Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions

G.R. No. 196530 (People of the Philippines v. Luisito Tulang y Llanita, a.k.a "Louie"). - We resolve the Petition Under Rule 45 filed by accused-appellant Luisito Tulang y Llanita a.k.a. "Louie" from the 8 October 2010 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02462.^[1]

The RTC Ruling

In its 11 May 2006 Decision,^[2]  the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 2, convicted accused-appellant of violating Sec. 5, in relation to Sec. 26, and Sec. 11 of Art. II of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, in Crim. Case Nos. 02-207871 and 02-207872, respectively. Accused-appellant, was found to have been selling 0.375 gram of a white crystalline substance, known as "shabu" containing methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. He was also found to be in illegal possession of 0.304 gram of the same drug. In Crim. Case No. 02-207871, he was sentenced to life imprisonment; to pay a fine of P500,000, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; and to pay the costs. In Crim. Case No. 02-207872, he was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 12 years and 1 day as minimum to 17 years and 4 months as maximum; to pay a fine of P300,000 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; and to pay the costs. The RTC found credible the testimonies of the witnesses and the evidence presented by the prosecution. Petitioner's arrest was through a buy-bust operation, in which Police Officer 3 (PO3) Jerry Velasco, the poseur-buyer, was able to purchase one sachet of shabu  from accused-appellant. After his arrest, accused-appellant was frisked by the arresting officers, and another sachet of shabu was also found in his possession. The trial court found his defense of denial to be weak, uncorroborated, and self-serving.

The CA Ruling

On intermediate appellate review, the CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC. The CA held that the elements of the crimes charged were fully established, and that no irregularities attended the buy-bust operation and arrest. The defense failed to show any ill motive or odious intent on the part of the police operatives to impute a serious crime to petitioner. Thus, credence should be given to the narration of the incident by the police officers, who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner. The CA further ruled that the chain of custody over the seized substance was unbroken and duly established.

We now rule on the final review of the case.

Our Ruling

We deny the appeal.

After a careful review of the records of the case, we see no reason to reverse or modify the findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA.

Accused-appellant contends that the buy-bust operation was carried out in violation of R.A. 9165 when the arresting officers did not coordinate with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), or that it was conducted hastily.

Accused-appellant also avers that the CA erred in giving full weight and credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and in concluding that there was an unbroken chain of custody with respect to the allegedly confiscated drugs.

As correctly alleged by plaintiff-appellee, the transitory provision of Sec. 86 of R.A. 9165 gives members of the Philippine National Police the authority to perform their task as detail service with the PDEA until such time that the latter's organization structure should become fully operational, or within 18 months from the effectivity of the law on 4 July 2002. Considering that the buy-bust operation was conducted less than three (3) months after R.A. 9165 was passed, well within the 18-month period provided by the law, the police officers were with full authority to conduct the buy-bust operation.

Further, the CA correctly held that the chain of custody of the seized illicit drugs remained unbroken, and that no proof was adduced to support the claim that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the drugs were compromised. The prosecution clearly established that the evidence seized from the buy-bust operation was the same one tested, introduced, and testified to in court.^[3] Accused-appellant also failed to show any ill motive on the part of the arresting officers in imputing a heinous crime to him.

Finally, accused-appellant alleges that the testimonies regarding the markings on the two (2) sachets containing drugs were inconsistent. On the one hand, PO3 Jerry Velasco testified that he marked both specimens; on the other hand, Special Police Officer 3 (SPO3) Rodolfo Ramos testified that PO3 Velasco marked one specimen, while PO2 Leonardo Cipriano marked the other. However, any seeming inconsistency on this point refers to a minor detail and would not in any way destroy the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. As long as the bulk of the testimonies jibes on material points, slightly clashing statements dilute neither the witnesses' credibility nor the veracity of their testimonies.^[4]cralaw

WHEREFORE, the 8 October 2010 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02462 is hereby AFFIRMED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON 
Deputy Division Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Penned by Associate Justice Ruben C. Ayson, with Associate Justices Amelita G. Tolentino and Normandie B. Pizarro concurring, rollo, pp. 2-28

^[2] CA rollo, pp. 18-23.

^[3] People v. Cardenas, G.R. No. 190342, 21 March 2012.

^[4] People v. Tanilon, G.R. No. 94569, 11 May 1993, 221 SCRA 671.