FIRST DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 177324, March 30, 2011 ]PEOPLE v. REYNALD DELA CRUZ Y LIBANTOCIA +
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. REYNALD DELA CRUZ Y LIBANTOCIA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
PEOPLE v. REYNALD DELA CRUZ Y LIBANTOCIA +
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. REYNALD DELA CRUZ Y LIBANTOCIA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
Before Us is the Decision[1] dated January 22, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 01579, which affirmed the Decision[2] dated September 7, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City,
Branch 103, in Criminal Case No. Q-03-116311, finding accused-appellant Reynald dela Cruz y Libantocia (Dela Cruz) guilty of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Dela Cruz was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II[3] of Republic Act No. 9165, in an Information[4] which reads:
During arraignment, Dela Cruz, assisted by his counsel de parte, entered a plea of not guilty. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
The prosecution presented as witnesses Police Officer (PO) 3 Bernard Amigo (Amigo) and PO2 Jaime Ocampo (Ocampo).
The prosecution's version of events as testified by the aforesaid witnesses is as follows:
At about 10:00 a.m. on March 30, 2003, an informant called the Cubao Police Station 7 and reported to the duty desk officer that someone was selling shabu at Yale Street, Cubao, Quezon City. A team composed of four police officers was formed to conduct an entrapment, headed by PO2 Jerry Sanchez (Sanchez). PO2 Ocampo was designated as poseur-buyer. Before the dispatch, two pieces of P100.00 bills were given to PO2 Ocampo as buy-bust money,[5] which he marked with his initials "JO."
Upon arrival of the police team at Yale Street, PO2 Ocampo spotted a person selling drugs on said street. PO2 Ocampo and the informant approached the person, who was later identified as Dela Cruz. The informant introduced PO2 Ocampo to Dela Cruz as a person interested to buy shabu. Dela Cruz then asked how much shabu PO2 Ocampo wanted to buy. PO2 Ocampo answered he would like to purchase P200.00 worth of shabu. When PO2 Ocampo gave two P100.00-bills to Dela Cruz, the latter handed over in exchange a plastic sachet to PO2 Ocampo. PO2 Ocampo examined the contents of the plastic sachet, and believing that the same to be shabu, he tapped Dela Cruz's shoulder, which was the pre-arranged signal to the other members of the police team.[6]
The rest of the police team rushed to the crime scene and identified themselves as police officers. PO2 Ocampo arrested Dela Cruz and recovered from the latter the two P100.00-bills used as buy-bust money. While PO2 Ocampo kept possession of the buy-bust money, he passed the plastic sachet containing the shabu to his companion. PO2 Ocampo marked the plastic sachet with "JO."[7] The plastic sachet was brought to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory for examination of its contents,[8] which was later confirmed as methylamphetamine hydrochloride,[9] more popularly known as shabu.
At the police station, the police team turned over Dela Cruz to PO3 Amigo. PO3 Amigo then assisted in the execution of PO2 Ocampo's Affidavit of Poseur-Buyer and PO2 Sanchez's Affidavit of Arrest. PO3 Domingo prepared the request for laboratory examination of the plastic sachet and its contents.
For its part, the defense presented the testimonies of the accused, Dela Cruz; Dela Cruz's aunt, Adoracion Salcedo (Salcedo); and Dela Cruz's kumare, Nora Cruz (Nora).
Dela Cruz denied any criminal liability and claimed frame-up by the police. Dela Cruz insisted that at around 11:00 a.m. on March 30, 2003, he was fixing the trash can in an eskinita between Yale and Oxford Streets when two police officers, conducting a raid in said place, frisked and arrested him, then brought him to Cubao Police Station 7.[10] Dela Cruz explained that he made trash cans for free because he wanted to teach his kumpare and inaanak, who lived in the area, to clean up their place. He also made trash cans for the area surrounding his residence at Kamias, Quezon City.[11] He denied the charge that he was selling shabu. He did admit to selling merchandise, such as wooden tops, banig, etc., but at the time of his arrest, he had no merchandise with him for he left these at his house.[12]
Salcedo testified that at around 8:00 a.m. on March 30, 2003, while she was at her house located in Diamond Hills, Molave Extension, Payatas, Quezon City, Dela Cruz asked Salcedo for permission to go to Divisoria, but Dela Cruz had to pass by Cubao first because he would deliver a banig to a certain Nora.[13]
Supporting Salcedo's testimony, Nora related that at around 10:30 a.m. on March 30, 2003, while she was washing clothes at her house on Yale Street, Cubao, Quezon City, Dela Cruz arrived to bring the banig she ordered. Nora told Dela Cruz to wait until she had finished washing clothes. Dela Cruz then said he had to leave for a while because one of the trash cans he made got broken, and Nora replied that she would wait for him. When Dela Cruz returned, Nora was still washing clothes. Dela Cruz left Nora's house again to go to a nearby sari-sari store, located at the corner of Yale and Oxford Streets, and owned by one Mama Joy, so he could have his money broken to smaller denominations.[14] While Dela Cruz was standing in front of Mama Joy's store, three police officers arrived with two other people they had previously arrested. After entering Mama Joy's store, the police officers arrested Dela Cruz. When Nora went up to the police officers to ask why they were arresting Dela Cruz, the police officers told her "daldal ka ng daldal, isasama ka namin," which made her stop.[15] The police officers boarded Dela Cruz onto their vehicle and brought him to Cubao Police Station 7. Mama Joy was not arrested at that time, but during Dela Cruz's trial, Mama Joy was already detained at Camp Karingal also for shabu-related charges.
After trial, the RTC promulgated its Decision dated September 7, 2005 finding Dela Cruz guilty as charged.
The RTC gave credibility to the prosecution's version, considering the following inconsistencies in the defense's account: (1) Dela Cruz testified that he resides at No. 1 K.J. Kamias Road, Quezon City, which was just across a bridge from Yale Street. If this was true, then there was reason to believe that Dela Cruz had a sense of community hygiene to put up and maintain trash cans at the eskinita between Yale and Oxford Streets. But from Salcedo's testimony, it appears that Dela Cruz and his two children with his first wife lived with Salcedo at Diamond Hills, Molave Ext., Payatas B, Quezon City, several kilometers away from the eskinita between Yale and Oxford Streets in Cubao, Quezon City. Salcedo's residence is so distant from Cubao that in the absence of association with any community organization in the latter area, it was incongruous to believe that Dela Cruz would entertain any notion of public service therein; (2) the story of Dela Cruz is radically different from that of his own witnesses, Salcedo and Nora. Dela Cruz repeatedly declared that he was at the eskinita between Yale and Oxford Streets to take a look at the trash cans he placed thereat, and never mentioned that he was to deliver a banig to Nora in Cubao, or that he went to Mama Joy's store while waiting for Nora to finish her laundry; and (3) if Dela Cruz's main interest was the cleanliness of the eskinita between Yale and Oxford Streets, rather than selling shabu, then the community leaders in the said area, or at the very least, his own kumpare who supposedly live there, would have come to court to defend him, but no one did.
The dispositive portion of the RTC decision reads:
Dela Cruz appealed to the Court of Appeals, which, in a Decision dated January 22, 2007, affirmed the findings and conclusion of the RTC.
The Court of Appeals cited the presumption of regularity in the police officers' performance of their official duties:
The appellate court further held that the prosecution was able to establish all the essential elements of illegal sale of shabu:
Agreeing with the inconsistencies in the defense's evidence, observed by the RTC, the Court of Appeals pronounced:
In the end, the appellate court decreed:
After giving due course to Dela Cruz's Notice of Appeal in a Resolution dated February 14, 2007, the Court of Appeals forwarded the records of the case to this Court.
In a Resolution[21] dated June 27, 2007, the Court notified the parties that they may file their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desired, within 30 days from notice. Dela Cruz and the People[22] opted not to file their supplemental briefs on the ground that they had exhaustively argued all the relevant issues in their briefs, and the filing of a supplemental brief would only entail a repetition of the arguments already discussed therein.
In his Accused-Appellant's Brief,[23] Dela Cruz presents the following assignment of errors:
Dela Cruz asserts that the police officers failed to account for the chain of custody of the seized item alleged to be shabu and establish the identity of the illegal drug, the corpus delicti of the case.
We find no merit in the instant appeal.
In a prosecution for illegal sale of regulated or prohibited drugs, conviction can be had if the following elements are present: (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. What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti. The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping officers and the accused.[24]
All the foregoing elements were established in this case by the following testimony of PO2 Ocampo:
During trial, PO2 Ocampo, who acted as the poseur-buyer, positively identified Dela Cruz as the seller of the shabu. PO2 Ocampo likewise identified the P200.00 buy-bust money he paid to Dela Cruz and the plastic sachet containing the shabu which Dela Cruz gave in exchange for the P200.00, both bearing the initials "JO," which PO2 Ocampo personally placed thereon in the course of the entrapment operation. Indubitably, there was a consummated illegal sale of a prohibited drug.
Dela Cruz questions before us the chain of custody of the shabu he sold to PO2 Ocampo during the buy-bust operation, so as to raise doubts on the identity of the drugs presented before the RTC during trial.
Section 21, paragraph 1 of Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 instructs the apprehending authorities on the proper procedure they should follow immediately after seizure and confiscation of dangerous drugs:
Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 expounds on the procedure, thus:
In People v. Naquita,[26] we expressly declared that non-compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 does not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.
Dela Cruz did not present any evidence at all to substantiate his allegation that the integrity and evidentiary value of the shabu presented as evidence at his trial had been compromised at some point. To the contrary, records show that there had been substantial compliance with the prescribed procedure.
The chain of custody was established through the following links: (1) PO2 Ocampo obtained one plastic sachet containing shabu from Dela Cruz during the buy-bust operation; (2) PO2 Ocampo marked the sachet with his initials "JO"; (3) A request for laboratory examination of "[o]ne (1) heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing undetermined amount of suspected white crystalline substance marked `JO'" was signed by Police Senior Inspector Maximo Milan Canilang, Chief of the Station Drug Enforcement Unit (SDEU), and PO3 Domingo, Investigator;[27] (4) The plastic sachet was submitted to Police Inspector Yelah C. Manaog (P/Insp. Manaog), Forensic Chemist of the PNP Crime Laboratory, who, upon receipt, marked the sachet with her initials "YCM";[28] (5) P/Insp. Manaog issued Chemistry Report No. D-333-03, stating that "[q]ualitative examination conducted on the above-stated specimen gave POSITIVE result to the tests for Methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug";[29] and (6) The plastic sachet was presented as Exhibit E, and the markings made thereon by PO2 Ocampo and P/Insp. Manaog as Exhibits E-1 and E-2, respectively. There is no doubt in our minds that the very same plastic sachet obtained from Dela Cruz during the buy-bust operation was the same specimen submitted for examination at the crime laboratory and presented as evidence during trial.
We note further that the defense raised its objection and questioned the integrity of the shabu allegedly seized from Dela Cruz only on appeal. Failure to raise this issue during trial is fatal to the case of the defense.[30] We explained in People v. Sta. Maria[31] that:
The RTC and the Court of Appeals, in convicting Dela Cruz for the illegal sale of regulated or prohibited drugs, gave full faith and credence to the evidence presented by the prosecution.
In a prosecution for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law, a case becomes a contest of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies. When it comes to credibility, the trial court's assessment deserves great weight, and is even conclusive and binding, if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence. The reason is obvious. Having the full opportunity to observe directly the witnesses' deportment and manner of testifying, the trial court is in a better position than the appellate court to evaluate testimonial evidence properly. The rule finds an even more stringent application where the said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals.[33]
Not finding any arbitrariness or oversight on the part of the RTC and the Court of Appeals, we have no reason to set aside their factual findings.
It is equally settled that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary.[34] Dela Cruz utterly failed to prove that in testifying against him, PO2 Ocampo was motivated by reasons other than the duty to curb the sale of prohibited drugs. There is no proof of any ill motive or odious intent on the part of the police authorities to impute falsely such a serious crime to Dela Cruz.[35]
Dela Cruz's denial of the charges and claim of frame-up are inherently weak defenses.
In drug cases, entrapment is a normal police technique to catch the culprit in flagrante delicto. On the other hand, denial and frame-up are the usual defenses set up by the accused. Affirmative statements are given greater weight than mere denials.[36]
We are not unaware that in some instances law enforcers resort to the practice of planting evidence to extract information or even to harass civilians. However, frame-up is a defense that has been invariably viewed by the Court with disfavor as it can be easily concocted, hence, commonly used as a standard line of defense in most prosecutions arising from violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act. We realize the disastrous consequences on the enforcement of law and order, not to mention the well-being of society, if the courts, solely on the basis of the police officers' alleged rotten reputation, accept in every instance this form of defense which can be so easily fabricated. It is precisely for this reason that the legal presumption that official duty has been regularly performed exists. Bare denials cannot prevail over the positive identification by PO2 Ocampo of Dela Cruz as the person who sold him the shabu.[37]
Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 stipulates that the illegal sale of prohibited or regulated drugs shall be penalized with life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00. Considering said provision, we sustain the RTC and the Court of Appeals in imposing upon Dela Cruz: (1) the penalty of life imprisonment, since there was no mitigating or aggravating circumstance attending Dela Cruz's violation of the law; and (2) the minimum amount of P500,000.00 fine, given that the shabu obtained from Dela Cruz in the buy-bust operation weighed only 0.20 grams.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated January 22, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 01579, which affirmed the Decision dated September 7, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 103, in Criminal Case No. Q-03-116311, finding accused-appellant Reynald Dela Cruz y Libantocia guilty beyond reasonable doubt of selling 0.20 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a prohibited drug, in violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, and imposing upon him the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00), is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Corona, C.J., (Chairperson), Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Del Castillo, and Perez, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 2-12; penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison with Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez and Vicente S.E. Veloso, concurring.
[2] CA rollo, pp. 16-19.
[3] SEC. 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.
The penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any controlled precursor and essential chemical, or shall act as a broker in such transactions.
If the sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution or transportation of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical transpires within one hundred (100) meters from the school, the maximum penalty shall be imposed in every case.
For drug pushers who use minors or mentally incapacitated individuals as runners, couriers and messengers, or in any other capacity directly connected to the dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals trade, the maximum penalty shall be imposed in every case.
If the victim of the offense is a minor or a mentally incapacitated individual, or should a dangerous drug and/or a controlled precursor and essential chemical involved in any offense herein provided be the proximate cause of death of a victim thereof, the maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed.
The maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed upon any person who organizes, manages or acts as a "financier" of any of the illegal activities prescribed in this Section.
The penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years of imprisonment and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who acts as a "protector/coddler" of any violator of the provisions under this Section.
[4] CA rollo, p. 7.
[5] TSN, February 9, 2004, pp. 3-6.
[6] Id. at 6-10.
[7] Id. at 10-12.
[8] Id. at 12.
[9] Records, p. 6.
[10] TSN, September 22, 2004, pp. 7-10.
[11] Id. at 4.
[12] Id. at 6.
[13] Id. at 2-5.
[14] "[M]agpapapalit lang siya ng barya" (TSN, May 24, 2004, p. 5).
[15] TSN, May 24, 2004, p. 7.
[16] Records. pp. 18-19.
[17] Rollo, p. 7.
[18] Id. at 8.
[19] Id. at 10-11.
[20] Rollo, p. 11.
[21] Id. at 16-17.
[22] Id. at 21-24 and 25-27.
[23] CA rollo, p. 33.
[24] People v. Mala, 458 Phil. 180, 190 (2003).
[25] TSN, February 9, 2004, pp. 6-14.
[26] G.R. No. 180511, July 28, 2008, 560 SCRA 430, 447-448.
[27] Records, p. 4.
[28] Id. at 27.
[29] Id. at 8.
[30] People v. Desuyo, G.R. No. 186466, July 26, 2010, 625 SCRA 590, 609.
[31] G.R. No. 171019, February 23, 2007, 516 SCRA 621.
[32] Id. at 633-634.
[33] People v. Naquita, supra note 26 at 444.
[34] People v. Saludes, 451 Phil. 719, 729 (2003).
[35] People v. Razul, 441 Phil. 62, 89-90 (2002).
[36] People v. Ganenas, 417 Phil. 53, 66-67 (2001).
[37] People v. Uy, 392 Phil. 773, 788 (2000).
Dela Cruz was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II[3] of Republic Act No. 9165, in an Information[4] which reads:
That on or about the 30th day of March 2003, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, not being authorized by law to sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any dangerous drug, did the (sic) and there willfully and unlawfully sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute or act as broker in the said transaction, 0.20 (ZERO POINT TWENTY) gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
During arraignment, Dela Cruz, assisted by his counsel de parte, entered a plea of not guilty. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
The prosecution presented as witnesses Police Officer (PO) 3 Bernard Amigo (Amigo) and PO2 Jaime Ocampo (Ocampo).
The prosecution's version of events as testified by the aforesaid witnesses is as follows:
At about 10:00 a.m. on March 30, 2003, an informant called the Cubao Police Station 7 and reported to the duty desk officer that someone was selling shabu at Yale Street, Cubao, Quezon City. A team composed of four police officers was formed to conduct an entrapment, headed by PO2 Jerry Sanchez (Sanchez). PO2 Ocampo was designated as poseur-buyer. Before the dispatch, two pieces of P100.00 bills were given to PO2 Ocampo as buy-bust money,[5] which he marked with his initials "JO."
Upon arrival of the police team at Yale Street, PO2 Ocampo spotted a person selling drugs on said street. PO2 Ocampo and the informant approached the person, who was later identified as Dela Cruz. The informant introduced PO2 Ocampo to Dela Cruz as a person interested to buy shabu. Dela Cruz then asked how much shabu PO2 Ocampo wanted to buy. PO2 Ocampo answered he would like to purchase P200.00 worth of shabu. When PO2 Ocampo gave two P100.00-bills to Dela Cruz, the latter handed over in exchange a plastic sachet to PO2 Ocampo. PO2 Ocampo examined the contents of the plastic sachet, and believing that the same to be shabu, he tapped Dela Cruz's shoulder, which was the pre-arranged signal to the other members of the police team.[6]
The rest of the police team rushed to the crime scene and identified themselves as police officers. PO2 Ocampo arrested Dela Cruz and recovered from the latter the two P100.00-bills used as buy-bust money. While PO2 Ocampo kept possession of the buy-bust money, he passed the plastic sachet containing the shabu to his companion. PO2 Ocampo marked the plastic sachet with "JO."[7] The plastic sachet was brought to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory for examination of its contents,[8] which was later confirmed as methylamphetamine hydrochloride,[9] more popularly known as shabu.
At the police station, the police team turned over Dela Cruz to PO3 Amigo. PO3 Amigo then assisted in the execution of PO2 Ocampo's Affidavit of Poseur-Buyer and PO2 Sanchez's Affidavit of Arrest. PO3 Domingo prepared the request for laboratory examination of the plastic sachet and its contents.
For its part, the defense presented the testimonies of the accused, Dela Cruz; Dela Cruz's aunt, Adoracion Salcedo (Salcedo); and Dela Cruz's kumare, Nora Cruz (Nora).
Dela Cruz denied any criminal liability and claimed frame-up by the police. Dela Cruz insisted that at around 11:00 a.m. on March 30, 2003, he was fixing the trash can in an eskinita between Yale and Oxford Streets when two police officers, conducting a raid in said place, frisked and arrested him, then brought him to Cubao Police Station 7.[10] Dela Cruz explained that he made trash cans for free because he wanted to teach his kumpare and inaanak, who lived in the area, to clean up their place. He also made trash cans for the area surrounding his residence at Kamias, Quezon City.[11] He denied the charge that he was selling shabu. He did admit to selling merchandise, such as wooden tops, banig, etc., but at the time of his arrest, he had no merchandise with him for he left these at his house.[12]
Salcedo testified that at around 8:00 a.m. on March 30, 2003, while she was at her house located in Diamond Hills, Molave Extension, Payatas, Quezon City, Dela Cruz asked Salcedo for permission to go to Divisoria, but Dela Cruz had to pass by Cubao first because he would deliver a banig to a certain Nora.[13]
Supporting Salcedo's testimony, Nora related that at around 10:30 a.m. on March 30, 2003, while she was washing clothes at her house on Yale Street, Cubao, Quezon City, Dela Cruz arrived to bring the banig she ordered. Nora told Dela Cruz to wait until she had finished washing clothes. Dela Cruz then said he had to leave for a while because one of the trash cans he made got broken, and Nora replied that she would wait for him. When Dela Cruz returned, Nora was still washing clothes. Dela Cruz left Nora's house again to go to a nearby sari-sari store, located at the corner of Yale and Oxford Streets, and owned by one Mama Joy, so he could have his money broken to smaller denominations.[14] While Dela Cruz was standing in front of Mama Joy's store, three police officers arrived with two other people they had previously arrested. After entering Mama Joy's store, the police officers arrested Dela Cruz. When Nora went up to the police officers to ask why they were arresting Dela Cruz, the police officers told her "daldal ka ng daldal, isasama ka namin," which made her stop.[15] The police officers boarded Dela Cruz onto their vehicle and brought him to Cubao Police Station 7. Mama Joy was not arrested at that time, but during Dela Cruz's trial, Mama Joy was already detained at Camp Karingal also for shabu-related charges.
After trial, the RTC promulgated its Decision dated September 7, 2005 finding Dela Cruz guilty as charged.
The RTC gave credibility to the prosecution's version, considering the following inconsistencies in the defense's account: (1) Dela Cruz testified that he resides at No. 1 K.J. Kamias Road, Quezon City, which was just across a bridge from Yale Street. If this was true, then there was reason to believe that Dela Cruz had a sense of community hygiene to put up and maintain trash cans at the eskinita between Yale and Oxford Streets. But from Salcedo's testimony, it appears that Dela Cruz and his two children with his first wife lived with Salcedo at Diamond Hills, Molave Ext., Payatas B, Quezon City, several kilometers away from the eskinita between Yale and Oxford Streets in Cubao, Quezon City. Salcedo's residence is so distant from Cubao that in the absence of association with any community organization in the latter area, it was incongruous to believe that Dela Cruz would entertain any notion of public service therein; (2) the story of Dela Cruz is radically different from that of his own witnesses, Salcedo and Nora. Dela Cruz repeatedly declared that he was at the eskinita between Yale and Oxford Streets to take a look at the trash cans he placed thereat, and never mentioned that he was to deliver a banig to Nora in Cubao, or that he went to Mama Joy's store while waiting for Nora to finish her laundry; and (3) if Dela Cruz's main interest was the cleanliness of the eskinita between Yale and Oxford Streets, rather than selling shabu, then the community leaders in the said area, or at the very least, his own kumpare who supposedly live there, would have come to court to defend him, but no one did.
The dispositive portion of the RTC decision reads:
ACCORDINGLY, judgment is rendered finding the accused REYNALD DELA CRUZ y Libantocia GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5 of R.A. 9165 (for drug sale) as charged, and he is hereby sentenced to spend time in jail by way of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of P500,000.00.
The shabu involved here is ordered transmitted to the PDEA thru DDB for proper disposition.[16]
Dela Cruz appealed to the Court of Appeals, which, in a Decision dated January 22, 2007, affirmed the findings and conclusion of the RTC.
The Court of Appeals cited the presumption of regularity in the police officers' performance of their official duties:
At the outset, it bears pointing out that prosecutions of cases for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act arising from buy-bust operations largely depend on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the same. Unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive or were not properly performing their duty, their testimonies on the operation deserve full faith and credit. And so must the prosecution witness-member of the buy-bust team in the case at bar be accorded full credence in the absence of any improper motive to implicate [Dela Cruz].
Furthermore, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties has not been controverted by [Dela Cruz]; hence, this Court is bound to uphold it. He utterly failed to prove that in testifying against him, the prosecution witnesses were motivated by reasons other than the duty to curb the possession of prohibited drugs. There is no proof of any ill motive or odious intent on the part of the police authorities to impute falsely such a serious crime to [Dela Cruz]. Thus, the Court will not allow the former's testimonies to be overcome by self-serving defenses.
Well-settled is the rule that categorical and consistent positive identification, absent any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over the appellants' defense of denial and alibi.[17]
The appellate court further held that the prosecution was able to establish all the essential elements of illegal sale of shabu:
While [Dela Cruz] asserts that the prosecution failed to fully substantiate the identity of the corpus delicti of the crime, we are, however, bound to uphold the findings of the trial court. Jurisprudence clearly sets the essential elements to be established in the prosecution of illegal sale of shabu as follows: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.
What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence. The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction.
In the case at bar, all these elements were proven. First, there was meeting of the minds between the buyer and the seller. PO2 Ocampo, the poseur-buyer, was willing to buy shabu from [Dela Cruz]. Second, there was consideration for the sale, the parties having agreed upon the amount of P200.00. Third, [Dela Cruz] handed over to the poseur-buyer a plastic sachet containing shabu, the subject of the sale. The positive identification of [Dela Cruz] by poseur-buyer as the one who peddled the shabu clearly established the illicit sale, as the poseur-buyer is the best witness to the transaction.[18]
Agreeing with the inconsistencies in the defense's evidence, observed by the RTC, the Court of Appeals pronounced:
Moreover, from the viewpoint of this Court, the version of [Dela Cruz] is markedly unusual and strange. It just does not conform with our common knowledge and experience. It has been said time and again that evidence, to be worthy of credit, must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but must be credible in itself. By this is meant that it should be natural, reasonable and probable in view of the circumstance which it describes or to which it relates, so as to make it easy for the mind to accepts as worthy of belief.
x x x x
In cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Law, appellate courts tend to heavily rely upon the trial court in assessing the credibility of witnesses, as it had the unique opportunity, denied to the appellate courts, to observe the witnesses and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under direct and cross-examination. Hence, its factual findings are accorded great respect, even finality, absent any showing that certain facts of weight and substance bearing on the elements of the crime have been overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied.[19]
In the end, the appellate court decreed:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 103 in Criminal Case No. Q-03-116311, finding accused-appellant Reynald dela Cruz y Libantocia guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Article 5, Article II of R.A. 9165, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00), is affirmed in toto.[20]
After giving due course to Dela Cruz's Notice of Appeal in a Resolution dated February 14, 2007, the Court of Appeals forwarded the records of the case to this Court.
In a Resolution[21] dated June 27, 2007, the Court notified the parties that they may file their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desired, within 30 days from notice. Dela Cruz and the People[22] opted not to file their supplemental briefs on the ground that they had exhaustively argued all the relevant issues in their briefs, and the filing of a supplemental brief would only entail a repetition of the arguments already discussed therein.
In his Accused-Appellant's Brief,[23] Dela Cruz presents the following assignment of errors:
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF VIOLATION OF SECTION 5, ARTICLE II, REPUBLIC ACT 9165, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY OF THE ILLEGAL DRUG OR CORPUS DELICTI OF THE OFFENSE.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED WHEN THE LATTER'S GUILT WAS NOT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
Dela Cruz asserts that the police officers failed to account for the chain of custody of the seized item alleged to be shabu and establish the identity of the illegal drug, the corpus delicti of the case.
We find no merit in the instant appeal.
In a prosecution for illegal sale of regulated or prohibited drugs, conviction can be had if the following elements are present: (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. What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti. The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping officers and the accused.[24]
All the foregoing elements were established in this case by the following testimony of PO2 Ocampo:
During trial, PO2 Ocampo, who acted as the poseur-buyer, positively identified Dela Cruz as the seller of the shabu. PO2 Ocampo likewise identified the P200.00 buy-bust money he paid to Dela Cruz and the plastic sachet containing the shabu which Dela Cruz gave in exchange for the P200.00, both bearing the initials "JO," which PO2 Ocampo personally placed thereon in the course of the entrapment operation. Indubitably, there was a consummated illegal sale of a prohibited drug.
Dela Cruz questions before us the chain of custody of the shabu he sold to PO2 Ocampo during the buy-bust operation, so as to raise doubts on the identity of the drugs presented before the RTC during trial.
Section 21, paragraph 1 of Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 instructs the apprehending authorities on the proper procedure they should follow immediately after seizure and confiscation of dangerous drugs:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 expounds on the procedure, thus:
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the 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.
In People v. Naquita,[26] we expressly declared that non-compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 does not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.
Dela Cruz did not present any evidence at all to substantiate his allegation that the integrity and evidentiary value of the shabu presented as evidence at his trial had been compromised at some point. To the contrary, records show that there had been substantial compliance with the prescribed procedure.
The chain of custody was established through the following links: (1) PO2 Ocampo obtained one plastic sachet containing shabu from Dela Cruz during the buy-bust operation; (2) PO2 Ocampo marked the sachet with his initials "JO"; (3) A request for laboratory examination of "[o]ne (1) heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing undetermined amount of suspected white crystalline substance marked `JO'" was signed by Police Senior Inspector Maximo Milan Canilang, Chief of the Station Drug Enforcement Unit (SDEU), and PO3 Domingo, Investigator;[27] (4) The plastic sachet was submitted to Police Inspector Yelah C. Manaog (P/Insp. Manaog), Forensic Chemist of the PNP Crime Laboratory, who, upon receipt, marked the sachet with her initials "YCM";[28] (5) P/Insp. Manaog issued Chemistry Report No. D-333-03, stating that "[q]ualitative examination conducted on the above-stated specimen gave POSITIVE result to the tests for Methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug";[29] and (6) The plastic sachet was presented as Exhibit E, and the markings made thereon by PO2 Ocampo and P/Insp. Manaog as Exhibits E-1 and E-2, respectively. There is no doubt in our minds that the very same plastic sachet obtained from Dela Cruz during the buy-bust operation was the same specimen submitted for examination at the crime laboratory and presented as evidence during trial.
We note further that the defense raised its objection and questioned the integrity of the shabu allegedly seized from Dela Cruz only on appeal. Failure to raise this issue during trial is fatal to the case of the defense.[30] We explained in People v. Sta. Maria[31] that:
The law excuses non-compliance under justifiable grounds. However, whatever justifiable grounds may excuse the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation in this case from complying with Section 21 will remain unknown, because appellant did not question during trial the safekeeping of the items seized from him. Indeed, the police officers' alleged violations of Sections 21 and 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 were not raised before the trial court but were instead raised for the first time on appeal. In no instance did appellant least intimate at the trial court that there were lapses in the safekeeping of seized items that affected their integrity and evidentiary value. Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of objection. Without such objection he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal.[32]
The RTC and the Court of Appeals, in convicting Dela Cruz for the illegal sale of regulated or prohibited drugs, gave full faith and credence to the evidence presented by the prosecution.
In a prosecution for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law, a case becomes a contest of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies. When it comes to credibility, the trial court's assessment deserves great weight, and is even conclusive and binding, if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence. The reason is obvious. Having the full opportunity to observe directly the witnesses' deportment and manner of testifying, the trial court is in a better position than the appellate court to evaluate testimonial evidence properly. The rule finds an even more stringent application where the said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals.[33]
Not finding any arbitrariness or oversight on the part of the RTC and the Court of Appeals, we have no reason to set aside their factual findings.
It is equally settled that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary.[34] Dela Cruz utterly failed to prove that in testifying against him, PO2 Ocampo was motivated by reasons other than the duty to curb the sale of prohibited drugs. There is no proof of any ill motive or odious intent on the part of the police authorities to impute falsely such a serious crime to Dela Cruz.[35]
Dela Cruz's denial of the charges and claim of frame-up are inherently weak defenses.
In drug cases, entrapment is a normal police technique to catch the culprit in flagrante delicto. On the other hand, denial and frame-up are the usual defenses set up by the accused. Affirmative statements are given greater weight than mere denials.[36]
We are not unaware that in some instances law enforcers resort to the practice of planting evidence to extract information or even to harass civilians. However, frame-up is a defense that has been invariably viewed by the Court with disfavor as it can be easily concocted, hence, commonly used as a standard line of defense in most prosecutions arising from violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act. We realize the disastrous consequences on the enforcement of law and order, not to mention the well-being of society, if the courts, solely on the basis of the police officers' alleged rotten reputation, accept in every instance this form of defense which can be so easily fabricated. It is precisely for this reason that the legal presumption that official duty has been regularly performed exists. Bare denials cannot prevail over the positive identification by PO2 Ocampo of Dela Cruz as the person who sold him the shabu.[37]
Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 stipulates that the illegal sale of prohibited or regulated drugs shall be penalized with life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00. Considering said provision, we sustain the RTC and the Court of Appeals in imposing upon Dela Cruz: (1) the penalty of life imprisonment, since there was no mitigating or aggravating circumstance attending Dela Cruz's violation of the law; and (2) the minimum amount of P500,000.00 fine, given that the shabu obtained from Dela Cruz in the buy-bust operation weighed only 0.20 grams.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated January 22, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 01579, which affirmed the Decision dated September 7, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 103, in Criminal Case No. Q-03-116311, finding accused-appellant Reynald Dela Cruz y Libantocia guilty beyond reasonable doubt of selling 0.20 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a prohibited drug, in violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, and imposing upon him the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00), is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Corona, C.J., (Chairperson), Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Del Castillo, and Perez, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 2-12; penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison with Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez and Vicente S.E. Veloso, concurring.
[2] CA rollo, pp. 16-19.
[3] SEC. 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.
The penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any controlled precursor and essential chemical, or shall act as a broker in such transactions.
If the sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution or transportation of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical transpires within one hundred (100) meters from the school, the maximum penalty shall be imposed in every case.
For drug pushers who use minors or mentally incapacitated individuals as runners, couriers and messengers, or in any other capacity directly connected to the dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals trade, the maximum penalty shall be imposed in every case.
If the victim of the offense is a minor or a mentally incapacitated individual, or should a dangerous drug and/or a controlled precursor and essential chemical involved in any offense herein provided be the proximate cause of death of a victim thereof, the maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed.
The maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed upon any person who organizes, manages or acts as a "financier" of any of the illegal activities prescribed in this Section.
The penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years of imprisonment and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who acts as a "protector/coddler" of any violator of the provisions under this Section.
[4] CA rollo, p. 7.
[5] TSN, February 9, 2004, pp. 3-6.
[6] Id. at 6-10.
[7] Id. at 10-12.
[8] Id. at 12.
[9] Records, p. 6.
[10] TSN, September 22, 2004, pp. 7-10.
[11] Id. at 4.
[12] Id. at 6.
[13] Id. at 2-5.
[14] "[M]agpapapalit lang siya ng barya" (TSN, May 24, 2004, p. 5).
[15] TSN, May 24, 2004, p. 7.
[16] Records. pp. 18-19.
[17] Rollo, p. 7.
[18] Id. at 8.
[19] Id. at 10-11.
[20] Rollo, p. 11.
[21] Id. at 16-17.
[22] Id. at 21-24 and 25-27.
[23] CA rollo, p. 33.
[24] People v. Mala, 458 Phil. 180, 190 (2003).
[25] TSN, February 9, 2004, pp. 6-14.
[26] G.R. No. 180511, July 28, 2008, 560 SCRA 430, 447-448.
[27] Records, p. 4.
[28] Id. at 27.
[29] Id. at 8.
[30] People v. Desuyo, G.R. No. 186466, July 26, 2010, 625 SCRA 590, 609.
[31] G.R. No. 171019, February 23, 2007, 516 SCRA 621.
[32] Id. at 633-634.
[33] People v. Naquita, supra note 26 at 444.
[34] People v. Saludes, 451 Phil. 719, 729 (2003).
[35] People v. Razul, 441 Phil. 62, 89-90 (2002).
[36] People v. Ganenas, 417 Phil. 53, 66-67 (2001).
[37] People v. Uy, 392 Phil. 773, 788 (2000).