March 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 192259 : March 07, 2012]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VERSUS ROSALINDA SUMAYA Y MABALON, APPELLANT.
"G.R. No. 192259 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, versus ROSALINDA SUMAYA y MABALON, appellant.
On appeal is the February 19, 2010 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals affirming the Decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 2, of Manila, finding appellant guilty of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, or The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Appellant Rosalinda Sumaya y Mabalon was charged in an information dated September 13, 2004 accusing her of selling 0.1230 grams of white crystalline substance containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.[3] When arraigned, she pleaded not guilty to the charge.[4]
At the trial, prosecution witnesses SPO3 Pedro Valdez and PO3 Gloybell Dimacali testified that on September 7, 2004, a confidential informant came to the SAID-SOTU (Station Anti-Illegal Drugs-Special Operation Task Unit) of the Sta. Cruz Police Station and reported that a certain Linda was engaged in selling illegal drugs along Herrera Street, Sta. Cruz, Manila. Acting on the information, PS/Insp. Jay Baybayan planned an entrapment operation. PO3 Dimacali was designated as the poseur-buyer. He marked a P500 bill with a small letter "j", the initial of PS/Insp. Baybayan's first name. Thereafter, a pre-operation report was sent to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for coordination. At around 5:00 in the afternoon, the team proceeded to the target area.[5]
Upon reaching the target area, the confidential informant saw appellant alone in an alley. The informant and PO3 Dimacali approached appellant and the informant introduced PO3 Dimacali saying, "Linda, ito pare ko, kailangan lang panggamit namin." Appellant observed PO3 Dimacali for a while, then took out a small transparent plastic sachet from her right pocket. She handed the plastic sachet to PO3 Dimacali, who after examining its contents, handed appellant the P500 buy-bust money. With the sale consummated, PO3 Dimacali gave the pre-arranged signal to the other officers by scratching his head. Immediately, SPO3 Valdez and PO2 Cipriano rushed to assist PO3 Dimacali, who introduced himself to appellant as a police officer. Appellant tried to escape, but PO3 Dimacali collared her and recovered the buy-bust money. Then, they brought appellant to Jose Reyes Memorial Medical Hospital before proceeding to the police station. PO3 Dimacali marked the plastic sachet with "SAID 1" and turned it over to the police investigator in charge.[6] Forensic Chemist Annie Marie T. Pascual conducted an examination on the specimen which gave a positive result for methamphetamine hydrochloride.[7] The prosecution and the defense, however, stipulated on her qualification and dispensed with her testimony.[8]
In the face of the prosecution evidence, appellant offered the defense of denial. Appellant claimed that on September 7, 2004, she was at her sister's house at Almeda Street, Tondo, Manila when a man approached her asking where Judith resides. After giving directions to Judith's house, the man asked her if she could call Judith, but she replied that she could not as she was waiting for her niece to arrive from school. The man made a call on his mobile phone. Before long, a policeman arrived. The man pointed to her and said, "Ito, sir alam ang bahay. " The policeman allegedly tried to frisk her, but she resisted. She emptied her pockets but nothing was found. She was dragged towards the alley where she saw the other policemen arrest Judith and her brother. Then, they brought her to Jose Reyes Memorial Medical Hospital. While in detention, she alleged that she was not informed of her constitutional rights or allowed to contact any of her relatives.[9] Victoria Lledo, a neighbor of appellant's sister, testified that she witnessed how the policemen questioned and arrested appellant for no apparent reason.[10]
The RTC, in a decision dated September 10, 2008, found appellant guilty as charged and sentenced her to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. The RTC found that prosecution witnesses PO3 Dimacali and SPO3 Valdez testified in a clear and convincing manner how the buy-bust operation was conducted against appellant. It also held that appellant failed to show any ill motive on the part of the policemen to falsely testify against her.
The CA, as aforesaid, affirmed the RTC's judgment of conviction. It found no reason to overturn the RTC findings as it assessed the witnesses to be candid and straightforward. It held that the prosecution was able to establish the elements to support appellant's conviction. The CA also concluded that the prosecution was able to establish the chain of custody of the confiscated substance, and that the integrity and probative value thereof have been duly preserved.
Aggrieved, appellant filed the present appeal[11] reiterating her arguments in her appellant's brief filed before the CA. In her brief before the CA, she questioned the integrity of the evidence used against her on the ground that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody of the seized illegal drugs as the police officers failed to make an inventory and take a photograph of the items allegedly seized from her as required under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.
The appeal lacks merit.
Although Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165 mandates that the apprehending team must immediately conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph them, non-compliance with said Section 21 is not fatal as long as there is a justifiable ground therefor, and as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated/seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team.[12]
A circumspect review of the evidence extant on the records would reveal that the seized sachet of shabu remained in the custody of PO3 Dimacali from the time it was handed to him by appellant during the buy-bust operation until they arrived at the police station. PO3 Dimacali marked the plastic with the initials "SAID 1" and turned it over, together with the person of the appellant, to the police investigator. The request for laboratory examination was personally delivered by SPO3 Valdez to the National Bureau of Investigation in Manila for physical examination of the substance. Forensic Chemist Annie Marie T. Pascual received the letter-request on the same day and performed a qualitative examination on the substance. She prepared Dangerous Drugs Report No. DD-04-293 which confirmed that the substance was positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. When presented in court, PO3 Dimacali positively identified the same plastic sachet which appellant handed to him during the conduct of the buy-bust operation. Evidently, these links in the chain of custody are undisputed and the integrity of the seized drugs remained intact. In fine, the prosecution was able to establish that the identity, integrity, and evidentiary value of the seized dangerous drugs have not been compromised from the time of its seizure to its presentation in evidence as part of the corpus delicti.
Jurisprudence teems with pronouncements that failure to comply strictly with Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 does not necessarily render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible. To reiterate, what assumes utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as these are the critical pieces of evidence in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[13]
The Court moreover finds no compelling reason to reverse the findings of the trial court and the CA. Settled is the rule that the findings and conclusion of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect because the trial courts have the advantage of observing the demeanor of witnesses as they testify.[14] The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the CA as in this case.[15] Absent any showing that the lower courts overlooked substantial facts and circumstances, which if considered, would change the result of the case, this Court gives deference to the trial court's appreciation of the facts and of the credibility of witnesses.cralaw
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The February 19, 2010 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03544 is AFFIRMED.
Costs against the appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) EDGAR O. ARICHETA
Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 2-10. Penned by Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe (now a member of this Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Rebecca De Guia-Salvador and Jane Aurora C. Lantion.[2] CA rollo, pp. 13-19. Penned by Judge Alejandro G. Bijasa.
[3] Id. at 8.
[4] Records, p. 11.
[5] TSN, May 2, 2006, pp. 2-4: TSN, October 16, 2006, pp. 2-4.
[6] Id. at 5-6; id. at 4-12.
[7] Records, Exh. "C" to �C-1", p. 68.
[8] Pre-Trial Order, records, p. 11.
[9] TSN, February 9, 2007, pp. 3-11.
[10] TSN, September 8, 2008, pp. 3-5.
[11] CA rollo, pp. 94-96.
[12] People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 75832, October 15, 2008, 569 SCRA 194, 211-212.
[13] See People v. Teodoro, G.R. No. 185164, June 22, 2009, 590 SCRA 494, 507, citing People v. Naquita, G.R. No. 180511, July 28, 2008, 560 SCRA 430, 448, People v. Del Monte, G.R. No. 179940, April 23, 2008, 552 SCRA 627, 636 and People v. Pringas, G.R. No. 175928, August 31, 2007, 531 SCRA 828. 842-843.
[14] People v. Lazaro, Jr., G.R. No. 186418. October 16, 2009, 604 SCRA 250, 268.
[15] People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 177569, November 28, 2007, 539 SCRA 306, 314.
