March 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 198315 : March 19, 2012]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RANNIE GULAPA Y ORDINARIO
G.R. No. 198315 [People of the Philippines v. Rannie Gulapa y Ordinario].- After deliberating on the appeal assailing the September 30, 2010 Decision of the Court of Appeals, Manila and its February 1, 2011 Resolution, in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03881, and considering the allegations, issues and arguments adduced therein, the Court resolves to DISMISS the appeal for failure to show any reversible error in the challenged judgment as to warrant the exercise of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
The accused tried to convince this Court that he and his deceased brother were victims of frame-up and extortion. He claimed that they were arrested and eventually charged with the crime of selling and possession of illegal drugs simply because they failed to identify the persons that the police officers were trying to apprehend on that fateful day. He also alleged that the arresting officers tried to extort P20,000.00 from each of them in exchange for their freedom. Basically, the accused denied that there was a buy-bust operation that happened in the first place.
After a study of the records of the case, the Court is not persuaded. In a long line of drug-related cases, denial, alibi and frame-up have been considered to be weak forms of defense. For this reason this Court is careful in appreciating them and giving them probative value because they are the easiest forms of defense to concoct. The Court is not unaware of instances when law enforcers would resort to planting evidence to extract information. It realizes, however, the disastrous consequences on the enforcement of law and order, if the courts would simply accept in every instance this form of defense solely on the basis of the police officers� alleged rotten reputation. Thus, the legal presumption that official duty has been regularly performed exists. Base denial cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by the apprehending officers. For said defense to prosper, the accused must adduce clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that government officials have performed their duties in a regular and proper manner.[1] the accused apparently failed to present any controverting evidence to support his claim of frame-up and extortion.
Furthermore, he failed to show any motive on the part of the arresting officers to implicate him and his brother in the said crime. In the case of People v. Dela Rosa, this Court held that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary suggesting ill motive on the part of the police officers.[2] The accused�s assertion that they were arrested because they refused to identify the persons the police were chasing in their area is unbelievable. Without anything to support it, the claim deserves scant consideration.
Finally, the accused alleged that the corpus delicti was placed in doubt when the buy-bust team failed to comply with the mandatory procedure for the custody of dangerous drugs under Section 21 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 which requires that immediately after seizure and confiscation of the drugs, the same should be physically inventoried and photographed 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.
In the case of Francisco Imson v. People,[3] the Court held that the failure of the policemen to make a physical inventory and to photograph the plastic sachets containing shabu does not render the confiscated items inadmissible in evidence. Citing the case of People v. Campos,[4] this Court explained that:
The alleged procedural lapses in the conduct of the buy-bust operation, namely the lack of prior coordination with the PDEA and the failure to inventory and photograph the confiscated items immediately after the operation, are not fatal to the prosecution�s cause.
x x x x
The absence of an inventory of personal effects seized from appellant becomes immaterial to the legitimacy of the buy-bust operation for it is enough that it is established that the operation was indeed conducted and that the identity of the seller and the drugs subject of the sale are proven. People v. Concepcion so instructs:
"After going over the evidence on record, we find that there, indeed, was a buy-bust operation involving appellants. The prosecution's failure to submit in evidence the required physical inventory of the seized drugs and the photography pursuant to Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 will not exonerate appellants. Non-compliance with said section is not fatal and will not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused."[5] (Emphasis supplied.)
In the case of People v. Kamad,[6] the Court enumerated the different links that the prosecution must prove to establish the chain of custody in a buy-bust operation, namely: (1) the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer: (2) the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and (4) the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court.
In the case at bench, the buy-bust team may have failed to photograph or make an inventory of the seized articles as required by Section 21 of R.A. 9165. Considering the above-mentioned guidelines, however, the Court notes that the team was indeed able to preserve the integrity of the items seized from the persons of the accused and his brother. This can be deduced from the findings of the lower court, to wit:
In the instant case, the integrity of the drugs seized from appellant was preserved. The chain of custody of the drugs subject matter of the case was shown not to have been broken. After PO1 Anzures seized and confiscated the dangerous drugs from accused, same were immediately turned-over to PO2 Hipolito, the investigator of the case, who then marked the same in the presence of the former. The plastic sachet sold to PO1 Anzures was marked �ROMMEL/RANNIE GULAPA-1 (BUY BUST),� while he positively identified the other plastic sachets that were confiscated from accused Rommel and which was likewise enclosed in a bigger plastic sachet. As requested, the plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance were forwarded to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory, Northern Police District Crime Laboratory Office, Caloocan City, for laboratory examination to determine the presence of any dangerous drug. Per Physical Science Report No. D-568-04, the specimens submitted contain methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.[7]cralaw
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the September 30, 2010 Decision of the Court of Appeals and its February 1, 2011 Resolution in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03881 which sustained the February 17, 2009 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 120 in Criminal Case No. C-71753, finding the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of Life Imprisonment and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] People v. Del Monte, G.R. No. 179940, April 23, 2008, 552 SCRA 627, 639.
[2] G.R. No. 185166, January 26, 2011, 640 SCRA 635, 657.
[3] G.R. No. 19003, July 13, 2011.
[4] G.R. No. 186526, 25 August 2010, 629 SCRA 462.
[5] Id. at 467-468.
[6] G.R. No. 174198, January 19, 2010, 610 SCRA 295, 307, 308.
[7] RTC, Branch 120, Caloocan City, Decision, February 17,2000.