Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions

G.R. No. 196971 (People of the Philippines v. Lourdes Agapor y Azuela, a.k.a. "Odette").

RESOLUTION 

The public prosecutor of Makati charged the accused Lourdes Agapor y Azuela, a.k.a. "Odette" (Lourdes) with violation of Section 5 of Republic Act (R.A.) 9165^[1]  before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati in Criminal Case 05-1715. She was also charged with violation of Section 11 of the same law in Criminal Case 05-1716.^[2]

The parties stipulated on existence of several documents during the pre-trial.^[3] Likewise, the testimony of P/Insp. Sharon Lontoc Fabros, the chemist, and PO3 Leo Gabrang were dispensed with.^[4]  The public prosecutor then presented PO1 Honorio Marmonejo, Jr. (PO1 Marmonejo) as his sole witness to prove the charges against Lourdes.

PO1 Marmonejo testified that on September 14, 2005 a confidential informant relayed to the Makati City Police Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Force (SAID-SOTF) that Lourdes was engaged in illegal drug pushing activities at Sandico Street, Barangay Tejeros, Makati City.^[5] Accordingly, the SAID-SOTF formed a team composed of PO1 Marmonejo who acted as the poseur-buyer, while SPO3 Luisito Puno, PO1 Percival Mendoza and PO1 Randy Santos, acted as the back-up.^[6]  After the briefing, the team proceeded to the area.

Upon their arrival in the area, the informant and PO1 Marmonejo proceeded to the house of Lourdes, where they saw her conversing with an unidentified lady. After the departure of her companion, the informant introduced PO1 Marmonejo to Lourdes as a friend who needed P200.00 worth of shabu.^[7] Lourdes asked for the money then she took out four pieces of plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance from her pocket and handed him one sachet.

Immediately, PO1 Marmonejo introduced himself as a police officer and placed Lourdes under arrest. At this point, PO1 Mendoza immediately rushed to the scene to assist PO1 Marmonejo.

The three plastic sachets in the possession of Lourdes were marked by PO1 Marmonejo at the crime scene as "@Odette" with corresponding numbers 1, 2, and 3,^[8] while the plastic sachet subject of the sale was marked "HAM". The buy-bust money was also retrieved. Subsequently, Lourdes was brought to the Makati SAID-SOTF and the retrieved white crystalline substances were forwarded to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory for drug and laboratory tests.^[9] The examination yielded positive results for methyl amphetamine hydrochloride (shabu).

Lourdes pleaded not guilty and denied the accusations against her. She claimed that on September 14, 2005 at around 1:00 p.m., she was in her house doing the laundry when six armed men suddenly barged inside. The men frisked her and directed her to empty her pockets. Thereafter, they proceeded upstairs and arrested her live-in partner.^[10] The two were brought to South Avenue, J. P. Rizal, Makati City where Lourdes was detained. Her live-in partner was subsequently released.^[11]

The RTC, in its decision dated December 18, 2007 found that all the elements for the offenses were sufficiently proven. Hence, a judgment was rendered by the trial court finding Lourdes guilty  of both charges and sentenced her to life imprisonment and to pay a P500,000.00 fine for violation of Section 5 and imprisonment of 12 years and 1 day as minimum to 20 years as maximum and to pay a P300,000.00 fine for violation of Section 11.

The Court of Appeals (CA) agreed with the RTC and accorded great weight to its factual findings. The testimony of the prosecution witness, who was involved in the buy-bust operation, was found to be credible. The CA also held that the chain of custody was established and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized prohibited drugs were properly preserved.

The main issue in this case is whether or not the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Lourdes contends that the prosecution failed to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. She claims that the proper disposition and custody of the alleged illegal drug was not followed. However, it is already too late in the day for Lourdes to raise, for the first time on appeal, the alleged non-compliance with the proper procedures stated in Section 21, Article II of R.A. 9165.^[12] To entertain this assignment of error this late would be offensive to the basic tenets of fair play.

Moreover, the Court has consistently held that non-compliance with Section 21, Article II of R.A. 9165 is not fatal for what is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.^[13]

A review of the records shows that the chain of custody was not disrupted and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized prohibited drugs in this case were properly preserved. It must be recalled that the three plastic sachets in the possession of the accused-appellant Lourdes were marked at the crime scene as "@Odette" with corresponding numbers 1, 2, and 3, while the plastic sachet subject of the sale was marked "HAM.� These same plastic sachets with markings were identified in open court.^[14]

The Court also holds that the prosecution was able to prove the existence of all the essential elements of the illegal sale and possession of shabu. Lourdes was positively identified by the prosecution witness as the person who possessed and sold the shabu presented in court. PO1 Marmonejo testified that, during the buy-bust operation, he was able to purchase from Lourdes 0.02 grams of methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug, for a consideration of P200.00. It was also established that the sale actually took place and that three more sachets were discovered in Lourdes� possession pursuant to a lawful warrantless arrest. The marked money consisting of two P100.00 bills were positively identified as the same bills provided and used in the operation. The shabu seized from Lourdes was likewise positively and categorically identified in court.

Also, there is nothing in the records that would raise suspicions as to the credibility of the prosecution witness. This is why the Court would put its imprimatur on the RTC's reliance to the testimony of PO1 Marmonejo. Besides, Lourdes merely offered denial and alibi as her defense which in the absence of convincing evidence, is invariably viewed with disfavor by the courts.^[15] 

Lastly, the failure to present the testimony of PO3 Gabrang, would not cast doubts on the integrity of the chain of custody since the testimony of PO1 Marmonejo alone is sufficient to establish the chain of custody. To present PO3 Gabrang would merely be repetitive and would not contribute as to the strength of the prosecution's case.cralaw

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court hereby DISMISSES the appeal and AFFIRMS the Decision dated May 24, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC 03239. (Peralta, J., Acting Chairperson, per Special Order 1228 dated June 6, 2012; Bersamin and Villarama, Jr., JJ., designated Acting Members in lieu of Mendoza and Velasco, Jr., JJ., respectively, per Special Orders 1229 and 1241, dated June 6, 2012 and June 14, 2012, respectively.)

SO ORDERED. 

Very truly yours,

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

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

^[2] CA rollo, pp. 12-13. 

^[3] (1) Existence of the Pre-operation/Coordination Sheet dated September 14, 2005; (2) Certificate of Coordination from the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency dated September 14, 2005; (3) Spot Report dated September 14, 2005; (4) photocopy of 2 P100.00 bills used as buy-bust money; (5) Joint Affidavit of Arrest, jointly executed by PO1 Percival C. Mendoza and PO1 Honorio Marmonejo dated September 15, 2005; (6) Final Investigation Report dated September 15, 2005; (7) Request for Laboratory Examination; (8) improvised paper pouch where the specimens were placed; (9) four (4) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets with white crystalline substance; (10) Final Laboratory Report; (11) Request for Drug Test; (12) Result of Drug Test. 

^[4] Pre-trial Order dated January 17, 2006, records, pp. 32-33. 

^[5] TSN, March 27, 2007, pp. 4-5. 

^[6] Id. at 5-6. 

^[7] Id. at 9-10. 

^[8] Id. at 11-12. 

^[9] Id. at 13. 

^[10] TSN, October 9, 2007, pp. 3-6. 

^[11] Id. at 5. 

^[12] People v. Lazaro, Jr., G.R. No. 186418, October 16, 2009, 604 SCRA 250, 273. 

^[13] People v. Daria, Jr., G.R. No. 186138, September 11, 2009, 599 SCRA 688, 699. 

^[14] TSN, March 27, 2007, p. 17. 

^[15] People v. Macabare, G.R. No. 179941, August 25, 2009, 597 SCRA 119, 127.