July 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > July 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 182923 : July 02, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. CLEMENTE G. CENTENO :
[G.R. No. 182923 : July 02, 2010]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. CLEMENTE G. CENTENO
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 02 July 2010, which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 182923* (People of the Philippines v. Clemente G. Centeno).
This case is about the sufficiency of evidence respecting the crime of sale of illegal drugs when the prosecution did not present the poseur-buyer in court to testify on the transaction.
The Assistant City Prosecutor of Calamba, Laguna, charged the accused Clemente Centeno (Centeno) with the Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act 9165[1] before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Calamba City in Criminal Case 11162-03-C.
The prosecution evidence shows that PO2 Arnold Gazo and his team received a tip that accused Centeno had been selling illegal drugs near his house. The police devised an entrapment plan in which a police informer or asset would buy shabu from Centeno, using marked money.[2]
The policemen tailed their asset, staying at the side of a house in clear view of three men playing "tong-its." The asset spoke with the accused who, upon receipt of the marked money, gave the asset a small plastic sachet containing white substance. When the asset scratched his head, a signal that the sale had gone through, police officers Errol Perez and Ferdinand Mailom immediately arrested Centeno and ordered him to bring out the marked money. Police Officer Gazo took from the asset the small plastic sachet that he received from Centeno. Gazo then placed his initials "ALG"[3] on the sachet. He also requested[4] the police crime laboratory to examine the seized substance.
Police Inspector Donna Villa P. Huelgas, forensic chemist of the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory, examined the white crystalline substance found in the plastic sachet marked "ALG" and found that it was Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, with aggregate weight of 0.04 gram.[5]
Accused Centeno denied the charge against him. He maintained that he did not sell shabu to the police asset mentioned and denied that the police seized some buy-bust money from him. He claimed that while he was playing "tong-its" with two vendors, five unidentified men arrived and ordered them to empty their pockets an dput thier money on the table. The men also firsked and searched them. One of the five men, later identified as PO2 Arnold Gazo, got Centeno's money and told him to go to the police station. Since Centeno refused, the police charged him with selling shabu.
Elizabeth Sanchez, Centeno's live-in partner, testified that she was watching Centeno and two other men play "tong-its" when several men appeared and ordered Centeno and his companions to empty their pockets. She saw the strange men picked a P100.00 bill and brought Centeno to the police station. Sanchez claimed that Centeno had never been involved in illegal drug activities.
On January 31, 2006 the RTC of Calamba City found accused Centeno guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500.000.00. Centeno appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals (CA). On January 22, 2008 the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC,[6] prompting Centeno to appeal to this Court.
The issue presented in this case is whether or not the CA erred in affirming the conviction of accused Centeno for the crime of selling prohibited drugs despite the prosecution's failure to present the poseur-buyer in court.
Centeno assails the correctness of the CA decision, pointing out that it affirmed his conviction notwithstanding the prosecution's failure to present its best witness, the poseur-buyer. Such failure is fatal to the prosecution's case. Since it was the poseur-buyer's testimony was indispensable, moreso because Centeno denied having committed the alleged crime.
The failure of the poseur-buyer to testify on the actual purchase is not fatal to the prosecution's cause.[7] In every prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, what is material is the submission of proof that the sale took place between the poseur-buyer and the seller and the presentation of the drug as evidence in court.[8] Here, the police officers who testified in court arrested Centeno in flagrante delicto in the course of a buy-bust operation. Consequently, involved as they were in the entrapment, the police officers personally witnessed the sale of shabu that the poseur-buyer concluded with Centeno.[9]
Centeno failed to show that police officers Gazo and Mailom were inspired by some ill motive or were not properly performing their duty. Thus, their testimonies with respect to the buy-bust operation deserve full faith and credit.
An important element of the crime of illegal sale of drugs that the prosecution must prove is the existence and integrity of the corpus delicti. Since prohibited drugs are not readily identifiable by sight or touch and can easily be tampered with or substituted,[10] there is a need for proof that the transaction or sale or had acutally taken place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.[11] Reliance on the presumption of regularity in the performance of duties is not enough for a conviction. Once challenged by evidence of flawed chain of custody, the presumption of regularity cannot prevail over the presumption of innocence.[12]
Here, police officer Gazo took from the asset the small plastic sachet he received from Centeno right on the spot where and when the sale was concluded. Gazo then placed his initials "ALG"[13] on the sachet and brought it to the Crime Laboratory for examination. The forensic chemist confirmed when she testified that the specimen was personally brought to her in the same "small heat-sealed" transparent plastic sachet that carried the markings "ALG."[14] This signifies that, because the substance was in marked and sealed plastic container, it had not been tampered with before getting into the hands of the forensic chemist. The latter testified that it was the substance she examined and found positive for shabu. The prosecution has proved the existence of corpus delicti.
The defense presented Centeno's live-in partner as a witness. But she is an interested witness, who in the ordinary course of life and events, would never want to see her partner found guilty of a crime. Thus, her testimony comes from a doubtful source.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the appeal and entirely AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC 01993 dated January 22, 2008.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 182923* (People of the Philippines v. Clemente G. Centeno).
This case is about the sufficiency of evidence respecting the crime of sale of illegal drugs when the prosecution did not present the poseur-buyer in court to testify on the transaction.
The Facts and the Case
The Assistant City Prosecutor of Calamba, Laguna, charged the accused Clemente Centeno (Centeno) with the Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act 9165[1] before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Calamba City in Criminal Case 11162-03-C.
The prosecution evidence shows that PO2 Arnold Gazo and his team received a tip that accused Centeno had been selling illegal drugs near his house. The police devised an entrapment plan in which a police informer or asset would buy shabu from Centeno, using marked money.[2]
The policemen tailed their asset, staying at the side of a house in clear view of three men playing "tong-its." The asset spoke with the accused who, upon receipt of the marked money, gave the asset a small plastic sachet containing white substance. When the asset scratched his head, a signal that the sale had gone through, police officers Errol Perez and Ferdinand Mailom immediately arrested Centeno and ordered him to bring out the marked money. Police Officer Gazo took from the asset the small plastic sachet that he received from Centeno. Gazo then placed his initials "ALG"[3] on the sachet. He also requested[4] the police crime laboratory to examine the seized substance.
Police Inspector Donna Villa P. Huelgas, forensic chemist of the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory, examined the white crystalline substance found in the plastic sachet marked "ALG" and found that it was Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, with aggregate weight of 0.04 gram.[5]
Accused Centeno denied the charge against him. He maintained that he did not sell shabu to the police asset mentioned and denied that the police seized some buy-bust money from him. He claimed that while he was playing "tong-its" with two vendors, five unidentified men arrived and ordered them to empty their pockets an dput thier money on the table. The men also firsked and searched them. One of the five men, later identified as PO2 Arnold Gazo, got Centeno's money and told him to go to the police station. Since Centeno refused, the police charged him with selling shabu.
Elizabeth Sanchez, Centeno's live-in partner, testified that she was watching Centeno and two other men play "tong-its" when several men appeared and ordered Centeno and his companions to empty their pockets. She saw the strange men picked a P100.00 bill and brought Centeno to the police station. Sanchez claimed that Centeno had never been involved in illegal drug activities.
On January 31, 2006 the RTC of Calamba City found accused Centeno guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500.000.00. Centeno appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals (CA). On January 22, 2008 the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC,[6] prompting Centeno to appeal to this Court.
The Issue Presented
The issue presented in this case is whether or not the CA erred in affirming the conviction of accused Centeno for the crime of selling prohibited drugs despite the prosecution's failure to present the poseur-buyer in court.
The Ruling of the Court
Centeno assails the correctness of the CA decision, pointing out that it affirmed his conviction notwithstanding the prosecution's failure to present its best witness, the poseur-buyer. Such failure is fatal to the prosecution's case. Since it was the poseur-buyer's testimony was indispensable, moreso because Centeno denied having committed the alleged crime.
The failure of the poseur-buyer to testify on the actual purchase is not fatal to the prosecution's cause.[7] In every prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, what is material is the submission of proof that the sale took place between the poseur-buyer and the seller and the presentation of the drug as evidence in court.[8] Here, the police officers who testified in court arrested Centeno in flagrante delicto in the course of a buy-bust operation. Consequently, involved as they were in the entrapment, the police officers personally witnessed the sale of shabu that the poseur-buyer concluded with Centeno.[9]
Centeno failed to show that police officers Gazo and Mailom were inspired by some ill motive or were not properly performing their duty. Thus, their testimonies with respect to the buy-bust operation deserve full faith and credit.
An important element of the crime of illegal sale of drugs that the prosecution must prove is the existence and integrity of the corpus delicti. Since prohibited drugs are not readily identifiable by sight or touch and can easily be tampered with or substituted,[10] there is a need for proof that the transaction or sale or had acutally taken place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.[11] Reliance on the presumption of regularity in the performance of duties is not enough for a conviction. Once challenged by evidence of flawed chain of custody, the presumption of regularity cannot prevail over the presumption of innocence.[12]
Here, police officer Gazo took from the asset the small plastic sachet he received from Centeno right on the spot where and when the sale was concluded. Gazo then placed his initials "ALG"[13] on the sachet and brought it to the Crime Laboratory for examination. The forensic chemist confirmed when she testified that the specimen was personally brought to her in the same "small heat-sealed" transparent plastic sachet that carried the markings "ALG."[14] This signifies that, because the substance was in marked and sealed plastic container, it had not been tampered with before getting into the hands of the forensic chemist. The latter testified that it was the substance she examined and found positive for shabu. The prosecution has proved the existence of corpus delicti.
The defense presented Centeno's live-in partner as a witness. But she is an interested witness, who in the ordinary course of life and events, would never want to see her partner found guilty of a crime. Thus, her testimony comes from a doubtful source.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the appeal and entirely AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC 01993 dated January 22, 2008.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
* J. Nachura, no part. J. Perez, additional member, per raffle dated June 16, 2010.
[1] Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 as amended.
[2] Exhibit "C," records, p. 7.
[3] TSN, September 15, 2003, pp. 4-12.
[4] Exhibit "A," records, p. 4.
[5] Exhibit "B," id. at 8.
[6] Docketed as CA-G.R. CR-HC 01993, penned by Associate Justice Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente and concurred in by Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar Fernando and Enrico A. Lanzanas.
[7] Cruz v. People, G.R. No. 164580, February 6, 2009, 578 SCRA 147, 153.
[8] People v. Zervoulakos, 311 Phil. 724, 730 (1995).
[9] Cruz v. People, supra note 7.
[10] People v. Alias "Memeng," G.R. No. 17347, February 26, 2010, citing Malilin v. People, G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 619, 632-633.
[11] People v. Partoza, G.R. No. 182418, May 8, 2009, 587 SCRA 809, 817.
[12] People v. Alias "Memeng," supra note 10, citing Dolera v. People, G.R. No. 180693, September 4, 2009, 598 SCRA 484, 498.
[13] Supra note 3.
[14] TSN, April 19,2004, p. 6.
