PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RYAN DE CASTRO Y APILLANES, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
GARCIA, R. R. J.:
WHEREFORE, having proven beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused, he is hereby sentenced to:
- Life Imprisonment
- Pay a fine of P500,000.00
- And is hereby disqualified to exercise his civil rights and political rights.
The drugs i[s] hereby ordered confiscated and to be disposed of in accordance with Law.
SO ORDERED.[2]
THE FACTS
In an Information[3] dated February 17, 2010, appellant Ryan De Castro y Apillanes was charged with the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs defined and penalized under Section 5 of Article II, RA No. 9165, committed as follows:
That on or about the 17th day of February, 2010 in the City of San Fernando, Province of La Union, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court the above-named accused, without authority of law and without first securing the necessary permit, license or prescription from the proper government agency, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, dispense and deliver one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing methamphetamine hydrochloride otherwise known as “Shabu”, a dangerous drug, weighing ZERO POINT ZERO ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THREE (0.0153) gram to PO1 PHILIP FONTANILLA, who posed as a poseur buyer thereof using marked money two (2) pieces of One Hundred peso bill bearing serial numbers CC013870 and AA613848.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
On March 10, 2010, appellant, with assistance of counsel de officio, pleaded not guilty[4].
Trial on the merits ensued thereafter.
On March 3, 2011, the parties stipulated[5] on the following:
The prosecution presented poseur-buyer PO2[6] Philip Fontanilla and back-up operative PO2 Mark Anthony Camat as its witnesses.
The version of the prosecution may be summarized as follows:
On February 10, 2010, PO2 Fontanilla, a member of the Anti-Illegal Drugs Task Group assigned at San Fernando Police Station, received an information regarding the illegal drug activities of appellant at Brgy. III, San Fernando City, La Union. Their office conducted verification and intelligence monitoring which confirmed the said illegal trade. Hence, on February 17, 2010, a buy-bust team was formed consisting of P/Sr. Insp. Jaime Quesada as the team leader, PO2 Tadina and PO2 Mark Anthony Camat as the immediate back-up and PO2 Fontanilla as the poseur-buyer. They prepared a Pre-Operation Report[7] and Coordination Report[8] which were both submitted to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). PO2 Fontanilla was given two (2) marked One Hundred Peso bill with Serial Nos. CC013870[9] and AA613848[10] to be used as the buy-bust money. The team, together with the civilian informant, proceeded to the target area.
Upon arrival at the Brgy. III, San Fernando City, La Union, the buy-bust team coordinated with the barangay officials and then went to the area with their informant. Their asset pointed at appellant who was along Ortega St. corner P. Burgos St. The poseur-buyer thus approached appellant while back-up operative PO2 Camat strategically positioned himself nearby to clearly see the transaction. The poseur-buyer asked appellant if he is Ryan de Castro, to which the latter replied in the affirmative. He then said that he wanted to buy shabu and appellant answered that he has the said item for sale. The poseur-buyer handed appellant the marked money. After receiving it, appellant gave him a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance suspected to be shabu. When the poseur-buyer got hold of the sachet, he inspected it and immediately scratched his ear which was the pre-arranged signal to his teammates that the sale has already been consummated.
PO2 Fontanilla and PO2 Camat arrested appellant and informed him of his constitutional rights. PO2 Camat made a body search on appellant and asked him to bring out the contents of his pocket. Appellant then brought out a scissor and lighter. They were also able to recover the two (2) marked One Hundred Pesos Bills from appellant. At the same area, the team took photographs[11] and made an Inventory[12] of the seized items. PO2 Fontanilla marked the plastic sachet bought from appellant as “RCA”[13] which represented the latter’s initials. Appellant was then brought to the San Fernando City Police Station for further investigation.
At the police station, PO2 Fontanilla prepared the letter-request for laboratory examination addressed to the PNP Crime Laboratory to determine the presence of any form of dangerous drugs in the one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet seized from appellant. He likewise personally delivered the letter and the specimen to the PNP Crime Laboratory where it was received on February 17, 2010 by PO2 Kidayan as shown by the rubber stamped delivery receipt[14] on the letter. The specimen was handed by PO2 Kidayan to Forensic Chemist Anamelisa Sebido Bacani.
In Chemistry Report No. D-015-10[15] dated February 17, 2010, Forensic Chemist Bacani found that the plastic sachet appellant sold to PO2 Fontanilla, with the markings “RCA” and weighing zero point zero one five three (0.0153) gram, positive for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu.
For the defense, appellant was presented as its lone witness.
Appellant simply raised the defenses of denial and alibi. He alleged that on February 17, 2010, while he and his live-in partner were in a hotel in San Fernando City, La Union for the town fiesta, they were accosted by three (3) men – policeman Jessie Quezada and his two (2) assets Jay Jalandoni and a certain Ponga. Appellant was asked if he was “Brando”, but he replied in the negative. Ponga then poked a gun on his head and appellant was told to bring out what he was selling. Appellant told him he had nothing to sell, which prompted Jalandoni to punch him and threatened him to bring out what he was selling, otherwise he will be tortured. Appellant was frisked and his money was taken. When no drugs was found, Jalandoni surmised it was probably with appellant’s partner. She then started screaming and the three (3) men left them. They later returned and Jalandoni, while calling appellant “Brando”, said that he should give them P15,000.00. Appellant told him he did not have that much money. Jalandoni then searched appellant again, particularly his back pocket and took out a newspaper containing “tawas” saying that he now had something positive from appellant. The latter was then arrested. Appellant later learned that the person named “Brando” was his cellmate Brando Pimentel.[16]
In the Decision[17] dated October 2, 2012, the court a quo found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drug. The court a quo gave credence to the testimony of prosecution witness PO2 Fontanilla who described how appellant sold to him the sachet of shabu. There was also sufficient compliance of Section 21 of R.A. 9165 on the chain of custody of evidence from the time the illegal drug was sold and confiscated from appellant up to its submission for examination at the PNP crime laboratory. The pertinent portions of the assailed Decision are quoted:
x x x
Based on the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses one can see a clear attempt to comply with the legal requirements of a real buy-bust operation and to show that the procedure in a buy-bust reporting or inventory and preserving the chain of evidence up to the time it is presented in Court.
x x x
From the start of the buy-bust, when the police went to the place of rendezvous, the confidential informant pointed at the accused from inside a car of the police and the poseur-buyer PO2 Fontanilla approached him and asked for his name. When he answered that he is Ryan de Castro, the poseur-buyer told him to buy P200.00 worth of shabu and he readily agreed to sell and the poseur-buyer gave him money after accused gave the drugs.
Why did the accused readily agree to sell shabu to a person he never knew or never introduced by the confidential informant? On cross, when pressed why the accused wanted to sell to an unknown person, he stated that there was an agreement between him and the confidential informant, that somebody will buy shabu from him. He also stated that even if he, as poseur-buyer, was not introduced to accused, we quote his statement: “Perhaps he knew that there will be somebody to buy shabu that precised time, ma’am” x x x. If we agree that police officers are not stupid we will also have to agree that sellers of alleged drugs will not just sell them to any Tom, Dick and Harry. They also have a little intel[l]igence to be careful especially that if arrested, the penalty is quite serious. But, as testified to by the police, that when asked of his name and he said it to be Ryan de Castro, they informed him of their desire to buy shabu. Due to greed or interest in the money, he agreed to sell. By doing so, the transaction was consum[m]ated. Aside from the sachet of shabu taken after the sale, when they searched the accused, all they got were scissor and lighter. These definitely are not evidence of committing any crime.
The poseur-buyer stated that they inventoried the items sold and those searched from the accused at the scene of the crime and even took pictures. After the arrest, the accused was allegedly searched and they got scissor and lighter from his pocket, and also the buy-bust money.
From the time the drug was sold and confiscated to the arrest, and submission for the examination by the police and PDEA to the Crime Laboratory, there was sufficient compliance of Sec. 21 of RA 9165 on chain of custody of evidence. The procedure on buy-bust were followed despite some inadvertent error on the time of receipt of the pre-operation report which does not affect the buy-bust or the alleged crime. The chain of custody of evidence was well preserved.
x x x
If we go over therefore to the chain of evidence despite a few lapses like clerical error on dates, on the part of the police, there is sufficient compliance with the requirement of Sec. 21 of R.A. 9165. The evidence was well preserved and brought to the Crime Laboratory for examination and it was found positive for the presence of prohibited drugs. Inventory was done and pictures were taken at the scene of the crime.[18]
Hence, this appeal in which appellant raised the lone assignment of error[19], to wit:
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED ALTHOUGH HIS GUILT WAS NOT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
THE ISSUE
The sole issue in the present case is whether or not the court a quo correctly found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of RA No. 9165.
THE COURT’S RULING
The appeal is bereft of merit.
Appellant contends that no buy-bust operation actually happened. Rather, an extortion attempt was made on appellant whose identity was mixed up with a certain Brando Pimentel.
These do not persuade Us.
After a meticulous review of the instant case, this Court is convinced that the prosecution has successfully proved the existence of all the essential elements required for the conviction of illegal sale of shabu.
In the prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be established: (1) the identities of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the evidence of the corpus delicti.[20]
Here, poseur-buyer PO2 Fontanilla categorically identified appellant as the person caught in flagrante of selling shabu in a buy-bust operation. He narrated that when he asked appellant if he is Ryan de Castro, the latter replied in the affirmative. He then said to appellant that he wanted to buy shabu and the latter answered that he has the said item for sale. The poseur-buyer handed appellant the money. After receiving the money, appellant gave him a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance suspected to be shabu. When the poseur-buyer got hold of the sachet, he inspected it and immediately scratched his ear which was the pre-arranged signal to his teammates that the sale has already been consummated. We quote the pertinent portions of PO2 Fontanilla’s testimony as follows:
The testimony of PO2 Fontanilla was corroborated by back-up operative PO2 Camat who saw the exchange of shabu and the buy-bust money. He also assisted PO2 Fontanilla in arresting appellant and recovering the buy-bust money. Both prosecution witnesses likewise positively identified[22] appellant as the person caught in flagrante delicto of selling shabu.
The court a quo correctly gave full credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses after finding their answers to the questions both on direct and cross-examination to be candid and unwavering. The age-old rule is that the task of assigning values to the testimonies of witnesses and weighing their credibility is best left to the trial court which forms first-hand impressions as witnesses testify before it.[23] It is thus no surprise that findings and conclusions of trial courts on the credibility of witnesses enjoy, as a rule, a badge of respect, for trial courts have the advantage of observing the demeanor of witnesses as they testify.[24]
The prosecution’s evidence was further supported by the physical evidence on record, which is Chemistry Report No. D-015-10[25] dated February 17, 2010 wherein Forensic Chemist Anamelisa Sebido Bacani found the one (1) plastic sachet that appellant sold to PO2 Fontanilla, with the marking “RCA” and weighing zero point zero one five three (0.0153) gram, positive for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu. PO2 Fontanilla was also able to positively identify[26] the seized shabu from appellant during his testimony before the court a quo.
In the face of the overwhelming evidence against appellant, all that he could raise were the defenses of denial and alibi. Denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses and has been invariably viewed with disfavor for it can be easily concocted but difficult to prove, and is a common standard line of defense in most prosecutions arising from violations of RA 9165.[27] The same cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime.[28] Furthermore, for the defense of alibi to prosper, appellant must establish that (a) he was in another place at the time of the commission of the offense; and (b) he was so far away that he could not have been physically present at the place of the crime, or its immediate vicinity, at the time of its commission. Here, appellant testified that at the time of the illegal sale, he was also in San Fernando City, La Union attending a fiesta. There is thus the possibility of him being physically present at the place of the crime.
Appellant’s defense that there was no buy-bust operation that occurred, but rather an extortion attempt deserves scant consideration. His self-serving testimony was uncorroborated by any convincing evidence. Having been caught in flagrante delicto, appellant’s identity as seller of the shabu can no longer be doubted. There is also no showing that the prosecution witnesses were impelled by ill motive to testify falsely against the appellant.
Anent the penalty imposed by the court a quo for the crime of illegal sale of drug, We affirm the imposition of life imprisonment plus a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).
Under Section 5, Article II of RA No. 9165, the sale of any dangerous drug, regardless of its quantity or purity, is punishable by life imprisonment to death and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00). However, with the effectivity of RA No. 9346, otherwise known as An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of the Death Penalty in the Philippines, the imposition of the supreme penalty of death has been proscribed. Thus, the penalty to be imposed shall only be life imprisonment and fine.
In view of the foregoing, this Court finds no reason to depart or veer from the ruling of the court a quo.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated October 2, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 27, San Fernando City, La Union is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
De Guia-Salvador, (Chairperson) and Sorongon,[*] JJ., concur.
[*] Vice Justice Bueser who is on official business per raffle dated May 20, 2014.
[1] Decision penned by Presiding Judge Carlito A. Corpuz, Rollo, pp. 66-71.
[2] Rollo, p. 71.
[3] Record, p. 1.
[4] Record, p. 26.
[5] Record, p. 54.
[6] Formerly with the rank of Police Officer 1 in the records.
[7] Record, p. 10.
[8] Record, p. 12.
[9] Record, p. 18.
[10] Record, p. 18.
[11] Formal Offer of Documentary Evidence, Exhibits I and series, Record, p. 85.
[12] Record, p. 17.
[13] TSN dated June 16, 2011, p. 6.
[14] Record, p. 8.
[15] Record, p. 86.
[16] Rollo, pp. 62-63.
[17] Supra, note 1.
[18] Rollo, pp. 70-71.
[19] Rollo, p. 51.
[20] People v. Mateo, G.R. No. 179036, July 29, 2008.
[21] TSN dated April 6, 2001, pp. 6-8.
[22] TSN dated June 16, 2011, p. 7; TSN dated January 17, 2012, p. 11.
[23] People v. Alvin del Rosario, G.R. No. 189580, February 9, 2011.
[24] Ibid.
[25] Record, p. 86.
[26] TSN dated June 16, 2011, p.6.
[27] People v. Aure and Austriaco, G.R. No. 185163, January 17, 2011.
[28] People v. De Jesus and Morales, G.R. No. 186528, January 26, 2011.