G.R. No. 104494. September 10, 1993
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. PAUL BANDIN Y NARCISO @ “ABLING”, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
GRINO-AQUINO, J.:
This case involves a buy-bust operation of the Narcotics Command
(NARCOM) in Daraga, Albay.
Appellant Paul Bandin y Narciso alias “Abling” was
charged in Branch VII of the Regional Trial Court of Albay for violation of
Section 4, Article II (drug pushing) of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended,
allegedly committed at around 3:20 p.m. on June 24, 1991.
On November 27, 1991, the trial court rendered judgment, the
dispositive part of which provides:
“WHEREFORE, the guilt of the accused having been proved beyond
reasonable doubt, accused Paul Bandin y Narciso alias Abling is hereby
convicted of the offense charged, and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of
life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P20,000.00 without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs. The
tea bag of marijuana (Exhibit B) and the stick of marijuana cigarette
(Exhibit C) are hereby ordered to be destroyed, the same not subject of lawful
commerce.” (p. 19, Rollo.)
The accused appealed to the Court of Appeals but in view of that
court’s opinion that the imposable penalty should be life imprisonment, it
certified the case to this Court as provided in Section 17(4) of the Judiciary Act, as amended by RA
5440.
In the afternoon of June 24, 1991, an informer reported to the
office of the 5th Narcotics Regional Unit, NARCOM, PNP, stationed at Camp
Simeon Ola (then Camp Bagong Ibalon) in Legazpi City that drug trafficking by
a pusher named “Abling” was rampant at Bagtang Terminal, Daraga,
Albay.
Upon receipt of the report, the Commanding Officer of the NARCOM
organized a “buy-bust” operation to be led by Sgt. Felipe Tuzon, Jr.,
to whom marked money bills amounting to P20.00, bearing serial numbers: QR738352 (P10.00), WA 837855 (P5.00), and
ZN121085 (P5.00) were given to
be used in the purchase of marijuana cigarettes. The raiding team composed of Staff Sgt. Felipe Tuzon, Staff Sgt.
Evangelico Intia, Sgt. Galvan and Sgt. Tugado, with the informer in tow,
proceeded to the Bagtang Terminal and strategically positioned themselves.
The informer approached the appellant, Paul Bandin alias
“Abling,” who was seated in a trimobile, and asked him if he had
marijuana for sale. The appellant
replied that he had.
The informer left and returned after a short while with Sgt.
Tuzon, who, acting as poseur-buyer, bought a tea bag of marijuana (Exh. B) from
the appellant. As payment, Sgt. Tuzon
gave him the marked bills amounting to
P20.00 (Exhs. E, E-1, and E-2).
Thereafter, Sgt. Tuzon Jr. gave the pre-arranged signal to his
companions by combing his hair. The
latter approached the appellant and introduced themselves as NARCOM
agents. A body search was conducted on
the appellant which resulted in the recovery from him of the marked money bills
and a stick of marijuana cigarette (Exh. C).
The appellant was brought to the NARCOM office for investigation
and there, Sgt. Tuzon prepared a document known as a Receipt of Property Seized
(Exh. F or 4) which was signed by the appellant (Exh. F-3 or 4-A). CIC Orlando Deria prepared a Booking Sheet
and Arrest Report (Exh. G or 5), which the appellant, unassisted by counsel,
signed (Exh. G-1 or 5-A).
Sgt. Tuzon made an initial field test of the confiscated evidence
(Exh. B) by burning a small quantity of it, as shown in the Certificate of
Initial Field Test (Exh. H or 3) which reads in part:
“Field Test conducted on the above-mentioned specimen gave
POSITIVE result to the test as Marijuana, a prohibited drugs.
“This certification is issued for
inquest of said case pending final result of the Laboratory Examination which
will be conducted by the PNP Crime Laboratory, Region 5, Camp Bagong Ibalon, Legazpi
City.” (p. 14, Exh. H, Records.)
On June 25, 1991, Sgt. Tuzon, Jr. forwarded to the PNP Crime
Laboratory one (1) small transparent cellophane bag containing “suspected
marijuana dried leaves” (Exh. B) and “one stick of suspected
marijuana cigarette” (Exh. C), as indicated in his letter request (Exh.
A).
The Chemistry Report No. D-157-91 (Exh. D or 1) of the forensic
chemist shows that the qualitative examination that was conducted on the
specimens “gave POSITVE results to the tests for MARIJUANA,” and the
conclusion was that “the above-mentioned specimens are
“MARIJUANA” (prohibited drug).”
In his appeal of the trial court’s decision to this Court, the
appellant alleges that the trial court erred:
1.
in admitting in evidence Exhibit F (Receipt of Property
Seized) and Exhibit G (Booking Sheet and Arrest Report), the same having been
signed by the accused without the assistance of counsel;
2.
in admitting in evidence the tea bag of marijuana, the marijuana
stick and the marked money despite the fact that they were obtained through an
illegal search;
3.
in giving credence to the testimony of the forensic chemist;
and
4.
in finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
offense charged, imposing upon him the penalty of life imprisonment and
ordering him to pay a fine of twenty thousand pesos and the costs.
With regard to the appellant’s signature on the Booking Sheet and
Arrest Report (Exh. G), the Court reiterates its ruling in People vs.
Rualo, 152 SCRA 635, that when an arrested person signs a Booking Sheet
and Arrest Report at a police station, he does not admit the commission of an
offense nor confess to any incriminating circumstance. The Booking Sheet is merely a statement of
the accused’s being booked and of the date which accompanies the fact of an
arrest. It is a police report and may
be useful in charges of
arbitrary detention against the police themselves. It is not an extrajudicial statement and cannot be the basis of
a judgment of conviction.
With regard to the Receipt of Property Seized (Exh. F), the
appellant’s contention that his signature on the document is inadmissible as
evidence because it was given without the assistance of counsel, is correct.
In the cases of People vs. Mauyao, 207 SCRA
732 and People vs. Turla, 167 SCRA 278, we held that the
signature of the accused-appellant on the Receipt of Property Seized is a
declaration against his interest and a tacit admission of the crime charged,
for mere unexplained possession of prohibited drugs is punished by law. The signature of the accused-appellant on the receipt is
tantamount to an uncounselled extra-judicial confession outlawed by the Bill of
Rights (Sec. 12[i], Art. III, 1987 Constitution). It is, therefore, inadmissible as evidence for any admission
wrung from the accused in violation of his constitutional rights is
inadmissible against him.
Nevertheless, despite the exclusion of the Receipt of Property
Seized, the guilt of the appellant has been established beyond reasonable doubt
by other evidence in the record.
The clear and convincing testimonies of the apprehending
officers prevail over the appellant’s denials, for the records do not show that
his arrest was motivated by other than the desire of the police officers to
curb the vicious drug traffic in Daraga, Albay.
Courts generally give full faith and credit to police officers
for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner (Rule
131, Sec. 5[m], Rules of Court). Their
testimonies may not be cast aside where there is no showing that the arrest of
the accused was a mere “frame up” or an extortionate undertaking of
the police.
A buy-bust operation is a method employed by police authorities
to catch malefactors in the act of committing the crime of drug vending. It is essentially a form of entrapment, a
procedure not prohibited by the Revised
Penal Code (People vs. Marcos, 165 SCRA 154; People vs. Ramos, Jr., 203 SCRA
237).
The accused was caught in flagrante delicto
for he was carrying marijuana, hence, committing a crime, at the time of his
arrest. The warrantless search which
was conducted following a lawful arrest, was valid (People vs. Tangliben, 184
SCRA 220).
The lower court did not err in giving credence to the findings of
the forensic chemist. The tea bag of
marijuana and the marijuana stick were examined by the forensic chemist a
little more than a week after it was submitted by Sgt. Tuzon for
examination. Appellant contends that
the delay in the laboratory examination left the specimens open to possible
tampering by police officials or a possible
mix-up with other tea bags of marijuana waiting to be tested by the forensic
chemist.
It is also contended that the testimony of the forensic chemist
should be considered incompetent because the complaint was filed before the
tests were made and, therefore, said tests were outside the scope of the
complaint.
These contentions are untenable. An initial field testing was made by Sgt. Tuzon on the confiscated tea
bag and marijuana stick. Having
determined the specimens to be marijuana, the NARCOM properly filed an
information against the appellant even before the specimens had been tested by
the forensic chemist.
The field test conducted by Sgt. Tuzon is judicially
admissible. This Court has held that a
chemical analysis is not an indispensable prerequisite to the establishment of
whether a certain substance offered in evidence is a prohibited drug. The ability to recognize these drugs can be
acquired without a knowledge of chemistry to such an extent that testimony of a
witness on the point may be entitled to great weight. Such technical knowledge is not required, and the degree of
familiarity of a witness with such drugs only affects the weight and not the competency
of his testimony (U.S. vs. Sy Liongco, 33 Phil. 53; People vs. Enrique, 204
SCRA 674; People vs. Dekingko, 189 SCRA 512).
Sgt. Tuzon has been a member of the NARCOM for sixteen (16)
years. He had taken part in numerous
buy-bust operations during the time he was with the said command (pp. 27-28,
tsn, August 12, 1991). We see no reason
to question his familiarity with prohibited drugs based on his wide experience
in the field.
The contention that the specimens were possibly tampered or mixed
up with other samples while in the crime laboratory is remote. Mere conjecture is not proof.
The trial court properly found the accused guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime charged. Its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses is entitled to great
respect and the highest consideration (People vs. Tangliben, 184 SCRA 220;
People vs. Marcos, 185 SCRA
154).
WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court is hereby
AFFIRMED in toto, with costs against the appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Cruz, (Chairman), Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, and Quiason, JJ., concur.