PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. GLORIA ARZAGA Y OLINO AND JENNY GARCIA Y BERGADO, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
REYES, JR., J.C., J.:
“WHEREFORE, in Criminal Case No. U-15769, the Court finds the accused Gloria Arzaga and Jenny Garcia guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, and both are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Php500,000.00.
In Criminal Case No. U-15770, the Court finds the accused Gloria Arzaga guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Possession of Drug Paraphernalia and she is hereby sentenced to suffer a penalty of 6 months and 1 day to 4 years imprisonment and a fine of Php10,000.00.
The illegal drug and drug paraphernalia presented in court as evidence are ordered forfeited in favor of the government and shall be forwarded to the PDEA Office for proper disposition.
SO ORDERED” (Records, p. 303).
In an Information (Records, p. 72) dated September 26, 2008, accused-appellants Gloria O. Arzaga and Jenny B. Garcia were indicted with violation of Section 5 Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, committed as follows, to quote:
“That on or about 2:30 o’clock in the afternoon of September 25, 2008 at Brgy. Dilan, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused conspiring together, did then and there willfuly, unlawfully and feloniously sell one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (SHABU) weighing 0.05 grams, a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY to Sec. 5, Art. II of Republic Act 9165, otherwise known as “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.” (Records, p. 72)
In another Information (Records, p. 5) of the same date, accused-appellant Gloria O. Arzaga was indicted with violation of Section 12, Art. II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, committed as follows, to quote:
“That on or about 2:30 o’clock in the afternoon of September 25, 2008 at Brgy. Dilan, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in her possession, control and custody the following drug paraphernalia to wit: three (3) strips of aluminum foil and one (1) aluminum foil used as improvised tooter, all of which yielded positive to the test for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride and one (1) lighter used as improvised burner.
CONTRARY to Art. II, Sec. 12 of Republic Act 9165, otherwise known as “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.” (Records, p. 5)
Upon arraignment on February 17, 2009, accused-appellants Gloria O. Arzaga and Jenny B. Garcia, assisted by a counsel de officio, pleaded not gulity to the crime charged on them in Criminal Case No. U-15769 (See: Order dated February 17, 2009, Records, p. 105). On the other hand, when accused-appellant Gloria O. Arzaga was arraigned, she also pleaded not guilty to the crime charged on her in Criminal Case No. U-15770 (See: Order dated February 18, 2009, Records, p. 31).
Pre-trial conference was conducted and thereafter, trial on the merits ensued with the prosecution presenting Intelligence Officer (IO1) Daryll Damaso as the poseur-buyer; Chemical Forensic Officer Myrna Malojo and Barangay Kagawad Felixberto de Guzman. The defense, for its part presented the testimonies of the accused-appellants Gloria Arzaga and Jenny Garcia.
The prosecution tends to establish that on September 25, 2008, while IO1 Daryll Damaso was at the PDEA Office in Barangay Bayaoas, Urdaneta City, he received an information from a civilian informant reporting to him that certain persons namely Jenny and Gloria were allegedly selling shabu in their house at Barangay Dilan. IO1 Damaso immediately relayed the report to their team leader, PO3 Danny Ventura, who ordered to conduct a casing surveillance against the reported persons. IO1 Damaso, together with PO1 Velasquez and the civilian informant, proceeded to the reported place and there they saw (through the open door) people exchanging something with the accused-appellants. Thereafter, they decided to conduct a buy-bust operation against the two. IO1 Damaso was designated as the poseur-buyer, while PO1 Velasquez and PO3 Ventura acted as the back-up security. After preparing and marking the buy-bust money with initials DPD, the team proceeded to the place of operation where they found the two accused-appellants sitting in front of their house. The civilian informant introduced IO1 Damaso to accused-appellant Jenny Garcia as the buyer of the shabu. Accused-appellant Jenny Garcia then asked the said poseur-buyer if he wanted to buy and the poseur-buyer said yes. Accused-appellant Gloria Arzaga went inside the house and after a few minutes she came back and handed one sachet of suspected shabu to poseur-buyer IO1 Damaso. Upon receipt of the shabu, poseur-buyer IO1 Damaso handed three (3) pieces of marked Php100.00 peso bill as payment to accused-appellant Jenny Garcia. Thereafter, poseur-buyer IO1 Damaso removed his ball cap, which was their pre-arranged signal that the transaction was consummated. PO3 Velasquez immediately went to the place and introduced themselves as PDEA agents and arrested the accused-appellants. After the arrest, PO3 Velasquesz recovered the buy-bust money from the hand of accused-appellant Jenny Garcia. The specimen confiscated was with the poseur-buyer IO1 Damado until they returned to the PDEA Office for the preparation of the needed documents. It was found out later on that the three (3) pieces PHP100.00 bills used as buy-bust money were not recorded in their blotter. During the buy-bust operation, some drug paraphernalia, consisting of three (3) used aluminum foils, improvised tooter (aluminum foil) and improvised burner (lighter), were also recovered from accused-appellant Gloria Arzaga. The police officers then invited Barangay Kagawad Felixberto De Guzman to witness the inventory of the items and specimen confiscated. Thereafter, IO1 Daryll Damaso sent a letter-request to PSI Myrna Malojo, the Forensic Chemical Officer, for the lab examination of the specimen and paraphernalia confiscated from accused-appellants. After conducting qualitative examination, Forensic Chemical Officer Myrna Malojo found all the specimen and paraphernalia submitted as positive of methamphetamine hydrochloride. The specimen then was turned-over to Evidence Custodian PI Ellen Lady Maranion, for safe keeping.
The defense for its part, presented in Court the accused-appellants whose testimonies corroborated each other. Both averred that on September 25, 2008, at about 9:00 in the morning, several persons came to their house, identifying themselves as members of the PDEA, and conducted a search. Thereafter, both accused-appellants (the mother and her daughter-in-law) were invited to the PDEA office for questioning. At the PDEA, accused-appellants were shown an aluminum foil and were informed that they were under arrest for selling shabu. Accused-appellants were ordered to sign documents and pictures of them were also taken by the PDEA Officers. Accused-appellants were detained for five days at the PDEA Office and then they were brought to the Hall of Justice where they were again asked to sign some documents. Thereafter, accused-appellants were transferred to the BJMP.
Accused-appellant Gloria Arzaga denied the accusation against her that she was selling shabu and that she has in her possession some drug paraphernalia. She admitted that she does not know the names of the men who came in her house. Neither does she have any misunderstandings with them. She did not tell her counsel to file a protest nor file a complaint against them because she does not know the process. She also did not prepare a counter-affidavit because she thought she will go home right away. She however saw Barangay Kagawad Felixberto de Guzman but she did not talk to him even though she knows him personally. At the time when she was detained, she was crying.
Accused-appellant Jenny Garcia testified that she was at the house of her mother-in-law because the latter was suffering from hypertension. She admitted that she and her husband (son of her mother-in-law) were not married yet. She stated that when they were arrested, they did not protest but they went with the PDEA agents voluntarily. She also stated that she only affixed her thumbmark in the booking sheet and arrest report. She informed the court that she considers her thumbprint as her signature. When asked why she did not file a complaint against the PDEA agents, accused-appellant Jenny Garcia answered that she was not able to talk about it to her counsel. She likewise denied the accusation of illegal sale of shabu that was leveled against her as in fact she does not know what a shabu is.
After trial on the merits, the RTC of Urdaneta City, Pangasinan, Branch 48 found that the prosecution was able to establish the guilt of both accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, it issued the now appealed “Joint Decision” finding accused-appellants Gloria Arzaga and Jenny Garcia guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Sale of “shabu” and sentencing them to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay the fine of Php500,000.00. The RTC also found accused-appellant Gloria Arzaga guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia, sentencing her to suffer a penalty of 6 months and 1 day to 4 years imprisonment and to pay the fine of Php10,000.00 (See: Records, p. 303).
Feeling aggrieved with the said Decision, accused-appellants filed an appeal with this Court and raised the following errors to have been committed by the RTC, to wit:
I.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE PROSECUTION’S EVIDENCE DESPITE NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROPER CUSTODY OF SEIZED DANGEROUS DRUGS UNDER R.A. NO. 9165 AND FAILURE TO PROVE THE DRUG’S INTEGRITY.
II.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE PROSECUTION’S FAILURE TO PROVE THEIR GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
Accused-appellants faulted the RTC for giving full weight and credence to the testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses, who as police officers/law enforcers, enjoy in their favor the presumption of regularity in the performance of their official duties. Accused-appellants insisted that this presumption cannot prevail over the constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent, so much so that they (accused-appellants) were able to overcome said presumption by contrary evidence. The claim of regularity in the conduct of police buy-bust operation was rebutted by accused-appellants’ argument that the prosecution failed to comply with the provisions of Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 on the proper custody of the seized drugs and the preservation of their integrity. Accused-appellants argued that the RTC seriously erred in not considering the failure of the prosecution to present the testimony of Evidence Custodian P/Insp. Ellen Lady Maranion, to whom the Forensic Chemist turned over the specimen. They also averred that there was no testimony offered by the prosecution to establish each of the link in the chain of custody. And finally, they stated that the inventory of the items seized were infirmed as it does not contain the signatures of the accused-appellants, their representatives or counsels or any representative from media and DOJ and that said inventory was not done at the place where the specimens were seized and confiscated.
The rule is that the integrity and evidentiary value of seized items are properly preserved for as long as the chain of custody of the same are duly established (People vs. Salvador, G. R. No. 190621, February 10, 2014). ‘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 (ibid.). The Supreme Court explained Chain of Custody, in this wise:
“X x x 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 in 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.” (People vs. Guzon, G.R,. No. 199901, citing Malillin vs. People, 553 SCRA 619, 631-633 [2008])
The Supreme Court laid down the different links that the prosecution must establish with respect to the chain of custody in a buy-bust operation, to wit: (1) the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and (4) the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court (See: People vs. Arriola, 665 SCRA 581, 598 [2012]).
Gauged against the foregoing guidelines, We rule that the prosecution successfully proved that there was no break in the chain of custody over the shabu seized from the accused-appellants.
From the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, it was established that during the buy-bust operation, accused-appellant Gloria Arzaga handed to poseur-buyer IO1 Daryll Damaso a small transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance, in exchange of which, co-accused-appellant Jenny Garcia received Damaso’s payment consisting of three (3) pieces of Php100 bills (See: TSN, June 9, 2009, p. 7). Incidentally, during the said operation, drug paraphernalia such as three (3) used aluminim foils, improvised tooter (aluminum foil) and improvised burner (lighter) were recovered from accused-appellant Gloria Arzaga. After arresting accused-appellants, IO1 Damaso saw Velasquez got the marked money from accused-appellant Jenny Garcia, and he (Damaso), in turn, held on to the plastic sachet and the drug paraphernalia recovered from accused-appellant Gloria Arzaga.
The shabu and the drug paraphernalia were then brought by IO1 Damaso to the PDEA office. IO1 Damaso marked the specimens with his initial “DPD” after which he conducted an inventory of the items and photographed the same in the presence of Barangay Kagawad Felixberto De Guzman, an elected barangay official. IO1 Damaso prepared the Arrest and Booking Sheet (thumbmarked by accused-appellants), the Certificate of Inventory (also signed by the Barangay Kagawad) and the Request for Laboratory Examination (See: TSN, June 9, 2009, p. 12 and August 11, 2010, p. 5).
IO1 Damaso personally brought the marked drug specimen and paraphernalia to the PNP Crime Laboratory in Lingayen, Pangasinan and the same was received by Forensic Chemist PSI Myrna Malojo. PSI Malojo testified that she marked the specimen and drug paraphernalia with her initials and subjected them to qualitative examination (TSN, May 16, 2011, pp. 4-5). The result yielded positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as “shabu” (See: Chemistry Report No. D-107-08L, Records, p. 229). PSI Myrna Malojo then turned over the marked specimen and the drug paraphernalia to their Office Evidence Custodian P/Insp. Ellen Lady Maranion for safekeeping (TSN, May 16, 2011, p. 9). PSI Malojo saw Maranion kept the specimen in the evidence room. It was also PSI Malojo who retrieved the said drug specimen and paraphernalia from Maranion. In connection with the prosecution of the said drug case, PSI Malojo requested P/Insp Maranion for the release of the subject specimen and paraphernalia and then she submitted the same to RTC Branch 46 on the same day.
Judging from the narration of the prosecution as to the movement of the seized items, nothing was shown that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated shabu and drug paraphernalia were ever compromised nor even tainted. There is no showing that the poseur-buyer IO1 Damaso ever lost possession and control of the seized shabu and drug paraphernalia from the time it was recovered from accused-appellants until it was marked and turned-over for laboratory examination and then eventually presented in Court. The transfer of the seized items from one hand to another hand was likewise clearly and specifically explained. It was clear who recovered the items, who marked them, who actually brought the same to the crime laboratory, who subjected them to qualitative examination and who exercised custody and possession of the same after it was examined and before it was presented before the RTC. Verily, since each of the witness was able to explain and 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 (See: Valencia vs. People, G.R. No. 198804, January 22, 2014), the burden now rests on accused-appellants to show that the evidence presented in Court was tampered or meddled with, in order to overcome the presumption of regularity in the handling of the exhibits by the police officers. Regrettably, accused-appellants failed to discharge said burden. It could safely be concluded that the prosecution was able to establish the crucial link in the chain of custody of the seized drugs and paraphernalia.
Contrary to the defense protestation, the mere fact that the evidence custodian was not presented in court does not necessarily mean that there was already a break in the chain of custody. It is important that the circumstances surrounding the delivery of the seized items from the Forensic Chemist to the Evidence Custodian were amply explained. In this case, PSI. Myrna Malojo, the Forensic Chemist, testified that after marking the seized items, she personally handed them over to the Evidence Custodian and she personally witnessed where they were placed for safekeeping. When she recovered back the seized items, she saw that it was retrieved from the placed where it was kept, with the markings thereon very much intact. Indeed, it is not necessary that each of the persons involved in the handling and safekeeping of the seized items be presented in Court. One witness (in each chain) who can explain the transfer of custody is enough. The discretion on which witness to present in every case belongs to the prosecutor (People vs. Almodiel, 680 SCRA 306, 326 [2012]). As a matter of fact, the conclusion of guilt might even be possible on the basis of the testimony of a lone witness (ibid.). Since PSI Myrna Malojo, the Forensic Chemist sufficiently explained the movement of the seized items from her to that of the Evidence Custodian P/Insp. Ellen Lady Maranion, there is no need to present the testimony of the latter, since her testimony would only corroborate that of the Forensic Chemist PSI Myrna Malojo. With the chain of custody being unbroken, then there is no doubt that the plastic sachet containing the white crystalline substance and the drug paraphernalia that were presented before the RTC are the same ones that were confiscated from accused-appellants.
The defense likewise put in issue the failure of the police officers to strictly comply with the procedure for the custody and control of seized prohibited drugs set forth under Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and argued that the Certificate of Inventory did not contain the signature of the accused-appellants, representatives from the media and the Department of Justice and that the inventory of the seized items was not conducted at the place where they were seized and confiscated. Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165, which implements said provision, stipulates:
(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; Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; 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 (underscoring supplied).
In the case of People v. Cardenas, 668 SCRA 827 (2012), the Supreme Court stressed that the arrest of an accused will not be invalidated and the items seized from him rendered inadmissible on the sole ground of non-compliance with Sec. 21, Article II of RA 9165. In other words, 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 (See: People vs. Mali, G.R. No. 206738, December 11, 2013). It was 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.
In the case at bar, the mandate of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was substantially complied with when the certificate of inventory was prepared in the nearest office of the apprehending officer (PDEA Office), in the presence of Barangay Kagawad Felexberto De Guzman, a duly elected Barangay official, who incidentally also affixed his signature on the Certificate of Inventory. He testified in open court that he personally witnessed the inventory of the confiscated items, namely the one heat-sealed plastic sheet, the lighter (used as improvised burner) and the aluminum foils (used as improvised tooters) (TSN, July 21, 2010, p. 5) as well as the fact that they were photographed in his presence (See: TSN, July 21, 2010, p. 6). This procedure observed by the police officers is sufficient compliance with the law especially in the light of the fact that there was no irregularity and confusion that surrounds the confiscation, handling, custody and examination of the shabu and the drug paraphernalia, indicating that their integrity and evidentiary value were well-preserved.
The combined testimonial, documentary, and object evidence of the prosecution produced a detailed account of the buy-bust operation against accused-appellants, the successful sale transaction that took place between the poseur-buyer and the accused-appellants and how the drug paraphernalia were recovered from the possesion of accused-appellant Gloria Arzaga. And thus, accused-appellants’ defense of denial cannot prevail over the prosecution witnesses’ positive testimonies, coupled with the presentation in court by the prosecution of the corpus delicti. This is especially true considering that accused-appellants admitted that they do not know the police officers who apprehended them and they do not know any instances of any evil motive that would impel the police officers to falsely testify against them and charge them with offenses as serious as illegal sale of shabu and illegal possession of drug paraphernalia. Therefore, the testimonies and actuations of the police officers enjoy the presumption of regularity. As held by the Supreme Court:
“Prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation. Oft-repeated is the rule that in cases involving violations of Republic Act No. 9165, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers (or in this case, NBI agents) for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary. Absent any indication that the NBI agents herein were ill motivated in testifying against accused-appellants, their testimonies deserve full credence. In contrast, the defenses of denial and frame-up have been invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor for it can easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in prosecutions for violation of Republic Act No. 9165. In order to prosper, the defenses of denial and frame-up must be proved with strong and convincing evidence. Accused-appellants presented no such evidence in this case” (People vs. Asir Gani, G.R. No. 198318, November 27, 2013).
In fine, it has been established by proof beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellants were found guilty of illegally selling shabu. Under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the penalty for the unauthorized sale of shabu, regardless of its quantity and purity, is life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Php500,000.00 to Php10,000,000.00 (See: People vs. Montevirgen, G.R. No. 189840, December 11, 2013). Since the penalty imposed by the RTC is within the prescribed range as provided by law, We affirm the RTC’s imposition of life imprisonment and the payment of fine of P500,000.00.
As to the guilt of accused-appellant Gloria Arzaga, in illegally possessing the subject drug paraphernalia, the same was successfully established by prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Section 12, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 imposes the penalty of 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) upon any person, who unless authorized by law, shall possess or have under his/her control any equipment, instrument, apparatus and any other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body (See: People vs. Mariano, 685 SCRA 592, 607 [2012]). Again, the RTC is correct in imposing the penalty of 6 months and 1 day to 4 years imprisonment and a fine of Php10,000.00 against accused-appellant Gloria Arzaga.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed Joint Decision dated February 20, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Urdaneta City, Pangasinan, Branch 48, in Criminal Case No. U-15769 (For: Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs) and Criminal Case No. U-15770 (For: Illegal Possession of Drug Paraphernalia), is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Lopez, and Cruz,* JJ., concur.
* Acting Junior Member vice J. S. B. Inting per Office Order No. 348-14-RSF dated August 4, 2014.