Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions

G.R. No. 196227 (People of the Philippines v. Shanedatu Utoh)

RESOLUTION 

In this appeal, accused-appellant Shanedatu Utoh (Utoh) assails the July 30, 2010 Decision^[1]  of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04046, which affirmed the June 22, 2009 Decision^[2]  in Criminal Case No. 28933-R of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 61 in Baguio City. The RTC found him guilty of selling methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu in breach of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

An Information dated November 24, 2008 charged Utoh with selling dangerous drugs, as follows: 

That on or about the 22nd day of November, 2008 in the City of Baguio, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused and without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, distribute and/or deliver 4.43 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, for THIRTY SIX THOUSAND Philippine Currency, to Intelligence Officer I Aaron M Apiit, PDEA-CAR Baguio City, knowing fully well that said Methamphetamine Hydrochloride is a dangerous drug: in violation of the aforementioned provision of law. 

CONTRARY TO LAW.^[3]

During the pre-trial conference, the prosecution and the defense stipulated upon the Inventory on Seized Items and the Chemistry Report presented by the prosecution.^[4]

The prosecution presented the arresting Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency-Cordillera Administrative Region (PDEA-CAR) officers Intelligence Officer 1 Aaron M. Apiit^[5] (IO1 Apiit) and IO1 Maydette Mosing^[6]  (IO1 Mosing), who testified on the details of how they effected the arrest of Utoh during an entrapment operation and the seizure of shabu  in his possession. The duly marked seized items and an Inventory on Seized Items^[7] were presented to prove the seizure of the items. Chemistry Report Number D-046-2008^[8] was likewise presented to confirm that the seized specimen was positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.

The facts, as summarized by the trial court, are: 

At around 9 O'clock AM of November 22, 2008, a confidential informant disclosed to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency-Cordillera Administrative Region (PDEA-CAR) that the accused Shanedatu was arriving from Manila to deliver a "bulto" of shabu. IO1 Aaron Apiit immediately relayed the information to PDEA-CAR acting Regional Director Edgar S. Appalla who, in turn, directed SPO4 Romeo Abordo to evaluate the information. Consequently, SPO4 Romeo Abordo created an interdiction team. Momentarily, the confidential informant, who created a cover story as a consignee for the shabu, tried to confirm from Shanedatu the time of the delivery. 

At around 2 O'clock PM, the accused called the mobile phone of the informant, reiterating the availability of the shabu which he was bringing to Baguio City and selling the same for thirty six thousand pesos (P36,000.00). At around 5 O'clock PM, the accused called the informant to inform the latter that he was on board a bus in Manila for Baguio. At 8 O'clock PM, Shanedatu again called the informant that he was now in Tarlac City and that he wanted the immediate exchange ("kaliwaan") of his contraband of the shabu he was carrying for sale. At around 10:45 O'clock PM, the accused sent a text message to the informant that he was already in Pugo, La Union on board a Genesis bus. 

In the meantime, the PDEA team had their last and final briefing with the respective assignment of each agent. PDEA Agent Aaron Apiit was designated as the poseur-buyer, PDEA Agents Roaldine Sal-ao as arresting officer and Maydette Mosing as seizing officer. The rest of the team were to serve as back-up who will stand-by until the pre-arranged signal shall have been executed by IO1 Aaron Apiit to indicate the consummation of the transaction. At around 11 O'clock PM, Apiit and the confidential informant waited for the accused's arrival at the waiting shed along Governor Pack Road, Baguio City. 

Several minutes after, a Genesis bus arrived and Shanedatu alighted. Whereupon Shanedatu recognized and approached the informant, who was with IO1 Aaron Apiit. The informant introduced Apiit to Shanedatu as the buyer. Thereafter, Shanedatu showed a green pocket book to IO1 Apiit and when the book was opened, the inside pages were cut through in such a way that the shabu sealed with transparent plastic was neatly placed in the middle of the cut pages of the book. Thereafter, Shanedatu handed the shabu to Apiit who inspected the same, and when he was sure that it was indeed shabu and as the accused demanded payment, Apiit executed the pre-arranged signal by scratching his head. Immediately, PDEA officer Roaldine Sal-ao rushed to the scene and introduced himself as PDEA agent and arrested Shanedatu, who at first resisted but became submissive when the back-up team arrived. Sal-ao thereafter recited to Shanedatu his constitutional rights in English and Tagalog. Officer Mosing body searched Shanedatu and recovered a Samsung E250 mobile phone. Immediately after confiscation of the cellphone, Mosing placed a masking tape on it and marked the cellphone. Also, Apiit immediately placed a masking tape at the upper portion of the plastic sachet where the shabu is placed and put his initials on the same indicating the date and signature at the waiting shed within the area of operations. At around half past eleven in the evening, Shanedatu was placed in PDEA's custody and brought to the PDEA-CAR office for purposes of documentation. 

Chemistry Report Number D-046-2008 confirmed that the medium sealed transparent plastic sachet seized from accused containing 4.43 grams of white crystalline substance was positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, or shabu.^[9]

Testifying on his behalf, accused Utoh^[10] raised the defense of denial and presented an entirely different version of what transpired in the evening of November 22, 2008. He narrated going up to Baguio City aboard a Genesis bus to visit an uncle detained at the Baguio City jail. At past 10:00 p.m., when he alighted from the bus at a waiting shed, along with another man, he was suddenly arrested by around ten (10) PDEA agents and then brought to the PDEA-CAR office where he was detained for the night. In the detention room, the arresting agents demanded PhP 250,000 for his liberty. He resisted the attempt to extort. He likewise refused admitting ownership of a green book, but was forced to sign a small sheet of paper, the contents of which he did not read. He was never informed of the reason for his arrest. The next day, he was presented to the media, some barangay officials, and representatives of the Department of Justice (DOJ) before he was brought to the Baguio City jail.

Eventually, the RTC rendered judgment convicting Utoh of the crime charged. The decretal portion of the June 22, 2009 Decision reads: 

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds the accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA. 9165 and is ORDERED to suffer the penalty of Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of P1,000,000.00. 

The dangerous drugs subject matter of this case consisting of 4.43 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu" is here ORDERED destroyed in accordance with law. The PDEA-CAR is directed to set a date and time when the dangerous drugs shall be destroyed in the presence of a representative of this court and to such witnesses as required under existing procedure. 

SO ORDERED.^[11]

Utoh appealed to the CA, which then rendered the assailed July 30, 2010 Decision affirming the RTC Decision. The fallo reads: 

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the 22 June 2009 decision of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City (Branch 61) in Criminal Case No. 28933-R finding accused-appellant Shanedatu Utoh guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 is AFFIRMED. 

SO ORDERED.^[12]

Hence, We have this appeal. Inasmuch as Utoh has opted not to file a supplemental brief, We shall consider the same assignment of errors he raised before the appellate court, in that: 

I 

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE INADMISSIBILITY OF THE EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM. 

II 

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONIES OF THE ARRESTING OFFICERS DESPITE THE GLARING IRREGULARITIES IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR DUTIES. 

III 

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.^[13]

The appeal has no merit.

Anenl the first issue, Utoh, relying on People v. Tudtud,^[14]  argues that mere "reliable information� is insufficient ground for his warrantless arrest. The shabu allegedly seized from him is, he adds, inadmissible in evidence.

We are not persuaded.

Utoh was arrested not, as he asserts, on the basis of "reliable information" received by the arresting officers from a confidential informant. His arrest came as a result of a valid buy-bust operation, a form of entrapment in which the violator is caught in flagrante delicto. The police officers conducting a buy-bust operation are not only authorized but also duty-bound to apprehend the violators and to search them for anything that may have been part of or used in the commission of the crime.^[15]

The testimonies of arresting officers IO1 Apiit and IO1 Mosing were straightforward, positive, and categorical. From the time they were tipped off by the confidential informant at around 9:00 a.m. of November 22, 2008 or up to the time until the informant confirmed Utoh's impending arrival at a very late hour that night, and the latter's eventual arrest, the intelligence officers credibly accounted for the briefings held, the preparations, and actions taken by them.

Testimonies of police officers who conduct buy-bust operations are generally accorded full faith and credit as they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner.^[16] This postulate becomes all the more compelling when the apprehending officers, as here, have not been shown to have any motive to falsely testify against the offender.

The presentation of an informant is not, as presently urged, a requisite for the prosecution of drug cases.^[17]  Informants are usually not presented in court because of the need to hide their identity and preserve their invaluable service to the police.^[18] Verily, as in the instant case, "there is no need to present the informant in court where the sale was actually witnessed and adequately proved by prosecution witness."^[19]cralaw

With respect to the second issue, Utoh asserts that the State failed to satisfy the chain of custody rule and points to lapses and non-compliance with Sec. 21 of RA 9165.

This contention lacks merit.

"Chain of custody," in context, means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction.^[20] Generally, as a method of authenticating evidence, the custodial chain rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be.^[21] It is the testimony of every witness who handled the evidence from which a reliable assurance can be derived that the evidence presented in court is one and the same as that seized from the accused.^[22]

The chain of custody rule was amply proved. Consider the following established facts:

First, Utoh stipulated during pre-trial on the testimony of the forensic chemist that the seized substance is shabu  and that the inventory was properly done.

Second, compliance with the chain of custody rule was adequately shown through the testimony of IO1 Apiit,^[23]  to wit:

(1) Upon the arrest of Utoh by IO1 Roaldine Sal-ao, designated poseur-buyer IO1 Apiit, who got possession of the plastic sachet containing shabu, immediately placed a masking tape on it and affixed his initials, and the date and time; the marking was done in the presence of Utoh in the scene of operation;

(2) The inventory of the seized book, plastic sachet containing shabu, and the cellphone (Samsung E250) was conducted in the morning of November 23, 2008 in the presence of some barangay  officials, representatives of the DOJ, and the media. Photographs^[24] of the confiscated items were likewise taken;

(3) Thereafter, IO1 Apiit turned over the plastic sachet containing shabu to the PDEA-CAR's evidence custodian;

(4) Upon a Request for Laboratory Exam,^[25] the PDEA-CAR evidence custodian entrusted to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory, for forensic analysis, the plastic sachet containing shabu  at 3:25 p.m. on November 23, 2008; and

(5) On the same day he received the sachet in question or on November 23, 2008, PNP Crime Laboratory forensic chemist Police Inspector Christian Gomez Canlas (P/lnsp. Canlas) immediately conducted the forensic analysis which resulted positive on the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. And for purposes of inquest proceedings, P/lnsp. Canlas then issued an Initial Laboratory Report^[26] under Chemistry Report No. D-046-2008 dated November 23, 2008.

From the foregoing facts, it is clear that the prosecution established the crucial link in the chain of custody of the seized shabu from the time IO1 Apiit confiscated it at around 11:30 p.m. of November 22, 2008 until the time it was brought to and was examined by the forensic chemist on November 23, 2008. Thus, the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized shabu from Utoh have not been compromised.

Utoh claims non-compliance with paragraph 1, Sec. 21 of RA 9165, which reads: 

(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.

Given the fact that Utoh was apprehended at around 11:30 p.m. on November 22, 2008, it was impractical, if not well-nigh impossible, to comply with the foregoing requirement immediately after the arrest. To note, the elected official/s, representatives of the DOJ, and the media were not forewarned about the entrapment operation, as the PDEA-CAR was not even sure if the entrapment would push through.

Strict compliance by the apprehending/buy-bust team with Sec. 21 of RA 9165 may not always be possible. But as long as there are justifiable grounds for non-compliance and provided the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated/seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team,^[27]  the seizures and custody over the said items will not, as in the instant case, be rendered void and invalid for such non-compliance.

On the third issue, the evidence reveals that all the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs have been duly proved and established beyond reasonable doubt.

For the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs to prosper, the following elements must be proved: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and its payment. What is material is the proof that the transaction actually took place, coupled with the presentation before the court of the seized item as part of the corpus delicti.^[28] 

All the elements had been duly established.

The arresting intelligence officers had positively identified Utoh as the person intending to sell something to a poseur-buyer. The object of the sale was the seized shabu in a plastic sachet. The offer price or consideration of PhP 36,000 was accepted by the poseur-buyer.

The second element is likewise present. Utoh delivered and handed the shabu in a plastic sachet to IO1 Apiit; the designated poseur-buyer. That no actual payment was made is of no moment, for there is no rule of law which requires that in buy-bust operations there must be a simultaneous exchange of money as payment and the prohibited drug between the poseur-buyer and the seller.^[29]

In all, documentary, object, and testimonial evidence adduced during trial prove beyond reasonable doubt that Utoh was caught in flagrante delicto of selling 4.43 grams of shabu for PhP 36,000 to poseur-buyer IO1 Apiit in a valid entrapment operation. Evidence likewise shows that the item seized during the operation was the same item presented before the trial court.cralaw

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The July 30, 2010 Decision of the CA in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04046 is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against accused-appellant.

SO ORDERED. 

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
  Division Clerk of Court 

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo. pp. 2-16. Penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison and concurred in by Associate Justices Noel G. Tijam and Danton Q. Bueser.

^[2] CA rollo, pp. 18-23. Penned by Presiding Judge Antonio C. Reyes. 

^[3] Records, p. 1. 

^[4] Id. at 41-42; TSN, February 6, 2009, pp. 2-3. 

^[5] TSN, March 4, 2009 and March 9, 2009. 

^[6] TSN, March 10, 2009 and March 16, 2009. 

^[7] Records, p. 9, dated November 23, 2008; marked as Exhibit "C." 

^[8] Id. at 36, dated November 23. 2008, specimen examined by Forensic Chemist Police Inspector Christian Gomez Canlas; marked as Exhibit �G.� 

^[9] Id. at 105-106. 

^[10] TSN, May 12, 2009 and May 19, 2009. 

^[11] CA rollo, p. 23. 

^[12] Rollo, p. 15. 

^[13] CA rollo, p. 40. 

^[14] G.R. No. 144037, September 26, 2003, 412 SCRA 142. 

^[15] People v. Mateo, G.R. No. 179478, July 28, 2008, 560 SCRA 397, 417; citing People v. Ong, G.R. No. 137348, June 21, 2004, 432 SCRA 470, 484 and People v. Juatan, G.R. No. 104378, August 20, 1996, 260 SCRA 532, 538. 

^[16] People v. Sevilla, G.R. No. 174862, June, 16, 2009, 589 SCRA 292, 295; citing People v. Evangelista, G.R. No. 175281, September 27, 2008, 534 SCRA 241, 250. 

^[17] Quinicot v. People, G.R. No. 179700, June 22, 2009, 590 SCRA 458, 472; citing People v. De los Reyes, G.R. No. 106874, January 21, 1994, 229 SCRA 439, 447. 

^[18] Id. at 473. 

^[19] People v. Sy, G.R. No. 185284, June 22, 2009, 590 SCRA 511, 526. 

^[20] People v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 179213, September 3, 2009, 598 SCRA 92, 101-102; People v. Cervantes, G.R. No. 181494, March 17, 2009, 581 SCRA 762, 777. 

^[21] Cari�o v. People, G.R. No. 178757, March 13, 2009, 581 SCRA 388, 398; citing United States v. Howard-Arias, 679 F.2d 363, 366 and United States v. Ricco, 52 F.3d 58. 

^[22] Id. at 399. 

^[23] March 4, 2009, pp. 18-19, 21-22. 

^[24] Records, p. 38. 

^[25] Id. at 12, dated November 23, 2008, signed by Police Chief Inspector Edgar Saldivar Apalla. 

^[26] Id. at 13. 

^[27] People v. Librea, G.R. No. 183819, July 23, 2009, 593 SCRA 258, 262. 

^[28] People v. Cabugatan, G.R. No. 172019, February 12, 2007, 515 SCRA 537, 547; People v. Del Mundo, G.R. No. 169141, December 6, 2006, 510 SCRA 554, 562. 

^[29] People v. Sibunga, G.R. No. 179475, September 25, 2009, 601 SCRA 74, 82.