Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 184599 November 24, 2010
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
TEDDY BATOON y MIGUEL and MELCHOR BATOON y MIGUEL, Accused-Appellants.
D E C I S I O N
VELASCO, JR., J.:
The Case
This is an appeal from the February 28, 2008 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02472 entitled People of the Philippines v. Teddy Batoon and Melchor Batoon, which affirmed the August 11, 2006 Decision2 in Criminal Case Nos. 11823-12 and 11823-13 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 13 in Laoag City. The trial court held accused-appellants Teddy Batoon and Melchor Batoon guilty of violating Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Facts
The charges against accused-appellants stemmed from the following Informations:
That, on or about July 14, 2005, at Brgy. 14, in the municipality of San Nicolas, province of Ilocos Norte, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping each other, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell one (1) heat-sealed plastic sachet containing 0.12345 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride otherwise known as "shabu" a prohibited drug to a poseur buyer of the police authorities of INPPO PAID-SOT, Camp Juan, Laoag city who posed as buyer in a buy-bust operation without authority to do so.
CONTRARY TO LAW.3
That on or about July 14, 2005, at Brgy. 14, in the municipality of San Nicolas, province of Ilocos Norte, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping each other, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession, control and custody three (3) heat-sealed plastic sachets containing 0.1559 grams, 0.1168 grams and 0.1337 grams respectively, of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride otherwise known as "shabu", a prohibited drug without the authority or license to possess the same from the appropriate authority.
CONTARY TO LAW.4
Accused-appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges.
In the ensuing trial, the prosecution presented in evidence the oral testimonies of Police Officer 2 (PO2) Excel Vicente and PO1 Alizer Cabotaje of the Philippine National Police Provincial Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Team (PAID-SOT) of Ilocos Norte in Camp Valentin Juan, Laoag City. The prosecution and the defense agreed to stipulate on the facts of the testimony of Police Inspector (P/Insp.) Valeriano Laya II, a forensic chemist of the same office.
The People’s version of the incident is as follows:
On July 14, 2005, the PAID-SOT received a report that there was rampant selling of shabu in Barangay 14, San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte. According to the report, brothers Teddy and Melchor Batoon were two of the most notorious sellers of illegal drugs in the area.5
Acting on this information, a team was formed to confirm the veracity of the report through a buy-bust operation. The team was composed of P/Insp. Teddy Rosqueta, Senior Police Officer 4 (SPO4) Angel Salvatierra, SPO3 Arthur Mateo, PO3 Rousel Albano, PO2 Excel Vicente, PO2 Danny Valdez, and PO1 Alizer Cabotaje. During the briefing for the operation, PO2 Vicente was designated as the poseur-buyer. He was given a PhP 500 bill which he marked with the letter "e." The briefing was recorded by PO3 Albano in the police blotter.
Thereafter, PO2 Vicente and the police asset proceeded to accused-appellants’ residence in Barangay 14, San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte. The other members of the team followed on board two vehicles. Upon arriving in the area, the asset approached accused-appellant Melchor and introduced PO2 Vicente as customer. Melchor informed PO2 Vicente that the shabu was with his brother, accused-appellant Teddy. He then asked the money from PO2 Vicente and the latter gave him the marked PhP 500 bill.6 Thereafter, Melchor approached Teddy, who was about 10 meters away from them. He handed the marked money to Teddy, who, in turn, gave Melchor a sachet.
Melchor returned to where PO2 Vicente was and handed him the sachet. Upon receiving the sachet, PO2 Vicente signaled to his companions by turning his cap, to have its visor at the back of his head. The other team members rushed to arrest Melchor and Teddy. PO2 Vicente frisked Melchor and recovered from him one PhP 100 bill, three pieces of five-peso coins, three pieces of one-peso coin, one jungle knife, one lighter, and one brown wallet. PO1 Cabotaje got hold of Teddy and recovered from him the marked PhP 500 bill, six PhP 100 bills, one candy, and one black coin purse containing three elongated sachets of shabu. Accused-appellants were then detained in the PAID-SOT, Camp Juan.
Immediately upon reaching the camp, PO2 Vicente and PO1 Cabotaje brought the confiscated sachets to the crime laboratory for examination. The examination results showed that the four sachets taken from accused-appellants contained a substance positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. The sachet subject of the buy-bust operation contained 0.1235 gram of shabu. On the other hand, the three sachets seized from Teddy contained shabu weighing 0.1559 gram, 0.1168 gram, and 0.1337 gram, or an aggregate net weight of 0.4064 gram.
In their defense, accused-appellants claimed denial and frame-up. Accused-appellants alleged that in the afternoon of July 14, 2005, Melchor was seated at the corner of Castro and McKinley Streets in Barangay 14, San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte when a car stopped in front of him. Suddenly, the male passengers of the car alighted, approached him, and boxed him. Melchor did not know who the men were. Neither did he know why the men boxed him. Thereafter, the men forced Melchor to go inside the car.7
Meanwhile, Teddy, who had just come home from the Municipal Trial Court of San Nicolas, was called by a neighbor and was told that his brother was being arrested. He ran towards the place where his brother was, about 30 to 40 meters north of their house. Upon reaching the place, he asked the men what the commotion was about. Instead of answering him, however, the men boxed him on the face. Thereafter, he was also boarded into the vehicle together with Melchor.8 The men then took his money amounting to PhP 1,320 and his mobile phone.1avvphi1
Thereafter, Melchor and Teddy were detained at Camp Juan. While under police custody, they were continuously maltreated and mauled.
Charles Tirona, Melchor’s son, Elizabeth Domingo, and Mary Jane Mariano corroborated the testimonies of accused-appellants as to the facts and circumstances surrounding accused-appellants’ arrest and physical abuse in the hands of the police. On the other hand, Emerson Cabel confirmed that Teddy attended a court hearing in the municipal hall at around 2:00 p.m. of July 14, 2005. He also testified that he saw Teddy being boarded into a Wrangler-type jeep.9
On August 11, 2006, the RTC rendered a Decision, the dispositive part of which reads:
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby renders judgment finding both accused Teddy Batoon and Melchor Batoon GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as charged of illegal sale of shabu in criminal case NO. 11823 and are, therefore, sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and for each of them to pay the fine of PhP 2,000,000.00. Both accused are likewise found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as charged of illegal possession of shabu with an aggregate weight of 0.4064 gram in Criminal Case No. 11824 and are, therefore, sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to fifteen (15) years as maximum and for each of them to pay a fine of PhP 300,000.00.
The contraband subject of theses cases are hereby confiscated, the same to be disposed of as law prescribes, with costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.10
The case was appealed to the CA.
The Ruling of the CA
Convinced of the regularity of the buy-bust operation against accused-appellants, the CA dismissed accused-appellants’ claim of frame-up and upheld their conviction. Also, it held that the prosecution was able to prove that the substance submitted for forensic examination was the same as that seized from the accused.
Hence, we have this appeal.
The Issues
In a Resolution dated November 19, 2008, this Court required the parties to submit supplemental briefs if they so desired. On January 19, 2009, accused-appellants, through counsel, signified that they were not going to file a supplemental brief. Thus, the following issues raised in accused-appellants’ brief dated March 2, 2007 are now deemed adopted in this present appeal:
I.
The trial court gravely erred in convicting the accused-appellants of the crimes charged despite the prosecution’s failure to establish the identity of the prohibited drugs constituting the corpus delicti of the offenses.
II.
The trial court gravely erred in finding that there was conspiracy in the crime of illegal possession of shabu under Criminal Case No. 11824 when the alleged confiscated drugs were seized only from appellant Teddy Batoon’s possession.
III.
The trial court gravely erred in convicting the accused appellant Melchor Batoon of the crime of illegal possession of shabu under Criminal Case No. 11824 despite the prosecution’s failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.11
In essence, accused-appellants question the chain of custody over the alleged confiscated prohibited drugs and Melchor’s conviction for illegal possession of shabu.
The Ruling of the Court
The appeal is without merit.
In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took place; and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.12
There is no question that the police conducted a valid buy-bust operation against accused-appellants. The positive testimonies of the police officers show the coordinated efforts of the PAID-SOT to entrap accused-appellants while in the act of selling a prohibited drug. The regularity of the performance of their duty on this matter could not be overturned absent any convincing evidence to the contrary.13
Accused-appellants hinge their appeal on the alleged failure of the police to comply with the procedure in the custody of seized prohibited and regulated drugs as embodied in Sec. 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165. They alleged that there was no conclusive evidence to prove that the substances seized from accused-appellants were the same substances subjected to examination and presented in court.
We are not convinced. Records show that the chain of custody over the seized substances was not broken, and that the drugs seized from appellants were properly identified before the trial court. As correctly appreciated by the trial and appellate courts, a legitimate buy-bust operation led to the arrest of accused-appellants. During the police operation, PO2 Vicente received from Melchor a sachet containing the drugs.14 On the other hand, PO1 Cabotaje seized from Teddy three sachets, also containing drugs.15 PO2 Vicente and PO1 Cabotaje marked16 and separately prepared the certification of the seized items.17 Thereafter, they personally turned over the items to the crime laboratory for examination.18 The police chemist, P/Insp. Laya II, tested the marked sachets, which turned out positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.19 Finally, during trial, the same marked sachets were identified by PO2 Vicente20 and PO1 Cabotaje.21
Thus, the forgoing facts confirm that the police officers complied with the procedure in the custody of seized prohibited drugs.
Also, Melchor cannot deny his involvement in the possession of the shabu. For conviction of illegal possession of a prohibited drug to lie, the following elements must be established: (1) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug. Notably, exclusive possession of the prohibited drug is not required. As explained in People v. Huang Zhen Hua:
Possession under the law, includes not only actual possession, but also constructive possession. Actual possession exists when the drug is in the immediate physical possession or control of the accused. On the other hand, constructive possession exists when the drug is under dominion and control of the accused or when he has the right to exercise dominion and control over the place where it is found. Exclusive possession or control is not necessary. The accused cannot avoid conviction if his right to exercise control and dominion over the place where the contraband is located, is shared with another.
Thus, conviction need not be predicated upon exclusive possession, and a showing of non-exclusive possession would not exonerate the accused. Such fact of possession may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence and any reasonable inference drawn therefrom. However, the prosecution must prove that the accused had knowledge of the existence and presence of the drug in the place under his control and dominion and the character of the drug. Since knowledge by the accused of the existence and character of the drugs in the place where he exercises dominion and control is an internal act, the same way may be presumed from the fact that the dangerous drug is in the house or place over which the accused has control or dominion or within such premises in the absence of any satisfactory explanation.22
In this case, although the three sachets containing shabu were found solely in the possession of Teddy, it was evident that Melchor had knowledge of its existence. Moreover, as correctly found by the CA, Melchor had easy access to the shabu, because they conspired to engage in the illegal business of drugs. The CA explained, thus:
As the records would show, when PO2 Vicente handed to Melchor Batoon a marked [PhP] 500.00 bill, the latter went to his brother Teddy and gave him money. Upon receipt of the money, Teddy Batoon handed a sachet to Melchor, who then gave it to PO2 Vicente. When the arrest [was] affected on both of them, the three additional sachets were found on [Teddy] by PO1 Cabotaje.
These acts of the accused indubitably demonstrate a coordinated plan on their part to actively engage in the illegal business of drugs. From their concerted conduct, it can easily be deduced that there was common design to deal with illegal drugs. Needless to state, when conspiracy is shown, the act of one is the act of all conspirators.23
Hence, the prosecution successfully adduced proof beyond reasonable doubt of accused-appellants Melchor and Teddy Batoon’s guilt of the crimes charged.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The February 28, 2008 CA Decision in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02472 upholding the conviction of accused-appellants is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Chairperson
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice |
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA*
Associate Justice |
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C ATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Footnotes
* Additional member per Special Order No. 913 dated November 2, 2010.
1 Rollo, pp. 2-23. Penned by Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza and concurred in by Associate Justices Andres B. Reyes Jr. and Ramon Bato, Jr.
2 CA rollo, pp. 68-91. Penned by Judge Philip G. Salvador.
3 Id. at 9.
4 Id. at 11.
5 Rollo, p. 4.
6 Id.
7 Id. at 6.
8 Id.
9 Id. at 7.
10 CA rollo, pp. 80-81.
11 Id. at 93.
12 People v. Darisan, G.R. No. 176151, January 30, 2009, 577 SCRA 486, 490; citing People of the Philippines v. Hajili and Unday, 447 Phil. 283, 295 (2003).
13 People v. Llamado, G.R. No. 185278, March 13, 2009, 581 SCRA 544, 552.
14 TSN, September 26, 2005, p. 13.
15 TSN, October 6, 2005, p. 14.
16 TSN, September 26, 2005, p. 22 and October 6, 2005, p. 16.
17 Records, pp. 39-40.
18 TSN, supra note 15, at 18.
19 CA rollo, pp. 15-16.
20 TSN, supra note 14, at 24.
21 TSN, supra note 15, at 16.
22 G.R. No. 139301, September 29, 2004, 439 SCRA 350, 368; citing People v. Tira, G.R. No. 139615, May 28, 2004, 430 SCRA 134.
23 Rollo, p. 21.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
