FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 233544, March 25, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. ALBERTO GONZALES Y VITAL, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
CARANDANG, J.:
This is an appeal1 from the February 28, 2017 Decision2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) finding accused-appellant Alberto Gonzales y Vital (Alberto) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11 of Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated 4 August 2015 of the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City, Branch 57, in Criminal Case Nos. DC-08-1292 & 1293, is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.3
According to the prosecution witnesses, on June 19, 2008, at around 8:00 p.m., a civilian informant went to the Mabalacat Police Station and reported to PO3 Dindo Dizon (PO3 Dizon) that a certain "Beto," who was later on identified as Alberto, is engaged in illegal drug trade in Barangay Camachiles, Mabalacat, Pampanga.7 PO3 Dizon went to the house of Alberto with a confidential asset and found him standing in front of his house. They approached him and told him that they are going to buy P200.00 worth of shabu. Alberto then asked the confidential asset to whom he will give the shabu since PO3 Dizon was more or less three (3) meters away. Alberto then gave the shabu (0.0896 grams) (first sachet) to PO3 Dizon and, in exchange, the latter gave two (2) pieces of P100.00 bills. PO3 Dizon then introduced himself as a police officer. Alberto ran towards his house but PO2 Romeo Yambao (PO2 Yambao), a back-up member of the operation allegedly apprehended him and confiscated from him the P200.00 marked money from his pocket and another plastic sachet containing suspected shabu (0.1110 grams) (second sachet).8 While conducting a search within the vicinity of Alberto's house, PO2 Yambao saw two (2) male individuals, later on identified as Rogelio Quiambao y Ramos (Rogelio) and Ernesto Rosales y Alejaga (Ernesto), hiding behind a door. When requested to go out, PO2 Yambao found two (2) pieces of small plastic sachet containing suspected shabu on the floor9 but the charges against Rogelio and Ernesto before the prosecutor's office were allegedly dismissed.10CRIMINAL CASE NO. DC 08-1292
That on or about the 19th day of June 2008, in the municipality of Mabalacat, province of Pampanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not having been lawfully authorized, for and in consideration of the amount of Php200.00, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to a poseur buyer one (1) small size transparent plastic pack containing methylamphetamine hydrochloride weighing EIGHT HUNDRED NINETY-SIX TEN THOUSANDTHS OF A GRAM (0.0896 g), more or less, a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law.5CRIMINAL CASE No. DC 08-1293
That on or about the 19th day of June, 2008, in the Municipality of Mabalacat, Pampanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without having been lawfully authorized, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have in his possession custody and control one (1) pc. heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride with marking "DSD-2" with a weight of ONE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED TEN TEN THOUSANDTHS (0.1110g) of a GRAM, a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law.6
WHEREFORE, the prosecution having established its case against the accused and having proven the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the Court hereby finds ALBERTO GONZALES Y VITAL GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes as alleged in the two Informations and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT in Criminal case no. DC 08-1292 for Violation of Section 5, R.A. 9165 and a fine of Php 500,000.00.In convicting Ramon, the RTC gave credence to the testimonies of poseur buyer, PO3 Dizon, and his back-up, PO2 Yambao. The sale of the shabu and the marked money proved the transaction. The RTC found that Alberto made a general denial that he never committed the crime but failed to give any plausible reason why the police would plant evidence against him.20
Accused ALBERTO GONZALES Y VITAL is also sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of TWELVE YEARS and ONE DAY as minimum to FOURTEEN YEARS as maximum and a fine of Php 300,000.00 for Violation of Section 11, R.A. 9165 in criminal case no. DC 08-1293.
SO ORDERED.19
Alberto argued that the corpus delicti was not proven given the inconsistent testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and their failure to establish the continuous and unbroken chain of custody of evidence in compliance with the requisites of Section 21, R.A. No. 9165. He asserted that the integrity of the seized items was compromised because the apprehending officers did not immediately conduct marking and inventory-taking. The seized items were transported to Mabalacat Police Station despite the absence of commotion. Thus, the possibility of switching or planting of evidence is not remote.23 He averred that the barangay coordination letter was prepared by the arresting officers and made only after the arrest just to make it appear that there was an initial coordination when in fact there was none.24 Likewise, there was no representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ) during the inventory and no photos were taken after the arrest or, at the least, during the marking and inventory.25I
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE [ACCUSED]-APPELLANT OF THE CRIMES CHARGED DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO ESTABLISH EVERY LINK IN THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY.II
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE [ACCUSED]-APPELLANT OF THE CRIMES CHARGED DESPITE THE INCREDIBLE AND INCONSISTENT TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES.III
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERED (sic) IN DISREGARDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT'S DEFENSE OF DENIAL.22
Noticeably, in PO3 Dizon's subsequent testimony almost a year after his initial direct examination, he retracted his earlier statement and claimed that it was him who apprehended Alberto without elaborating further:
Q Who was able to catch him? A The back up, Sir Q And, who is this back up A PO1 Romeo Yambao, Sir. Q How about you, Mr. Witness, when this certain "Beto" ran inside the garage of his house, what did you do? A I followed him to the direction where he ran but it was my companion who arrested him, Sir. Q How was [sic] this happened? A He was cornered by Officer Yambao and he was able to confiscate from him the P200.00 bills, Sir.34 (Emphasis supplied)
For the Court, the sudden deviation of PO3 Dizon's account of the buy bust operation from the testimony he previously gave during his extensive direct examination, without offering any explanation, makes his statements doubtful.
Q In your direct testimony, who was able to apprehend the accused Alberto Gonzales? A Me, sir.35 [Emphasis supplied.]
However, these statements of PO2 Yambao negate PO3 Dizon's initial claim that it was PO2 Yambao who recovered the second sachet of shabu and the marked money from Alberto. Thus, PO2 Yambao's testimony failed to corroborate PO3 Dizon's testimony in establishing the corpus delicti.
Q How do you know that the transaction was consummated? A I saw the hand gestures, sir. Q What happened next? A PO3 Dizon executed the pre-arranged signal, sir. Q Upon seeing the pre-arranged signal, what happened next? A I immediately went to the aid of PO3 Dizon to assist him for the arrest of the suspect, sir. Q Were you the one who personally arrested the suspect? A No sir, it was PO3 Dizon. Q How far were you from PO3 Dizon when he arrested the suspect? A I was just on his side, sir. Q What was the result of the arrest? A PO3 Dizon ordered the shelling out of the contents of the pocket of the suspect and he saw the marked money, sir. Q Who took those marked money? A PO3 Dizon, sir. Q Aside from the marked money, what else was recovered from the possession of the accused? A Plastic sachet of shabu, sir. Q Who took the plastic sachet of shabu? A PO3 Dizon, sir.36 (Emphasis supplied)
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 11-13, Notice of Appeal.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Romeo F. Barza (now Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals) with Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. (now Member of the Court) and Associate Justice Renato C. Francisco, concurring; id. at 2-9.
3 Id. at 9.
4 RTC records, pp. 1-3, Information.
5 Id. at 1.
6 Id. at 3.
7 CA rollo, pp. 27-28.
8 Id. at 28.
9 RTC records, p. 6; TSN dated June 19, 2012, p. 9.
10 TSN dated February 12, 2013, pp. 6-7.
11 RTC records, p. 7.
12 Id. at 6.
13 Id. at 7.
14 Id. at 10.
15 Id. at 8.
16 Id. at 11.
17 CA rollo, p. 49.
18 Penned by Judge Omar T. Viola; id. at 45-52.
19 CA rollo, p. 52.
20 Id.
21 Id. at 23-43.
22 Id. at 25.
23 Id. at 32.
24 Id. at 35.
25 Id. at 36.
26Rollo, op. 2-9.
27 Id.
28 Id. at 11.
29 CA rollo, p. 28.
30 Id. at 33.
31People v. Robles, G.R. No. 177220, April 24, 2009, 586 SCRA 647, 654.
32People v. Bintaib, G.R. No. 217805, April 2, 2018.
33 Id.
34 TSN dated June 2, 2009, p. 5.
35 TSN dated August 17, 2010, p. 12.
36 TSN dated June 19, 2012, pp. 8-9.
37 TSN dated June 2, 2009, p. 9.
38 RTC records, p. 7.
39 TSN dated August 17, 2010, p. 11.
40 RTC records, p. 6.
41 TSN dated February 22, 2011, p. 4.
42 RTC records, p. 6.
43People v. Lim, G.R. No. 141699, August 7, 2002, 386 SCRA 581, 600.
44 People v. Salvador, G.R. No. 190621, February 10, 2014, 715 SCRA 617, 632.
45People of the Philippines v. Salvador Sanchez y Espiritu, G.R. No. 175832, October 15, 2008, 569 SCRA 194, 222.