November 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > November 2009 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 171350 : November 23, 2009] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. NESTOR MARTINEZ Y TAYAM @ KIRAT :
[G.R. No. 171350 : November 23, 2009]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. NESTOR MARTINEZ Y TAYAM @ KIRAT
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 23 November 2009:
G.R. No. 171350 (People of the Philippines v. Nestor Martinez y Tayam @ Kirat).
Before this Court is an Appeal from the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR H.C. 01165, promulgated on November 2, 2005, which affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 35, in Criminal Case 02-206782, dated July 11, 2003, convicting the accused-appellant of the crime of selling dangerous drugs as penalized under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act ;(R.A.) 9165, also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Facts and the Case
The City Prosecutor of Manila charged accused-appellant Nestor Martinez before the RTC of Manila with violation of R.A. 9165 for selling 0.26 grams of methyl amphetamine hydro chloride, commonly known as shabu.
At the trial the prosecution presented PO2 Rajenie Cayabyab of the Western Police District-District Drug Enforcement Group (WPD-DDEG) who testified that on September 9, 2002 he received an information from a confidential informant about a certain alias "Patong" or "Kirat" (later identified as accused Nestor Martinez). The latter was reported as selling shabu in the area of Hermosa Street, Tondo, Manila.
At around 7:30 p.m. on September 10, 2002, the same informant accompanied PO2 Cayabyab and his police buddy to Hermosa Street to conduct surveillance. The informant introduced Cayabyab to accused Martinez as "dati nang biyahero at dati nang suki" A "biyahero" was understood to be shabu buyer. Martinez initially offered.to sell shabu to Cayabyab for P1,000.00, although he said he could give it to him for P600.00. Since Cayabyab had no money on him, he told Martinez that he would just come back. Cayabyab returned to his office and. got a P500.00 bill and a P100.00 bill from his superior officer.
PO2 Cayabyab marked the bills with the letters "RN" on their lower right portion and made a photocopy of them.[2] At about 10:30 p.m., he returned to Hermosa Street. There, accused Martinez asked him if he was ready to buy. Cayabyab responded by handing over the marked money he had with him. Martinez in turn took out a sealed plastic sachet, containing white crystalline granules, from his right front pocket and handed it over to Cayabyab. The officer then lit a cigarette, a pre-determined signal to his teammates to move in.
PO2 Cayabyab introduced himself to accused Martinez as a police officer then apprehended and brought him to the WPD-DDEG headquarters. Cayabyab then marked the sachet of substance he bought from Martinez with the letters "NTM" before handing it over to the Investigator, PO2 Manuel Dantes Sarmiento, who forwarded the thing to the police crime laboratory for examination.
Inspector .Tudycel Macapagal, a forensic chemist of the WPD Crime Laboratory testified that she received a memorandum [3] from PO2 Sarmiento dated September 10, 2002, requesting her office to examine a substance, suspected to be shabu, that the police received from a certain accused Martinez. After doing a qualitative examination[4] of the contents of the sachet, Macapagal confirmed that it was rnethylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. She put the results of the test in a Crime Laboratory Report.[5]
In his defense, accused Martinez testified that he was at home on the evening of September 10, 2002 with his wife and their friend Maricel Joves. While accused Martinez was watching television, someone kicked the door open and three persons entered his house. They identified themselves as police officers and pointed their guns at him. One of the officers handcuffed Martinez. The other two proceeded to search his house without any warrant. Joves testified and substantially corroborated accused Martinez's story.
Accused Martinez also claimed that while the officers were taking him down to their office, they accused him of being a drug pusher and asked him for �40,000.00 if he did not want to spend time in jail.
The RTC found the accused Martinez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of which he was charged, sentenced him to life imprisonment, and ordered him to pay a fine of P5,000,000.00 plus costs. From this decision, he appealed to this Court. The parties filed their respective briefs.
Pursuant to the decision of ibis court providing for intermediate review by the Court of Appeals (CA) in cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, the Court sent the case to the CA. On November 2, 2005 the CA rendered a decision, affirming the judgment of the RTC.
Essentially, accused Martinez claims that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Proof of this, he pointed out, is that Inspector Macapagal, the police chemist, supposedly began examining the substance said to have been seized from Martinez at 7:30 a.m. on September 10, 2002 and concluded her examination after two hours at around 9:30 a.m.[6] This evidence, he claims is incompatible with PO2 Cayabyab's testimony that the examinations of the seized substance took place after Martinez's arrest, which according to Cayabyab, took place at around 10:30 p.m. on September 10, 2002. Martinez claims that he had been framed.
This Court finds no error in the CA's findings that the prosecution's evidence amply established the material details of the buy-bust operation, from the initial contact with accused Martinez, the latter's offer to sell shabu, the payment of marked money, and delivery of the shabu to Cayabyab as poseur-buyer. And the police officers observed the proper procedure in a buy-bust operation.
The CA also found that the prohibited drugs, the corpus delicti. presented in open court was the same drug that Martinez sold and delivered to PO2 Cayabyab. The latter officer placed proper markings on the sachet of shabu before he handed it over to PO2 Sarmiento. Inspector Macapagal testified that she received the marked sachet from PO2 Sarmiento, tested its contents, and found that it was shabu. Both witnesses identified the sachet. The evidence, therefore, satisfied all the requirement for proving the offense.[7]
The CA held that the discrepancy with regard to the date the sachet was submitted to the laboratory for examination is too insignificant to overcome the precise, positive, straightforward testimony of the police poseur-buyer. Such discrepancy is not material to the fact that the sachet was actually sold and delivered by accused Martinez, who knew u to contain shabu.
Apparently, PO2 Cayabyab made an innocent slip in stating that he made the arrest on September 10, 2002. That was the date of the Booking Sheet and Arrest Report[8] but the report says that the date and time of arrest of accused Martinez was on "09-09-02 / 10:30 P.M.," which possibly explains why Inspector Macapagal received the request for Laboratory examination and the sachet at 7:30 a.m. of September 10, 2002.
This Court finds no reason to disagree with the CA's finding that the police operatives properly performed their duties and were not impelled by any improper motive. Considering, however, the amount of drugs involved, the fine imposed on the appellant should be reduced to P500,000.00.[9]
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR H.C. 01165 .dated November 2, 2005 and the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 35, in Criminal Case 02-206782, dated July 11, 2003, with the MODIFICATION that the fine be reduced to P500,000.00.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Teresita Leonardo-De Castro (designated additional member per S.O. No. 776), Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo and Roberto A. Abad, Members, Second Division, this 23rd day of November, 2009.
G.R. No. 171350 (People of the Philippines v. Nestor Martinez y Tayam @ Kirat).
Before this Court is an Appeal from the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR H.C. 01165, promulgated on November 2, 2005, which affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 35, in Criminal Case 02-206782, dated July 11, 2003, convicting the accused-appellant of the crime of selling dangerous drugs as penalized under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act ;(R.A.) 9165, also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Facts and the Case
The City Prosecutor of Manila charged accused-appellant Nestor Martinez before the RTC of Manila with violation of R.A. 9165 for selling 0.26 grams of methyl amphetamine hydro chloride, commonly known as shabu.
At the trial the prosecution presented PO2 Rajenie Cayabyab of the Western Police District-District Drug Enforcement Group (WPD-DDEG) who testified that on September 9, 2002 he received an information from a confidential informant about a certain alias "Patong" or "Kirat" (later identified as accused Nestor Martinez). The latter was reported as selling shabu in the area of Hermosa Street, Tondo, Manila.
At around 7:30 p.m. on September 10, 2002, the same informant accompanied PO2 Cayabyab and his police buddy to Hermosa Street to conduct surveillance. The informant introduced Cayabyab to accused Martinez as "dati nang biyahero at dati nang suki" A "biyahero" was understood to be shabu buyer. Martinez initially offered.to sell shabu to Cayabyab for P1,000.00, although he said he could give it to him for P600.00. Since Cayabyab had no money on him, he told Martinez that he would just come back. Cayabyab returned to his office and. got a P500.00 bill and a P100.00 bill from his superior officer.
PO2 Cayabyab marked the bills with the letters "RN" on their lower right portion and made a photocopy of them.[2] At about 10:30 p.m., he returned to Hermosa Street. There, accused Martinez asked him if he was ready to buy. Cayabyab responded by handing over the marked money he had with him. Martinez in turn took out a sealed plastic sachet, containing white crystalline granules, from his right front pocket and handed it over to Cayabyab. The officer then lit a cigarette, a pre-determined signal to his teammates to move in.
PO2 Cayabyab introduced himself to accused Martinez as a police officer then apprehended and brought him to the WPD-DDEG headquarters. Cayabyab then marked the sachet of substance he bought from Martinez with the letters "NTM" before handing it over to the Investigator, PO2 Manuel Dantes Sarmiento, who forwarded the thing to the police crime laboratory for examination.
Inspector .Tudycel Macapagal, a forensic chemist of the WPD Crime Laboratory testified that she received a memorandum [3] from PO2 Sarmiento dated September 10, 2002, requesting her office to examine a substance, suspected to be shabu, that the police received from a certain accused Martinez. After doing a qualitative examination[4] of the contents of the sachet, Macapagal confirmed that it was rnethylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. She put the results of the test in a Crime Laboratory Report.[5]
In his defense, accused Martinez testified that he was at home on the evening of September 10, 2002 with his wife and their friend Maricel Joves. While accused Martinez was watching television, someone kicked the door open and three persons entered his house. They identified themselves as police officers and pointed their guns at him. One of the officers handcuffed Martinez. The other two proceeded to search his house without any warrant. Joves testified and substantially corroborated accused Martinez's story.
Accused Martinez also claimed that while the officers were taking him down to their office, they accused him of being a drug pusher and asked him for �40,000.00 if he did not want to spend time in jail.
The RTC found the accused Martinez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of which he was charged, sentenced him to life imprisonment, and ordered him to pay a fine of P5,000,000.00 plus costs. From this decision, he appealed to this Court. The parties filed their respective briefs.
Pursuant to the decision of ibis court providing for intermediate review by the Court of Appeals (CA) in cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, the Court sent the case to the CA. On November 2, 2005 the CA rendered a decision, affirming the judgment of the RTC.
Essentially, accused Martinez claims that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Proof of this, he pointed out, is that Inspector Macapagal, the police chemist, supposedly began examining the substance said to have been seized from Martinez at 7:30 a.m. on September 10, 2002 and concluded her examination after two hours at around 9:30 a.m.[6] This evidence, he claims is incompatible with PO2 Cayabyab's testimony that the examinations of the seized substance took place after Martinez's arrest, which according to Cayabyab, took place at around 10:30 p.m. on September 10, 2002. Martinez claims that he had been framed.
This Court finds no error in the CA's findings that the prosecution's evidence amply established the material details of the buy-bust operation, from the initial contact with accused Martinez, the latter's offer to sell shabu, the payment of marked money, and delivery of the shabu to Cayabyab as poseur-buyer. And the police officers observed the proper procedure in a buy-bust operation.
The CA also found that the prohibited drugs, the corpus delicti. presented in open court was the same drug that Martinez sold and delivered to PO2 Cayabyab. The latter officer placed proper markings on the sachet of shabu before he handed it over to PO2 Sarmiento. Inspector Macapagal testified that she received the marked sachet from PO2 Sarmiento, tested its contents, and found that it was shabu. Both witnesses identified the sachet. The evidence, therefore, satisfied all the requirement for proving the offense.[7]
The CA held that the discrepancy with regard to the date the sachet was submitted to the laboratory for examination is too insignificant to overcome the precise, positive, straightforward testimony of the police poseur-buyer. Such discrepancy is not material to the fact that the sachet was actually sold and delivered by accused Martinez, who knew u to contain shabu.
Apparently, PO2 Cayabyab made an innocent slip in stating that he made the arrest on September 10, 2002. That was the date of the Booking Sheet and Arrest Report[8] but the report says that the date and time of arrest of accused Martinez was on "09-09-02 / 10:30 P.M.," which possibly explains why Inspector Macapagal received the request for Laboratory examination and the sachet at 7:30 a.m. of September 10, 2002.
This Court finds no reason to disagree with the CA's finding that the police operatives properly performed their duties and were not impelled by any improper motive. Considering, however, the amount of drugs involved, the fine imposed on the appellant should be reduced to P500,000.00.[9]
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR H.C. 01165 .dated November 2, 2005 and the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 35, in Criminal Case 02-206782, dated July 11, 2003, with the MODIFICATION that the fine be reduced to P500,000.00.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Teresita Leonardo-De Castro (designated additional member per S.O. No. 776), Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo and Roberto A. Abad, Members, Second Division, this 23rd day of November, 2009.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and concurred in by Associale Justices Renato C. Dacudao and Lucas P. Bersamin (now a member of this Court).
[2] Exhibit "E" for the prosecution, records, p. 15.
[3] Exhibit "A" for the prosecution, id. at 94.
[4] Particularly the Simons Test and the Thin Layer Chromatography technique.
[5] Exhibit "C" for the prosecution, Exhibit "2" for the defense, records, p. 95.
[6] Id. (Exhibit "2-A" and L:2-B").
[7] People v. Balag-ey, 471 Phil. 327, 350 (2004).
[8] Records, p. 13.
[9] People v. Teodoro, G.R. No. 185164, June 22, 2009.
