September 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > September 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 189332 : September 08, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. GODWIN CASTIL :
[G.R. No. 189332 : September 08, 2010]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. GODWIN CASTIL
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 08 September 2010 which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 189332 (People of the Philippines v. Godwin Castil).
The Assistant City Prosecutor of Caloocan charged the accused Godwin Castil before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City, in Criminal Cases C-72765 and C-72766 with violation of Sections 5 and 11, respectively, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Upon arraignment, Castil pleaded not guilty to the offenses charged against him.
At the trial, the prosecution presented the poseur-buyer, PO3 Renato de Leon (De Leon), Pie testified that on March 12, 2005, an informant came to their office and reported to PO3 Renato Ablaza a certain alias Bogart[1] allegedly involved with illegal drugs. De Leon was designated as the poseur-buyer and was given a P100.00 bill as the buy-bust money. After placing markings on the money, De Leon, together with six other fellow police officers, proceeded to Camada Compund, Dagat-Dagatan, Caloocan City. The team then parked at a nearby gasoline station where they waited for about 30 minutes to look for this Bogart's whereabouts. After a while, the informant told them that Bogart was at the gate of Camada Compound.
De Leon thereafter approached Bogart and told him that he wanted to buy marijuana as medication for his asthma. He then took out the buy-bust money, gave it to Bogart, and in turn received the marijuana contained, in 10 plastic sachets which were further placed in a matchbox. Bogart allegedly took the plastic sachets from a small shoulder bag he was carrying. After receiving the matchbox, De Leon immediately executed the pre-arranged signal, confiscated the marijuana, and announced that he is a policeman. After learning that de Leon was a police officer, Bogart tried to escape, bur was eventually arrested when the other police officers arrived. Aside from the sachet which De Leon bought, the team was able to recover the buy-bust money, 23 plastic sachets of marijuana, an undetermined amount of dried marijuana fruiting tops: a .38 caliber revolver, and the matchbox containing 10 plastic sachets of marijuana. Bogart was later on identified as Godwin Castil, and the officers thereafter brought him to their office where he was turned over to the investigator together with the confiscated items.
When the Forensic Chemical Officer took the witness stand, he affirmed his findings in Physical Sciences Report D-100-05, which shows that upon examination of the specimen, the same gave positive result for marijuana, a dangerous drug. He also testified that when he subjected. Castil and P03. De Leon to ultraviolet radiation to detect the presence of ultraviolet fluorescent powder, the same gave positive results.
Castil vehemently denied having committed the crime and insisted that he had been a victim of a frame-up.
On February 18, 2008 the RTC found Castil guilty of the crime charged and imposed upon him the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P5O0,OO0.0Q in Criminal Case C-72765, while in Criminal Case C-72766 he was sentenced to suffer 12 years and 1 day to 14 years of imprisonment, and to pay a fine in the amount of P300,000.0.0.
On July 23, 2009 the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC 03261 upheld the RTC's ruling.
The issue in this case is whether or not the CA erred in not excluding the evidence of the seized marijuana on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove that the pieces of marijuana submitted for laboratory examination were the same ones allegedly taken from appellant.
Being inherently weak, Castil's denial and accusations of frame-up cannot prevail over the affirmative testimony of truthful witnesses.[2] In violations of R.A. 9165, especially those originating from buy-bust operations, the testimonies of the police officers who conducted the operation are generally accorded full faith and credit, in view of the presumption of regularity in the performance of public duties.[3] A claim of frame-up is a defense that this Court views with disfavor and requires strong and convincing evidence which Castil miserably failed to satisfy. As the trial court correctly observed, Castil's testimony was tainted with so many irregularities and inconsistencies. Likewise, Castil never mentioned anything about extortion on the part of the police officers or any plausible reason for them to fabricate a criminal charge against him. These circumstances certainly negate any vengeful motive to arrest Castil.
Further, this Court has held in a recent case [4] that non-compliance with the procedure outlined in Section 21, Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 9165 shall not render void and invalid such seizure for so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated items are properly preserved by the apprehending officers. Based on records, the officers in this case were able to maintain the integrity of the seized marijuana. As the CA pointed out, PO3 De Leon, who testified in court, took custody of the 10 sachets of marijuana which he purchased from Castil on March 12, 2005; PO3 Alcantara likewise turned over the other 23 sachets of marijuana and the folded magazine papers containing dried marijuana fruiting tops to PO3 De Leon. On arrival at the Caloocan City Police Station, PO3 De Leon gave the confiscated items to PO3 Rodrigo Pagsulingan who in turn marked the evidence in PO3 De Leon's presence. On that same day, March 12, 2005, Inspector Jesse Abadilla dela Rosa of the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory received the marked evidence from PO3 Pagsilungan for laboratory testing. The result showed that all pieces of evidence tested positive for marijuana. Lastly, as the appellate court correctly noted, Castil failed to raise this matter before the trial court. Without such objection, they cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal.[5]
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS in toto the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated July 23, 2009 in CA-G.R. CR-HC 03261 affirming the Decision dated February 18, 2008 of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 120 in Criminal Cases C-72765 and C-72766 finding Godwin Castil guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. 9165.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 189332 (People of the Philippines v. Godwin Castil).
The Assistant City Prosecutor of Caloocan charged the accused Godwin Castil before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City, in Criminal Cases C-72765 and C-72766 with violation of Sections 5 and 11, respectively, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Upon arraignment, Castil pleaded not guilty to the offenses charged against him.
At the trial, the prosecution presented the poseur-buyer, PO3 Renato de Leon (De Leon), Pie testified that on March 12, 2005, an informant came to their office and reported to PO3 Renato Ablaza a certain alias Bogart[1] allegedly involved with illegal drugs. De Leon was designated as the poseur-buyer and was given a P100.00 bill as the buy-bust money. After placing markings on the money, De Leon, together with six other fellow police officers, proceeded to Camada Compund, Dagat-Dagatan, Caloocan City. The team then parked at a nearby gasoline station where they waited for about 30 minutes to look for this Bogart's whereabouts. After a while, the informant told them that Bogart was at the gate of Camada Compound.
De Leon thereafter approached Bogart and told him that he wanted to buy marijuana as medication for his asthma. He then took out the buy-bust money, gave it to Bogart, and in turn received the marijuana contained, in 10 plastic sachets which were further placed in a matchbox. Bogart allegedly took the plastic sachets from a small shoulder bag he was carrying. After receiving the matchbox, De Leon immediately executed the pre-arranged signal, confiscated the marijuana, and announced that he is a policeman. After learning that de Leon was a police officer, Bogart tried to escape, bur was eventually arrested when the other police officers arrived. Aside from the sachet which De Leon bought, the team was able to recover the buy-bust money, 23 plastic sachets of marijuana, an undetermined amount of dried marijuana fruiting tops: a .38 caliber revolver, and the matchbox containing 10 plastic sachets of marijuana. Bogart was later on identified as Godwin Castil, and the officers thereafter brought him to their office where he was turned over to the investigator together with the confiscated items.
When the Forensic Chemical Officer took the witness stand, he affirmed his findings in Physical Sciences Report D-100-05, which shows that upon examination of the specimen, the same gave positive result for marijuana, a dangerous drug. He also testified that when he subjected. Castil and P03. De Leon to ultraviolet radiation to detect the presence of ultraviolet fluorescent powder, the same gave positive results.
Castil vehemently denied having committed the crime and insisted that he had been a victim of a frame-up.
On February 18, 2008 the RTC found Castil guilty of the crime charged and imposed upon him the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P5O0,OO0.0Q in Criminal Case C-72765, while in Criminal Case C-72766 he was sentenced to suffer 12 years and 1 day to 14 years of imprisonment, and to pay a fine in the amount of P300,000.0.0.
On July 23, 2009 the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC 03261 upheld the RTC's ruling.
The issue in this case is whether or not the CA erred in not excluding the evidence of the seized marijuana on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove that the pieces of marijuana submitted for laboratory examination were the same ones allegedly taken from appellant.
Being inherently weak, Castil's denial and accusations of frame-up cannot prevail over the affirmative testimony of truthful witnesses.[2] In violations of R.A. 9165, especially those originating from buy-bust operations, the testimonies of the police officers who conducted the operation are generally accorded full faith and credit, in view of the presumption of regularity in the performance of public duties.[3] A claim of frame-up is a defense that this Court views with disfavor and requires strong and convincing evidence which Castil miserably failed to satisfy. As the trial court correctly observed, Castil's testimony was tainted with so many irregularities and inconsistencies. Likewise, Castil never mentioned anything about extortion on the part of the police officers or any plausible reason for them to fabricate a criminal charge against him. These circumstances certainly negate any vengeful motive to arrest Castil.
Further, this Court has held in a recent case [4] that non-compliance with the procedure outlined in Section 21, Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 9165 shall not render void and invalid such seizure for so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated items are properly preserved by the apprehending officers. Based on records, the officers in this case were able to maintain the integrity of the seized marijuana. As the CA pointed out, PO3 De Leon, who testified in court, took custody of the 10 sachets of marijuana which he purchased from Castil on March 12, 2005; PO3 Alcantara likewise turned over the other 23 sachets of marijuana and the folded magazine papers containing dried marijuana fruiting tops to PO3 De Leon. On arrival at the Caloocan City Police Station, PO3 De Leon gave the confiscated items to PO3 Rodrigo Pagsulingan who in turn marked the evidence in PO3 De Leon's presence. On that same day, March 12, 2005, Inspector Jesse Abadilla dela Rosa of the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory received the marked evidence from PO3 Pagsilungan for laboratory testing. The result showed that all pieces of evidence tested positive for marijuana. Lastly, as the appellate court correctly noted, Castil failed to raise this matter before the trial court. Without such objection, they cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal.[5]
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS in toto the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated July 23, 2009 in CA-G.R. CR-HC 03261 affirming the Decision dated February 18, 2008 of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 120 in Criminal Cases C-72765 and C-72766 finding Godwin Castil guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. 9165.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours.
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Also spelled as Boggard in some parts of the records.
[2] People v. Beruega, 430 Phil 487, 500-501 (2002).
[3] People v. Villaluz, G.R. "No. 136134, May 6, 2010.
[4] People v. Daria, Jr., G.R. No. 186138, September 11, 2009, 599 SCRA 688, 699, citing People v. Agulay,G.R. No. 181747, September 26, 2008, 566 SCRA 571, 595.
[5] People v. Sta. Maria, G.R. No. 171019, February 23, 2007, 516 SCRA 621. 634.
