FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 191396, April 17, 2013]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARILYN AGUILAR Y MANZANILLO, Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
Criminal Case No. 04-2962-CFM:That on or about the 30th day of November, 2004, in Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, Marilyn Aguilar y Manzanillo, without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in her possession, custody and control [of] 0.31 gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug.3Criminal Case No. 04-2963-CFM:That on or about the 30th day of November, 2004, in Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, Marilyn Aguilar y Manzanillo, without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to another 0.45 gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug.4
SPECIMEN SUBMITTED:
A – One (1) staple-sealed brown envelope with names and signatures containing two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets each containing white crystalline substance having the following markings and net weights:A-1 - (RM-1 301104) = 0.45 gramPURPOSE OF LABORATORY EXAMINATION:
A-2 - (RM-2 301104) = 0.31 gram
To determine the presence of dangerous drugs.
FINDINGS:
Qualitative examination conducted on the above-stated specimens gave POSITIVE result to the tests for Methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
CONCLUSION:cralaw
Specimens A-1 and A-2 contain Methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
x x x x
REMARKS:cralaw
TIME AND DATE COMPLETED:cralaw0120H 01 December 2004
EXAMINED BY:cralaw(SGD.)
ANGEL C. TIMARIO
Police Inspector
Forensic Chemist11
WHEREFORE, in x x x light of the foregoing premises and considerations, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:cralaw
1) In Criminal Case No. 04-2962-CFM, this Court finds the accused Marilyn Aguilar y Manzanillo GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of committing the crime of Violation of Section 11, sub-paragraph (3), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and she is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and four (4) months and to pay a fine of P300,000.00, plus costs; and
2) In Criminal Case No. 04-2963-CFM, this Court likewise finds the said accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of committing the crime of Violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and she is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00, plus costs.
The two (2) 0.31 and 0.45 gram of Methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu involved in these cases are hereby declared confiscated in favor of the Government and ordered to be turned over to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper and appropriate disposition in accordance with the provisions of the law.16
I
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 5 AND 11, ARTICLE II [OF] REPUBLIC ACT [NO.] 9165.II
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO ACCUSED-APPELLANT’S DEFENSE OF DENIAL AND FRAME-UP.20
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.Custody and Control of Evidence
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.
x x x x
SEC. 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. - 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 possess any dangerous drug in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof:chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryOtherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be graduated as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
(1) 10 grams or more of opium; (2) 10 grams or more of morphine; (3) 10 grams or more of heroin; (4) 10 grams or more of cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride; (5) 50 grams or more of methamphetamine hydrochloride or “shabu”; (6) 10 grams or more of marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil; (7) 500 grams or more of marijuana; and (8) 10 grams or more of other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) or “ecstasy,” paramethoxyamphetamine (PMA), trimethoxyamphetamine (TMA), lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), gamma hydroxybutyrate (GHB), and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements, as determined and promulgated by the Board in accordance to Section 93, Article XI of this Act.(1) Life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), if the quantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride or “shabu” is ten (10) grams or more but less than fifty (50) grams;cralawlibrary
(2) Imprisonment of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are five (5) grams or more but less than ten (10) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or “shabu,” or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or “ecstasy,” PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or three hundred (300) grams or more but less than five hundred (500) grams of marijuana; and
(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or ”shabu,” or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or “ecstasy,” PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or less than three hundred (300) grams of marijuana.
SEC. 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:cralaw
(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[.]
SEC. 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:cralaw
(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[.] (Emphasis supplied.)
It was undisputed that at about 6:20 in the evening of November 30, 2004, PO2 Medrano bought a sachet of shabu from accused-appellant which he paid with two (2) P500.00 marked bill[s]. PO2 Medrano placed the shabu in his pocket then executed the pre-arranged signal. After arresting accused-appellant, PO2 Medrano seized the marked money from the former’s left hand then frisked accused-appellant and found another sachet of shabu. He marked the sachet of shabu he bought “RM-1” and the one he found in accused-appellant’s pocket “RM-2”. They brought accused-appellant and the seized items to the headquarters. While accused-appellant was being booked, the team prepared the request for laboratory examination. The request and the seized drugs were personally brought by PO2 Medrano to the PNP Crime Laboratory in Quezon City that same evening. P/Insp. Angel Timario received the request and specimens brought by PO2 Medrano. He weighed and examined the contents of the sachets, confirming that the items were methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. His findings are embodied in Chemistry Report No. D-1171-04. The specimens which bore the markings “RM-1” and “RM-2” were identified by PO2 Medrano during trial.24 (Citations omitted.)
In a prosecution for the sale of a dangerous drug, the following elements must be proven: (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. Simply put, “[in] prosecutions for illegal sale of shabu, 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.” (Citations omitted.)
1) the accused is in possession of an item or object, which is identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug;
(2) such possession is not authorized by law; and
(3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.29
Denial or frame-up is a standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law. As such, it has been viewed by the court with disfavor for it can just as easily be concocted. It should not accord a redoubtable sanctuary to a person accused of drug dealing unless the evidence of such frame up is clear and convincing. Without proof of any intent on the part of the police officers to falsely impute appellant in the commission of a crime, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and the principle that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect, deserve to prevail over the bare denials and self-serving claims of appellant that he had been framed up. Neither can appellant’s claim of alleged extortion by the police operatives be entertained. Absent any proof, appellant’s assertion of extortion allegedly committed by the police officers could not be successfully interposed. It remains one of those standard, worn-out, and impotent excuses of malefactors prosecuted for drug offenses. What appellant could have done was to prove his allegation and not just casually air it. (Citations omitted.)
Entrapment is sanctioned by the law as a legitimate method of apprehending criminals. Its purpose is to trap and capture lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan. Instigation, on the other hand, involves the inducement of the would-be accused into the commission of the offense. In such a case, the instigators become co-principals themselves.
Where the criminal intent originates in the mind of the instigating person and the accused is lured into the commission of the offense charged in order to prosecute him, there is instigation and no conviction may be had. Where, however, the criminal intent originates in the mind of the accused and the criminal offense is completed, even after a person acted as a decoy for the state, or public officials furnished the accused an opportunity for the commission of the offense, or the accused was aided in the commission of the crime in order to secure the evidence necessary to prosecute him, there is no instigation and the accused must be convicted. The law in fact tolerates the use of decoys and other artifices to catch a criminal. (Citations omitted.)
In Legaspi, we added: “[t]he foregoing are especially true in that class of cases where the offense is the kind that is habitually committed, and the solicitation merely furnished evidence of a course of conduct. Mere deception by the police officer will not shield the perpetrator, if the offense was committed by him free from the influence or the instigation of the police officer.”38 The illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs belong to such class of cases and buy-bust operations employing poseur-buyers are legally permissible to expose the offender and catch him in the act.
(1) that facilities for the commission of the crime were intentionally placed in his way; or (2) that the criminal act was done at the solicitation of the decoy or poseur-buyer seeking to expose his criminal act; or (3) that police authorities feigning complicity in the act were present and apparently assisted in its commission.37 (Citation omitted.)
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 2-18; penned by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez with Associate Justices Rebecca de Guia-Salvador and Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr., concurring.
2 CA rollo, pp. 18-26; penned by Judge Eleuterio F. Guerrero.
3 Records, pp. 2-3.
4 Id. at 18-19.
5 Id. at 35-36.
6 Id. at 48-49.
7 TSN, March 21, 2005, p. 6.
8 Id. at 4-10.
9 Id. at 18.
10 Id. at 11-22.
11 Records, p. 90.
12 TSN, August 3, 2005, p. 4.
13 Id. at 3-4.
14 Id. at 5.
15 TSN, May 17, 2005, pp. 4-12.
16 CA rollo, pp. 25-26.
17 Id. at 27.
18 Id. at 109-111.
19Rollo, pp. 62-63.
20 CA rollo, p. 36.
21 Id. at 47.
22People v. Castro, G.R. No. 194836, June 15, 2011, 652 SCRA 393, 404-405.
23People v. Malik Manalao, G.R. No. 187496, February 6, 2013.
24Rollo, pp. 15-16.
25People v. Castro, supra note 22 at 407.
26 Id.
27 G.R. No. 188107, December 5, 2012.
28 TSN, March 21, 2005, p. 23.
29Asiatico v. People, G.R. No. 195005, September 12, 2011, 657 SCRA 443, 450.
30People v. Quiamanlon, G.R. No. 191198, January 26, 2011, 640 SCRA 697, 716.
31 TSN, May 17, 2005, p. 13.
32 Id. at 15.
33People v. Cruz, G.R. No. 187047, June 15, 2011, 652 SCRA 286, 301-302.
34 CA rollo, pp. 44-47.
35 G.R. No. 173485, November 23, 2011, 661 SCRA 171, 180.
36 Id. at 181.
37 Id.
38 Id.
39Rollo, p. 10.
40 TSN, March 21, 2005, p. 18.
41People v. Legaspi, supra note 35 at 182.
42 Id. at 185.