SECOND DIVISION.
.
RAMON ARCILLA,
JIMMY
SALAZAR
AND REYNALDO PERALTA,
Petitioners,
G.R.
No.
135270
December 30, 2003
-versus-
COURT OF APPEALSAND PEOPLE OF
THE
PHILIPPINES,
Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
CALLEJO,
SR., J.:
This is a Petition
for Review on Certiorari of the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA)
in
CA-G.R. CR No. 20802 affirming with modification the Decision of the
Regional
Trial Court of Manila, Branch 54, in Criminal Cases Nos. 96-148018 to
96-148019
and 96-148021 for violation of Section 2(e)(f)(m)(q), Article 1 in
relation
to Section 21 of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Antecedents
The petitioners Jimmy
Salazar, Reynaldo Peralta and Napolinario Villa were charged of
violation
of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended, under three Informations docketed as
Criminal Cases Nos. 96-148018, 96-148019 and 96-148021. The accusatory
portion of each of the Informations and the corresponding docket
numbers
thereof are as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
CRIMINAL
CASE
NO. 96-148018 (People of the Philippines vs. Ramon Arcilla and
Jimmy
Salazar)
That on or about
March
1, 1996 in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused,
conspiring
and confederating together and mutually helping each other, not having
been authorized by law to sell, dispose, deliver, transport and
distribute
any regulated drug, did then and there wilfully, and unlawfully sell or
offer for sale one (1) small transparent plastic sachet containing
fifty
three (53 mg.) or 0.053 g. of white crystalline granules substance
known
as "shabu" containing metamphetamine hydrochloride.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Contrary to law.
CRIMINAL CASE NO.
96-148019 (People of the Philippines vs. Ramon Arcilla and Jimmy
Salazar)
That on or about
March
1, 1996 in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused,
conspiring
and confederating together and mutually helping each other, not being
authorized
by law to possess, sell, deliver, give away to another or distribute
any
prohibited drug, did then and there wilfully and unlawfully possess for
sale one (1) brick/block of compressed dried plant of marijuana
weighing
two hundred seventy five grams (275 grams) or 0.275 kilograms wrapped
with
newspaper, which are prohibited drugs.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Contrary to law.
CRIMINAL CASE NO.
96-148021 (People of the Philippines vs. Reynaldo Peralta)
That on or about
March
1, 1996 in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused not being
authorized by law to possess or use any prohibited drug, did then and
there
wilfully and knowingly have in their possession and their custody and
control
one (1) small transparent plastic sachet containing 50 mg. or 0.050 g.
of white crystalline substance, one (1) improvised tooter/water pipe
and
two (2) pieces of aluminum foil with specks of white crystalline
substance
containing methamphetamine hydrocholoride (sic), a regulated drug,
without
the corresponding license or prescription thereof.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Contrary to law.[1]
On arraignment, the
petitioners,
assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty to all the charges against them.
As synthesized by the
CA, the case for the prosecution based on its evidence is as follows:
Testifying
as principal witness for the prosecution, SPO1 Rodolfo Samoranos of the
Western Police District (WPD), City Hall Detachment (CHD) gave the
following
version of the incident:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On the
basis
of a report on February 22, 1996 of the Barangay Chairman of Barangay
899,
Zone 100 and Barangay 900, Zone 100 of Punta, Sta. Ana, Manila, he and
SPO1 Bernardo O. were dispatched by their superior police officer on
the
same day to conduct surveillance on the illegal drug activities of two
(2) persons by the name of Ramon Arcilla and Jimmy Salazar (TSN, pp.
3–4,
October 15, 1996). After almost one (1) week of surveillance, they
found
out that the report was true and so on March 1, 1996, they conducted a
buy-bust operation which was planned by Senior Inspector Abad Osit
(TSN,
pp. 4–5, October 15, 1996). With several police companions and himself
(witness) as the poseur-buyer they went to the place of Arcilla at 1880
Mayon Street, Punta, Sta. Ana, Manila, at around 8:00 o'clock in the
evening
of March 1, 1996 (TSN, p. 5, October 15, 1996). When he and the
confidential
informant arrived in Mayon Street, they met Jimmy Salazar in an alley
leading
to the residence of Ramon Arcilla, who whispered to them if they were
buying
"gamot." After replying that they wanted to buy P500.00 worth of shabu
and P500.00 worth of marijuana. Jimmy Salazar accompanied them to the
house
of Arcilla a few steps away and introduced them to Arcilla as buyers
(TSN,
pp. 6–7, October 15, 1996). Witness handed to Arcilla the amount of One
Thousand (P1,000.00) Pesos and the latter instructed Salazar to get the
stocks upstairs. Before Salazar went up, the witness noticed accused
Reynaldo
Peralta sniffing shabu from an aluminum foil at a corner of Arcilla's
house
which was then under construction. When Salazar came back, he handed
Arcilla
the stuff who handed the same to the witness. It was at this instant
(sic)
that witness gave the pre-arranged signal to the other members of the
group
who were at the residence of the Barangay Chairman five (5) to six (6)
meters in front of the house of Arcilla to close-in, as the buy-bust
operation
was consummated. As his companions closed-in, witness drew his gun
tucked
at the back of his pants and poked it at Arcilla (TSN, pp. 7–9, October
15, 1996). The witness apprehended Arcilla, while SPO1 Charlie Magsanoc
and PO3 de Leon arrested Reynaldo Peralta. They handcuffed all three
(3)
suspects and witness recovered from Arcilla the two (2) P500.00 peso
bills
(Exhibit "A" for Cases Nos. 96-148019/20) which had the markings of CHD
(City Hall Detachment) at the left upper portion and at the lower right
portion previously placed by witness (TSN, pp. 10–11, October 15,
1996).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SPO1 Bernardo O.
and
PO3 Feliciano de Leon, both of the Drug Enforcement Unit of the City
Hall
Detachment, WPD, corroborated the testimony of SPO1 Samoranos.[2]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The case for the
petitioners,
on the other hand, was synthesized by the CA as follows:
Defendants
claim that, instead of a buy-bust operation, what took place was a
warrantless
search, resulting in their arrest. In brief, the defense version is as
follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On March
1,
1996 at about 8:00 o'clock in the evening, policemen from the Manila
City
Hall Detachment raided the house of accused-appellant Ramon Arcilla
without
the benefit of a search warrant. The policemen planted prohibited drugs
and claimed that the same were confiscated from accused-appellants.
Policemen
forced accused-appellant Ramon Arcilla to admit ownership of marijuana
wrapped with newspaper and when he denied ownership he was tortured.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In support of
their
appeal, the appellants contend that the court a quo erred, first, in
admitting
as evidence the things allegedly confiscated from them despite their
inadmissibility,
being products of an illegal search; second, in convicting them of
violation
of RA 6425 despite the inadmissibility of the corpus delicti; and
third,
in convicting them not on the basis of the strength of the
prosecution's
evidence but rather on the alleged weakness of the evidence for the
defense.[3]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On February 3, 1997,
the
trial court rendered a decision convicting the petitioners of the
crimes
charged. The decretal portion of the decision reads, thus:
WHEREFORE,
judgment is hereby rendered against all of the accused in these four
(4)
cases, convicting them of the respective charges filed against them and
imposes the penalty in Crim. Case No. 96-148018 sentencing the accused
Ramon Arcilla and Jimmy Salazar each to serve a term of imprisonment of
two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day as minimum to four (4)
years
and two (2) months as maximum of prision correctional; in Crim. Case
No.
96-148019 sentencing the accused Ramon Arcilla and Jimmy Salazar each
to
a term of imprisonment of eight (8) years and one (1) day as minimum to
ten (10) years as maximum of prision mayor; in Crim. Case No. 96-148020
sentencing accused Napolinario Villa a term of imprisonment of two (2)
years, four (4) months and one (1) day as minimum to four (4) years and
two (2) months as the maximum of prision correctional; in Crim. Case
No.
96-148021 sentencing accused Reynaldo Peralta the same term of
imprisonment
as that imposed on Villa.
All the prohibited
drugs
subject of these cases are confiscated in favor of the government to be
transferred to the Dangerous Drugs Board for proper disposal.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.[4]
On appeal, the CA
affirmed
with modification the decision of the trial court. The dispositive
portion
of the Decision dated August 25, 1998 reads as follows:
WHEREFORE,
the Court hereby AFFIRMS the conviction of appellants but MODIFIES the
penalty imposed on each of them, as follows:
1. In
Criminal
Case No. 96-148018, appellants RAMON ARCILLA and JIMMY SALAZAR are each
sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of SIX (6) MONTHS of
arresto
mayor as minimum to FOUR (4) YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS of prision
correccional
as maximum;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2. In Criminal
Case
No. 96-148019, appellants RAMON ARCILLA and JIMMY SALAZAR are each
sentenced
to suffer an indeterminate penalty of FOUR (4) YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS
of prision correccional as minimum to TEN (10) YEARS of prision mayor
as
maximum; andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3. In Criminal
Case
No. 96-148021, appellant REYNALDO PERALTA is sentenced to suffer an
indeterminate
penalty of SIX (6) MONTHS of arresto mayor as minimum to FOUR (4) YEARS
and TWO (2) MONTHS of prision correccional as maximum.
With the above
modifications,
the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED in all other respects.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
No pronouncement
as
to costs.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.[1]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The petitioners raise a
solitary issue for the Court's resolution:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHETHER OR
NOT
PUBLIC RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS' AFFIRMANCE OF THE JOINT DECISION IN
CRIMINAL CASES NOS. 96-148018, 96-148019 AND 96-148021 IS PROPER UNDER
THE CIRCUMSTANCES.[6]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioner Arcilla
asserts
that the prosecution failed to prove that a buy-bust operation was
conducted
by the police officers against him. He claimed that he was tortured
into
admitting his ownership of a prohibited drug wrapped in a newspaper as
evidenced by the medical certificate[7]
and pictures[8]
showing the injuries he sustained. The object evidence adduced by the
prosecution
against him was "planted." The police authorities were not armed with a
search warrant when they conducted a search and seizure operation in
his
house. Any evidence seized by the policemen from the house of the
petitioner
was inadmissible in evidence. The surveillance operation against the
petitioners
Arcilla and Salazar was triggered by the complaint of the Barangay
Chairman
of Barangay Nos. 899 and 900 of Punta, Sta. Ana, Manila. However, the
prosecution
failed to present the complainant Barangay Chairman as witness. The
booking
sheet and arrest report prepared and accomplished by the arresting
officers
were not signed by the petitioners, which is a cogent circumstance
showing
that the charges were fabricated by the police officers.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Office of the Solicitor
General controverts the petitioners' contention insisting that:
First.
Only questions of law or legal issues may be raised in this Court under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, as amended. Although there are
exceptions
to the rule, the petitioner failed to sufficiently demonstrate the
application
of any of the exceptional circumstances;
Second.
SPO1
Rodolfo Samoranos convincingly testified that petitioner Salazar,
acting
as a runner or broker of petitioner Arcilla, led him and the
confidential
informant to the house of the latter to buy P500 worth of shabu and
P500
worth of marijuana;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Third. SPO1
Samoranos
testified how petitioner Peralta sniffed shabu in the house of
petitioner
Arcilla and how he consummated the sale of shabu and marijuana by
petitioner
Arcilla to the poseur-buyer;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Fourth.
Petitioner
Arcilla failed to adduce proof that he was forced to admit ownership of
the subject drug. At any rate, the ownership of the prohibited and
regulated
drugs is immaterial in the prosecution of the crime of possession of
drugs
as defined in Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended;
Fifth. The
failure
of the prosecution to prove traces of burns on the aluminum foil
confiscated
from petitioner Peralta is inconsequential. Considering its aluminum
content,
it is not too remote a possibility for aluminum foil not to show
markings
of burns. Traces of such flickering most often would hardly result in
imprints
on its surface, which are easily effaced therefrom. At any rate,
petitioner
Peralta was charged with illegal possession of a regulated drug and
related
paraphernalia which were already consummated when the petitioner was
found
in possession of the said articles without the necessary license or
prescription.
What is primordial is the proof of the illegal drugs and paraphernalia
recovered from the petitioner;
Sixth. The
case
for the prosecution was not enfeebled by the failure of the prosecution
to present the complaining barangay chairman. His testimony would
merely
corroborate the testimony of the principal witness of the prosecution
and
not independently indispensable. The testimony of a single witness
which
is credible is sufficient to convict the accused; andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Seventh.
The
booking sheet and arrest report prepared by the arresting officers were
not the basis for the conviction of the petitioners. Whether or not the
petitioners affixed their signatures on the said sheet is irrelevant to
resolve the guilt or innocence of the petitioners of the crimes charged.
The petition is barren
of merit.
We agree with the OSG
that as ruled by this Court, no questions of facts may be raised in
this
Court under Rule 45 of the Rules
of Court, unless there is clear and convincing proof that the
judgment
of the CA is based on a misapprehension of facts; or when the CA failed
to notice and appreciate certain relevant facts of substance which if
properly
considered would justify a different conclusion; and when there is a
grave
abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts in the light of the
evidence
on record. Anything less will not suffice to overturn the decision of
the
CA affirming on appeal the decision of the trial court. It bears
stressing
that the findings of facts of the trial court, its calibration of the
testimonial
evidence of the parties and the assessment of the credibility and
probative
weight of the evidence of the parties and its conclusion anchored on
its
findings are given high respect if not conclusive effect by this Court,
especially if affirmed by the CA because of the unique advantage of the
trial court of observing and monitoring the demeanor, conduct and
deportment
of the witnesses as they regale the court with their testimonies. The
exception
to this rule is when the trial court ignored, overlooked, misconstrued
or misappreciated cogent facts and circumstances of substance which if
considered would alter the outcome of the case. We have assiduously
assessed
the evidence on record and we find no justification to deviate from the
findings of facts of the trial court as affirmed by the CA. In this
case,
the trial court gave credence and full probative weight to the
testimony
of the principal witness of the prosecution, SPO1 Rodolfo Samoranos,
fortified
by the physical evidence on record.[9]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The bare claim of petitioners
Arcilla and Salazar that no surveillance operations had been conducted
by the police officers, and their assertion that the police operatives
"planted" evidence against them cannot prevail over the positive and
straightforward
testimony of SPO1 Rodolfo Samoranos and the other police operatives who
are presumed to have performed his duties regularly and in accordance
with
law. There are instances when law enforcers resort to planting evidence
to extract information or even to harass civilians; however, the
defense
of frame-up in drug cases requires clear and convincing evidence.[10]
The Court views such claim with distrust because it can easily be
feigned
and fabricated.[11]
In this case, petitioners Arcilla and Salazar even admitted when they
testified
that the surveillance and buy-bust operations against them were
triggered
by the reports of the barangay chairman:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q Can you
tell
this Court that you are very, very familiar with your barangay chairman?
A Yes, sir.
Q And you
testified
earlier that you admit earlier that you are a drug user, is that right?
A Yes, sir, I was
able
to use that before.
Q And that fact
was
known to your barangay chairman because he was very familiar with you?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you know that
it
was the chairman who approached Major Baltazar of the City Hall
Detachment
about the drug activities of several persons in your place and that
includes
you?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A Yes, sir, I know
that.
Q So you knew that
it
was your barangay chairman who denounced you together with Jimmy
Salazar,
as the very person engaged in drug selling in your place at Punta, Sta.
Ana, Manila?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A Yes, sir.[12]
The testimony of the
barangay
chairman was merely corroborative of the testimony of SPO1 Rodolfo
Samoranos
and the physical evidence. Hence, the cases for the prosecution were
not
enfeebled by the failure of the prosecution to present the barangay
chairman
as witness.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the matter of sale
or possession of the illicit drugs and paraphernalia, the ownership of
the same is inconsequential. Mere possession of the illicit drugs and
paraphernalia
are crimes per se and the burden of proof is upon the accused to prove
that they have permits or clearance to possess the prohibited drugs and
paraphernalia.[13]
It is sufficient that the illicit drugs were found in the possession of
the accused.[14]
In this case, it is incredible that SPO1 Rodolfo Samoranos would go to
the extent of maltreating petitioner Arcilla into admitting his
ownership
of the illicit drugs and paraphernalia when he knew all along that such
an admission by the petitioner would be inconsequential.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We are not impervious
of the medical certificate issued by the Ospital ng Maynila when Dr.
Gray
Orino examined petitioner Arcilla on March 2, 1996 that he had a 3-cm.
laceration on his frontal-temporal area[15]
and the picture of the petitioner showing injuries on the parietal area.[16]
However, the petitioner failed to present the doctor to testify on the
medical certificate and the photographer who took his picture. Besides,
if as claimed by the petitioner, he was maltreated by SPO1 Rodolfo
Samoranos
to compel him to admit ownership of the illicit drug, he should have
filed
criminal and administrative charges against the policeman for his
injuries.
The petitioner could have filed the said charges after posting a bail
bond
and after he was released from jail. Petitioner Arcilla failed to do so.cralaw:red
The barefaced fact that
the petitioners did not affix their signatures on the booking sheet and
arrest reports prepared by the arresting officer is not evidence of
their
innocence of the crimes charged. The booking sheet and arrest reports
submitted
by the arresting officer are not elements of the crimes charged, nor
are
they indispensable to prove the said charges.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE
FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision of
the
Court Appeals is AFFIRMED. Costs against the petitioners.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Puno, Quisumbing,
Austria-Martinez
and Tinga, JJ., concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, p. 9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Id. at 104–105.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Id. at 105–106.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Id. at 50–51.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Id. at 109–110.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Id. at 12.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Exhibit "3."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Exhibit "4."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Exhibits "B," "C," "C-1," Criminal Cases Nos. 148018 and 148021.
Exhibits
"A," "C," Criminal Case No. 148019.
[10]
People v. Uy, 327 SCRA 335 (2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
People v. Ganenas, 364 SCRA 582 (2001).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
TSN, 4 November 1996, p. 41.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
People v. Johnson, 348 SCRA 526 (2000); People v. Beriarmente, 365 SCRA
747 (2001).
[14]
People v. Montano, 337 SCRA 608 (2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Exhibit "3."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
Exhibit "4."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |