First Division: Chairperson
First Division: Chairperson
SERENO, CJ.,
Chairperson,
- versus - LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
BERSAMIN,
VILLARAMA, JR., and
REYES, JJ.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~-~x
DECISION
The Facts
Rollo, pp. 49-69. Penned by Associate Justice Romeo F. Barza with Associate Justices Rosalinda
Asuncion-Vicente and Edwin D. Sorongon concurring.
Records, pp. 583-595. Penned by Presiding Judge Juanita T. Guerrero.
Rollo, pp. 71-72.
Decision 2 G.R. No. 205227
Contrary to law.4
When arraigned, all three accused pleaded not guilty. Upon demurrer
to evidence filed by accused Jenny del Rosario, the trial court rendered
judgment acquitting her of the crime charged considering that her mere
presence in the car used by appellant is not indicative of conspiracy in the
sale of illegal drugs.5
4
Records, p. 1.
5
Id. at 127-132.
6
Id. at 584.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 205227
The next day, July 12, 2006, at around 12:00 noon, the team
accompanied by the CI boarded two service vehicles and proceeded to the
target area. They arrived at Barangay Bayanan at 1:45 p.m. SPO1 Cariaso
and the CI parked the Toyota Revo infront of the house of “Aida” while
SPO1 Platon and the rest of the team, who rode on another vehicle (Isuzu
Crosswind), waited at a distance. As agreed during the briefing, SPO1
Platon positioned himself in a spot where he could see SPO1 Cariaso. The
other police officers posted themselves where they could see SPO1 Platon as
the latter will wait for a “missed call” from SPO1 Cariaso.10
SPO1 Cariaso and the CI alighted from the Revo and went to the gate
of the house of “Aida”. They called the attention of a woman whom the CI
identified as “Aida”. The woman came out of the house and the CI
introduced SPO1 Cariaso to her as the buyer of shabu. After the
introduction, the CI left. The woman asked SPO1 Cariaso where the money
is and he opened his belt bag to show her the money. SPO1 Cariaso in turn
asked her where the shabu is and she replied that he should wait for Marco
(appellant). SPO1 Cariaso and the woman then went inside the Revo and
waited for appellant. After about five minutes, a Toyota Vios arrived and
parked infront of the Revo. The woman told SPO1 Cariaso that the driver of
the Vios was appellant.11
Appellant alighted from the Vios and went inside the Revo. The
7
TSN, August 4, 2006, pp. 5-7 (records pp. 188-190); TSN, October 25, 2006, pp. 4-5 (id. at 412-413).
8
Records, pp. 18-20.
9
TSN, August 4, 2006, pp. 7-16, 63 (id. at 190-199, 246); TSN, October 25, 2006, pp. 5-11 (id. at 413-
419).
10
Id. at 8-9, 14-17 (id. at 191-192, 197-200); id. at 9-12 (id. at 417-420).
11
Id. at 17-23 (id. at 200-206).
Decision 4 G.R. No. 205227
Within fifteen seconds, SPO1 Platon rushed towards the Revo and the
rest of the team followed. The team introduced themselves as PDEA agents.
SPO1 Cariaso arrested appellant and the woman (“Aida”) who was later
identified as Imelda G. Solema. Meanwhile, SPO1 Platon arrested the
woman passenger in the Vios who was later identified as Jenny del Rosario.
The seized plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance was marked
by SPO1 Cariaso with his initials “EXH. A J.A.C. July 12, 2006” and
signed it at the bottom. SPO1 Cariaso also recovered the marked P500 bills
and boodle money from appellant. The three accused and the confiscated
items were brought to the PDEA Regional Office in Camp Vicente Lim.13
12
Id. at 23-32 (id. at 206-215); id. at 13-14 (id. at 421-422).
13
Id. at 30, 33-36 (id. at 213, 216-219); id. at 14-17 (id. at 422-425); TSN, August 10, 2006, pp. 20-22
(id. at 287-289).
14
Id. at 36-46 (id. at 219-229); id. at 18-22 (id. at 426-430); id. at 22-25 (id. at 289-292); TSN, August 3,
2006, pp. 35-41 (id. at 169-175); records, pp. 333-334.
Decision 5 G.R. No. 205227
of poseur-buyer; (5) Request for Drug Test of arrested persons dated July 12,
2006 signed by P/Supt. Bargamento; (6) Request for Physical/Medical
Examination of arrested persons signed by P/Supt. Bargamento; (7)
Chemistry Report No. D-267-06 dated July 13, 2006 submitted by Pol. Insp.
Apostol, Jr. showing positive findings on specimen marked “EXH A J.A.C.
July 12, 2006”; (8) Chemistry Report No. CRIMDT-268-06 to 270-06
submitted by Pol. Insp. Apostol, Jr. showing positive findings on the urine
samples taken from appellant and his co-accused; (9) Certification dated
July 12, 2006 issued by Medico-Legal Officer Dr. Roy A. Camarillo of the
PNP Regional Crime Laboratory 4A stating that “there are no external signs
of recent application of any form of trauma noted during the time of
examination” on the persons of appellant and his co-accused; (10)
Certificate of Inventory prepared by PCI Ablang and signed/witnessed by a
media representative (Lyka Manalo) and Barangay Councilor (Jerusalem
Jordan); (11) One transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline
substance with markings “EXH A J.A.C. July 12, 2006” and signed by
poseur-buyer SPO1 Cariaso; (12) Affidavit of Poseur-Buyer dated July 13,
2006 executed by SPO1 Cariaso; (13) Affidavit of Back-Up/Arresting
Officer dated July 13, 2006 executed by SPO1 Platon; (14) Booking Sheet
and Arrest Reports of appellant and his co-accused containing their
fingerprints, but which only Imelda Solema signed while appellant and
Jenny del Rosario refused to sign; and (15) four pieces P500 bills marked
money with serial numbers CM180235, YA867249, ZS853938 and
ZW337843.15
office, appellant and his co-accused were photographed after they were
made to change clothes. Appellant further claimed that PCI Ablang
demanded money (P1 million) from him in exchange for his release. When
he was unable to give such amount, they just detained him and his co-
accused. Their urine samples were taken and submitted for drug testing.17
Imelda G. Solema testified that on July 12, 2006 between 1:00 to 2:00
in the afternoon, she was inside her house watching TV together with her
seven-year-old son when some persons carrying long firearms arrived asking
if she is “Aida”. She shouted to them that she is not “Aida” but “Im.” These
armed persons searched her house for shabu and when she shouted she was
pushed into a chair. After ten minutes of searching, nothing was found in
her house. When somebody knocked on the door, one of the armed men
opened it and they saw appellant. They pulled appellant inside, poked a gun
at him, made him lie down and handcuffed him. She and appellant were
brought outside the house and boarded into the Revo. They waited for the
other car for the armed men to board appellant there. Thereafter, they were
brought to the PDEA office in Canlubang where they were detained.20
garage of the mother of Im. She later learned that the driver of the silver car
was appellant. Appellant went out of his car and proceeded to Im’s house.
When appellant was already inside Im’s house, two vehicles (Revo and
Crosswind) suddenly arrived and there were armed men who alighted from
said vehicles and entered Im’s house. Thereafter, she heard Im crying as she
was being held by a woman and a man. The armed men forced Im and
appellant into the Revo. The persons left were a female and a child who
eventually drove the silver car.22
The RTC found that the police officers complied with all the
requirements in conducting a buy-bust operation, and that their testimonies
were spontaneous, straightforward and consistent on all material points. On
the other hand, the RTC observed that the testimonies of defense witnesses
do not jibe or are inconsistent with each other. It held that appellant’s denial
of the crime charged is a negative self-serving evidence and cannot prevail
over the positive and straightforward testimonies of the witnesses for the
prosecution who, being police officers, are presumed to have performed
their duties in accordance with law, and who have no reason to fabricate the
charges against the accused.
22
TSN, August 30, 2007, pp. 5-11 (id. at 552-558).
23
Id. at 19-20 (id. at 566-567).
Decision 8 G.R. No. 205227
SO ORDERED.24
Ruling of the CA
The CA was likewise convinced that the corpus delicti of the crime
has been established. It held that the failure to strictly comply with the
requirements of Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 does not necessarily
render an accused’s arrest illegal or the items seized from him inadmissible.
Our Ruling
offense, to wit: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the
consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment
therefor.26
Clearly, all the elements of the crime were established by both the oral
and object evidence presented in court. It is settled that in cases involving
violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution
26
People v. Mantalaba, G.R. No. 186227, July 20, 2011, 654 SCRA 188, 198.
Decision 10 G.R. No. 205227
witnesses who are police officers for they enjoy the presumption of having
performed their duties in a regular manner, unless, of course, there is
evidence to the contrary suggesting ill-motive on their part or deviation from
the regular performance of their duties.27 Since no proof of such ill-motive
on the part of the PDEA buy-bust team was adduced by appellant, the RTC
and CA did not err in giving full faith and credence to the prosecution’s
account of the buy-bust operation. This Court has repeatedly stressed that a
buy-bust operation (which is a form of entrapment) is a valid means of
arresting violators of R.A. No. 9165.28
Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 laid down the procedure for
the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized or surrendered dangerous
drugs.
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or
Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs,
Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals,
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. – The PDEA
shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of
dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated,
seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
27
People v. De Guzman, 564 Phil. 282, 293 (2007); People v. Jocson, 565 Phil. 303, 308 (2007).
28
People v. Sevilla, 607 Phil. 267, 270 (2009); People v. De Guzman, id. at 292; Ching v. People, 590
Phil. 725, 747 (2008).
Decision 11 G.R. No. 205227
xxxx
This Court has already ruled in several cases that the failure of the
prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the required physical
inventory and photograph of the evidence confiscated pursuant to the
guidelines, is not fatal. It does not automatically render accused-appellant’s
arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is
of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination
of the guilt of the accused.29
Records reveal that only the marked money was photographed at the
PDEA office. The Certificate of Inventory, though not signed by the accused,
was duly signed by team leader PCI Ablang, a representative from the media
and a barangay councilor. We thus find substantial compliance with the
requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and IRR.
In the case of People v. Kamad,31 the Court enumerated the links that
the prosecution must establish in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation
to be as follows: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal
drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the
turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the
investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the
illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth,
the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the
forensic chemist to the court.32
The first link in the chain of custody starts with the seizure of the
transparent plastic sachet containing shabu during the buy-bust operation.
Records show that from the time appellant handed to SPO1 Cariaso the said
item, only SPO1 Cariaso was in possession of the same until it was brought
to the PDEA office. SPO1 Cariaso himself marked the said sachet of shabu
with his initials and date of buy-bust: “EXH A J.A.C. July 12, 2006.” While
29
People v. Brainer, G.R. No. 188571, October 10, 2012, 683 SCRA 505, 525, citing People v. Abedin,
G.R. No. 179936, April 11, 2012, 669 SCRA 322, 337; See also People v. Rivera, 590 Phil. 894, 913
(2008); People v. Rosialda, G.R. No. 188330, August 25, 2010, 629 SCRA 507, 520-521; and People v.
Llamado, 600 Phil. 591, 599 (2009).
30
People v. Hambora, G.R. No. 198701, December 10, 2012, 687 SCRA 653, 661, citing People v.
Cardenas, G.R. No. 190342, March 21, 2012, 668 SCRA 827, 836-837.
31
G.R. No. 174198, January 19, 2010, 610 SCRA 295, 307-308.
32
People v. Salcena, supra note 25, at 367.
Decision 13 G.R. No. 205227
the marking was not immediately made at the crime scene, it does not
automatically impair the integrity of the chain of custody as long as the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items have been preserved.33
The second link is the turnover of the shabu at the PDEA office.
SPO1 Cariaso testified that he turned over the seized plastic sachet
containing shabu with his markings “EXH A J.A.C. July 12, 2006” to the
investigator who proceeded with the inventory thereof, along with the
marked money also confiscated from appellant. He was present next to the
investigator while the latter was conducting the inventory.
The third link constitutes the delivery of the request for laboratory
examination and the specimen to the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory. It
was likewise SPO1 Cariaso who brought the said request and the specimen
to the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory on the same day. He personally
turned over the specimen marked “EXH A J.A.C. July 12, 2006” to the
receiving clerk as evidenced by the stamp receipt on the said request bearing
the time and date received as “10:25 PM July 12, 2006.”34
The fourth link seeks to establish that the specimen submitted for
laboratory examination is the one presented in court. Forensic Chemical
Officer Pol. Insp. Apostol, Jr. testified that the transparent plastic sachet
containing white crystalline substance which was marked “EXH A J.A.C.
July 12, 2006”, was given to him by the receiving clerk. Within twenty-four
hours, he conducted the chemical analysis by taking a representative sample
from the specimen, even explaining in detail the process of testing the
specimen for shabu. He identified the specimen with markings “EXH. A
J.A.C. July 12, 2006” presented as evidence in court (Exhibit “J”) as the
same specimen he examined and which he found positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
33
People v. Mantawil, G.R. No. 188319, June 8, 2011, 651 SCRA 642, 657, citing People v. Morales,
G.R. No. 188608, February 9, 2011, 642 SCRA 612, 623.
34
Records, p. 330.
35
See People v. Angkob, G.R. No. 191062, September 19, 2012, 681 SCRA 414, 427, citing People v.
Padua, G.R. No. 174097, July 21, 2010, 625 SCRA 220, 235 further citing People v. Zeng Hua Dian,
G.R. No. 145348, June 14, 2004, 432 SCRA 25, 32.
Decision 14 G.R. No. 205227
seized, it is not indispensable that each and every person who came into
possession of the drugs should take the witness stand." 36
SO ORDERED.
~INS. VILLA~~R.
Ju~'
Associate JI
36
People v. Amansec, G.R. No. 186131, December 14, 2011, 662 SCRA 574, 595, citing People v.
Hernandez, 607 Phil. 617, 640 (2009).
37
People v. Del Monte, 575 Phil. 576, 588 (2008).
38
People v. Capalad, 602 Phil. 1083, 1094 (2009).
c.
WE CONCUR:
~~l!u~
TERESITAJ. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION