PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. IBRAHIM MOLUK Y PINDAO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
BARRIOS, M. M., J.:
is the Decision dated 08 September 2011 of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 35, Iriga City, Camarines Sur, in Criminal Case No. IR-6756 which
convicted accused-appellant of Illegal Sale of Shabu. The dispositive
portion reads:
“x x x
WHEREFORE, finding accused IBRAHIM MOLUK Y
PINDAO, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of selling dangerous drugs as
penalized under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, said
accused is hereby sentenced to a penalty of life imprisonment and to pay
a fine of Five hundred thousand (P500,000) pesos. The two sachets of
methamphetamine hydrochloride which both came from the accused are
confiscated subject for proper disposition and destruction of the
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). Send a copy of this judgment
to the PDEA and the Dangerous Drugs Board.SO ORDERED.”
THE ANTECEDENT FACTS
The Information reads:
“ x x x
That on or about 12:45 o’clock in the afternoon,
January 12, 2004 at Barangay Sagrada, Municipality of Baao, Camarines
Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
said accused without authority, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously sell, made, deliver and give away to a poseour buyer
one (1) transparent sachet containing methamphetamine hydrochloride a
dangerous drug, locally known as shabu with a net weight of 1.8225
grams, and subsequently recovered one plastic sachet, containing shabu
with a net weight of 3.8165 to the damage and prejudice of the
government.Acts contrary to law.”
When arraigned, accused-appellant pleaded “Not Guilty”.
During the pre-trial, the parties stipulated on the identity of the
accused-appellant, marked the evidences for the prosecution, and named
the witnesses to be presented by both sides as reflected in the minutes
of the preliminary conference. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
The witnesses for
the prosecution were police officers of the Baao Municipal Police
Station, Camarines Sur, namely: Severino Buffe Jr., Allan Abendante,
Andrew Alcomendas, Eulogio Barbonio, the informant Antonio Biag Jr., and
the forensic chemist Police Inspector Josephine M. Clemen. It is
gathered that on 12 January 2004, at around 12:45 in the afternoon, the
policemen received a report that a certain Muslim was selling drugs in
front of the Videoke Bar located at Zone 1, Barangay Sagrada, Baao,
Camarines Sur. As Chief Intelligence Officer of the Baao PNP, Police
Officer Buffe immediately devised an entrapment operation where
Abendante was designated to act as poseur-buyer. The buy-bust money was
a Five Hundred (P500) Peso bill that was marked with a dot on the
forehead of the picture of Ninoy Aquino. At the target area, Buffe
and Barrameda positioned themselves behind an owner type jeep while
poseur-buyer Abendante and the informant approached accused-appellant
who, at the time, was seated on a long wooden bench in front of the
videoke bar.
When introduced as a buyer of “shabu”,
Abendante took the P500.00 marked money from his pocket and handed it to
accused-appellant who took it and placed it in his own pocket. In turn,
accused-appellant reached something from his pocket and told Abendante
that what he had therein was worth more than P500.00 and thus, needed
to reduce its quantity. At that point, without waiting for
accused-appellant to trim down the contents, Abendante introduced
himself as a police officer and immediately arrested accused-appellant.
Officers Buffe and Barrameda rushed to the scene and frisked
accused-appellant. They were able to retrieve from accused-appellant
another sachet of “shabu” and the P500.00 marked money from his
right pocket. The sachets seized from accused-appellant was marked by
Abendante with the initials “A” and “L” and “2” in the presence of
the other police officers. After apprising accused-appellant of his
constitutional rights, they brought accused-appellant to the precinct
and the seized items were turned over to the Duty Investigator Andrew
Alcomendras. Upon receipt, Alcomendras affixed his signature on the
sachets of shabu and prepared a request for laboratory
examination of the drugs and request for drug examination of the
accused-appellant. Thereafter, he personally delivered the items to the
crime laboratory in Legaspi City. After proper examination, Chemistry
Report No. D-004-04 was issued by forensic chemist PI Josephine Clemen
stating that the tests gave a positive result for the presence of
methamphetamine hydrochloride or “shabu”.
In his
defense, accused-appellant denied the charges against him. He narrated
that on 12 January 2004, he was roaming around Sagrada, Baao, Camarines
Sur selling CDs, sunglasses and watches. He was at the side of the
road when two (2) men called for him and asked what he was selling and
he showed them his goods. Just then, a man arrived and informed the duo
that a policeman was coming. With that, the three (3) men scampered
away from him. At that point, three (3) policemen in civilian attire
arrived. Two (2) of them handcuffed him as the other one poked a gun at
him. When he inquired what he had done, they told him that will be
explained at the headquarters. He was then boarded on the policemen’s
owner type jeep and brought to the Municipal Hall where he stayed for
about thirty (30) minutes. The police put him in the cell, and was
later temporarily brought out to view two (2) transparent plastic
sachets containing white substance. He was asked if the sachets came
from him, to which he replied in the negative. Just the same, he was
made to point at the items and a picture was taken. Then he was
brought back inside the cell. Consequently, the instant Information for
sale of dangerous drugs was filed against accused-appellant.
After trial, the RTC convicted accused-appellant as charged.
On appeal, the accused-appellant raises this 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.
OUR RULING
The appeal has no merit.
Accused-appellant argues that the markings placed by the policemen on the sachets of shabu
are either blurred, erased or not readable. He avers that the arresting
officers Abendante, Alcomendas, Buffe and Police Inspector Clemen all
agreed that the markings were not clear. Hence, there is a great
possibility that the identity of the seized drugs has been compromised,
and therefore, the corpus delicti was not established.
We have reviewed the records, particularly of the prosecution’s
evidence, and have found them to be sufficient to support the conviction
of accused-appellant. The police officers were able to unequivocably
identify the markings which they placed on the sachets of “shabu”
that were confiscated from accused-appellant. Officers Abendante and
Buffe each marked the sachets at the scene of the arrest. When the
specimens were turned over to police investigator Alcomendas, he affixed
his own signature thereon, while Police Inspector Clemen also placed a
marking thereon at the crime laboratory upon conducting the physical
examination. Although they observed the obscurity of the markings, the
witnesses never denied placing them. They were able to categorically
identify their respective markings. To be specific, Officer Buffe
affirmed that the sachet bearing his marking was the exact item that he
seized from accused-appellant. Likewise, PI Clemen positively
identified her marking stating that she placed the same using the
violet ink of her pen.
In our view, there is no doubt that the sachets of “shabu” taken from accused-appellant were the very items taken from him and presented as evidence in court.
Accused-appellant also argues that the chain of custody was broken
because the forensic chemist failed to mention to whom she turned over
the two (2) plastic sachets after her examination, or the person who had
the custody thereof prior to their presentation in court.
Accused-appellant further argues that the arresting officers did not
make any inventory of the illegal drugs.
The claims are
untenable. It is well-settled that a testimony about a perfect chain is
not always the standard as it is almost always impossible to obtain an
unbroken chain.[1] What is of
utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items. In the instant case, the
prosecution adequately established the unbroken and continuous
possession of the subject “shabu”, from the accused-appellant, to the poseur-buyer, to the investigator, to the forensic chemist, and finally to the court.
The chain of custody of the drugs is established in the
following links: 1) Police Officers Abendante and Buffe testified that
immediately after the arrest, they placed their respective markings on
the seized “shabu”; 2) Officers Abendante and Buffe turned over
the items to police investigator Alcomendas who placed his own marking
thereon, made a request for laboratory examination, and personally
delivered the items to the crime laboratory; 3) the request and the
marked items were received by forensic chemist Clemen; and after
laboratory examination, she brought and presented them to the trial
court. These officers who came into custody of the seized “shabu” were all presented as witnesses during the trial and they identified sachets of the “shabu”
to to be the very same ones seized from accused-appellant. It is,
thus, ineluctable that the identity and integrity of the drugs were
preserved.
Incidentally, the prosecution’s failure to submit an
inventory is not a serious flaw that will render void the seizure and
custody of the drugs. Jurisprudence holds that failure to comply
strictly with Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165[2]
does not necessarily render an accused’s arrest illegal or the items
seized or confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost
importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary
value of the seized items, as these are the critical pieces of evidence
in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[3]
It seems logical to posit that an inventory is not so essential in
this situation where only two (2) sachets are involved, and not numerous
pieces.
Finally, We cannot accept accused-appellant’s contention that
his conviction was without any factual and legal basis. He argues that
in the Information, he was charged for selling 5.639 grams of
methamphetamine hydrochloride (the total weight of the first sachet of shabu
that weigh 1.8225 grams which he sold to the poseur-buyer and the
second sachet weighing 3.8165 grams that was recovered from his
possession when he was frisked), but the evidence on record shows that
the only one (1) plastic sachet which he sold to poseur buyer Abendante
weighed only 1.8826 grams.
Assuming that the prosecution was able to prove the sale of only 1.8226 grams of “shabu”, instead of 3.8165 grams as charged in the Information, the penalty for sale of “shabu”
under Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165 is still “life imprisonment to death
and fine ranging from Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten
Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00)”.
In fine, We find that the appealed decision is in accordance with the established facts and the law.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated 08 September 2011 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 35, Iriga City, Camarines Sur, is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Reyes, Jr., (Chairperson) and Pizarro, JJ., concur.
[1] People v. Quiamanlon, GR No. 191198, 26 January 2011 citing People v. Cortez, G.R. No. 183819, 23 July 2009
[2]
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.
[3] People v. Sumaya,
GR No. 192259, 7 March 2012 citing People v. Teodoro, GR No. 185164, 22
June 2009 citing People v. Naquita, G.R. No. 180511, 28 July 2008;
People v. Del Monte, G.R. No. 179940, 23 April 2008; and People v.
Pringas, G.R. No. 175928, 31 August 2007