February 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 196257 : February 08, 2012]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. FAIZAL ASKALANI Y SULDANI AND ALFREDO DUNGGUN Y SALID, A. K. A. "FREDO"
G.R. No. 196257 (People of the Philippines v. Faizal Askalani y Suldani and Alfredo Dunggun y Salid, a. k. a. "Fredo ")
RESOLUTION
Accused-appellants Faizal Askalani y Suldani (Faizal) and Alfredo Dunggun y Salid a.k.a. "Fredo" (Alfredo) assail the December 17, 2010 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00656-MIN, which dismissed their appeal from and affirmed the August 28, 2008 Decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 13 in Zamboanga City, in Criminal Case Nos. 5253 (20433), 5254 (20434), and 5255 (20435). The RTC convicted them of the crime of selling and possessing dangerous drugs (methamphetamine hydrochloride) under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Faizal was charged with violation of Secs. 5 and 11, Art. II of RA 9165 or for selling and possessing dangerous drugs, respectively, on two (2) Informations similarly dated March 2, 2004, respectively docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 5253 (20433) and 5254 (20434). On the other hand, Alfredo was charged with violation of Sec. 11, Art. II of RA 9165 or for possession of dangerous drugs, docketed as Criminal Case No. 5255 (20435). The Informations read:
(a) Criminal Case No. 5253 (20433):
That on or about March 1, 2004, in the City of Zamboanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law to sell, deliver, transport, distribute or give away to another any regulated drug, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, SELL, and DELIVER to PO2 RUDY DELENA y BALNEG, a member of the PNP, who acted as buyer, two (2) small size heat-sealed transparent plastic packs containing 0.0330 gram of white crystalline substance which when subjected to qualitative examination gave positive result to the tests for METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE (Shabu), knowing the same to be a dangerous drugs.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]
(b) Criminal Case No. 5254 (20434):
That on or about March 1, 2004, in the City of Zamboanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, have in his possession and under his custody and control, two (2) small size heat-sealed transparent plastic packs containing white crystalline substance having a total weight of 0.0340 gram, which when subjected to qualitative examination gave positive result to the tests for METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE (Shabu), knowing the same to be a dangerous drugs.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[4]
(c) Criminal Case No.5255 (20435):
That on or about March 1, 2004, in the City of Zamboanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, have in his possession and under his custody and control, three (3) small size heat-sealed transparent plastic packs containing white crystalline substance having a total weight of 0.0684 gram, which when subjected to qualitative examination gave positive result to the tests for METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE (Shabu), knowing the same to be a dangerous drugs.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[5]
Faizal and Alfredo pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged during arraignment. After termination of the joint pre-trial conference, the three cases were tried jointly.
The CA succinctly summarized the evidence for the prosecution, thus:
x x x On 1 March 2004, at about 1:00 p.m., PO2 Dele�a, assigned at Sta. Maria, Zamboanga City Police Station, Task Force Tumba Droga, received an information from a confidential informant that a certain Faizal (later identified as accused-appellant Askalani) was selling shabu at his residence at Seagal Drive, Barangay Recodo, Zamboanga City. PO2 Delena reported the matter to Police Inspector Ricardo Garcia. The latter immediately called a briefing, which was attended by PO1 Amado Mirasol Jr., PO3 Jimenez, PO3 Apolinario Naraga, PO1 Ronald Cordero, PO1 Hilda Montuno, PO2 Dele�a and the informant. PO2 Dele�a was designated as the poseur-buyer, and was given two pieces of P100.00 to be used as marked money. PO2 Jimenez was assigned as the arresting officer, or immediate back-up.
At about 3:00 p.m., the police team proceeded to Seagal Drive, Purok 7 in Recodo. When they arrived at the target area, PO2 Dele�a and PO3 Jimenez parked their motorcycles on the road, about 50 meters away from the house of accused-appellant Askalani. PO2 Dele�a and the informant walked towards the house of accused-appellant Askalani. PO3 Jimenez positioned himself about three meters away, while the rest of the team strategically positioned themselves near the target area.
When PO2 Dele�a and the informant reached the house, the informant called to accused-appellant Askalani. Accused-appellant Askalani appeared, and the informant told him, "Tiene qui scorer" (There's a scorer here). In response, accused-appellant Askalani asked them, "Magkano?" (How much?). PO2 Dele�a replied, "Dos peso lang" (Two pesos only). Accused-appellant Askalin instructed a companion (later identified as accused-appellant Dunggun) to get the money from PO2 Dele�a. PO2 Dele�a gave the two pieces of P100.00 marked money to accused-appellant Dunggun. Accused-appellant Askalani gave PO2 Delena two sachets containing a white crystalline substance. Immediately thereafter, PO2 Delena executed the pre-arranged signal by raising his left hand. PO3 Jimenez rushed to the scene, and assisted PO2 Dele�a in arresting the two accused-appellants. PO2 Dele�a, identified himself as a policeman, and frisked and search accused-appellant Askalani. The search yielded two sachets containing a white crystalline substance from the pocket of accused-appellant Askalani's pants. PO2 Dele�a recovered the marked money from accused-appellant Dunggun. PO2 Dele�a and PO3 Jimenez handcuffed the two accused-appellants, and informed them of their constitutional rights. PO3 Jimenez searched accused-appellant Dunggun, and recovered three sachets containing a white crystalline substance from the pocket of his maong pants.
Thereafter, the accused-appellants were brought to the Zamboanga City Police Office for investigation. At the Police Office, in the presence of the two accused-appellants, PO2 Dele�a placed the markings on the four sachets containing the white crystalline substance taken from accused-appellant Askalani, thus: "RD1", "RD2", "RD3", and "RD4�. Then PO2 Dele�a turned over the four sachets to PO3 Efren Gregorio, the investigator of the case. PO3 Jimenez, in the presence of the two accused-appellants, also marked the three sachets containing the white crystalline substance seized from accused-appellant Dunggun, thus: "EJ1�, "EJ2� and "EJ3". The three sachets seized from accused-appellant Dunggun were turned over to PO3 Gregorio. Thereafter, PO3 Gregorio marked all the seven sachets containing the white crystalline substance, as follows: "EG-1" to "EG-7". He then submitted them to PNP Crime Laboratory Office-IX for laboratory examination.
Police Chief Inspector Mercedes D. Diestro, Forensic Chemist, received the Laboratory Examination Request on 1 March 2004, at 8:30 p.m., and performed the corresponding laboratory tests. Per Chemistry Report No. D-055-2004, qualitative examination of the contents of the seven sachets recovered from the accused-appellants yielded a positive result for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug.[6]
On the other hand, Faizal and Alfredo raised the defense of denial and frame-up. They averred renting separate rooms in a three-room house with the middle room vacant. In the late afternoon of March 1, 2004, police officers arrested Faizal beside a road and brought him to his rented room which they searched for, without a search warrant, but could not find any shabu. Alfredo was arrested in the rented premises and was likewise asked where they hid the shabu, but to no avail.[7] The assertions of accused-appellants[8] were corroborated by Faizal's friend, Bobong Salazar;[9] and Alfredo's wife, Sitti Wanal Dunggun,[10] and cousin, Rodolfo Dunggun.[11]
The RTC convicted accused-appellants of the crimes charged. The decretal portion of its August 28, 2008 Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court finds:
(1) (2) (3) x x x x SO ORDERED.[12]
Accused-appellants timely appealed[13] their conviction before the CA. On December 17, 2010, the CA rendered the assailed decision that affirmed the RTC Decision and dismissed the appeal of accused-appellants.
Thus, We have this appeal. We consider the same assignment of errors raised in accused-appellants' Brief before the CA, as adopted in their Supplemental Brief, as follows:
I
WITH DUE RESPECT, THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE HEREIN APPELLANTS DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE THEIR GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
II
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE HEREIN ACCUSED-APPELLANTS DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION'S WITNESS TO ESTABLISH THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY OVER THE SEIZED SACHETS OF SHABU THEY BEING FRUIT OF POISONOUS TREE
III
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE HEREIN APPELLANTS BY RELYING ON THE REGULARITY IN THE PERFORMANCE OF PUBLIC DUTY BY THE ALLEGED ARRESTING OFFICERS
IV
THE DECISION OF THE COURT A QUO IS CONTRARY TO EXISTING JURISPRUDENCE[14]
The appeal must be denied.
Considering the errors raised, We reviewed the records of the case but find no persuasive reason to disturb the assailed CA decision.
Elements for illegal sale and possession of shabu established
First off, the prosecution has proved the offenses of illegal sale and possession of shabu proscribed under Secs. 5 and 11 of RA 9165.
For the successful prosecution of the illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and its payment.[15] What is material is the proof that the transaction actually took place, coupled with the presentation before the court of the corpus delicti.[16]
In the instant case, We find that the prosecution has duly established the above elements for illegal sale of shabu through an entrapment operation.
Poseur-buyer Police Officer 2 (PO2) Rudy Dele�a positively identified Faizal as the one who sold and handed him two sachets of shabu for PhP 200. It is of no moment that Faizal did not personally receive the payment of marked money, i.e., the two PhP 100 bills, as he ordered Alfredo to get them from PO2 Dele�a before Faizal handed the two sachets of shabu to him PO2 Dele�a. Thus, the illegal sale of shabu by Faizal was consummated. The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction between the entrapment officers and the accused.[17]
Moreover, for an accused to be convicted of illegal possession of prohibited or regulated drugs, the following elements must concur: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possesses the said drug.[18]
The foregoing elements for illegal possession of shabu were likewise proven. Upon their arrest, Faizal and Alfredo were frisked. The search resulted in the seizure of two more sachets from Faizal by PO2 Dele�a and three sachets from Alfredo by PO3 Enrico Jimenez, all containing shabu. Accused-appellants' possession of the sachets containing shabu could not be doubted, nor their lack of lawful authority to possess shabu. And more importantly, considering that their arrest was made through a buy-bust operation, there can be no iota of doubt that they possessed the dangerous drug with full volition.
When an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the arresting officer to search the person arrested so as to deprive the latter of any weapon that he might use as instrument to resist arrest or effect his escape. In addition, it is entirely reasonable for the arresting officer to search for and seize any evidence on the arrestee's person in order to prevent its concealment or destruction.[19]
We now tackle the other issues raised by accused-appellants.
There was a valid entrapment operation
Accused-appellants assail the erroneous admission of the seven sachets of shabu allegedly seized from them, since, as they claim, these were merely planted, there being no valid and legitimate buy-bust operation conducted by the arresting officers.
We are not persuaded. The records of the instant case belie the arguments of accused-appellants, for the testimonial and documentary evidence show a valid entrapment operation. It is well-settled that a buy-bust operation is a valid means of arresting violators of RA 9165.[20]
The RTC accorded more weight to the testimony of the prosecution's witnesses vis-a-vis those of the defense. So did the appellate court. When it comes to credibility, the RTC's assessment deserves great weight and is even conclusive and binding, if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence.[21] Accused-appellants have not shown nor do the records show any fact of weight or circumstance that the courts a quo overlooked. Indeed, 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.[22]
As found by the courts a quo, the testimonies of arresting officer PO2 Dele�a[23] were given in a direct, straightforward, and categorical manner. His narration of facts included ample details on how the buy-bust operation developed from the initial information provided by a confidential informant at around 1:00 p.m. up to the actual entrapment conducted in the rented premises of accused-appellants a couple of hours later. The testimony of the investigating officer, PO3 Efren Gregorio[24] � regarding the markings made on the seized plastic sachets containing shabu, his delivery of the sachets to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory for forensic analysis in the evening of the same day of the entrapment operation and arrest of accused-appellants, until the next day when he received the laboratory results showing positive results for the presence of shabu�was just as direct and straightforward.
Besides, the defenses of denial and frame-up have been invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor, for they can easily be concocted and are common and standard defense ploys in prosecution for violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act.[25] Unless there is clear and convincing evidence that members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive or were not properly performing their duty, their testimonies on the buy-bust operation deserve full faith and credit.[26]
Chain of custody rule complied with
Accused-appellants also assert failure by the prosecution to prove the chain of custody of the alleged seized shabu. In this regard, they point to the direct testimony of investigating officer PO3 Gregorio, who cannot recall the policeman on duty to whom he delivered the sachets for forensic examination. Thus, they argue that it behooves the trial and appellate courts not to admit Chemistry Report No. D-055-2004[27] issued by forensic chemist Police Chief Inspector Mercedes Diestro (P/CInsp. Diestro), who was not presented to testify, thus negating the defense's right to cross-examine her.
We are not convinced. One with the trial court, the CA categorically found and so ruled that the chain of custody of the seized plastic sachets containing shabu was not broken, for the prosecution duly established the crucial custodial link from the moment of seizure to presentation as evidence in open court. We see no reason to set aside this unanimous factual finding of the courts a quo.
The chain of custody 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.[28] What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as these factors are highly considered in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[29]
The prosecution had established the crucial link in the chain of custody of the seized sachets with shabu from the time they were first discovered until they were brought for examination.[30] Evidently clear from the records is the fact that accused-appellants were arrested and brought to the police office. Thereat, in the presence of accused-appellants, the seized shabu in seven sachets were marked by arresting officers-PO2 Dele�a (four sachets with "RD") and PO3 Jimenez (three sachets with "EJ"), then all seven sachets were likewise marked with "EG" by investigating officer PO3 Gregorio. Thereafter, for purposes of the inquest proceedings, the drug specimens were brought by PO3 Gregorio to the PNP crime laboratory for forensic examination and were received by P/SInsp. Diestro at 8:30 p.m.[31] through a covering request for Laboratory Examination.[32]
The following morning, PO3 Gregorio received Chemistry Report No. D-055-2004 issued by P/SInsp. Diestro, showing positive test results for shabu from the seven sachets. It is, thus, clear that the identity and integrity of the seized sachets with shabu, as part of the corpus delicti, have been preserved from the time these were confiscated until the time these were presented in the trial court. On March 29, 2005, Police Chief Inspector Constante Sonido, Chief of the Regional Crime Laboratory, Region 9 presented the specimens in court.[33] These sachets containing shabu seized by PO2 Dele�a and PO3 Jimenez were the same ones qualitatively tested by P/SInsp. Diestro and eventually presented in the trial court. Besides, the integrity of the evidence is presumed to be preserved, unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill-will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered with,[34] which accused-appellants failed to do.
Non-compliance with Sec. 21, RA 9165 not fatal to the prosecution
Accused-appellants also assail the non-compliance by the apprehending officers with the mandatory requirements of Sec. 21 (1),[35] Art. II of RA 9165. There was, as they claimed, no physical inventory of the seized items and no photographs taken of the alleged seized shabu in the presence of accused-appellants who were not furnished signed copies of the inventory. They argue that the RTC, as sustained by the CA, patently erred in applying the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by the arresting officers, considering that they failed to observe the proper procedure in the custody of seized drugs.
Accused-appellants are mistaken. Non-compliance with Sec. 21, Art. II of RA 9165 is not fatal and will not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him or her inadmissible.[36] What is material is the proof that the transaction actually took place, coupled with the presentation before the court of a. specimen of the seized object as part of the corpus delicti,[37] as in the instant case. There was a valid entrapment operation, with Faizal consummating an illegal sale of shabu to poseur-buyer PO2 Dele�a. The identity and integrity of the seized shabu were preserved through an unbroken chain of custody until it was presented in court.
Neither will the non-issuance of a receipt for the confiscated drugs weaken the prosecution's case, since such a receipt is not essential to establishing a criminal case for selling or possessing drugs as it is not an element of either crime.[38]
All told, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the offenses of illegal sale of shabu committed by Faizal and illegal possession of shabu by Faizal and Alfredo.
As to the penalties imposed, they are in accord with Secs. 5 and 11 of RA 9165.cralaw cralaw
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The December 17, 2010 CA Decision in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00656-MIN is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against accused-appellants.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 2-19. Penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela and concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo A. Camello and Leoncia R. Dimagiba.[2] CA rollo, pp. 28-38. Penned by Presiding Judge Eric D. Elumba.
[3] Records, Folder I, p. 1.
[4] Id.
[5] Id., Folder II, p. 1.
[6] Rollo, pp. 7-9.
[7] Id. at 9-10.
[8] TSN, July 21, 2005 (Testimony of Faizal on direct examination and cross-examination), July 21, 2005 (Testimony of Alfredo on direct examination, cross-examination and re-direct examination).
[9] TSN, July 20, 2005 (direct examination and cross-examination).
[10] Id.
[11] TSN, July 22, 2005 (direct examination and cross-examination).
[12] CA rollo, pp. 36-37.
[13] Records, Folder II, pp. 96, dated September 8, 2008.
[14] CA rollo, pp. 8-9.
[15] Cruz v. People, G.R. No. 164580, February 6, 2009, 578 SCRA 147, 152.
[16] 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.
[17] People v. Encila, G.R. No. 182419, February 10, 2009, 578 SCRA 341, 356.
[18] People v. Partoza, G.R. No. 182418, May 8, 2009, 587 SCRA 809, 816.
[19] Valeroso v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 164815, September 3, 2009, 598 SCRA 41, 55-56.
[20] People v. Sevilla, G.R. No. 174862, June 16, 2009, 589 SCRA 292, 295-296.
[21] People v. Basmayor, G.R. No. 182791, February 10, 2009, 578 SCRA 369, 382-383.
[22] People v. Sevilla, supra note 20, at 295.
[23] TSN, March 29, 2005 (direct examination), March 30, 2005 (cross-examination and re-direct examination), March 31, 2005 (re-cross-examination).
[24] TSN, April 1, 2005 (direct examination and cross-examination).
[25] People v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 184804, June 18, 2009, 589 SCRA 625, 642.
[26] People v. Tion, G.R. No. 172092, December 16, 2009, 608 SCRA 299, 316; citing People v. Domingcil, G.R. No. 140679, January 14, 2004, 419 SCRA 303.
[27] List of Exhibits, Evidence Folder. Exhibit "E of the Prosecution, dated March 1, 2004 at 9:55 p.m. (2155H) and signed by P/CInsp. Diestro. This was subscribed to by P/SInsp. Roderick Cando Pausal on March 2, 2004.
[28] Zalameda v. People, G.R. No. 183656, September 4, 2009, 598 SCRA 537, 558.
[29] People v. Macatingag, G.R. No. 181037, January 19, 2009, 576 SCRA 354, 369; citing People v. Naquita,G.R.No. 180511, July 28, 2008, 560 SCRA 340.
[30] People v. Teodoro, G.R. No. 185164, June 22, 2009, 590 SCRA 494, 506.
[31] Records, Folder I, p. 5. See also List of Exhibits, Evidence Folder, marked as Exhibit "A-l-A," receipt of the request for laboratory examination delivered by PO3 Gregorio, duly receipted and signed by P/CInsp. Diestro of the Regional Crime Laboratory Office 9.
[32] List of Exhibits, Evidence Folder. Exhibit "A" of the Prosecution, dated March 1, 2004 and signed by PO3 Gregorio.
[33] TSN, March 29, 2005.
[34] People v. Hernandez, supra note 25, at 647.
[35] SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. � The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(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.
[36] People v. Teodoro, supra note 30, at 507.
[37] People v. Cabugatan, supra note 16; People v. Del Mundo, supra note 16.
[38] People v. Magbanua, G.R. No. 170137, August 27, 2009, 597 SCRA 287, 296-297; citing Teodosio v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124346, June 8, 2004, 431 SCRA 194, 207.
