PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RYAN DE CASTRO Y APILLANES, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus De Castro

The Case

This is People versus De Castro, a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines, as plaintiff, prosecuted Ryan De Castro y Apillanes for the illegal sale of a dangerous drug. The charge is that he sold one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu, to a police officer who posed as a buyer, in a buy-bust operation conducted in San Fernando City, La Union. The case matters to a reviewee because it is a clean, compact illustration of the elements of illegal sale under Section 5 of Article II of Republic Act Number 9165, of how the Supreme Court treats the credibility of a poseur-buyer, and of how the defenses of denial and alibi collapse against a positive identification. It also shows how the prohibition on the death penalty reshapes the penalty for drug pushing.

Procedural History

De Castro was charged by Information with illegal sale of dangerous drugs. With the assistance of counsel de officio, he pleaded not guilty, and trial on the merits followed. The Regional Trial Court, Branch 27, San Fernando City, La Union, rendered its Decision on October 2, 2012, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, sentencing him to life imprisonment, imposing a fine of 500,000 pesos, disqualifying him from exercising his civil and political rights, and ordering the confiscation and disposition of the drugs. De Castro appealed directly to the Supreme Court, raising the lone assignment of error that the trial court gravely erred in convicting him although his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was denied and the decision of the trial court affirmed.

Facts

On February 10, 2010, PO2 Philip Fontanilla, a member of the Anti-Illegal Drugs Task Group at the San Fernando Police Station, received information about the illegal drug activities of De Castro at Barangay III, San Fernando City, La Union. Verification and intelligence monitoring confirmed the report. On February 17, 2010, a buy-bust team was formed, with PO2 Fontanilla as poseur-buyer and PO2 Mark Anthony Camat as immediate back-up. The team prepared a Pre-Operation Report and a Coordination Report, both submitted to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, and PO2 Fontanilla was given two marked 100 peso bills as buy-bust money.

The team, with the civilian informant, proceeded to the target area and coordinated with barangay officials. The asset pointed at De Castro along Ortega Street corner P. Burgos Street. The poseur-buyer approached him, asked if he was Ryan de Castro, and received an affirmative reply. PO2 Fontanilla said he wanted to buy shabu, and De Castro answered that he had the item for sale. The poseur-buyer handed over the marked money, and De Castro gave him a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. After inspecting it, PO2 Fontanilla scratched his ear, the pre-arranged signal that the sale was consummated. De Castro was arrested, informed of his constitutional rights, and the two marked bills were recovered from him. At the same place, the team took photographs and made an inventory, and PO2 Fontanilla marked the sachet with the initials RCA, representing the appellant's initials.

At the police station, PO2 Fontanilla prepared the letter-request for laboratory examination and personally delivered it with the specimen to the PNP Crime Laboratory, where it was received by PO2 Kidayan and handed to Forensic Chemist Anamelisa Sebido Bacani. Chemistry Report Number D-015-10 dated February 17, 2010 found the sachet, marked RCA and weighing 0.0153 gram, positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. For his defense, De Castro alone testified, raising denial and alibi. He claimed that while he and his live-in partner were in a hotel for the town fiesta, three men accosted him, asked if he was Brando, poked a gun at him, punched him, frisked him, and demanded 15,000 pesos, and that a newspaper containing tawas was later produced from his back pocket. He learned that the Brando being referred to was his cellmate, Brando Pimentel.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court correctly found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5 of Article II of Republic Act Number 9165.

Applicable Provisions

Section 5 of Article II of Republic Act Number 9165, as the Court states its penalty, provides:

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).

This is the provision under which the appellant was charged and convicted, and it fixes the penalty that the Court affirms.

Republic Act Number 9346, the law prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty, is likewise applied by the Court:

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.

This provision removes death from the range of penalties and leaves life imprisonment and fine as the imposable penalty.

Ruling

The Court denied the appeal. On the sole issue, it held that the prosecution successfully proved all the essential elements of illegal sale. The Court laid down the elements thus: the identities of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration, and the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material, the Court said, is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the evidence of the corpus delicti, meaning the body of the crime itself, the drug.

The Court relied on the categorical testimony of poseur-buyer PO2 Fontanilla, who identified De Castro as the person caught in flagrante, in the very act, of selling shabu. He narrated the exchange of the marked money and the sachet, and the pre-arranged signal. His testimony was corroborated by back-up operative PO2 Camat, who saw the exchange and assisted in the arrest and in recovering the buy-bust money. Both witnesses positively identified the appellant. The Court held that the trial court correctly gave full credence to the prosecution witnesses after finding their answers candid and unwavering, and it repeated the age-old rule that the task of assigning values to testimonies and weighing credibility is best left to the trial court, which forms first-hand impressions as witnesses testify. The physical evidence, Chemistry Report Number D-015-10, confirmed that the sachet marked RCA and weighing 0.0153 gram was positive for shabu.

Against this, the Court held that denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses, easily concocted but difficult to prove, and a common standard line of defense in prosecutions arising from violations of Republic Act Number 9165. They cannot prevail over a positive identification. The Court also explained that for alibi to prosper, the appellant must establish that he was in another place at the time of the offense and so far away that he could not have been physically present at the place of the crime or its immediate vicinity. Here, the appellant himself testified that at the time of the sale he was also in San Fernando City, La Union, attending a fiesta, so the possibility of his presence at the scene remained. His claim of an extortion attempt was self-serving and uncorroborated, and there was no showing that the prosecution witnesses were impelled by ill motive to testify falsely. On the penalty, the Court affirmed life imprisonment and a fine of 500,000 pesos, applying Republic Act Number 9346 to bar the death penalty.

Doctrine

First, in every prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5 of Article II of Republic Act Number 9165, the prosecution must establish the identities of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration, as well as the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material is proof that the sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti.

Second, the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses enjoy a badge of respect, because the trial court has the advantage of observing the demeanor of witnesses as they testify.

Third, denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses and cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused. For alibi to prosper, the accused must show that he was in another place at the time of the offense and so far away that he could not have been physically present at the place of the crime or its immediate vicinity.

Fourth, the sale of any dangerous drug, regardless of its quantity or purity, is punishable by life imprisonment to death and a fine of 500,000 pesos to 10,000,000 pesos, but with the effectivity of Republic Act Number 9346 the penalty is reduced to life imprisonment and fine.

Disposition

The appeal was denied and the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 27, San Fernando City, La Union, dated October 2, 2012, was affirmed, so the appellant stands convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of 500,000 pesos.

Remember This

Memorize this line: what is material in illegal sale is proof that the sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti. Examiners use this case to test the elements of illegal sale under Section 5, the weight of a poseur-buyer's positive identification against denial and alibi, and the effect of Republic Act Number 9346 in reducing the penalty to life imprisonment and fine.