in turn, handed it to PO2 Libo-on and the latter marked it as “Bit1”, the buy bust item.
Palaras and the items recovered from him were then brought to the police station of PNP Silay City. An inventory[13] was made of the items seized and recovered from Palaras, which he signed. The said inventory was witnessed by, among others: Councilor Ireneo Celis, a media representative Ed Gumban, Kagawad Noel Lacson, and DOJ representative Danilo Tumlos.
Thereafter, the plastic sachets recovered and seized from Palaras were brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory NOPPO at Bacolod City for laboratory examination. A Chemistry Report No. D-049-2012[14] was issued by PCI Paul Puentespina, a forensic chemist, showing that all the seized items, with an aggregate weight of 0.06 grams, were tested “Positive” for methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug.
On the other hand, appellant and his niece testified for the defense. According to appellant, on February 22, 2012, at around 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon, he was conversing with his friends inside a private tricycle in front of Kahilwayan in Barangay 2, Silay City. Suddenly, two persons clad in civilian clothes and carrying guns approached the tricycle. They aimed at appellant and handcuffed him. Appellant resisted and asked those persons what crime he committed but they did not give him any reply. Another person wearing a sweatshirt and also carrying a gun arrived. This person forced appellant to go in front of the jeep and when thereat, the person inserted his hand into appellant’s pocket. Appellant protested as his pocket had holes but the person continued what he was doing. Then, a cap of a Tanduay bottle fell to the ground and the person picked it up. Another person arrived and took pictures of the incident. Thereafter, appellant was forced to board on a green multicab and was brought to Silay City police headquarters. He was then brought to the office of the Chief of Police where he saw small transparent plastic sachets on the table. The photographer arrived and took P250.00 from his pocket and put the money on the table together with the small plastic sachets. The photographer took photographs of appellant and the items on the table. The police officers told appellant to sign certain documents and if he would not, they would file another case against him.
According to Jenny Palaras Casiano (Jenny), appellant’s niece, she was watching the television at around 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon on February 22, 2012 when she was called by her neighbor. She ran outside and was told that her uncle, herein appellant, was forcefully held by police officers. She rushed to the area and there, she saw her uncle who asked for her help. When she was about to leave the place, she saw police officer Bernil put inside the right pocket of her uncle a plastic cup containing shabu which slipped down because the pocket had a hole. Bernil took the plastic cup which contained shabu. There were several people in the vicinity who saw the incident and they applauded when the planted items fell down. The police may have felt ashamed, hence, when their back-up arrived, they left the place. Jenny just cried and informed the members of their family and her father about what happened.
After the trial court evaluated the parties’ evidence, it convicted appellant of the charges. The dispositive portion of its Decision reads, viz.:
WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED:
In Criminal Case No. 8561-69, this Court finds accused, BENITO PALARAS y LAPUOS, a.k.a. “BITOY”, GUILTY of ‘Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165’ (The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs of 2002) as his guilt had been proven by the prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, this Court sentences accused, BENITO PALARAS y LAPUOS, a.k.a. “BITOY”, to suffer the penalty of Life Imprisonment, the same to be served by him at the National Penitentiary, Muntinlupa City, Rizal.
Accused Benito Palaras y Lapuos, a.k.a. “Bitoy” is, further, ordered to pay a fine of P500,000.00.
In Criminal Case No. 8562-69, this Court finds accused, BENITO PALARAS y LAPUOS, a.k.a. “BITOY”, GUILTY of ‘Violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165’ (The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs of 2002), as the prosecution had proven his guilt for said crime beyond any reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, and in application of the pertinent provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence law, this Court sentences accused, BENITO PALARAS y LAPUOS, a.k.a. “BITOY”, to suffer the imprisonment for a period of from TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY as Minimum, to SEVENTEEN (17) Years and FOUR (4) Months as Maximum, the same to be served by him at the National Penitentiary, Muntinlupa City, Rizal.
Accused named is, further, ordered to pay a fine of P400,000.00.
In the service of the sentences imposed by this Court on accused, Benito Palaras y Lapuos, a.k.a. “Bitoy”, his period of detention pending trial of this case shall be credited in his favor.
Accused, Benito Palaras y Lapuos, a.k.a. “Bitoy”is, in the meantime, remanded to the custody of the Jail Warden of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP), Silay City, Negros Occidental, pending his trasfer to the National Bilibid Prisons, where he shall serve the sentence imposed on him by this Court.
The one (1) small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance in it of methamphetamine hydrocholride (‘Shabu’) subject of the buy bust operation on the accused and the four (4) small heat-sealed plastic sachets, likewise, containing methamphetamine hydrochloride (‘Shabu’) on them, with a total weight of 0.6 grams, are ordered remitted to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), Negros Occidental Police Office, Camp Alfredo Montelibano, Bacolod City, for proper disposition.
NO COSTS.
SO ORDERED.[15]
Aggrieved, appellant elevated the matter to Us and cited the following errors, thus:
I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO SUFFICIENTLY PROVE THE SALE TRANSACTION;
II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
This Court’s Ruling
The appeal is unimpressed with merit.
Appellant’s arguments focused on the supposed impropriety of his conviction for the sale of illegal drugs. He cited the elements for the successful prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, as follows: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration of the sale; and (2) the delivery to the buyer of the thing sold and receipt by the seller of the payment therefor.
Appellant contended that the prosecution failed to establish the second element, specificially, the delivery of the drug and payment therefor. According to him, the poseur-buyer was not presented in court and none of the police officers were so situated as to give a believable account that the exchange of drugs and payment indeed took place. PO2 Reynaldo Bernil (Bernil) was positioned about 10 meters away from appellant and the poseur buyer. Hence, it was impossible and contrary to human experience for him to see the actual exchange of drugs and money. This observation also applied to the other police officers who were about 20 meters away from appellant and the poseur buyer.
Appellant’s arguments do not convince Us.
The presentation of the poseur buyer is not a requisite in the prosecution of drug cases. Intelligence agents, due to the nature of their work, are often not called to testify in court so as not to reveal their identities publicly. Once known, they could no longer be used again and, worse, may be the object of revenge by the criminals they implicate. The prevailing doctrine is that their testimonies are not essential for conviction, nor are they indispensable to a successful prosecution.[16]
The non-presentation of the poseur-buyer is fatal only if there is no other eyewitness to the illicit transaction. In this case, the testimony of the poseur buyer was merely corroborative and cumulative considering that appellant’s drug pushing was positively attested to by PO2 Bernil who observed the transaction betweeen appellant and the poseur buyer from a distance. PO2 Bernil recounted the following details[17] during the buy-bust operation, viz.:
Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A: Q: A:
Appellant drew attention to Bernil’s 10-meter distance from him and the supposed poseur buyer and cited the circumstance as ground to doubt Bernil’s testimony. Appellant invoked the case of People v. Lorenzo[18] where the Supreme Court observed that the lone prosecution witness was about 4 meters away from the poseur buyer and appellant, and declared that it was impossible for such witness to hear the conversation between the two.
The case of People v. Lorenzo invoked by appellant does not sustain his position because the 4-meter distance of the lone prosecution in that case was merely an additional observation that further weakened the prosecution’s case. The foremost reason for therein appellant’s acquittal was the buy-bust team’s failure to observe the procedure prescribed in RA 9165 for the preservation of the integrity of the confiscated drug. The Supreme Court found that the prosecution ignored the issue of specifically identifying the prohibited drug at the point of confiscation and there was absolutely nothing in the records to show that the inventory and photography requirements, or their credible substitute to prove integrity and evidentiary value, were ever followed.
Meanwhile, the 10-meter distance of PO2 Bernil did not denigrate his eyewitness account regarding appellant’s drug pushing transaction. In the case of People v. Mantalaba,[19] the arresting officers positioned themselves at a similar distance of about ten (10) meters from therein poseur buyer and the suspect; in People v. Gireng,[20] therein eyewitness observed the transaction from a distance of fifteen (15) to twenty (20) meters; and in People vs. Uy,[21] the members of the buy-bust team were also twenty (20) meters away from the poseur buyer and the accused. In all these cases, the Supreme Court credited the accounts of the witnesses who testified as to how the buy-bust operation was conducted, taking note that although they were only at a distance, these witnesses closely watched the exchange between the poseur-buyer and the accused.
Moreover, the transaction on February 22, 2012 was not the first time that appellant disposed illegal drugs. As the trial court correctly pointed out, what transpired in this case was not a random police operation but a carefully planned buy-bust operation. Hence, prior to the incident on February 22, 2012, the police officers were already aware of appellant’s drug pushing activities and they confirmed the reports they received about him with their casing and surveillance activities, as well as the test-buy they conducted in December 2011.
In further assailing his conviction, appellant also claimed that there were substantial gaps in the chain of custody as there were no details of how Bernil took care of the items en route to the police station.
We find appellant’s claim flimsy. The lack of details in the record on how Bernil handled the items from the place of arrest to the police station does not mar the chain of custody that was duly established by the prosecution.
RA No. 9165 prescribes the procedure to be followed in the custody and disposition of illegal drugs, thus:
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs . . . . –
(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 the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
The records show that the items recovered from appellant were immediately marked in appellant’s presence at the site where the buy-bust was conducted.[22] Subsequently, the items were inventoried and photographed, although such procedures were done at the police station as the police team avoided the crowd that swelled during the incident. The inventory and photographing activities were witnessed by appellant himself, the police officers, the photographer, two elected public officials, and representatives from the media and the Department of Justice.[23] All these circumstances confirm that the procedural requirements on the chain of custody were sufficiently complied with. Apart from his insubstantial claim, appellant had not pointed out any other lapse in the handling of the drugs seized from him that compromised their identity, integrity and evidentiary value.
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 69, Silay City dated November 14, 2013 in Criminal Cases Nos. 8561-69 and 8562-69 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Hernando, Chairperson and *Lopez, JJ., concur.
*Vice Justice Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob, per Office Order No. 01-15-GTI dated January 22, 2015.
[1] Rollo, pp. 167-180.
[2] Otherwise known as An Act Instituting The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, Repealing Republic Act NO. 6425, Otherwise Known As The Dangerous Drugs Act Of 1972, As Amended, Providing Funds Therefor, And For Other Purposes.
[3] Record for Criminal Case No. 8561-69, pp. 1-2.
[4] Record for Criminal Case No. 8562-69, pp. 1-2.
[5] See Certificates of Arraignment, records of Criminal Cases Nos. 8561-69 and 8562-69, pp. 28 and 27, respectively.
[6] See Pre-trial Order, record of Criminal Case No. 8562-69, p. 33.
[7] See summary in Appellee’s Brief, rollo, pp. 138-140, footnotes and numberings omitted, new footnotes according to documentary evidence on record are provided.
[8] Record, p. 109.
[9] See photocopy of marked money, record, p. 7.
[10] Record, p. 105.
[11] Record, p. 106.
[12] Record, p. 107.
[13] Record, p. 112.
[14] Record, p. 111.
[15] Rollo, p. 178-179.
[16] See People v. Ambrosio, G.R. No. 135378. April 14, 2004, citing People v. Boco, 309 SCRA 42, 62-63 (1999).
[17] See TSN dated September 13, 2012, pp. 20-21.
[18] G.R. No. 184760. April 23, 2010.
[19] G.R. No. 186227. July 20, 2011.
[20] G.R. No. 97949. February 1, 1995.
[21] [G.R. No. 128046. March 7, 2000.
[22] See TSN dated September 13, 2012, p. 22.
[23] See Certificate of Inventory, record, p. 112.