March 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 186464 : March 21, 2012]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PANNER "TOTS" IDAL Y SAMPORNA A.K.A. PANOTOLAN DAUNTE Y SAMPORNA
G.R. No. 186464 (People of the Philippines v. Panner "Tots� Idal y Samporna a.k.a. Panotolan Daunte y Samporna). - We resolve the appeal, filed by accused Panner "Tots" Idal y Samporna a.k.a. Panotolan Daunte y Samporna (appellant), from the April 30, 2008 decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02113.
The RTC Ruling
In its February 15, 2006 decision,[2] the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 70, convicted the appellant of illegal sale of shabu under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The RTC gave full credence to the testimonies of Police Officer I (PO1) Felimar Gonzales and PO1 Ferdinand Fallaria, the arresting officers who conducted the buy-bust operation against the appellant, and rejected the appellant's, self-serving defenses of denial and tale of extortion. It also rejected the appellant's claim of mistaken identity, noting that the appellant never raised this matter during his inquest, and that he used the name "Paner Idal" when arraigned. It sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00.
The CA Ruling
On intermediate appellate review, the CA affirmed in toto the RTC's decision, giving full respect to the RTC's calibration of the witnesses. It found that the appellant failed to overcome the presumption that the police officers regularly performed their official duties. It observed that the chain of custody over the seized items was not shown to have been broken. It noted that the appellant is estopped from raising the issue of mistaken identity since he never raised this issue at his arraignment.[3]
We now rule on the final review of the case.
Our Ruling
We dismiss the appeal.
We find no reason to reverse the findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA. In a prosecution for illegal sale, of dangerous drugs, "[w]hat is material x x x is x x x proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti."[4]
In this case, prosecution witness PO1 Gonzales, the poseur-buyer, made a positive identification of the appellant as the one who gave him the plastic sachet which contained shabu and to whom he gave the marked money during the buy-bust operation.[5] PO1 Fallaria and PO1 Gonzales both testified on the unbroken chain of custody over the seized drugs: (1) after the buy-bust operation, PO1 Gonzales marked the plastic sachet sold by appellant with "FG-1-121603";[6] (2) at the police headquarters, PO1 Fallaria forthwith prepared a request for laboratory examination of the sachet bearing the marking "FG-1-121603";[7] (3) PO1 Gonzales personally brought the request and the seized drugs to the Philippine, National Police crime laboratory on the same day;[8] and (4) the same specimen tested positive for 4.48 grams of shabu, as evidenced by Chemistry Report No. D-1304-03,[9] and was subsequently presented during trial.
The appellant's self-serving and unsubstantiated defenses of denial and tale of extortion cannot defeat the concrete evidence submitted by the prosecution. We also do not find any merit in the appellant's belated disclaimer of identity which, as noted by the CA, is an "afterthought designed for appellant to escape his inevitable conviction for the crime charged."[10]
Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 prescribes a penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00 for the sale of any dangerous drug, regardless of the quantity or purity involved. With the effectivity of RA 9346, otherwise known as "An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines," the imposition of the death penalty has been proscribed. Thus, the penalty shall be life imprisonment and a fine. The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 imposed by the RTC and affirmed by the CA is well within the range provided by law.cralaw
WHEREFORE, the April 30, 2008 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02113 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Rebecca de Guia-Salvador, and concurred in by Associate Justices Vicente S.E. Veloso and Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr.; rollo, pp. 2-19.[2] Docketed as Criminal Case No. 13187-D; CA rollo, pp. 14-20.
[3] Supra note 1.
[4] People of the Philippines v. Nelly Ulama y Arrisma, G.R. No. 186530, December 14, 2011 See also People of the Philippines v. Arnel Zapata y Canilao, G.R. No. 184054, October 19, 2011.
[5] TSN, October 14, 2003, p. 11.
[6] TSN, February 15, 2005, p. 15.
[7] Records, p. 10.
[8] TSN, February 15, 2005, p. 15.
[9] Records, p. 11.
[10] Supra note 1, at 17.