Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions

G.R. No. 197824 - (People of the Philippines v. Joel Bernales y Borja). - We resolve the appeal, filed by accused Joel Bernales y Borja (appellant), from the April 27, 2010 decision^[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02457.

The RTC Ruling 

In its July 18, 2006 decision,^[2] the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City, Branch 120, convicted the appellant of illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu under Sections 5 and 11, respectively, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165.^[3] It found the positive testimonies of Police Officer 2 (PO2) Juanito Rivera, PO2 Jessie Caragdag and forensic chemist Police Inspector (P/Insp.) Erickson Calabocal more credible than the appellant's self-serving defenses of frame-up and extortion. It sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00 for the illegal sale of shabu, and to an indeterminate sentence of six (6) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to twelve (12) years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P300,000.00 for the illegal possession of shabu.

The CA Ruling

On intermediate review, the CA affirmed the RTC's decision, giving full respect to the RTC's appreciation of the witnesses' testimonies. It held that the police officers' positive identification of the appellant as the seller and possessor of the seized shabu prevails over his uncorroborated defenses of frame-up and extortion. It noted that the police officers observed the proper chain of custody of the seized shabu. It modified the appellant's indeterminate sentence to twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to twenty (20) years, as maximum, for the illegal possession of dangerous drugs.^[4]

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 the prosecution for illegal sale of shabu, what is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.^[5] Prosecution witness PO2 Rivera, the poseur-buyer, made a positive identification of the appellant as the one who gave him the plastic sachet which contained shabu, a prohibited drug, and to whom he gave the marked money during the buy-bust operation.^[6] 

On the other hand, in the prosecution for illegal possession of shabu, it must be shown that (a) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug; (b) such possession is not authorized by law; and (c) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug.^[7] Prosecution witness PO2 Caragdag, while frisking the appellant after the buy-bust operation, found three other plastic sachets which contained shabu, a prohibited drug.^[8] 

The police officers' failure to submit a pre-operation report to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency and P/Insp. Calabocal's failure to attach a certification to the result of the laboratory examination of the seized items are not fatal to the prosecution's case. Mere lapses in procedures need not invalidate a seizure if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items can be shown to have been properly preserved and safeguarded.^[9]

The records show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs seized from the appellant were properly preserved and safeguarded. On the charge of illegal sale, PO2 Rivera testified that he turned over to PO2 Hector Castillo the plastic sachet, containing white crystalline substance, he bought from the appellant.^[10] On the charge of illegal possession, PO2 Caragdag recounted that he also turned over to PO2 Castillo the three plastic sachets, containing white crystalline substance, seized from the appellant at the locus criminis after the appellant was bodily searched.^[11] PO2 Castillo, in the presence of the appellant, PO2 Rivera, and PO2 Caragdag, marked the seized plastic sachets, containing white crystalline substance, with "Buy Bust-JBB," "JBB-1," "JBB-2," and "JBB-3."^[12] PO2 Castillo made a request for laboratory examination of the seized plastic sachets.^[13] The Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory received the request and the marked items seized.^[14] Physical Sciences Report No. D-751-03 of P/Insp. Calabocal on the four plastic sachets, containing the white crystalline substance, tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu weighing 0.10 gram ("Buy Bust-JBB"), 0.09 gram ("JBB-1"), 0.06 gram ("JBB-2"), and 0.09 gram ("JBB-3").^[15] The marked items were offered in evidence as Exhibits "D-4"("Buy Bust-JBB"), "D-5" ("JBB-1"), "D-6" ("JBB-2"), and "D-7" ("JBB-3").

In the absence of proof of motive to falsely impute such a serious crime against the appellant, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, as well as the findings of the RTC on the credibility of the witnesses, shall prevail over the appellant's self-serving and uncorroborated defenses of frame-up and extortion.^[16]

For the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu, Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 prescribes the penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00, regardless of the quantity or purity involved. Since RA 9346^[17]  prohibits the imposition of the death penalty, the lower courts correctly imposed the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 for the illegal sale of shabu.

For the illegal possession of dangerous drugs, on the other hand, Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 prescribes the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from P300,000.00 to P400,000.00, if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams. The appellant's possession of shabu with an aggregate weight of 0.24 gram, that is less than five (5) grams, without any legal authority, has been proven beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum period of the imposable penalty shall not fall below the minimum period set by law; the maximum period shall not exceed the maximum period allowed under the law; thus, the imposable penalty should be within the range of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months.^[18]cralaw

WHEREFORE, the April 27, 2010 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02457 is hereby AFFIRMED  with MODIFICATION. Appellant Joel Bernales y Borja is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of shabu in violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00. He is also found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of shabu in violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, and is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate sentence of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P300,000.00.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours, 

(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Penned by Associate Justice Michael P. Elbinias. and concurred in by Associate Justices Remedios Salazar-Fernando and Celia C. Librea-Leagogo; rollo, pp. 2-18.

^[2] Docketed as Criminal Case Nos. C-68443 and C-68444; CA rollo, pp. 7-15. 

^[3] The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. 

^[4] Supra note 1. 

^[5] People of the Philippines v. Nelly Ulama y Arrisma, G.R. No. 186530, December 14, 2011. 

^[6] TSN, October 14, 2003, p. 11. 

^[7] Raul David v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 181861, October 17, 2011. 

^[8] TSN, January 8, 2004, p. 18. 

^[9] People of the Philippines v. Asmad Bara y Asmad, G.R. No. 184808, November 14, 2011. 

^[10] TSN, October 14, 2003, p. 36. 

^[11] TSN, January 8, 2004, pp. 19-21. 

^[12] TSN, October 14, 2003, p. 36; TSN, January 8, 2004, pp. 19-21. 

^[13] TSN, December 10, 2003, pp. 2-3; Records, p. 114. 

^[14] TSN, September 23, 2003, p. 2. 

^[15] Records, p. 115. 

^[16] Stephen Sy y Tibagong v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 182178, August 15, 2011. 

^[17] An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines. 

^[18] See Abraham Miclat, Jr. y Cerbo v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 176077, August 31, 2011.