PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RANDY DE GUZMAN Y SALES @ MATA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
GARCIA-FERNANDEZ, J.:
Accused-appellant was charged in an information[1] dated March 9, 2009, which reads:
“That on or about March 5, 2009, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, without being authorized by law to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession and under his custody and control one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet marked as “RDGS” containing zero point zero one zero (0.010) grams of methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”
During his arraignment, accused-appellant, assisted by counsel, Cesar Arnel M. Arcega, pleaded “not guilty”.
Record shows that during the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution, the following transpired:
- The parties stipulated on the qualification of P/Sr. Insp. Erickson Calabocal as a Forensic Chemist as well as on the genuineness and due execution of the following documentary evidence together with the specimen, to wit: 1) letter request dated March 5, 2009[2] (Exh. A, stamped receipt (Exh. A-1); 2) specimen with the marking “RDGS” (Exh. B); 3) letter brown envelope (Exh. B-1); 4) Final Chemistry Report[3] (Exh. C), findings and conclusions (Exh. C-1), the signatures (Exh. C-2).[4]
- The parties admitted that P/Sr. Insp. Calabocal who conducted the laboratory examination of the subject specimen does not have personal knowledge as to the ultimate source of the subject specimen and that he received a letter request on March 5, 2009 from PO2 Donato Godoy and attached to it was the specimen with markings “RDGS” which he subjected to qualitative examination.[5]
- PO1 Julius Enderio (PO1 Enderio), sole witness for the prosecution, testified.
The prosecution’s account of the facts as found by the trial court, is as follows:
“PO1 Enderio testified that on March 5, 2009, he, along with PO2 Daniel Miriam, was at Zobel Roxas St., San Andres Bukid, Manila; that at a distance of five to eight meters, they observed one (1) female person handing a small transparent heat-sealed plastic sachet to one (1) male person, later identified as accused; that upon approaching the duo, the female person noticed them and immediately ran away; that he accosted the accused, with the assistance of PO2 Miriam; that when he searched the accused, he recovered one (1) plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance, which he marked as “RDGS”, initials of the accused, in the presence of the accused at the place of arrest; and that he turned over the specimen to the Investigator who prepared the request for laboratory examination, the Booking Sheet[6], the Arrest Report[7], and the Inventory. He identified the accused through the photographs attached to the accused’s bailbond[8] (Exhibit “D” to “D-2”), the specimen (Exhibit “B”) with submarking “RDGS”, the Joint Affidavit of Apprehension and his signature therein[9] (Exhibits “E” and “E-1”), respectively), and the Inventory of the Seized Item[10] (Exhibit “F”) in Court.
On cross, he testified that they were conducting foot patrol surveillance but were not in uniform at the time of the incident; and that he cannot recognize the contents of a plastic sachet at a distance of eight meters.”
The defense, on the other hand, presented accused-appellant and his brother, Ramil de Guzman, as witnesses.
Accused-appellant denied the charge against him, claiming that between 11:00 p.m. to 12:00 midnight of March 5, 2009, he was at the house of his brother and they were having drinking session;[11] that the police officers who were then arresting a woman entered all the houses in their place;[12] that while he was in the comfort room, he was taken by said police officers, handcuffed and boarded to a minicab; that he saw a woman who was arrested before him in the same minicab and he knew this person to be a new renter in their place;[13] that he and said woman were brought to the police precinct; and that he denied having talked to one female person who handed to him a small sealed transparent plastic sachet.[14]
The second witness for the defense, Ramil de Guzman, testified that on March 8 or 9, 2009, at around 10:00 in the evening, his brother, accused-appellant, was in his house having drinking session with him; that a police officer entered inside their compound and arrested his brother who was then inside the comfort room adjacent to his house; that after his brother was arrested, one of the police officers threatened him and said, “Wag ka nang magulo, kung ‘di isasama na kita dito sa kapatid mo.”[15] And that he told said officers, “Saan n’yo po dadalahin ang kapatid ko, wala naman po’ng alam ‘yan?”[16]. On cross-examination, the witness stated that he and accused-appellant did not file a case against said police officers despite their claim that the action of the latter in arresting accused-appellant was illegal.[17]
The trial court rendered the assailed decision[18] finding accused-appellant guilty of the offense charged. It held:
“In People of the Philippines vs. Amadeo Tira, et. al. (G.R. No. 139615, May 28, 2004) the Supreme Court held that the essential elements of the crime of possession of regulated drugs are the following:
1) The accused is found in possession of a regulated drug;
2) The person is not authorized by law or duly constituted authorities;and
3) The accused has knowledge that the said drug is a regulated drug.
The accused failed to show any ill motive on the part of PO1 Julius Enderio to testify falsely against him. Indeed the prosecution showed that the police were conducting surveillance at Zobel Roxas, St., Sta. Ana, Manila when they saw one (1) female person handing a plastic sachet to the accused. The police was able to accost the accused, whose search yielded one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. PO1 Enderio marked the specimen as “RDGS”, initials of the accused, in the presence of the accused at the place of arrest. The specimen tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride when examined by the Forensic Chemist (Exhibit C).
The claim of the accused that without committing any wrong he was just arrested and charged by the police was not substantiated. Evidence to be believed must not only come from a credible witness but must in itself be credible. If indeed he is innocent he being bonded should have filed a case of planting of evidence against the police which is now punishable by life imprisonment.
Accused’s brother, Ramil de Guzman, testified that the arrest occurred either on 8 or 9 March 2009. This is contrary to the evidence of the prosecution and the claim of the accused that indeed he was arrested on 5 March 2009. Besides, testimonies of close kin are suspect and cannot prevail over that of the complaining witnesses. x x x
“In fine it should be pointed out that in a prosecution for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law, a case becomes a contest of credibility of witnesses and their testimonies. x x x
“Like alibi, we view the defense of frame-up with disfavor as it can easily be concocted and commonly used as a standard line of defense in most prosecution arising from violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act.”xxx
x x x
At this point, it bears stressing that mere possession of the prohibited substance is a crime per se and the burden of proof is upon the accused to show that he has a license or permit under the law to possess the prohibited drug. Xxx
The positive identification of accused by the prosecution witness should prevail over the former’s denials of the commission of the crime for which they are charged, since greater weight is generally accorded to the positive testimony of the prosecution witness than the accused’s denial. Denial, like alibi, is inherently a weak defense and cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimony of the prosecution witness that the accused committed the crime. x x x”
The trial court found accused-appellant guilty as charged and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months as maximum; to pay a fine of P300,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs.
Hence, this appeal[19] by the accused-appellant with the lone assignment of error:
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE FACT THAT HIS GUILT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
Accused-appellant questions the credibility of the lone prosecution witness based on the alleged improbabilities of the latter’s account of events which led to his arrest; that it is unbelievable that he would deal with drugs in a busy street without precaution given the clandestine nature of illegal drug dealings; that he assails the legality of his arrest and the admissibility against him of the confiscated drug in the plastic sachet marked as “RDGS”; and that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody of the seized item.
The contentions of the accused-appellant are devoid of merit.
First, well-settled is the rule that credibility of witnesses are matters best left to the appreciation of the trial court because of its unique opportunity of having observed that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witness’ deportment on the stand while testifying, which opportunity is denied to the reviewing tribunal.[20] Secondly, after a painstaking review of the record of the instant case, this Court found no significant facts and circumstances which appear to have been overlooked and disregarded by the trial court which, if considered, would have altered the outcome of the case.[21]
Accused-appellant was convicted on the basis of the testimony of the lone witness for the prosecution, PO1 Enderio. The trial court found PO1 Enderio’s testimony as positive and credible. In the prosecution of illegal drugs case, it is not unlikely that the lone testimony of a credible witness is sufficient to convict.[22] The Supreme Court has declared on numerous occasions that it is possible to convict an accused on the testimony of single witness as long as it is positive and credible[23]. This specially holds true when the sole witness had actually saw the accused’s commission of the crime and positively identified the latter as the author of the crime committed.[24]
There is no doubt that PO1 Enderio, while conducting a casing and surveillance operations with PO2 Miram, actually saw accused-appellant and his demeanor while conversing with a female person. In the Joint-Affidavit of Arrest, he stated that he took time observing and discreetly monitoring the duo. According to him, the female person suspected to be a street pusher reached from her right front pants pocket and handed or passed to the accused-appellant (1) small heat sealed transparent sachet containing white crystalline substance suspected to be Methamphetamine Hydrochloride otherwise known as “shabu” which the latter immediately took and place in his right front pants pocket. These, coupled with the observant disposition which PO1 Enderio had acquired in conducting surveillance operations, had created in the latter’s mind a reasonable ground of suspicion, based on personal knowledge of surrounding circumstances, that the accused-appellant is actually committing a crime of illegal possession of shabu, a regulated drug. In fact, when PO1 Enderio and PO2 Miram were about to check on them, the female person immediately fled and so only accused-appellant was arrested. After being searched, PO1 Enderio recovered a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance from the right front pocket of accused-appellant which he marked with the abbreviation of accused-appellant’s name, “RDGS”, right at that moment in the presence of the accused-appellant. The recovered item was tested and yielded positive for shabu. In open court, PO1 Enderio positively identified the accused-appellant and the plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance marked as “RDGS” as the one he recovered from the accused-appellant.
Illegal possession of prohibited or regulated drugs is committed when the following elements concur: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possesses the said drug.[25] In this case, accused-appellant was found in possession of shabu, a regulated drug, without being authorized by law. Accused-appellant failed to offer any satisfactory explanation why he was in possession of said drug. In the case of People vs. Sembrano, it was held that mere possession of a regulated drug per se constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused absent a satisfactory explanation of such possession – the onus probandi is shifted to the accused, to explain the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi.[26]
The accused-appellant was actually committing a violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act within the view of the arresting officers, PO1 Enderio and PO2 Miram, who actually witnessed how accused-appellant freely and consciously acquired and retained a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance which tested positive for shabu. Thus, this case falls within the exception to the rule requiring a warrant before effecting an arrest pursuant to Rule 113, Section 5 (a) of the Revised Rules of Procedure or the arrest of a suspect in flagrante delicto. Said provision states in part that a peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. Consequently, the results of the ensuing search and seizure were admissible in evidence to prove accused-appellant’s guilt of the offense charged.[27]
The accused-appellant’s defenses of denial, alibi and frame up are intrinsically weak. That PO1 Enderio failed to remember the middle name of the accused-appellant during the former’s cross-examination is trivial since police officers cannot be expected to remember minutest details, for example, middle name on account of the fact that by the nature of their functions, they meet a lot of people and deal with varying names, including middle names and aliases which are hard to remember. Moreover, accused-appellant admitted that he did not file a case against the arresting officers despite his protestation that his arrest was illegal. Further, he did not move for the quashal of the information against him before his arraignment. It is said that any objection involving the arrest or the procedure in the court’s acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of an accused must be made before he enters his plea; otherwise the objection is deemed waived.[28]
Accused-appellant’s assertion that it is impossible for one to deal with a prohibited item in the open deserves no serious consideration. Drug dealings done on a small scale are usually carried out with casualness even in the most public places as they serve as ploy to camouflage the illegality of the transaction.
RA 9165, under Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II, provides for the procedure to be followed in the custody and handling of seized dangerous drugs:
“x x x
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 same procedure is outlined by Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 which states that:
“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: 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.” (Emphasis ours.)
Stated differently, the custodial chain rule need not be rigorously followed, provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team.[29]
Hence, while there was no strict compliance as to the directives set forth under the afore-cited provision, this Court is convinced that the prosecution has proved, by documentary and testimonial evidence, that the shabu which was confiscated and marked at the crime scene was the same shabu that was identified and admitted in court as evidence. The white crystalline substance contained in the plastic sachet which PO1 Enderio who, together with PO2 Miram recovered from accused-appellant around 3:30 p.m. of March 5, 2009 was the same substance which PO1 Enderio marked with “RDGS” and took into custody. PO1 Enderio and PO2 Miram prepared an inventory of the seized substance. The same was turned over to PO2 Godoy who prepared the Booking Sheet, Arrest Report and Spot Report. A request for laboratory examination was prepared by Police Chief Inspector Baybayan and said request was delivered by the same PO2 Godoy to the crime laboratory on 9:25 p.m. of even date and received by Police Chief Inspector Calabocal who completed the examination at 11:25 p.m. of the same day. PO1 Enderio took the witness stand and identified the substance contained in the plastic sachet marked with “RDGS” to be the same substance which he recovered from the accused-appellant.
The accused-appellant was found in possession of 0.010 gram of shabu in violation of RA 9165 which is punishable with 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). Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, if the offense is punished by any other law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same. Hence, the penalty imposed by the trial court, i.e., twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months as maximum and a fine of P300,000.00, is within the range allowed by the provisions of the law. Considering that the principal penalty imposed by the trial court is higher than prision correccional, no subsidiary imprisonment shall be meted upon the accused-appellant, pursuant to Article 39 of the Revised Penal Code[30]. Cost[31] adjudged against the accused-appellant is sustained for his unfounded allegations.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 2, Manila dated February 24, 2010 in Criminal Case No. 09-267028, convicting accused-appellant Randy de Guzman @ Mata of violation of Section 11 (3), Article II of RA 9165 and sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months as maximum and a fine of P300,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment is hereby AFFIRMED. Cost against the accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Lampas Peralta, F., (Chairperson) and Acosta, F.P.; JJ., concur.
[1] Record, p. 1
[2] Record, p. 7
[3] Record, p. 8
[4] Record, p. 52
[5] Ibid.
[6] Record, p. 4
[7] Record, p. 4
[8] Record, p. 11
[9] Record, p. 3
[10] Record, p. 6
[11] TSN, Randy de Guzman, February 1, 2010, p. 2
[12] TSN, Randy de Guzman, February 1, 2010, p. 3
[13] TSN, Randy de Guzman, February 1, 2010, p. 4
[14] TSN, Randy de Guzman, February 1, 2010, p. 5
[15] TSN, Ramil de Guzman, February 23, 2010, pp. 3-4
[16] TSN, Ramil de Guzman, February 23, 2010, p. 5
[17] TSN, Ramil de Guzman, February 23, 2010, p. 6
[18] Rollo, pp. 10-14
[19] Rollo, pp. 22-37
[20] See People of the Philippines vs. Go, G.R. No. L-116001, March 14, 2001 and Go vs. Court of Appeals and People, G.R. No. 123943, March 14, 2001
[21] See People of the Philippines vs. Go, supra
[22] See the case of People of the Philippines vs. Evangelista, G.R. No. 175281, September 27, 2007
[23] Lapuz vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 150050, June 17, 2004, citing People vs. Tiu, G.R. No. 142885, October 22, 2003
[24] See People of the Philippines vs. Jubail, et al., G.R. No. 143718, May 19, 2004, citing People vs. Padilla, G.R. No. 138472-73, August 9, 2001
[25] People of the Philippines vs. Tuan, G.R. No. 176066, August 11, 2010
[26] G.R. No. 185848, August 16, 2010
[27] Sy vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 182178, August 15, 2011
[28] See Zalameda vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 183656, September 4, 2009
[29] See People of the Philippines vs. Quiamanlon, G.R. No. 191198, January 26, 2011
[30] “Art. 39. Subsidiary penalty. – If the convict has no property with which to meet the fine mentioned in paragraph 3 of the next preceding article, he shall be subject to a subsidiary personal liability at the rate of one day for each eight pesos, subject to the following rules:
x x x
3. When the principal penalty imposed is higher than prision correccional, no subsidiary imprisonment shall be imposed upon the culprit.
x x x”
[31] Rule 142 of the Rules of Court
Section 1. Costs ordinarily follow results of suit. –Unless otherwise provided in these rules, costs shall be allowed to the prevailing party as a matter of course, but the court shall have power, for special reasons, adjudge that either party shall pay the costs of an action, or that the same be divided, as may be equitable. No costs shall be allowed against the Republic of the Philippines unless otherwise provided by law.
x x x
Section 4. False allegations. – An averment in a pleading made without reasonable cause and found untrue shall subject the offending party to the payment of such reasonable expenses as may have been necessarily incurred by the other party by reason of such untrue pleading. The amount of expenses so payable shall be fixed by the judge in the trial, and taxed as costs.