PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. VICENTE LAGO Y PEREZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
CARANDANG, J.:
“WHEREFORE, accused VICENTE LAGO y PEREZ is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and accordingly imposed an indeterminate prison sentence of 12 years and one day, as minimum to 17 years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P300,000.00
The accused may be credited with the period that he has served under precentive imprisonemnt in accordance with Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and applicable rules.
The Clerk of Court is hereby directed to turn over with dispatch the confiscated evidence to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper disposition in accordance with law.
SO ORDERED.”
The Antecedent facts:
Accused-appellant was charged for illegal possession of drugs under Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, docketed as Criminal Case No. 860-V-10, under the following Information:[2]
“That on or about September 30, 2010 in Valenzuela City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without any authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and control two (2) pcs. of heat sealed transparent plastic sachet, containing zero point zero one (0.01) and zero point zero one (0.01) for a total of zero point zero two (0.02), grams of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu), knowing the same to be a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law.”
Duly assisted by counsel de oficio, accused-appellant entered a plea of “not guilty”during the arraigment.[3] Trial on the merits thereafter ensued.
The prosecution established that on September 25, 2010, at around 6:00 in the afternoon, officer-in-charge SPO2 Rajean Apolinar Mirando (“SPO2 Mirando”) received forwarded text messages from their team leader, P/Insp. Dexter Perez, regarding the illegal activities of alias Tisoy in Little Tagaytay, Marulas, Valenzuela City. SPO2 Mirando instructed his team to contact their confidential informant.[4]
On September 28, 2010, at around 4:00 in the afternoon, PO2 Catherine S. Rame (“PO2”Rame”) met with the confidential informant at Serrano Elementary School.[5] At around 7:00 in the evening, PO2 Rame and company were discharged from the Office to conduct surveillance at Little Tagaytay against alias Tisoy, but they were not able to locate him. They gathered more information from the neighbors and concerned citizens who informed them that Tisoy sells and uses shabu, conducting pot session in his house.[6] They relayed the positive confirmation to their team leader who instructed them to conduct an operation.[7]
On September 30, 2010, at around 6:00 in the evening, their confidential informant again called their office and informed them that Tisoy was waiting for buyers and users of shabu.[8] SPO2 Mirando then instructed PO2 Rame to meet the confidential informant at Serrano Elementary School in Marulas, which is near Little Tagaytay. Po2 Rame gave money to the confidential informant for cellphone load and transportation, and for buying shabu so the confidential informant can use the shabu to confirm the illegal activities of the target. Thereafter, PO2 Rame went back to their office. PO2 Freddie Lim prepared the coordination form[9] and pre-operation report[10] then sent it to the District Anti-Illegal Drugs Aid (DAID) office.[11]
At around 10:20 that same evening, the team composed of PO2 Rame, SPO2 Mirando, SPO2 Armin Garcia, Spo2 Ronald Sanchez, PO3 Dait, PO2 Malinao, and PO2 Lim were dispatched to Serrano Elementary School to again meet with the confidential informant and reconfirm the whereabouts of Tisoy. They agreed that PO2 Rame and the confidential informant will proceed first to the target area. A “missed call” from PO2 Rame was their pre-arranged signal. Po2 Rame and the confidential informant proceeded to Little Tagaytay on board a tricycle. Some of the police officers were walking and following them, while the other police officers were on board their mobile, a Toyota Revo.[12]
While PO2 Rame and the confidential informant were walking at the target area, they saw four (4) male persons drinking beer. The confidential informant whispered to PO2 Rame that the male person without a shirt and in black shorts was Tisoy. At around five (5) meters away and while approaching the group of Tisoy, PO2 Rame heard Tisoy tell his drinking buddies, “Maghanap na kayo ng foil para makagamit na tayo,” while showing them a plastic sachet with white crystalline substance. PO2 Rame then made a “missed call” to PO2 Lim. When PO2 Rame saw PO2 Lim and the other police officers approaching, she slowly moved toward Tisoy, held him, and introduced herself as a police officer. Tisoy was taken aback and not able to utter a word. PO2 Lim helped PO2 Rame handcuff Tisoy, but the latter’s son, Red, blocked them and tried to pull his father away. At this instance, PO2 Rame got the plastic sachet from Tisoy’s hand, while SPO2 Ronald Sanchez held the son of Tisoy. PO2 Rame was able to recover from Tisoy two (2) plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance and a plastic case of playing cards containing ten pieces of empty plastic sachets. The three (3) males who were drinking with Tisoy were not arrested because they were not doing anything illegal. They proceeded to the barangay hall of Marulas for drug inventory. PO2 Rame presented the recovered specimen to barangay kagawad Danilo Alonzo. SPO2 Mirando prepared the Inventory of Seized Properties/Items[13] which was signed by Alonzo. PO2 Rame also affixed her signature thereon as the “seizing officer”. PO2 Lim took photographs during the inventory.[14] At the barangay hall, Tisoy was identified as the herein accused-appellant Vicente P. Lago. PO2 Rame marked the evidence with accused-appellant’s initials, “VPL”, the date “09-30-10” and her signature. After the inventory, they proceeded to their office and prepared the necessary documents for filing of charges against accused-appellant. The latter’s son was charged with obstruction of justice under PD 1829.[15]
On October 1, 2010, PO2 Rame turned over the evidence placed in a brown envelop to the SOCO duty officer. A drug test was likewise conducted on accused-appellant and his urine was found positive for the presence of methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.[16] The laboratory examination of the contents of the two plastic sachets also yielded positive result for the presence of shabu.[17]
Accused-appellant denied the charge. He testified[18] that in the late evening of September 30, 2010, he was having a drinking session with his son when three (3) male persons suddenly arrived, looking for a certain Vicente. When he identified himself as Vicente, one of them put his arm over his shoulder (inakbayan) and whispered, “Vicente, pasensiya ka na. May tumawag sa amin na magulo ka daw dito.” Accused-appellant denied such claim and retorted that they were merely having a drinking session and were not doing anything wrong. Accused-appellant and his son were forced to board a van and were brought to the police station. The police officers demanded money but when accused-appellant’s son stated that they will file charges against them, they were suddenly brought to the barangay hall. While inside the barangay hall, one of the police officers took out from his pocket a small plastic sachet and showed it to the kagawad. Accused-appellant’s son vehemently reacted by saying, “Ano yan? Wala naman kayong nakuha sa amin ah?” Thereafter, they were brought back to the police station where accused-appellant was forced to drink the water given by the police officers. Then they went to the SOCO and accused-appellant was given a small bottle and told to urinate there. He only learned that he is being charged of possession of illegal drugs during his arraignment.
Victoria Cardenas, the live-in partner of accused-appellant, testified[19] that accused-appellant and his son were merely having a drinking session during the late evening of September 30, 2010 when three (3) male persons arrived looking for accused-appellant. Victoria heard one of them accusing her live-in-partner of creating trouble in their area. Despite denying the accusation, her live-in-partner and son were arrested and forced to board a van. Victoria knows the three (3) male persons as police officers, for she once saw them in the act of mauling a person who was already handcuffed.
On September 26, 2011, the trial court rendered a Decision convicting accused-appellant for violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to 17 years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P300,000.00.
Hence, this appeal. Accused-appellant imputes to the trial court the following errors:
I
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
II
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES’ TESTIMONIES.
III
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY DESPITE THE PROSECUTION’S FAILURE TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY AND THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF THE ALLEGEDLY CONFISCATED SHABU.
Accused-appellant assails the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. He claims that their testimonies are incredible; hence, they are not reliable witnesses. In addition, accused-appellant contends that the prosecution failed to establish the identiy and chain of custody of the confiscated shabu. He maintains that there are glaring lapses committed by the police officers from the time the illegal drugs were seized from accused-appellant up to the time the same were presented in court. Further, there were no representatives from the media and the DOJ to witness the inventory.
The appeal is not meritorious.
We have carefully examined the records of the case and We affirm the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. It is an oft-repeated rule that appellate courts will not interfere with the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of the witnesses except when there appears on record some fact or circumstance of weight and influence which the trial court has overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted,[20] which We find none in this case. This is clearly because the judge in the trial court was the one who personally heard the accused and the witnesses, and observed their demeanor as well as the manner in which they testified during trial. Accordingly, the trial cuort, is in a better position to assess and weigh the evidence presented during trial.[21]
Contrary to accused-appellant’s claim that drug dealing is mainly conducted with utmost secrecy, it is not highly improbable that accused will openly possess and use illegal drugs and tell his drinking buddies to get a foil so they can use the same to sniff shabu. Nowadays, drug pushers have become increasingly daring, impudent, and even openly defiant of the law. If drug peddlers are meticulously cautious in carrying out their illicit trade, drug abuse would not have grown to such alarming proportions as it has today and would certainly not pose a serious threat to society.[22]
As established by the prosecution, accused-appellant was caught in flagrante delicto in possession of shabu, a dangeous prohibited drug. Based on the information received from their regualr confidential informant that accused-appellant was already waiting for buyers and users of shabu, PO2 Rame and the confidential informant proceeded to Little Tagaytay in Marulas, Valenzuela, together with the other police officers. The confidential informant pinpointed and positively identified to PO2 Rame the accused-appellant in black shorts and without a shirt. Within a hearing distance of about five meters, PO2 Rame heard accused-appellant tell his drinking buddies, “Maghanap na kayo ng foil para makagamit na tayo,” while showing them a plastic sachet with white crystalline substance. At that specific moment, PO2 Rame had sufficient probable cause to make the arrest in view of what she actually heard from accused-appellant and the fact that accused-appellant was holding a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. The subsequent search on accused-appellant yielded two (2) plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance and a plastic case of playing cards containing ten pieces of empty plastic sachets. The laboratory examination conducted on the contents of the seized plastic sachets gave a positive result for the presence of methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
The prosecution was able to establish the identity and chain of custody of the confiscated shabu from the time it was seized from accused-appellant up to the time it was presented in court. The integrity and evidentiary value of the seized shabu were properly preserved by the police officers.
After recovering the plastic sachets of shabu from accused-appellant, it was PO2 Rame who took custody of the same and kept it from the place of seizure up to the barangay hall where the inventory was conducted. Pictures were taken during the inventory by PO2 Lim. It was at the barangay, in the presence of accused-appellant, that PO2 Rame marked the confiscated items with accused-appellants’ initials “VPL”, it dated “9-30-10” and bore her signature. PO2 Rame again took custody of the seized items from the barangay hall to the police station in Valenzuela City. She had custody of the evidence, placing it in a small brown envelope until she personally turned it over to the SOCO duty officer in Caloocan City, the following early morning on October 1, 2010 at 2:25 a.m. She positively identified the confiscated drugs, which still had her markings, as the same specimen earlier presented and identified in court by the forensic chemist who examined the same. Verily, the prosecution was able to sufficiently establish that the shabu confiscated from accused-appellant is the very same shabu presented and identified in court.
The fact that there were no representatives from the media and the DOJ to witness the inventory will not affect the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized shabu. The absence of a member of media or the DOJ, pursuant to Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 is not fatal and will not render an accused’s arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, the same corpus delicti presented in court to sustanin his conviction, done properly by the police officers as explained above.[23]
Accused-appellant’s defense of denial and frame-up/extortion cannot prevail against the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. The defense of frame-up is viewed with disfavor since, like alibi, it can easily be concocted and is a common ploy in most prosecutions for violations of the Dangerous Drugs Law. To substantiate this defense, the evidence must be clear and convincing and should show that the police officers were inspired by improper motive or were not properly performing their duty.[24] Here, there was no evidence that there was ill motive on the part of the police officers. More importantly, there was no proof that the police officers improperly performed their duty in arresting accused-appellant.
We do not find any error committed by the trial court in convicting accused-appellant for violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to 17 years, as maximum and ordering him to pay a fine of P300,000.00. From the evidence thus adduced, accused-appellant’s guilt had been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DISMISSED and the assailed Decision dated September 26, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela City, Branch 269 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Barza, and Carpio, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 69-80, Records, pp. 269-280.
[2] Records, p. 1
[3] Order dated October 11, 2010, Records, p. 89
[4] TSN, February 11, 2011, p. 3
[5] Ibid., pp. 5-6.
[6] Ibid., pp. 3-4.
[7] Ibid., p. 5.
[8] Ibid., p. 6.
[9] Exh. “C”., Records, p. 10.
[10] Exh. “D”., Records, pp. 11-12.
[11] TSN, February 11, 2011, p. 8.
[12] Ibid., p. 10.
[13] Exh. “E”, Records, p. 13.
[14] Exhs. “L”, “L-1”to “L-6”, Records, pp. 21-24.
[15] Ibid., pp. 10-18.
[16] Initial Laboratory Report DT-272-10 (Exh. “J”), Records, p. 19.
[17] Physical Science Report No. D-269-10 (Exh. “K”), Records, p. 20.
[18] TSN, May 23, 2011.
[19] TSN, July 11, 2011.
[20] People vs. Mala, G.R. No. 152351, September 18, 2003.
[21] People vs. Bautista, G.R. No. 191266, June 6, 2011.
[22] People of the Philippines vs. Uy, G.R. No. 144506-07, April 11, 2002.
[23] Valleno vs. People, G.R. No. 192050, January 9, 2013.
[24] People vs. Salvador, G.R. No. 19062, February 10, 2014.