PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JEMAR MALTO Y NAVARRO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
CORALES, J.:
The Antecedents
Malto was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 under an Information[3] which reads:
That on October 8, 2008 at about 2:45 o’clock in the afternoon at San Roque, Iriga City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, without authority of the law did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing dried marijuana leaves weighing 1.8 grams, more or less to PO2 Zandro I. Iriola who acted as poseur-buyer using one (1) one-hundred peso bill with serial number BJ694666, a marked money, to the damage of public interest.
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.
He pleaded “not guilty” to the offense charged.[4] In the ensuing trial, the prosecution presented the testimonies of the designated poseur-buyer PO2 Zandro Iriola (PO2 Iriola), Forensic Chemical Officer of Regional Crime Laboratory Office 5 PI Edsel E. Villalobos (PI Villalobos), and the other members of the arresting team particularly SPO2 Abdunnajir Asari (SPO2 Asari) and SPO4 Andre P. Belleza (SPO4 Belleza). Malto was the lone witness for the defense.
The Version of the Prosecution
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), citing the testimonies of the witnesses, summarized[5] the version of the prosecution in this wise:
9. On 08 October 2008, at around 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon, SPO4 Andrew P. Bellezza (Belleza), head of the Intelligence and Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Force Section of PNP Iriga City, received a report from a police asset regarding the drug pushing activities in the railroad tracks at San Roque, Iriga City. In response to the said report, and after being apprised that the seller might be leaving the area soon, a buy-bust operation team was organized. The said team comprised of the following members: (i) Belleza as team leader, (ii) SPO2 Abdunnajir Asari (Asari); and (iii) PO2 Zandro Iriola (Iriola).
10. The members of the team conducted a short briefing and agreed that Iriola and the police asset were to act as poseur-buyers, while Belleza and Asari would act as back-up. They likewise arranged the marked money to be used in the operation.
11. The team then proceeded to conduct the buy-bust operation. As agreed upon, Iriola and the asset approached the accused, who was then along the railroad tracks at the back of UNEP, while Belleza and Asari waited about twenty (20) meters away from where the exchange was to take place.
12. With everyone in place, the asset approached accused-appellant and asked if he has the “item,” to which accused-appellant assented. Iriola thereafter handed the marked money to the asset, who in turn gave the same to accused-appellant. The latter thereafter gave two (2) sachets containing dried leaves to the asset.
13. The exchange having already taken place, Iriola arrested accused-appellant and signalled to Asari and Belleza, who then rushed to the crime scene. The asset thereafter handed the plastic sachets of dried leaves to Iriola, who then appraised accused-appellant of his constitutional rights. Iriola thereafter turned over the two (2) pieces of plastic sachets to Belleza, who wrote his initials “APB1” and “APB2” on each of the sachets.
14. Upon returning to the police station with the accused, the police officers conducted a routine body search on accused-appellant. As a result of the same, Iriola recovered the marked money from accused-appellant’s pocket.
15. The court a quo aptly summarized the method utilized by the concerned police officers as regards the handling of the two sachets procured from accused-appellant:
The incident was recorded in the police blotter and the seizure receipt/inventory (Exh. I), the spot report (Exh. F) and the request for laboratory examination (Exh. D) were prepared. Pictures of the accused were also taken together with the marked money and the seized items together with the marked money and the seized items (Exh. J to J-3). The following day, October 9, 2009, SPO1 Anora Ortega brought the two (2) plastic sachets to the Camarines Sur Provincial Crime Laboratory for examination. The items (Exh. G & G-1) together with the request for laboratory examination (Exh. D) were received by the receiving clerk, Rosemarie Liona who in turn handed over the items to forensic chemist PI Edsel Villalobos. The latter then inspected the items and compared the same with the items listed and described in the request for laboratory examination by adding reagents to the representative sample which gave a positive result of the presence of marijuana (Exh. E). To validate his initial findings, he subsequently performed a confirmatory examination through a chromatography test using TLC method and which test likewise turned positive of the presence of marijuana. He then prepared Chemistry Report D-52-2008 (Exh. H) and thereafter, sealed the two (2) plastic sachets with a masking tape, affixed his signatures on it and turned over the said items to their office evidence custodian for safekeeping which he retrieved from the same person when was to testify in court.
The Version of the Defense
Malto denied the allegations against him and claimed that he was only having a drinking spree with his friends along the railroad tracks at San Roque, Iriga City when PO2 Iriola and a certain Joel Bolangos approached him. PO2 Iriola held his shoulder, told him that he was under arrest for selling marijuana, handcuffed him and searched his pocket but the police officer found nothing. Malto was subsequently brought to the Iriga City Police Station where he faced SPO4 Belleza and SPO2 Asari. After a thorough body search which again produced nothing, SPO4 Belleza asked him whether he knows someone selling marijuana to which he answered in the negative. SPO2 Asari then pointed to a table with marijuana and a one-hundred peso bill (P100), which Malto saw for the first time. Thereafter, Malto was placed in jail.[6]
The Ruling of the RTC
In its November 5, 2012 Judgment,[7] the RTC found sufficient evidence to establish all the elements of illegal sale of marijuana and its unbroken chain of custody. It gave credence to the testimony of PO2 Iriola who identified Malto and detailed the exchange of money and marijuana. The court a quo disregarded the alleged discrepancies in the testimonies of PO2 Iriola and SPO4 Belleza as to the incidents prior to the actual buy-bust operation on the rationale that the same are trivial and have no bearing to the merit of the case. It stressed that the presumption of regularity of duty prevails over Malto’s uncorroborated and unsubstantiated defense of frame-up and denial. It then disposed the case as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this court finds accused Jemar Malto y Navarro, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Section 5 Article II of Republic Act 9165 and hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php500,000.00).
SO ORDERED. (Emphasis appear in the original text of the decision)
Insisting on his innocence, Malto is now before Us imputing the following errors to the RTC:[8]
I
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY DESPITE THE PROSECUTION’S FAILURE TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
II
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE PROSECUTION ESTABLISHED THE CORPUS DELICTI OF THE OFFENSE. (Underscoring appears in the original text of the Appellant’s Brief)
Malto assails the regularity of the buy-bust operation and harps on the alleged inconsistent testimonies of SPO4 Belleza and PO2 Ariola as to the conduct of a surveillance operation and the time of the buy-bust operation. He points out that SPO4 Belleza testified that upon receipt of information from the police asset, a short briefing was conducted and at around 2:30 to 2:35 in the afternoon, the buy-bust operation transpired. On the other hand, PO2 Iriola claimed that prior to the buy-bust operation, he was directed by SPO4 Belleza to conduct a surveillance and thereafter the buy-bust was held at around 4:45 in the afternoon. Malto also belabors on the absence of an unbroken chain of custody. He argues that the arresting officers improperly inventoried and photographed the seized items because they conducted the same in the police station in the absence of the accused or any of his representatives or the representatives from the media, Department of Justice (DOJ) and any elected official.[9]
The OSG argues that the elements of illegal sale of marijuana as well as the chain of custody of the confiscated items were sufficiently established by the evidence presented by the prosecution. It adds that the noted inconsistencies in the testimonies of SPO4 Belleza and PO2 Iriola are negligible variance when compared to the testimonies of almost all the officers who participated in the buy-bust operations.[10]
This Court’s Ruling
We sustain Malto’s conviction.
Buy-Bust Operation: Valid
Elements of Illegal Sale of Dangerous
Drugs Sufficiently
Proven
The credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses in this case regarding the conduct of the buy-bust operation satisfied the “objective test” as first laid down in People v. Doria.[11] Under this test, the details of the purported transaction during the buy-bust operation must be clearly and adequately shown, i.e., the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase, and the promise or payment of the consideration until the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal drug subject of the sale. The manner by which the initial contact was made, whether or not through an informant, the offer to purchase the drug, the payment of the buy-bust money, and the delivery of the illegal drug, whether to the informant alone or the police officer, must also be subject of strict scrutiny by courts to insure that law-abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced to commit an offense.[12]
Here, the sequence of events during the buy-bust operation was vividly described by the prosecution’s witnesses. The first contact was established through the testimony of SPO4 Belleza who was present when the confidential informant (CI) relayed to the police authorities that a certain “Jemar” was selling marijuana in the railroad tracks at San Roque, Iriga City. On the other hand, PO2 Iriola, the poseur-buyer who accompanied the CI in transacting with Malto, gave a clear account of how the buy-bust operation transpired, viz.: there was offer to purchase when the police asset asked Malto if he has some item, the term used for marijuana, and the latter answered in the affirmative; PO2 Iriola handed the 100-peso buy-bust money, which constituted the payment or consideration, to the CI who gave the same to Malto; accused-appellant in turn handed to the CI two (2) sachets which were later on examined and found positive for marijuana weighing more or less 1.78 grams as stated in the Chemistry Report No. D-52-2008.[13] Both the sachets of marijuana and the buy-bust money were presented during the trial before the court a quo and were found to be the same items recovered from herein accused-appellant.[14] We find no irregularity or questionable conduct on the part of the CI or the apprehending officers that would invalidate the buy-bust operation.
The contradictions and discrepancies pointed by Malto in the testimonies of SPO4 Belleza and PO2 Iriola are only trivial and do not in any way affect the credibility of PO2 Iriola who clearly and categorically established the sale of marijuana. The conduct of a surveillance, or the lack of it, does not affect the regularity of the buy-bust operation especially when the buy-bust team members were accompanied to the scene by the informant[15] and PO2 Iriola even acted as poseur-buyer.
We need not also overemphasize that what is material in the prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti of evidence.[16] The commission of the offense of illegal sale of marijuana merely requires the consummation of the selling transaction, which happened the moment the CI and PO2 Iriola, as poseur-buyers, received the drugs from Malto, the seller. As long as the police officer went through the operation as a buyer, whose offer was accepted by accused-appellant, followed by the delivery of the dangerous drugs to the former, the crime is already consummated.[17] Thus, whether or not a surveillance was conducted before the buy-bust operation is of no moment in this case because it is not an integral element of the offense charged and the clear and categorical testimony of PO2 Iriola had established the identity of the seller and the consummation of the sale. An inconsistency which has nothing to do with the elements of the crime cannot be a ground for the acquittal of Malto.[18]
It is equally settled that in cases involving violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary. In this case, no ill motive has been shown to tarnish the testimony of PO2 Iriola against Malto.[19] As aptly held by the RTC, such positive testimony prevails over Malto’s uncorroborated and weak defense of denial. Mere denial would not prosper in the absence of strong and convincing evidence to support it[20] such as in the case at bench.
Integrity and Evidentiary Value of the Seized Items Preserved
Custody and disposition of seized dangerous drugs are governed by Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165 which reads:
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.
(a) The apprehending office/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; (Emphasis supplied)
It may very well be conceded that the buy-bust team failed to comply with the foregoing procedures because the two (2) sachets of seized marijuana were marked and inventoried in the absence of the representatives mentioned in Section 21 of the IRR. Nonetheless, We find and so hold that the apprehending team was able to preserve the integrity of the marijuana and the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the required unbroken chain in the custody thereof. SPO4 Belleza marked the two (2) sachets of marijuana with “APB1” and “APB2”, respectively, at the scene where the buy-bust operation took place.[21] There is nothing on the records which would indicate that the marijuana left the hands of SPO4 Belleza from the moment he received the same until the apprehending team reached the police station. He kept the sachets in his locker, which is inaccessible to other persons, until they were turned over to SPO1 Ortega who brought the same to the Provincial Crime Laboratory Office for examination.[22] The receiving clerk Rosemarie Llona duly received the sachets of marijuana and delivered them to PI Villalobos for laboratory examination.[23] Subsequently, the items were handed to the evidence custodian who kept them until the presentation of said evidence before the court a quo.[24] These pieces of evidence sufficiently show that the integrity of the marijuana was intact and never compromised; thus, the absence of the required representative from the DOJ or any elective official would not affect the admissibility and probative value of the prosecution’s evidence. The disquisition in Imson v. People of the Philippines,[25] is instructive:
The failure of the policemen to make a physical inventory and to photograph the two plastic sachets containing shabu do not render the confiscated items inadmissible in evidence. In People v. Campos, the Court held that the failure of the policemen to make a physical inventory and to photograph the confiscated items are not fatal to the prosecution’s cause. The Court held that:
The alleged procedural lapses in the conduct of the buy-bust operation, namely the lack of prior coordination with the PDEA and the failure to inventory and photograph the confiscated items immediately after the operation, are not fatal to the prosecution’s cause.
xxx
The absence of an inventory of personal effects seized from appellant becomes immaterial to the legitimacy of the buy-bust operation for it is enough that it is established that the operation was indeed conducted and that the identity of the seller and the drugs subject of the sale are proven. People v. Concepcion so instructs:
“After going over the evidence on record, we find that there, indeed, was a buy-bust operation involving appellants. The prosecution’s failure to submit in evidence the required physical inventory of the seized drugs and the photography pursuant to Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 will not exonerate appellants. Non-compliance with said section 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, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. (Emphasis supplied)
All told, the totality of the testimonial, documentary, and object evidence presented by the prosecution adequately established not only the circumstances of the buy-bust operation, but also accounted for the unbroken chain of custody of the two (2) sachets of marijuana. Thus, We find no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the court a quo.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The November 5, 2012 Judgment of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 34, Iriga City in Criminal Case No. IR-8670 is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.
Villon, J., Chairperson and Zalameda, JJ., concur.
[1] See Notice of Appeal in relation to the January 18, 2013 Order of the RTC giving due course to said appeal, records, pages 313 and 316, respectively.
[2] Penned by Presiding Judge Manuel M. Rosales, rollo, pages 45-53.
[3] See Information, records, page 1.
[4] See November 3, 2008 Order, ibid., page 24.
[5] See Brief for Plaintiff-Appellee, rollo, pages 77-86.
[6] TSN, Jemar M. Malto, August 1, 2011, pages 3-8.
[7] Supra, at note 2.
[8] See Brief for the Accused-Appellant, rollo, page 26.
[9] See Brief for the Accused-Appellant, ibid., pages 31-39.
[10] See Brief for Plaintiff-Appellee, ibid., pages 77-85.
[11] G.R. No. 125299. January 22, 1999.
[12] People v. Pagkalinawan, G.R. No. 184805. March 3, 2010, citing People v. Doria.
[13] Records, page 225.
[14] See Formal Offer of Documentary Exhibits, ibid., pages 223-224.
[15] See People v. Dela Rosa, G.R. No. 185166. January 26, 2011.
[16] See People v. Zapata, G.R. No. 184054. October 19, 2011.
[17] See People v. Dela Rosa, supra, at note 15.
[18] See People v. Gonzaga, G.R. No. 184952. October 11, 2010.
[19] People v. Dela Rosa, supra, at note 15.
[20] See People v. Gonzaga, supra, at note 18.
[21] TSN, SPO4 Andrew Belleza, February 16, 2010, page 9.
[22] Ibid., pages 20-21.
[23] Chemistry Report No. D-52-2008, supra, at note 13.
[24] TSN, Police Inspector Edsel Villalobos, June 29, 2009, page 7.
[25] G.R. No. 193003. July 13, 2011.