Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2011 > January 2011 Resolutions > G.R. No. 188845 : January 10, 2011 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VERSUS ROBERTO MEJIA Y SORIANO A.K.A. "TOTONG MEJIA", APPELLANT. :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated 10 January 2011, which reads as follows:

G.R. No. 188845 -   PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, versus ROBERTO MEJIA y SORIANO a.k.a. "TOTONG MEJIA", appellant.

Before us is the appeal of appellant Roberto Mejia alias "Totong Mejia" assailing the Decision^[1] dated April 29, 2009 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03205. The CA affirmed the Decision^[2] dated February 6, 2007 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 151, of Pasig City convicting appellant and three others for violation of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."

Appellant was charged in an Information^[3] dated November 17, 2003 before the RTC for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA No. 9165.^[4] Four other individuals, namely, Ernesto Sison (Sison), Joel Montalba (Joel), Joseph Montalba (Joseph) and Jobert dela Cruz (dela Cruz), were also charged in the same court with violation of Section 14, Article II of the said law.^[5]

Upon arraignment, Mejia, Sison, Joel, and Joseph all entered not guilty pleas. Meanwhile, the case against dela Cruz was archived following the failure to arraign him.

At the trial, the prosecution evidence established that on November 15, 2003, a certain informant known as "Jun" went to the Pasig City police station at Pariancillo Park and reported to P/Insp. Melbert Glade Esguerra, chief of the Pasig City Police Station Drug Enforcement Unit (SDEU), that a certain Totong Mejia was selling shabu in a shanty near Maida's Warehouse along MRR St. in Brgy. Manggahan. P/Insp. Esguerra immediately formed a team led by SPO2 Dante Zipagan to conduct the buy-bust operation. POI Michael Familara was designated as the poseur-buyer and a pre-operation report^[6] was sent by SPO2 Zipagan to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency. POI Familara was likewise given two marked P100 bills for use in the operation.

Thereafter, the team proceeded to the reported location. Accompanied by the informant, POI Familara approached the semi-concrete shanty as other members of the team positioned themselves in strategic locations near the shanty. After "Jun" knocked at the door of the shanty and told appellant that they want to buy P200 worth of shabu, appellant went back inside the shanty and brought out a small heat-sealed plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. POI Familara gave appellant the marked money as payment and immediately arrested appellant as the latter was handing him the drugs.

PO1 Famiiara then told SPO2 Zipagan, POI Allan Mapula and PO! Joy Decena about the presence of other individuals inside the shanty who were apparently preparing for a shabu pot session. POI Mapula and POI Decena immediately barged into the shanty and arrested Sison, Joel and Joseph as SPO2 Zipagan manned the door. The team recovered shabu paraphernalia inside the shanty and marked and inventoried them for evidence. POI Familara likewise marked the small heat-sealed plastic sachet which he bought from appellant with the initials "RSM/MRF" but he did not photograph it. Then, they brought appellant, including the four other individuals, to the police station.

On the same day, SDEU Chief P/Insp. Esguerra sent a memorandum^[7] to the District Chief of the Crime Laboratory Services of the Eastern Police District (EPD) submitting the confiscated contraband and requesting for laboratory examination. On November 16, 2003, P/Insp. Lourdeliza Cejes of the EPD Crime Laboratory Office issued a report^[8] stating that the crystalline substance in the sachet and confiscated paraphernalia tested positive for traces of methylamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as shabu.

Appellant, for his part, testified that he is a plumber and was previously convicted for drug use in 1997. He also admitted that he still uses the said drug. According to him, he was inside a "bodega" along MRR St. in Brgy. Manggahan, Pasig City on November 15, 2003 at around three o'clock in the afternoon, feeding his dog and chicken when Dela Cruz, Joel and Joseph arrived. The three asked him to buy the fighting cock they brought with them. While they were talking, three armed men in civilian clothing suddenly barged into the warehouse and instructed them to sit on the ground. He also saw Sison being dragged by one of the men inside the "bodega". He asked the armed men why they were being held, and the armed men, whom he later identified as PO1 Familara, PO1 Decena PO1 Mapula, replied that they were searching for shabu and g Appellant told them that he knew nothing about the drugs and that they do not have any guns. Then, appellant and those with him were bodily searched and handcuffed. They were brought to the barangay hall of dela Paz in Pasig City and later transferred to the Pariancillo police station.

Appellant further claimed that he only came to know the reason for their arrest during their inquest proceedings conducted two days after the arrest. While appellant admitted that he does not know why the police operatives would falsely accuse him of drug pushing, he suspected that a certain barangay tanod named "Joey" may have implicated him to the police authorities.

On February 6, 2007, the Pasig RTC promulgated a Decision^[9] finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of RA No. 9165. He was sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00 while Sison, Joel and Joseph were acquitted.

In his appeal, appellant assailed the findings of the trial court claiming that the decision was based on inconsistent and contradicting testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, particularly the referral of police officers as to the actual time and date of the buy-bust operation. Appellant also argues that the Physical Science Report issued by the PNP Crime Laboratory Office does not account for the proper chain of custody of the seized drug. Lastly, he objected to the failure of the police enforcers to obtain a sesxch warrant and warrant of arrest despite the fact that they knew his address and whereabouts.

In its Decision dated April 29, 2009,^[10] the CA found appellant's contentions without merit and affirmed the trial court's ruling. The CA concluded that the buy-bust operation conducted by the SDEU operatives on November 15, 2003 was legitimate. The appellate court further explained that prior surveillance is not necessary as police authorities have a wide discretion in the selection of effective means to apprehend drug dealers, stressing that no law requires a specific method for the conduct of buy-bust operations.

After review of the records of the case and the parties' submissions, the Court finds that, indeed, appellant's guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. The inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses pointed out by appellant are trivial and minor at best, and do not detract from the established fact that the primary witness for the prosecution, PO1 Familara, consistently and categorically identified appellant as the one who sold him the illegal drugs. It must be noted that even appellant admitted that he does not see any malicious motive or ill will on the part of PO1 Familara and the other police operatives who effected his arrest that fateful day of November 15, 2003, for them to testify falsely against him.

Moreover, a close examination of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA No. 9165 readily reveals that the custodial chain rule admits certain exceptions since what is essential is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items to be utilized In the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.^[11] In the instant case, there had been substantial compliance with the legal requirements on the handling of the seized item, and we find that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs had not been diminished.

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated April 29, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03205 is AFFIRMED.

With costs against the accused-appellant.

SO ORDERED.

---

cralaw Endnotes:

^[1] Rollo, pp. 2-17.  Penned by Associate Justice Remedies A. Salazar-Fernando, with Associate Justices  Magdangal M. De Leon and Ramon R. Garcia, concurring.

^2[] Records, pp. 286-293- Penned by Judge Franchito N. Diamante.

^[3] Id. at 1-2.

^[4] Docketed as Criminal Case No. 13069-D.

^[5] Docketed as Criminal Case No. 13070-D.

^[6] Records, p. 214.

^[7] Id. at 215.

^{[8 ]} Id. at 217.

^[9] Supra note 2.

^[10] Supra note 1.

^[11] People v. Cortez, G.R. No. 183819, July 23, 2009, 593 SCRA 743, 763-764.