Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 182525 March 2, 2011
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
BERTHA PRESAS y TOLENTINO, Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
PEREZ, J.:
Subject of this appeal is the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02361 dated 22 October 2007, affirming the Judgment2 dated 9 May 2006 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 64 of Makati City, finding appellant Bertha Presas y Tolentino guilty of illegal sale of shabu.
Two separate Informations were filed before the RTC. In Criminal Case No. 03-2795, appellant was accused of illegal sale of shabu which reads:
That on or about the 30th day of July 2003, in the City of Makati, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell[,] distribute and transport, weighing zero point zero six (0.06) gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu), which is a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.3
In Criminal Case No. 03-2796, appellant was charged with illegal possession of shabu allegedly committed as follows:
That on or about the 30th day of July 2003, in the City of Makati, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not lawfully authorized to possess or otherwise use any dangerous drug and without the corresponding license or prescription, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, direct custody and control weighing zero point zero seven (0.07) gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu), which is a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.4
On arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges. In a joint pre-trial conference conducted on 9 September 2003, the following facts were stipulated:
1. That these cases were investigated by PO1 Alex Inopia;
2. That after the investigation of PO1 Alex Inopia, he prepared the Final Investigation Report;
3. That the PNP Anti Illegal Drug Special Operation Sub-Task Force through P/Supt. Jose Ramon Salido made a Request for Laboratory Examination addressed to the PNP Crime Laboratory Office, Camp Crame, Quezon City;
4. That the specimen submitted for examination were duly received by the PNP Crime Laboratory Office, Camp Crame, Quezon City as evidenced by the stamp mark at the lower left portion of the Request for Laboratory Examination;
5. That the PNP Crime Laboratory Office through Police Inspector Abraham Verde Tecson conducted an examination on the specimen submitted;
6. That per examination, the specimen submitted for examination gave positive result for the test of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride;
7. That after examination of the specimen submitted, the PNP Crime Laboratory Office through the Forensic Chemist prepared the Initial Laboratory Report; and
8. The qualification of the Forensic Chemist.
x x x x
With the stipulation entered into by the prosecution and the defense, the testimony of the Forensic Chemist, P/Insp. Abraham Verde Tecson, is dispensed with.5
A joint trial of the two (2) cases thereafter ensued.
The following facts were related by prosecution witnesses who comprised mainly of members of the buy-bust team.
Based on an informant’s tip, Barangay Captain Doromal of Barangay Pitogo called up the Makati City Police Station Anti-Illegal Drug Special Operation – Sub Task Force, to disclose the illegal sale of drugs of an alias Beng, who was later identified as appellant in Barangay Pinagkaisahan, Makati City. A buy-bust operation was conducted. Makati Anti Drug Abuse Council (MADAC) operative Gerardo Fariñas (Fariñas) acted as the poseur-buyer and was backed up by PO2 Rodrigo Igno (PO2 Igno), as the team leader, PO2 Herbert Ibias, and PO2 Tolentino, among others. Two (2) One Hundred Pesos bills were prepared. PO2 Igno placed the markings "C4" above the serial numbers of the bills.6 Upon reaching Danlig Street in Makati City at around 9:00 p.m., Fariñas and the informant waited at a nearby store for appellant. When the informant called on appellant, the latter came out of her house, which was situated at the corner of Danlig and Tolentino Streets. The informant introduced Fariñas to appellant as the buyer of shabu. Appellant even asked informant if it was "okay" to transact with Fariñas, to which the informant answered "okay yan mare, kaibigan ko yan." Fariñas gave Two Hundred Pesos (₱200.00) to appellant, who then put the money inside her right pocket while drawing a plastic sachet from her left pocket. Appellant handed the plastic sachet to Fariñas. Thereafter, Fariñas gave the pre-arranged signal of taking off his cap. PO2 Igno and Tolentino immediately approached and arrested appellant. PO2 Tolentino asked appellant to empty her pockets, and the buy-bust money as well as another plastic sachet were recovered from her. The plastic sachet containing shabu was marked with appellant’s initials "PBT" at the crime scene by Fariñas. Appellant was then brought to the Makati Police Headquarters.7 The plastic sachets containing shabu were brought to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory for examination.8 Chemistry Report Number D-959-03 revealed that the specimens submitted yielded positive results for shabu.9
As the lone witness for the defense, appellant testified that she was inside her house on 30 July 2003 in Danlig Street when several men, who claimed to be from the barangay, knocked on the door and eventually forced their way into her house. Appellant was dragged out of the house and forcefully boarded her into a vehicle. She was brought to the barangay hall of Barangay Pitogo where she was brought inside a room, frisked, and asked to undress. Despite the fact that nothing was recovered from her, appellant was brought to the PNP-Criminal Investigation Division where she underwent a drug test. Appellant denied selling shabu and any knowledge of a buy-bust operation.10
After trial, the RTC rendered a decision finding appellant guilty of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 in Criminal Case No. 03-2795 and sentencing her to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of ₱500,000.00. She was however acquitted of the charge for violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act. No. 9165 in Criminal Case No. 03-2796, for insufficiency of evidence. The trial court found the prosecution's evidence as sufficient to prove the elements for illegal sale of shabu.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the RTC. The Court of Appeals vouched for the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and rejected appellant’s defense of denial, holding the same as inherently weak.
In appealing her conviction before this Court, appellant opted to adopt the same arguments in her Brief before the Court of Appeals. To prove that her guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, appellant challenges the credibility of the testimony of prosecution witnesses, particularly their contradicting statements regarding whether a surveillance was conducted prior to the buy-bust operation or not. Appellant then questions the non-presentation of the forensic chemist to corroborate the alleged findings that the substance examined was found positive for shabu. Finally, appellant disputes the presumption that the MADAC operative had regularly performed their duties. Appellant claims that certain regulations providing for the chain of custody of seized drugs were not followed. There was no physical inventory nor a photograph of the drugs allegedly confiscated from appellant.
On the contrary, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) maintains that appellant’s guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution was able to prove that appellant was arrested in a buy-bust operation and she was positively identified as the person who sold the illegal drugs to the poseur-buyer. The OSG justifies the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses as being minor or trivial which did not detract from the fact that appellant was caught in flagrante delicto as a result of the buy-bust operation. The non-presentation of the forensic chemist, the OSG adds, is immaterial because the Chemistry Report revealed that the specimens were found positive for shabu and such evidence was not contested by the defense. With respect to the chain of custody, the OSG argues that the contraband items were initialled by Fariñas in appellant’s presence and the Chemistry Report confirmed that they were positive for shabu. The incident was likewise documented in the Spot Report.
After scouring the records of this case, we do not find any cogent reason to depart from the ruling of the Court of Appeals. Otherwise stated, we agree with the lower courts’ finding that the guilt of the appellant was established beyond reasonable doubt.
In every prosecution for illegal sale of shabu under Section 5, Art. II of Republic Act No. 9165 or the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," the following elements must be sufficiently proved: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.11 All these elements were duly established. Appellants were caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu through a buy-bust operation conducted by MADAC operatives.
At the outset, we affirm the findings of the trial court with respect to the credibility of the prosecution witnesses considering that the trial court had the opportunity to observe the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses during the trial. It is a fundamental rule that findings of the trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve credibility are accorded respect when no glaring errors; gross misapprehension of facts; or speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings.12
The poseur-buyer, MADAC operative Fariñas, positively testified that the sale of shabu took place and appellant was caught red-handed, thus:
PROS. BAGAOISAN:
And, how long did you wait for the accused?
WITNESS:
We just waited for seconds and then we saw alias Beng because the informant called her, sir.
PROS. BAGAOISAN:
Now, where did the accused come from?
WITNESS:
Their house is located at the corner of Danlig and Tolentino Streets and their fence is quite low, so the informant just called her, sir.
PROS. BAGAOISAN:
What did you do after the informant called the accused?
WITNESS:
Alias Beng went out of their house, sir.
PROS. BAGAOISAN:
What happened after Alias Beng went out?
WITNESS:
I was introduced by the informant to her, sir.
PROS. BAGAOISAN:
How were you introduced to the accused?
WITNESS:
That I am interested of shabu and then I am going to buy shabu, sir.
PROS. BAGAOISAN:
And, what did the accused reply, if any?
WITNESS:
Alias Beng asked the informant if I am okay, sir.
PROS. BAGAOISAN:
And, what was the reply of the informant if there was any?
WITNESS:
The informant replied: "Okay yan mare, kaibigan ko yan."
PROS. BAGAOISAN:
What happened next after that?
WITNESS:
I gave the Two Hundred Pesos to Alias Beng and she took it from me, sir.
PROS. BAGAOISAN:
And, what did the accused do after she received the buy bust money?
WITNESS:
She put the money inside her right pocket and then she drew a plastic sachet in her left pocket, sir.
PROS. BAGAOISAN:
And, what did she do with the plastic sachet which she drew from her pocket?
WITNESS:
She handed to me the plastic sachet and then she was as if examining it and then I gave the pre-arranged signal, sir.13
While it was only Fariñas who testified on the consummated sale transaction, PO2 Igno corroborated Fariñas statements in the Joint Affidavit of Arrest14 he executed together with Fariñas and PO2 Tolentino. PO2 Igno confirmed that Fariñas was able to buy shabu from appellant.
PROS. BAGAOISAN:
Now, Mr. Witness, in connection with the buy bust operation that you conducted against Bertha Presas y Tolentino do you recall having executed an affidavit of arrest?
WITNESS:
Yes sir.
PROS. BAGAOISAN:
If that affidavit of arrest will be shown to you, will you be able to identify the same?
WITNESS:
Yes, sir.
PROS. BAGAOISAN:
I am showing, Mr. Witness, as Affidavit of Arrest consisting of two pages, will you please go over the same and tell us what relation does this have to affidavit of arrest operation conducted against the accused?
WITNESS:
This is the Joint Affidavit of Arrest, sir.
PROS. BAGAOISAN:
There is a signature above the name Rodrigo Igno, whose signature is this?
WITNESS:
That is my signature, sir.
PROS. BAGAOISAN:
May I request, Your Honor, that this Affidavit of Arrest be market as Exhibit J, the signature of the witness, PO2 Igno as Exhibit J-2. Earlier we have marked the signature of MADAC Gerardo Fariñas as Exhibit J-1. Do you still confirm and affirm the truthfulness of your allegations in this affidavit?
WITNESS:
Yes, sir.
PROS. BAGAOISAN:
Now, you mentioned in your affidavit that the poseur buyer was able to buy shabu from the accused in this case, do your (sic) confirm that statement?
WITNESS:
Yes, sir.
PROS. BAGAOISAN:
Were you able to see the shabu subject matter of the sale transaction?15
Chemistry Report No. D-959-03 confirmed that a qualitative examination conducted on the specimens inside the plastic sachets seized from appellant yielded positive result for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu.16
Appellant harps on the non-presentation of the forensic chemist thereby rendering the laboratory findings as hearsay evidence. The Court of Appeals correctly pointed out that appellant agreed to dispense with the testimony of the forensic chemist, as stipulated in the Pre-Trial Order, thus:
Appellant cannot now contend that the non-presentation of the Forensic Chemist was fatal to the prosecution’s case. A perusal of the records of the instant case clearly reveals that the Pre-trial Order dated 9 September 2003 issued by the court a quo was regular on its face. In fact, the defense counsel and appellant herself had affixed their respective signatures on the Minutes thereof. As such, the stipulations therein are valid and binding between the parties and become judicial admissions of the facts so stipulated.17
Assuming arguendo that there is no stipulation of facts, the non-presentation of the forensic chemist is not fatal to the prosecution’s case. In People v. Quebral,18 this Court explained:
The corpus delicti in dangerous drugs cases constitutes the dangerous drug itself. This means that proof beyond doubt of the identity of the prohibited drug is essential.
Besides, corpus delicti has nothing to do with the testimony of the laboratory analyst. In fact, this Court has ruled that the report of an official forensic chemist regarding a recovered prohibited drug enjoys the presumption of regularity in its preparation. Corollarily, under Section 44 of Rule 130, Revised Rules of Court, entries in official records made in the performance of official duty are prima facie evidence of the facts they state.19
Appellant’s defense, which is predicated on a bare denial, deserves scant consideration in light of the positive testimonies of MADAC operatives. Appellant failed to impute any ill-motives on their part to falsely testify against her. Hence, their testimonies and actuations enjoy the presumption of regularity.
Lastly, appellant contends that the prosecution failed to prove the crucial link in the chain of custody of shabu when the MADAC operatives failed to observe the procedure regarding the custody of seized drugs.
Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 provides for the custody and disposition of the confiscated illegal drugs, to wit:
(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;
This rule was elaborated in Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165, viz:
a) 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: Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.
The failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the required physical inventory and photograph of the evidence confiscated pursuant to said guidelines, does not automatically render accused’s arrest illegal or the items seized from him inadmissible. A proviso was added in the implementing rules that "non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items." The same provision also states that it must still be shown that there exists justifiable grounds and proof that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence have been preserved.20
It is no longer necessary to dwell on the justifiable reasons that might have been offered for the failure to comply with the outlined procedure since it was never asked nor raised as an issue by the defense during the trial. Pertinently, it is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items which must be proven to establish the corpus delicti.
In this case, the failure on the part of the MADAC operatives to take photographs and make an inventory of the drugs seized from the appellant was not fatal because the prosecution was able to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the said illegal drugs. The concurrence of all elements of the illegal sale of shabu was proven by the prosecution. The chain of custody did not appear to be broken. The recovery and handling of the seized drugs were satisfactorily established. Fariñas was able to put the necessary markings on the plastic sachet of shabu bought from appellant immediately after the consummation of the drug sale. This was done in the presence of appellant and the other operatives, and while in the crime scene. The seized items were then brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination on the same day.21 Both prosecution witnesses were able to identify and explain said markings in court.
Based on the foregoing, it has been established by proof beyond reasonable doubt that appellants sold shabu. Under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (₱500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (₱10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved. Hence, the trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, correctly imposed the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of ₱500,000.00.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated 22 October 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02361, convicting appellant for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and sentencing her to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of ₱500,000.00 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Chairperson
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice |
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice |
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Footnotes
1 Penned by Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia with Associate Justices Josefina Guevara-Salonga and Vicente Q. Roxas, concurring. Rollo, pp. 2-17.
2 Presided by Judge Delia H. Panganiban. Records, pp. 121-128.
3 Records, p. 2.
4 Id. at 4.
5 Id. at 30-31.
6 Id. at 16.
7 TSN, 13 April 2004, pp. 7-13.
8 TSN, 19 August 2004, p. 55.
9 Records, p. 11.
10 TSN, 24 April 2006, pp. 4-10.
11 People v. Politico, G.R. No. 191394, 18 October 18, 2010; People v. Sembrano, G.R. No. 185848, 16 August 2010; People v. Mapanle, G.R. No. 188976, 29 June 2010; People v. Berdadero, G.R. No. 179710, 29 June 2010.
12 People v. Pagkalinawan, G.R. No. 184805, 3 March 2010 citing People v. Julian-Fernandez, 423 Phil. 895, 910 (2001).
13 TSN, 13 April 2004, pp. 8-9.
14 Records, pp. 15-16.
15 TSN, 19 August 2004, pp. 6-7.
16 Records, p. 11.
17 Rollo, pp. 13-14.
18 G.R. No. 185379, 27 November 2009, 606 SCRA 247.
19 Id. citing Malillin v. People, G.R. No. 172953, 30 April 2008, 553 SCRA 619, 632; People v. Bandang, G.R. No. 151314, 3 June 2004, 430 SCRA 570, 586-587 citing People v. Chua Uy, 384 Phil. 70, 93-94 (2000).
20 People v. Rivera, G.R. No. 182347, 17 October 2008,569 SCRA 879, 898-899.
21 Records, p. 12.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
