FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 229680, June 06, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. MICHAEL GOYENA Y ABRAHAM, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
Assailed in this appeal is the January 15, 2016 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07151, which affirmed the November 3, 2014 Judgment2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 4, Legazpi City, finding Michael Goyena y Abraham (appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Antecedent Facts
Appellant was charged with the illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 in an Information3 dated November 29, 2012 which reads:
That on the 28th day of November, 2012, in the City of Legazpi, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there, knowingly, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to a PDEA poseur[-]buyer one (1) medium[-]size[d,] heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride[,] popularly known as Shabu, a dangerous drug, weighing 0.301 gram, in consideration of Five Hundred Pesos (P500.00), without authority of law.During his arraignment on December 20,2012, appellant entered a plea of not guilty.4 Trial thereafter ensued.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
On November 28, 2012[,] at around 3:30 in the afternoon, [appellant] was playing "cara y cruz" at an old building in Cabangan, Legazpi City while waiting for his sibling[,] Cyramil. He momentarily left his group to relieve himself. While heading back to the game, about ten (10) men suddenly accosted him. When he asked why he was being arrested, the men ordered him just to follow them. [Appellant] called for help from the barangay captain and his "cara y cruz" playmates but to no avail.Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
The men then handcuffed him and led him away. At this point, he felt something being inserted into his pocket. One of them, who turned out to be [A]gent Revilla, then retrieved a black pouch from [his] pocket and[,] in turn[,] brought out therefrom a five hundred (P500.00)-peso bill and a plastic sachet which contained a substance similar to "tawas." [Appellant] was surprised since the only thing he had in his pocket then was his coin purse.
He again cried for help because he felt that the men were planting evidence against him. Many people were then starting to arrive at the scene, such that [A] gent Revilla and his companions made [him] board a black vehicle and thereafter brought him to the Legazpi City Police Station where a man named "Caspe" presented the items seized from him. On the arrival of the barangay captain, a kagawad, a representative from the Department of Justice, and a photographer, he was frisked which search yielded his coin purse. His photo was taken and [he was] subsequently subjected to investigation. [Appellant] denied the accusation against him, saying he was merely arrested for illegal gambling, playing "cara y cruz."22
The consummation of the aforesaid sale transaction of illegal drugs was made in the afternoon of November 28, 2012. In the buy-bust operation, the accused, as conspirator of [his] sister Cyramil, was the one who delivered the illegal drug which turned out to be "shabu", subject matter of the aforesaid sale transaction to poseur-buyer Agent Revilla, facilitated by the Cl. Accused also received the payment from Agent Revilla.23The RTC noted that Agent Revilla had positively identified appellant as the person who sold to him the subject shabu in the buy-bust operation on November 28, 2012. The RTC also found the positive testimony of Agent Revilla to be candid, straightforward and credible.24
In the instant case, [appellant's] identity as the culprit cannot be doubted, having been caught in flagrante delicto for selling an illegal drug. He was positively identified as the person who sold to [A]gent Revilla, the poseur-buyer, a heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance during the buy-bust operation. This positive identification prevails as [appellant] could only offer an uncorroborated and weak defense of denial. Against the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, [appellant's] plain denial of the offense charged, unsubstantiated by any credible and convincing evidence, must simply fail.29The CA rejected appellant's contention that his warrantless arrest was illegal, as the prosecution was able to prove that appellant was apprehended after a legitimate buy-bust operation.30 "Hence, having been caught in flagrante delicto, the police officers were not only authorized but were even duty-bound to arrest him even without a warrant."31
At any rate, the prosecution had sufficiently shown the law enforcers' unbroken chain of custody over the subject specimen, from the time of [appellant's] arrest up to the submission of the specimen to P/SI Pabustan, Jr. Agent Revilla, the poseur-buyer, marked the seized item in front of [appellant] and thereafter continued the inventory immediately upon arrival at the Police Station in the presence of two (2) barangay officials, [a] media representative, [a] DOJ representative and other members of the buy-bust team. The arresting officers then delivered the seized item to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination on the same day. Then, on the stand, [A]gent Revilla identified the subject specimen bearing the marking "JIR-11/28/12" as the same item retrieved from [appellant] during the buy-bust sale held on 28 November 2012.33Aggrieved, appellant filed the present appeal.
x x x The commission of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs requires merely the consummation of the selling transaction, which happens the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller. Settled is the rule that as long as the police officer went through the operation as a buyer and his offer was accepted by appellant and the dangerous drugs delivered to the former, the crime is considered consummated by the delivery of the goods.39In this case, the prosecution positively identified appellant as the seller of the white crystalline substance which was later found to be methamphetamine hydrochloride, more commonly known as shabu, a dangerous drug.40 It was also shown that appellant had sold the shabu to Agent Revilla, the poseur-buyer, for a sum of P3,500.00.41
x x x In such operation, the poseur buyer transacts with the suspect by purchasing a quantity of the dangerous drugs and paying the price agreed upon, and in turn[,] the drug pusher turns over or delivers the dangerous drug subject of their agreement in exchange for the price or consideration. Once the transaction is consummated, the drug pusher is arrested, and can be held to account under the criminal law. The justification that underlies the legitimacy of the buy-bust operation is that the suspect is arrested in flagrante delicto, that is, the suspect has just committed, or is in the act of committing, or is attempting to commit the offense in the presence of the arresting police officer or private person. The arresting police officer or private person is favored in such instance with the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty.48 (Emphasis supplied)We find no sufficient reason to overturn the presumption of regularity in favor of the PDEA agents, given appellant's failure to present clear and convincing evidence that the PDEA agents did not properly perform their duties or that they were inspired by improper motive.49
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 2-17; penned by Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda and concurred in by Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Pedro B. Corales.
2 CA rollo, pp. 48-72; penned by Judge Edgar L. Armes.
3 Records, p. 1-2.
4 Id. at 37.
5 CA rollo, p. 84.
6 Id.
7 Id.
8 Id. at 84-85.
9 Id. at 85.
10 Id.
11 Id.
12 Id. at 85-86.
13 Id. at 86.
14 Id.
15 Records, p. 17.
16 Id. at 25-27.
17 CA rollo, p. 86.
18 Id.19 Records p. 22.
20 CA rollo,p. 86.
21 Records, p. 23.
22Rollo, pp. 8-9.
23 CA rollo, pp. 60-61.
24 Id. at 62.
25 Id. at 71.
26Rollo, pp. 18-19.
27 Id. at 16.
28 Id. at 12.
29 Id. at 11.
30 Id. at 12.
31 Id.
32 Id. at 14.
33 Id. at 14-15.
34 CA rollo, pp. 40-42.
35 Id. at 43-44.
36People v. Cabiles, G.R. No. 220758, June 7, 2017, 827 SCRA 89, 95.
37People v. Dumlao, 584 Phil. 732, 738 (2008).
38 Id.
39 Id. at 738.
40 TSN, February 12, 2014, pp. 9-10. See also Agent Revilla's Judicial Affidavit, records, pp. 204-205.
41 Records, p. 205.
42 Id.
43 Id. at 23.
44 Id. at 14.
45 Id. at 15.
46 745 Phil. 237 (2014).
47 Id. at 246.
48 Id. at 246-247.
49 See People v. Pasion, 752 Phil. 359, 370 (2015).
50 Records, p. 205.
51 TSN, February 12, 2014, p. 11.
52 Id. See also P/SI Pakistan's Judicial Affidavit, records, pp. 186-187.
53 Records, p. 189.
54 "An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines."