PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF- APPELLEE, VS. ERNESTO BUARON JR. Y MENDOZA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
INGLES, G. T., J.:
This is an appeal filed by accused-appellant Ernesto Buaron, Jr. of the Judgment[1] dated December 27, 2010 of the Seventh Judicial Region, Branch 28, Mandaue City, in Crim Case No. DU-10792 which found accused-appellant guilty of Violation of Sec. 5, Article II of RA No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
THE FACTS:
Version of the Prosecution
On November 9, 2003, the Drug Enforcement Unit-Mandaue City Police Office (DEU-MCPO) received information from an asset that a certain Ernesto Buaron, Jr., herein accused-appellant was engaged in illegal drug activities in Looc, Mandaue City.
On November 10, 2003, PO1 Bimon Montebon and PO1 Dionisia dela Pena conducted a surveillance on accused-appellant. The two saw accused-appellant selling shabu at the videoke owned by his mother under the bridge in Looc, Mandaue City.
At around 10:00 AM on November 11, 2004, PO1 Montebon was informed by their office that a buy-bust operation was going to be conducted against accused-appellant. Thus, the DEU-MCPO prepared a pre-operation report and submitted it to the PDEA. Around 10:00 PM, a briefing was conducted at the MCPO wherein a buy-bust team was organized composing of PO1 Tiniola, PO1 Verano, SPO1 Elmer Enriquez and P/Supt Juanito Enguerra. PO1 Montebon and PO1 dela Pena were designated as poseur-buyers while the rest of the team members were to act as back-up force.
Around 12:00 midnight, the back-up police officers arrived in Looc, Mandaue City where PO1 Verano and PO1 Tiniola positioned themselves in the billiard hall at the side of the videoke bar. Twenty minutes later, PO1 Montebon and PO1 dela Pena arrived at the videoke bar and ordered drinks. While the two police men were having drinks at said place, accused-appellant looked at them, trying to figure out who they were.
Around 1:00 AM on November 12, 2004, accused-appellant approached the table of PO1 Montebon and PO1 Dionisio dela Pena and asked them if they wanted to buy shabu. PO1 Montebon replied that he wanted to buy shabu worth P100.00. Accused-appellant then gave him a small transparent plastic sachet which contained white substance suspected to be shabu. PO1 Montebon, on the other hand, handed over the buy-bust money to accused-appellant.
Immediately thereafter, PO1 dela Pena made the pre-arranged signal to the back up team while PO1 Montebon arrested accused-appellant at the same time informing the latter of his constitutional rights. Accused-appellant was subsequently brought to the MCPO and turned over to Elmer Enriguez, the investigator who marked the seized item with “EB”. Meanwhile, SPO1 Elmer Enriquez delivered the said plastic sachet together with a letter request for laboratory examination to the PNP PRO-VII Regional Crime Laboratory. Forensic Analyst P/Insp Medardo Hingpit Palapo of the PNP PRO-VII Regional Crime Laboratory conducted an examination of the specimen recovered from accused-appellant which tested positive for shabu.
The Charge
In the Information[2] dated November 13, 2003 filed against accused-appellant, he was charged with the crime of Violation of Section 5, Article II of RA No. 9165 as follows:
“That on or about the 12th day of November 2003, in the City of Mandaue, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with deliberate intent, and without being authorized by law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and give away to another “shabu” or methylamephetamine hydrochloride, weighing 0.03 grams, a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”
Accused-appellant was arraigned and pleaded “not guilty” to the crime charged.
Trial ensued. The prosecution presented the following as witnesses: PO1 Bimon Montebon, PO1 Dionisio Dela Pena and P/Supt Juanito Enguerra. On the other hand, Edita Buaron, accused-appellant’s mother and himself testified for his defense.
Version of Accused-appellant
Accused-appellant testified that around midnight on November 12, 2003, he went to the store of his mother and bought Red Horse beer on credit. His house was more or less three meters away from his mother’s store which was inside the waiting shed. He then proceeded to the billiard hall and stayed there for about two minutes where he heard a person noisily singing. Accused-appellant then returned to his mother’s store and requested to tone down the noise because his wife was already asleep. Accused-appellant was about to go home when his father sent him to collect payment from two drunken men. He attempted to collect from the short man who referred him to his companion who was then urinating at the pillar of the bridge. When accused-appellant demanded payment from him, he was asked if he knew a certain Edgar. Accused-appellant gave a negative answer but the fellow kept on asking if he knew Edgar. He raised his voice and got angry. Accused-appellant called him insane and insisted that he did not know a certain Edgar. The man suddenly grabbed and handcuffed him. Accused-appellant shouted and called for his mother who approached them and asked what happened. The man told accused-appellant’s mother to keep quiet and instructed accused-appellant’s father to follow them.. At the police station, accused-appellant testified that he was made to sign an unknown document and his picture was taken. He was then charged for selling shabu. Subsequently, accused-appellant was brought to precinct at Subangdaku where he was detained.
The RTC Ruling:
Thereafter, on December 27, 2010, the RTC, Branch 28, Mandaue City rendered Judgment against accused-appellant, the pertinent portion of which reads:
“WHEREFORE, this Joint Judgment is rendered finding accused Ernesto Buaron, Jr. y Mendoza guilty beyond reasonable doubt for sale of shabu, a dangerous drug. Pursuant to Section 5, Article II, RA 9165, this Court hereby imposes upon Ernesto Buaron, Jr. y Mendoza, the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P 300,000.00) together with accessory penalties under Section 35, Article II thereof and costs.
Ernesto Buaron, Jr. y Mendoza shall be given full credit of the period of his preventive suspsension.
The Court directs the destruction of the plastic pack of shabu marked as Exhibit ”A” and the return of the buy-bust money to PO1 Bimon Montebon and PO1 Dionisio dela Pena.
IT IS SO ORDERED.”
Aggrieved, accused-appellant now comes to this Court seeking a reversal of his conviction and assigning as sole error, thus:
“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.”
THIS COURT’S RULING:
We affirm accused-appellant’s conviction.
Valid warrantless arrest
Accused-appellant first posits that he was not committing a crime when he was arrested and that he was merely trying to collect payment from the police officers for the beer they consumed in the videoke bar. As such, he asserts that his warrantless arrest was illegal which makes any evidence confiscated from him as fruit of a poisonous tree.
We reject accused-appellant’s assertion.
In People v. Villamin, [3] involving an accused arrested after he sold drugs during a buy-bust operation, the Court ruled that it was a circumstance where a warrantless arrest is justified under Rule 113, Sec. 5 (a) of the Rules of Court. The same ruling applies to the instant case. When carried out with due regard for constitutional and legal safeguards, it is a judicially sanctioned method of apprehending those involved in illegal drug activities. It is a valid form of entrapment, as the idea to commit a crime comes not from the police officers but from the accused himself. The accused is caught in the act and must be apprehended on the spot. From the very nature of a buy-bust operation, the absence of a warrant does not make the arrest illegal. The illegal drug seized was not the “fruit of the poisonous tree” as the defense would like this Court to believe. The seizure made by the buy-bust team falls under a search incidental to a lawful arrest under Rule 126, Sec. 13 of the Rules of Court, which pertinently provides:
SEC. 13
“A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant.”
Since the buy-bust operation was established as legitimate, it follows that the search was also valid, and a warrant was likewise not needed to conduct it.
Here, the prosecution has established that accused-appellant was caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu during a buy-bust operation conducted against him. A buy-bust operation has long been held as a legitimate method of catching offenders and is a form of entrapment whereby ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan.[4] There is no textbook method of conducting buy-bust operations. The Court has left to the discretion of police authorities the selection of effective means to apprehend drug dealers. Furthermore, if a police operation requires immediate implementation, time is of the essence and only hasty preparations are sometimes possible. What is important is whether the speed of preparation compromised the rights of the accused. [5]
In the case at bar, the trial court correctly upheld the testimonies of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation. It did not err in applying the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty by law enforcement agents.
The prosecution sufficiently proved all the elements of the illegal sale of shabu as follows: (1) identity of the buyer and 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.[6] Accused-appellant was convicted by the court a quo on the basis of the evidence resulting from the buy-bust operation undertaken by police officers. During the trial, police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation testified in a categorical manner regarding accused-appellant’s sale of the shabu to the poseur buyers. Members of the buy-bust team identified the accused-appellant as the one who sold the shabu and received the marked money from the poseur-buyers. The prosecution established that the marked money was then handed over to accused-appellant. The delivery of the illegal drug to the poseur buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummated the buy-bust transaction. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses prove that the transaction or sale actually took place. Likewise, the prosecution was able to account that the evidence recovered from accused-appellant with the markings “EB” was the same evidence presented in court.
The credence given by the court a quo regarding the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies is further warranted by the absence of any showing that they were impelled by some evil motive in rendering such testimony. Accused-appellant testified that he did not know the police officers nor did he have a quarrel with any of them. We conform to the rule that unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive to falsely charge accused-appellant of a serious offense, or were not properly performing their duty, their testimonies on the operation deserve full faith and credit.[7] Notably, no complaints were filed against the police officers for any alleged planting of evidence or frame-up of accused-appellant. There is also nothing in the records to suggest that the police officers were ill-motivated to fabricate a case against accused-appellant. Accused-appellant failed to produce convincing proof that the prosecution witnesses had any malicious or ulterior motive when they testified, or that the evidence submitted by the prosecution had been tampered with. In fact, the defense failed to present any credible witness to corroborate his version of events.
Moreover, as between the testimonies of accused-appellant and the police officers, testimonies of the latter are more credible. Police officers, are after all, presumed to have acted regularly in the performance of their official functions in the absence of clear and convincing proof to the contrary or that they are motivated by ill-will.[8] Thus, accused-appellant’s defense of denial should fail in light of the positive identification and testimonies made by the prosecution witnesses. The records show that the prosecution witnesses testified in a straightforward manner regarding the identity of the seller of illegal drugs. Well-settled is the rule that greater weight is given to the positive testimony of the prosecution witnesses rather than the denials of the accused.
Chain of custody
of seized drugs
Furthermore, accused-appellant argues that the prosecution failed to sufficiently prove the integrity and evidentiary value of said evidence. Accused-appellant insists that the corpus delicti of the offense is a sine qua non for conviction in prosecutions for violation of Dangerous Drugs Act. He claims that the chain of custody requirement was not preserved in this case warranting his acquittal. Accused-appellant contends that the sachet of shabu was not marked at the place of confiscation, no inventory was prepared and no photograph was taken as required by law. According to accused-appellant, non-compliance with the mandated procedure under RA No. 9165 was not adequately explained by the prosecution. No justification was offered why the sachet of shabu was marked only at the police station, no explanation was given for the absence of an inventory and photographs of the seized shabu.
Accused-appellant also points out that there were conflicting testimonies of the prosecution witnesses which makes doubtful that the chain of custody was preserved. All the prosecution witnesses stated that SPO1 Enriquez made the marking “EB” on the sachet of shabu offered as evidence and that SPO1 Enriquez was allegedly the one who delivered said item to the crime laboratory for chemical analysis. However, accused-appellant claims that SPO1 Enriquez was not presented during trial so that there is testimony as to what happened to the shabu when it left the police headquarters. Accused-appellant avers that prosecution witnesses did not mention that SPO1 Enriquez was accompanied by any of the police officers to the crime laboratory. Thus, accused-appellant emphasizes that aside from SPO1 Enriquez himself, no one can attest that the identity and integrity of the evidence was preserved. This is a huge gap in the chain of custody which cannot be overlooked.
Accused-appellant’s contention is unmeritorious.
As a general rule, non-compliance with Sec. 21 of RA No. 9165 will not render an accused’s arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated from the accused inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as they would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[9]. Here, we are convinced that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved. In prosecutions involving narcotics and other illegal substances, the substance itself constitutes part of the corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Of chief concern in drug cases then is the requirement that the prosecution prove that what was seized by police officers is the same item presented in court. This identification, as we have held in the past, must be established with moral certainty and is a function of the rule on chain of custody. The chain of custody requirement is essential to ensure that doubts regarding the identity of the evidence are removed through the monitoring and tracking of the movements of the seized drugs from the accused, to the police, to the forensic chemist, and finally to the court.[10]
Sec. 21 of RA 9165 provides the procedure to be followed with regards to the chain of custody:
“Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. – 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 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;
(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination.”
A careful scrutiny of the records supports the finding that there was an unbroken chain of custody. Both PO1 Bimon Montebon and PO1 Dionisio dela Pena testified that accused-appellant offered one plastic sachet of shabu to them which was later confiscated from him. When the police officers reached the Mandaue City Police office, the seized shabu was turned over to SPO1 Elmer Enriquez, the station investigator for the preparation of the request for laboratory examination. SPO1 Enriquez who was with PO1 Montebon marked the seized item with “EB”. P/SInsp Alex Castro then prepared the laboratory request for examination of the specimen and was later forwarded to the PNP PRO VII-Regional Crime Laboratory. The Chemistry report prepared by the forensic chemist listed the same evidence bearing “EB” which was later identified by PO1 Montebon and PO1 Dela Pena as the same plastic sachet of shabu confiscated from accused-appellant.
It is apparent that the requirements of the law have been sufficiently established in the instant case. What is more, the integrity of the evidence is presumed to be preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered with. Accused-appellant has the burden to show that the evidence was tampered or meddled with to overcome a presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers. [11] Accused-appellant failed in this respect.
Accused-appellant, to bolster his acquittal stresses that there was no inventory made by the police operatives. This infirmity alone does not warrant the acquittal of accused-appellant. We are guided by Yolly Teodosio vs. Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines[12], wherein the Supreme Court belittled the argument that the prosecution’s case was weakened by the fact that the police officers did not issue a receipt for the confiscated drugs and declared that issuing such a receipt is not essential to establishing a criminal case for selling drugs as it is not an element of the crime.
Also, the failure of the police officers to take photographs of the seized item cannot exonerate accused-appellant of his liability. Police stations and barangays are usually not equipped with cameras. The omission on the part of the police officers to take photographs or even make an inventory of the drugs seized from accused-appellant should not be considered fatal because the prosecution was able to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the said illegal drugs.[13] In People vs Amansec[14], the High Court ruled that even though the prosecution failed to submit in evidence the physical inventory and photograph of the seized drugs as required under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, this will not render the accused’s arrest illegal or the items seized from him as inadmissible in evidence.
Too, there is nothing in Republic Act No. 9165 or in its implementing rules, which requires each and everyone who came into contact with the seized drugs to testify in court. “As long as the chain of custody of the seized drug was clearly established to have not been broken and the prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drugs seized, it is not indispensable that each and every person who came into possession of the drugs should take the witness stand. “ In People vs Amansec, [15], the Supreme Court held that the non-presentation as witnesses of other persons such as the evidence custodian or the officer on duty, is not a crucial point against the prosecution. Hence, it is immaterial that SPO1 Enriquez did not testify during trial regarding the chain of custody of the seized drug. The matter of presentation of witnesses by the prosecution is not for the court to decide. It it the prosecution’s discretion how to present its case and it has the right to choose whom it wishes to present as witnesses.
People vs Guiara[16] provides enlightenment wherein the Supreme Court declared that Section 21 thereof need not be followed with pedantic rigor and that what is essential is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items since it would be utilized in the determination of the accused-appellant’s guilt or innocence. Moreover, jurisprudence is abound with rulings that non-compliance with Section 21 will not necessarily render an accused-appellant’s arrest as illegal or the items seized from him as inadmissible.[17]
As there is no proof to support the claim that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized shabu have been compromised at some stage, we find no reason to overturn the finding of the trial court that what was seized from accused-appellant was the same illegal drugs presented in the trial court. As it is, there was substantial compliance with the requirements under RA 9165, and the prosecution adequately established that there was an unbroken chain of custody over the shabu seized from accused-appellant.
In sum, proof beyond reasonable doubt, as found by the trial court was established against accused-appellant. Trial courts are our eyes. They have the distinct advantage of observing the demeanor and conduct of witnesses during trial. Absent any showing that certain facts of relevance and substance bearing on the elements of the crime have been overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied by a trial court, we must defer to its findings.[18]
Penalties
We sustain the penalty imposed by the trial court since under the law, the illegal sale of shabu carries with it 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), regardless of the quantity and purity of the substance involved.[19]
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Judgment dated December 27, 2010 of the Seventh Judicial Region, Branch 28, Mandaue City, in Crim Case No. DU-10792 is AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Francisco, R.C., and Lopez, J.Y.,* JJ., concur.
* Acting Junior Member in lieu of J. Pamela Ann Abella Maxino as per Office Order No. 25-14-GTI dated 29 October 2014.
[1] Rollo, p. 29, penned by Judge Marilyn Lagura Yap
[2] Records, p. 1
[3] G.R. No. 175590, February 9, 2010.
[4] People vs Valencia, GR No. 143032, October 14, 2002
[5] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. LI YIN CHU alias ROBERT LI, G.R. No. 143793. February 17, 2004.
[6] Cruz vs People, GR No. 164580, February 6, 2009.
[7] People v. Naquita, G.R. No. 180511, July 28, 2008,
[8] People v. Concepcion, G.R. No. 178876, June 27, 2008.
[9] People v. Teodoro, G.R. No. 185164, June 22, 2009
[10] People v. Garcia, G.R. No. 173480, February 25, 2009
[11] People v. Macatingag, G.R. No. 181037, January 19, 2009.
[12] G.R. No. 124346, June 8, 2004,
[13] People vs Llamado, GR No. 185278, March 13, 2009
[14] GR No. 186131 December 14, 2011
[15] GR No. 186131 December 14, 2011
[16] GR No. 186497, September 17, 2009
[17] People vs Teodoro, GR No. 185164, June 22, 2009
[18] People v. Darisan, G.R. No. 176151, January 30, 2009; citing People v. Nicolas, G.R. No. 170234, February 8, 2007,
[19] People vs Bernabe, GR No. 180505, June 29, 2010