February 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 188700 : February 15, 2012]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE v. JOSELITO ROXAS Y VIROSEL, ACCUSED- APPELLANT.
"G.R. No. 188700 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JOSELITO ROXAS y VIROSEL, Accused- Appellant. - Appellant Joselito Roxas y Virosel was charged with, tried for, and found guilty of a violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 103, in Quezon City. He was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00. His conviction was affirmed on April 30, 2009 by the Court of Appeals (CA).[1]
Hence, Roxas appealed to the Court.
But first, let us review the facts.
At around 9:30 pm of October 14, 2005, the Chief of the District Anti-Illegal Drugs (DAID)-Special Operations Task Group based in Camp Karingal, Quezon City received a call from a confidential informant reporting that a certain Boy was engaged in illegal drug activities. A buy -bust team that included PO2 Noel Magcalayo, PO3 Hector Hernandez and PO3 Jerry Villamor, who all testified during the trial, was immediately formed in coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). The buy-bust money - a P200.00 bill - was prepared and marked with the letters NM, the initials of designated poseur-buyer PO2 Magcalayo.[2]
At around 7:00 pm of October 15, 2005, the buy-bust team, together with the confidential informant, proceeded on board an unmarked Honda Civic and a Canter van to the target area on Kalayaan Street, Barangay Central, Diliman, Quezon City. Arriving there at about 7:30 pm, PO2 Magcalayo and the confidential informant went to meet Roxas in front of his house, while the rest of the team stayed in the vehicles parked nearby. The confidential informant introduced PO2 Magcalayo to Roxas by saying "customer natin ito."[3] In turn, Roxas introduced himself as Boy, and asked for the money.[4] PO2 Magcalayo handed the marked P200.00 bill to Roxas, who then took from his pocket one transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance that he handed to PO2 Magcalayo.[5] After the exchange, PO2 Magcalayo scratched the back of his head, giving the prearranged signal.[6] The rest of the team rushed forward and assisted PO2 Magcalayo in arresting Roxas. PO3 Villamor recovered the marked P200.00 bill from the right pant pocket of Roxas. The policemen brought Roxas and the confiscated items to the police station for investigation.[7] Initially, PO2 Magcalayo turned over the confiscated items to the Desk Officer;[8] but later on brought the items to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination by the forensic chemist.[9] The white crystalline substance in the transparent plastic sachet tested positive for shabu.[10]
Roxas denied the charge and claimed that he had been framed up. He declared that he had been with his wife and two kids in the second floor of their house at No. 86 Kalayaan Street, Barangay Central, Diliman, Quezon City when three armed men in civilian clothes entered their bedroom looking for a person named Boy. He denied being that person, telling them that he was Bulik. He insisted that no one named Boy resided in the house. Still, the armed men frisked and arrested him and brought him to Camp Karingal, where they required him to point to a certain plastic sachet while a photograph of him in that pose was taken. No representative of the barangay, Department of Justice, or the media was present at the time.
Virginia Roxas, his mother, corroborated the version of Roxas. She recalled that she was then standing outside her house at No. 83 Kalayaan, Quezon City when a Tamaraw FX parked about 10 meters from her house. The passengers of the vehicle inquired from her about Boy. After telling them that no one by that name resided in her house, three of them entered her house while two remained outside. She panicked and started shouting. A few minutes later, the men forcibly brought out her son Bulik in handcuffs. She later on learned that her son had been brought to Camp Karingal.
As stated, on March 31, 2008, the RTC convicted Roxas as charged. His conviction was appealed to the CA, which promulgated on April 30, 2009 its decision affirming the decision of the RTC.[11]
The issue in this appeal is whether the CA erred in affirming the conviction of Roxas.
We find no reversible error on the part of the CA.
Section 5 and Section 31 of Republic Act No. 9165 pertinently provide as follows:
Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000.000.00) 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, or shall act as a broker in any such transactions.
x x x
Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof:
x x x
In drug-related prosecutions, the State bears the burden not only of proving the elements of the offenses of sale and possession of shabu under Republic Act No. 9165, but also of proving the corpus delicti, the body of the crime. To secure a conviction for illegal sale of shabu, therefore, the following essential elements must be established: (a) the identities, of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for the thing. What is material in prosecutions for illegal sale of shabu is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence.[12] The State does not comply with the indispensable requirement of proving corpus delicti when the drug is missing, and when substantial gaps occur in the chain of custody of the seized drugs as to raise doubts on the authenticity of the evidence presented in court.[13]
Despite the policemen not marking the confiscated shabu right after effecting the confiscation of the contraband following the arrest of Roxas, the RTC and the CA both found the testimonies of PO2 Magcalayo, PO3 Hernandez and PO3 Villamor consistent and positive as to the occurrence of the buy-bust operation and the consequent apprehension of Roxas in flagrante delicto for selling shabu. we hold that the State still sufficiently established all the elements of the crime charged and the identity of Roxas as the perpetrator. Our independent review of the records has not turned up with any indication of a reason to deviate from the findings of the lower courts. Thus, we accord to such findings the highest respect, for the trial court had the opportunity to directly observe the witnesses and their demeanor on the witness stand.[14]
On the other hand, Roxas did not convincingly show that the policemen had an improper motive to falsely incriminate him for the very serious crime.[15] Instead, Roxas merely denied being arrested in an entrapment procedure. His mother�s declaration that he was known as Bulik, not as the person named Boy whom the police were looking for, did not bolster his denial in the face of the firm and credible evidence of the buy-bust operation, and the identification of Roxas as the culprit in a drug-sale. In this connection, the Court wonders why, if the defense of frame-up was true, he did not bring the proper charge of planting of evidence against the members of the buy-bust team. cralaw
WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the decision promulgated on April 30, 2009 by the Court of Appeals.
Costs of suit to be paid by the appellant.�
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) EDGAR O. ARICHETA
Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 2-28; penned by Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. (now Presiding Justice) with Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. concurring.[2] TSN of April 3, 2006, p. 11.
[3] TSN of April 3, 2006, p. 18.
[4] TSN of April 3, 2006, p. 18.
[5] TSN of April 3, 2006, p. 19.
[6] TSN of April 3, 2006, p. 20.
[7] TSN of April 3, 2006, p. 24.
[8] TSN of April 3, 2006, pp. 25-26.
[9] TSN of April 3, 2006, p. 27; see also Original Records, p. 14.
[10] Original Records, pp. 15-16.
[11] CA rollo, p. 28.
[12] People v. Naquita, G.R. No. 180511, July 28, 2008, 560 SCRA 430, 449; People v. Del Monte, G.R. No. 179940, April 23, 2008, 552 SCRA 627, 637-638; People v. Santiago, G.R. No. 175326, November 28, 2007, 539 SCRA 198, 212.
[13] Pople v. Coreche, G.R. No. 182528, August 14, 2009, 596 SCRA 350, 356-357.
[14] People v. Concepcion, G.R. No. 178876, June 27, 2008, 556 SCRA 421, 440; and People v. Lim, G.R. No. 141699, August 7, 2002, 386 SCRA 581, 591; citing People v. Errojo, G.R. No. 102077, January 4, 1994, 229 SCRA 49, 56, and People v. Gomez, G.R. No. 106344, January 6, 1994, 229 SCRA 138, 144.
[15] See People v. Naquita, G.R. No. 180511, July 28, 2008, 560 SCRA 430, 454; People v. Bayani, G.R. No. 179150, June 17, 2008, 554 SCRA 741, 753.
