November 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > November 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 188567 : November 22, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VERSUS ARNOLD DAGATAN Y GARCIA, APPELLANT. :
[G.R. No. 188567 : November 22, 2010]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VERSUS ARNOLD DAGATAN Y GARCIA, APPELLANT.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated 22 November 2010, which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 188567 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, versus ARNOLD DAGATAN y GARCIA, appellant.
RESOLUTION
Herein appellant Arnold Dagatan y Garcia was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165), otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, in an Information[1] filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Batangas City.
Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge.[2]
It appears that at around 9:30 p.m. on December 16, 2004, PO2 Edwalberto Villas of the Intelligence Section of the Batangas City Philippine National Police, received an information from a police asset that the appellant was selling shabu at Molave Street, Alangilan, Batangas. A team was formed to conduct a buy-bust operation. The operation and the serial number of the P1,000.00 bill marked money, as well as the names of the members of the buy-bust team, were recorded in the police blotter before the buy-bust team proceeded to the target site. Upon reaching the target area, the asset and Villas, who acted as poseur-buyer, positioned themselves near a nipa hut, while the other members of the team were about fifteen (15) meters away from them. Twenty (20) minutes later, a motorcycle approached. The asset told Villas that the driver of the motorcycle, the appellant, was the person they were looking for. The asset reminded the appellant of their previous agreement. Then the appellant handed to the asset a small plastic sachet, which in turn was given to Villas. After examining the contents of the sachet, Villas gave the appellant a P1,000.00 bill, marked with ihe initials "EMV". As soon as the appellant received the money, Villas held the appellant's hand and introduced himself as a policeman. The appellant resisted but the rest of the team followed and helped arrest the appellant.
The team brought the appellant to the police station for investigation. Police investigator Eric G. de Chavez received the marked money and the plastic sachet, which he turned over to Forensic Chemist Jupri C. Delantar. After examination, the contents of the sachet proved positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
At the trial, appellant interposed the defense of denial. He narrated that in the evening of December 16, 2004, he was engaged in a drinking spree with Monching Malaluan, Marissa Ebora and Maya Punzalan inside a nipa hut when policemen arrived and apprehended them. He claimed that they were frisked at the police station, but nothing was found in their possession.
On February 9, 2007, the RTC of Batangas City, Branch 2, promulgated its decision dated December 10, 2006 finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged. The dispositive portion of the RTC decision reads�
According to the CA, the resistance of the appellant when he was arrested immediately after the consummation of the sale transaction, as testified to by Villas, is sufficient to justify the failure of the arresting officers to make an inventory and photograph the drug confiscated. For the same reason, the appellate court found nothing irregular in the marking of the confiscated drug at the police station and not at the crime scene. Section 21 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 provides that "the non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items."
After a thorough review of the records of the case and the parties' submissions, the Court finds that, indeed, the appellant's guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. What is material in a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug in evidence.[4] We find the integrity of the-drugs seized intact, and there is no doubt that the sachet of drugs seized from the appellant was the same one examined for chemical analysis, and that the crystalline substance contained therein was later on determined to be positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
The appeal is accordingly DISMISSED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 02720 sustaining the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Batangas City, Branch 2, convicting appellant Arnold Dagatan y Garcia for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 is AFFIRMED. With costs.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 188567 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, versus ARNOLD DAGATAN y GARCIA, appellant.
Herein appellant Arnold Dagatan y Garcia was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165), otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, in an Information[1] filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Batangas City.
Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge.[2]
It appears that at around 9:30 p.m. on December 16, 2004, PO2 Edwalberto Villas of the Intelligence Section of the Batangas City Philippine National Police, received an information from a police asset that the appellant was selling shabu at Molave Street, Alangilan, Batangas. A team was formed to conduct a buy-bust operation. The operation and the serial number of the P1,000.00 bill marked money, as well as the names of the members of the buy-bust team, were recorded in the police blotter before the buy-bust team proceeded to the target site. Upon reaching the target area, the asset and Villas, who acted as poseur-buyer, positioned themselves near a nipa hut, while the other members of the team were about fifteen (15) meters away from them. Twenty (20) minutes later, a motorcycle approached. The asset told Villas that the driver of the motorcycle, the appellant, was the person they were looking for. The asset reminded the appellant of their previous agreement. Then the appellant handed to the asset a small plastic sachet, which in turn was given to Villas. After examining the contents of the sachet, Villas gave the appellant a P1,000.00 bill, marked with ihe initials "EMV". As soon as the appellant received the money, Villas held the appellant's hand and introduced himself as a policeman. The appellant resisted but the rest of the team followed and helped arrest the appellant.
The team brought the appellant to the police station for investigation. Police investigator Eric G. de Chavez received the marked money and the plastic sachet, which he turned over to Forensic Chemist Jupri C. Delantar. After examination, the contents of the sachet proved positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
At the trial, appellant interposed the defense of denial. He narrated that in the evening of December 16, 2004, he was engaged in a drinking spree with Monching Malaluan, Marissa Ebora and Maya Punzalan inside a nipa hut when policemen arrived and apprehended them. He claimed that they were frisked at the police station, but nothing was found in their possession.
On February 9, 2007, the RTC of Batangas City, Branch 2, promulgated its decision dated December 10, 2006 finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged. The dispositive portion of the RTC decision reads�
WHEREFORE, finding the accused, ARNOLD DAGATAN y Garcia, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Acl of 2002, he is hereby sentence[d] to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00 with costs.On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the trial court's decision in its Decision dated February 20, 2009. The CA held that the prosecution clearly established that the sale of the drug actually happened and the shabu, subject of the sale, was identified in court. Likewise, Villas positively identified the appellant as the seller of the 0.13 gram of shabu in consideration of P1,000.00. Furthermore, the CA held that the failure to comply strictly with the guidelines relating to the custody and disposition of seized contraband did not affect the admissibility of the articles because the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were nonetheless properly preserved.
The shabu confiscated is hereby ordered destroyed pursuant to the provisions of RA 9165.
SO ORDERED.[3]
According to the CA, the resistance of the appellant when he was arrested immediately after the consummation of the sale transaction, as testified to by Villas, is sufficient to justify the failure of the arresting officers to make an inventory and photograph the drug confiscated. For the same reason, the appellate court found nothing irregular in the marking of the confiscated drug at the police station and not at the crime scene. Section 21 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 provides that "the non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items."
After a thorough review of the records of the case and the parties' submissions, the Court finds that, indeed, the appellant's guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. What is material in a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug in evidence.[4] We find the integrity of the-drugs seized intact, and there is no doubt that the sachet of drugs seized from the appellant was the same one examined for chemical analysis, and that the crystalline substance contained therein was later on determined to be positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
The appeal is accordingly DISMISSED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 02720 sustaining the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Batangas City, Branch 2, convicting appellant Arnold Dagatan y Garcia for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 is AFFIRMED. With costs.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Records, pp. 1-2.
[2] Id. at 32.
[3] Id. at 187.
[4] People v. Berdadero, G.R. No. 179710, June 29, 2010, p. 5.
