THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 207635, February 18, 2015
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DANTE DELA PEÑA1 AND DENNIS DELIMA, Accused-Appellants.
D E C I S I O N
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
That on or about the 19th day of June, 2008, at around 11:45 o’clock in the evening, in the City of Cebu, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, [Dela Peña], with deliberate intent, and without authority of law, did then and there sell, deliver or give away to [a] poseur buyer one (1) heat[-]sealed transparent plastic sachet of white crystalline substance weighing 0.02 gram, locally known as shabu, containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
CONTRARY TO LAW.4
That on or about the 19th day of June, 2008, at about 11:45 o’clock in the evening, in the City of Cebu, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, [Dela Peña], with deliberate intent, did then and there have in his possession and control four (4) heat[-]sealed transparent plastic sachet[s] of white crystalline substance weighing 0.02 gram [each] or a total of 0.08 gram, locally known as shabu, containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, without authority of law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.5
That on or about the 19th day of June, 2008, at about 11:45 o’clock in the evening, in the City of Cebu, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, [Delima] with deliberate intent, did then and there have in his possession and control one (1) heat[-]sealed transparent plastic sachet of white crystalline substance weighing 0.02 gram, locally known as shabu, containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, without authority of law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.6
When [IO1 Kintanar] x x x received a report from their confidential informant that [Dela Peña] was selling shabu in Barangay Sawang Calero, Cebu City, he immediately instructed OJT Steven Balles to conduct a surveillance, which confirmed the report. Then in the evening of June 19, 2008, a team of PDEA officers was formed to conduct a buy-bust operation [against Dela Peña]. The team was composed of ten PDEA members including IO2 David Mark Maramba as team leader, [IO1 Kintanar] and [IO1 Rallos]. IO1 Kintanar, who was tasked [to act] as poseur-buyer, was given three pieces of one hundred peso (Php100.00) bills as buy-bust money bearing serial numbers PQ242526, YF280219 and TV375522 which were all pre-marked with [IO1] Kintanar’s initials “FK” at the lower right front portion of the bills. IO1 Kintanar then prepared an Authority to Operate [for the conduct of the] operation.ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Thereafter, the buy-bust team, accompanied by their confidential informant, proceeded to Barangay Sawang Calero. Upon their arrival there, the team searched for [Dela Peña] in the area. When they finally found him standing along the road with [Delima], IO1 Kintanar and the confidential informant approached him while the rest of the members strategically positioned themselves where, from their vantage point, they could clearly see the transaction.
The informant and IO1 Kintanar informed [Dela Peña] of their intention to buy shabu. IO1 Kintanar handed the marked money to Dela Pe[ñ]a, who, in turn, handed a small sachet of suspected shabu. Delima, who was beside [Dela Peña], also showed a sachet of suspected shabu to IO1 Kintanar but the latter ignored him. Immediately, IO1 Kintanar executed the pre-arranged signal by scratching his head, indicating that the sale was consummated.
The rest of the team members immediately approached the group and arrested [Dela Peña and Delima]. IO1 Kintanar seized from Dela Pe[ñ]a the buy-bust money and four (4) sachets of suspected shabu. On the other hand, [IO1 Rallos, who] arrested Delima x x x recovered from [the latter] a small sachet of shabu which he turned over to IO1 Kintanar. The buy-bust team apprised the duo of their constitutional rights and thereafter brought them, together with the confiscated items, to the PDEA-7 office where the said items were marked by IO1 Kintanar. The plastic sachet of shabu which was the subject of the sale, was marked “DSDP-BB 6/19/08” whereas the four sachets recovered from Dela Pe[ñ]a were marked as “DSDP-01 6/19/08” to “DSDP-04 6/19/08”, respectively. The one small sachet seized from Delima was likewise marked as “DCD-01 6/19/08”. The confiscated items were photographed, recorded in the blotter and listed in a Certificate of Inventory in the presence of [Dela Peña and Delima] and was duly witnessed and signed by Barangay Captain Jerome B. Lim of Barangay Sta. Cruz and media representative Chito O. Aragon.cralawred
x x x At 1:50 in the afternoon of the following day, IO1 Kintanar delivered the laboratory request and the confiscated plastic sachets of suspected shabu to the crime laboratory which was received by PO3 El Abesia. On the same day, Forensic Chemist Rendielyn L. Sahagun issued Chemistry Report No. D-663-2008 stating that the subject six plastic sachets with a total weight of 0.12 gram of white crystalline substance marked as “DSDP-BB 6/19/08”, “DSDP-01 6/19/08”, “DSDP-02 6/19/08”, “DSDP-03 6/19/08”, “DSDP-04 6/19/08” and “DCD-01 6/19/08”, respectively, tested positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu.9
WHEREFORE, finding them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offenses of which they are being respectively indicted, a judgment is hereby rendered:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
1) Sentencing [Dela Peña] to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a FINE in the amount of P500,000.00 in Criminal Case No. CBU-83576 for violation of Section 5, Article II of [R.A. 9165]; 2) Sentencing [Dela Peña] to suffer the penalty of IMPRISONMENT for a period of TWELVE (12) YEARS AND ONE DAY TO FIFTEEN (15) YEARS and to pay a FINE in the amount of P300,000.00 in Criminal Case No. 83577 for violation of Section 11, Article II of [R.A. 9165]; and 3) Sentencing [Delima] to suffer the penalty of IMPRISONMENT for a period of TWELVE (12) YEARS AND ONE DAY TO FIFTEEN (15) YEARS and to pay a FINE in the amount of P300,000.00 in Criminal Case No. 83578 for violation of Section 11, Article II of [R.A. 9165].
The subject sachets of shabu marked “DSDP-BB” 6/19/08 (Exhibit “A”), “DSDP-01” 6/19/08 to “DSDP-04” 6/19/08 (Exhibits “B” to “B-3”); and “DCD-01” 6/19/08 (Exhibit “A” Delima) are declared forfeited in favor of the Government, to be disposed of pursuant to the provisions of R.A. 9165 and related rules and regulations.
SO ORDERED.16
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryI
x x x IN CONVICTING [DELA PEÑA] OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ELEMENTS x x x FOR SALE OF ILLEGAL DRUGS WERE NOT ESTABLISHEDII
x x x IN CONVICTING [DELA PEÑA AND DELIMA] DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THE CORPUS DELICTI17
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated March 30, 2010 of the [RTC] in Criminal Case Nos. CBU-83576 to 83578 finding [Dela Peña] guilty of violating Sections 5 and 11, and [Delima] of violating Section 11, Article II of [R.A.] 9165 otherwise known as [the] Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, is AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary1) In Criminal Case No. 83577, [Dela Peña] is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of IMPRISONMENT for a period of TWELVE (12) YEARS AND ONE DAY TO FOURTEEN (14) YEARS and EIGHT (8) MONTHS and to pay a FINE in the amount of P300,000.00 for violation of Section 11, Article II of [R.A. 9165]; and
2) In Criminal Case No. 83578, [Delima] is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of IMPRISONMENT for a period of TWELVE (12) YEARS AND ONE DAY TO FOURTEEN (14) YEARS and EIGHT (8) MONTHS and to pay a FINE in the amount of P300,000.00 for violation of Section 11, Article II of [R.A. 9165].
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.18
Q What happened when you [and the confidential informant] arrived at [Barangay Sawang Calero]? A We initially looked for [Dela Peña] at his hang[-]out. Q And were you able to find [Dela Peña] at his hang[-]out, Mr. Witness? A Yes, sir. Q What happened when you found out where [Dela Peña] was? A We approached him and negotiated for the selling of shabu. Q You mentioned “we” who was your companion when you approached [Dela Peña]? A I was with the Confidential Agent, sir. Q [A]nd what transpired when you approached [Dela Peña]? A After negotiation, [Dela Peña] asked me how much shabu would I buy and I told him that I will purchase a three hundred pesos worth of shabu.x x x x
PROSECUTOR GIDAYAWAN: After you manifested to [Dela Peña] that you would be buying three hundred pesos worth of shabu, what was his reply? A [Dela Peña] asked for the money. x x x x COURT: How did you approach [Dela Peña]? A When I approached [Dela Peña], I asked in Bisaya “na-a tay butang diha, bay?” Do you have stuffs? And [Dela Peña] answered, Yes. He asked how much, that’s when I told him that I was going to buy three hundred pesos worth of shabu. x x x x PROSECUTOR GIDAYAWAN: After that [negotiation] with [Dela Peña] when you were asked and you said three hundred pesos, Mr. Witness, what did you do next? A I gave [Dela Peña] three (3) one hundred peso-bills and in turn he gave me a sachet of shabu. Q Which came first, you handing the money to [Dela Peña] or [Dela Peña] handing to you the shabu? A [Dela Peña] asked me first for the money, sir. Q [A]nd did you give [Dela Peña] the money? A Yes, sir. Q [A]nd did [Dela Peña] receive the money? A Yes, sir. Q In exchange for the three hundred pesos, what did [Dela Peña] give you in return? A [Dela Peña] gave me a sachet of shabu, one sachet, sir. x x x x Q Now, after [Dela Peña] gave you this one (1) pack of shabu, what happened next? A I examined it and I noticed [Delima], also showing to me a sachet of shabu as if tempting me that if you don't like that, you can buy this. Q Now, this [Delima], when did he come to that area, Mr. Witness, before [Dela Peña] gave you the shabu or while the [negotiation] was still going on between you and [Dela Peña]? x x x x A At the start of the [negotiation], all the time he was beside [Dela Peña]. COURT: In other words, when you found [Dela Peña], [Delima] was beside him? A Yes, sir.23
Q And after you arrested and got hold of [Dela Peña], what did you [do] next to him? A When I got hold of him, IO1 Rallos handcuffed both of them and that was the time when I searched [Dela Peña], sir. Q And what was the result of your search? A I discovered from [Dela Peña's] right pocket four (4) sachets of shabu x x x.25
Q Now, when you arrested, or can you tell us the circumstances when you arrested [Delima], Mr. Witness? A Upon arriving at the place where the transaction took place, sir, IO1 Kintanar told me that [Delima] also had in his possession [a sachet of] shabu because he saw it during the transaction, so he told me to [get] hold of [Delima], sir. Q And when you took hold of [Delima], what did you do next, Mr. Witness? A I handcuffed [Delima] and also [Dela Peña], sir. Q And after you handcuffed them, what did you do next, if any? A I searched Dennis Delima, sir. Q And what was the result, if any, to the search? A [I] found from [Delima’s] pocket one sachet containing white crystalline substance believed to be shabu, sir.26
x x x Records show that the confiscated items were listed in a Certificate of Inventory which was duly signed by a media representative and elected public official. Photographs were even taken showing that the appellants were present when the media representative and elected official signed the certificate of inventory.60ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Endnotes:
* Designated additional member per Raffle dated January 5, 2015.
1 Dela Pena in other parts of the records.
2Rollo, pp. 3-15. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando with Associate Justices Gabriel T. Ingles and Ma. Luisa Quijano-Padilla concurring.
3 CA rollo, pp. 88-98. Penned by Presiding Judge Macaundas M. Hadjirasul.
4 Records (Crim. Case No. CBU-83576), p. 1.
5 Records (Crim. Case No. CBU-83577), p. 1.
6 Records (Crim. Case No. CBU-83578), p. 1.
7 Id. at 21; records (Crim. Case No. CBU-83577), p. 21.
8 Ferdinand in some parts of the records.
9Rollo, pp. 5-7.
10 See Pre-Trial Orders dated October 9, 2008, records (Crim. Case No. CBU-83577), pp. 25-27 and records (Crim. Case No. CBU-83578), pp. 25-27.
11Rollo, p. 7.
12 TSN, February 2, 2010, p. 4.
13Rollo, p. 7.
14 CA rollo, p. 95.
15 Id. at 96.
16 Id. at 98.
17 Id. at 23.
18 Rollo, p. 14.
19 Id. at 22-23, 26-28.
20People v. Bautista, G.R. No. 177320, February 22, 2012, 666 SCRA 518, 529; People v. Alberto, 625 Phil. 545, 554 (2010).
21 Id. at 530.
22 People v. Rivera, 458 Phil. 856, 874 (2003).
23 TSN, November 7, 2008, pp. 9-12. Emphasis and underscoring added.
24 TSN, June 16, 2009, p. 11.
25 TSN, November 7, 2008, p. 16. Emphasis supplied.
26 TSN, June 16, 2009, p. 11. Emphasis added.
27 Supra note 10.
28People v. Quebral, et al., 621 Phil. 226, 233-234 (2009).
29 REVISED RULES OF COURT, Rule 130, Sec. 44. See People v. Presas, G.R. No. 182525, March 2, 2011, 644 SCRA 443, 453-454.
30 See Appellant’s Brief, p. 5, CA rollo, p. 27.
31 Id. at 6, id. at 28.
32People v. Robelo, G.R. No. 184181, November 26, 2012, 686 SCRA 417, 425; People v. Casolocan, 478 Phil. 363, 372 (2004).
33People v. De Guzman, 564 Phil. 282, 291 (2007), citing People v. Isnani, G.R. No. 133006, June 9, 2004, 431 SCRA 439, 455.
34People v. Garalde, 549 Phil. 841, 856 (2007).
35 See People v. Lucero, G.R. No. 188705, March 2, 2011, 644 SCRA 457, 478.
36 Appellant’s Brief, p. 6, CA rollo, p. 28.
37 Id. at 5, id. at 27.
38 Id., id.
39 A prior surveillance is not a prerequisite for the validity of an entrapment or buy-bust operation, the conduct of which has no rigid or textbook method. However the police carry out its entrapment operations, for as long as the rights of the accused have not been violated in the process, the courts will not pass on the wisdom thereof. The police officers may decide that time is of the essence and dispense with the need for prior surveillance. People v. Padua, G.R. No. 174097, July 21, 2010, 625 SCRA 220, 239.
40 The lack of pre-operation report had no effect on the legality and validity of the buy-bust operation because it is not indispensable in a buy-bust operation. People v. Daria, Jr., 615 Phil. 744, 759 (2009), cited in People v. Somoza, G.R. No. 197250, July 17, 2013, 701 SCRA 525, 542.
41 The absence of marked money does not run counter to the presented proof of illegal sale of shabu. Lack of marked money is not an element to the crime of illegal sale of shabu. The marked money used in the buy-bust operation, although having evidentiary value, is not vital to the prosecution of the case. It is merely corroborative in nature. People v. Ampatuan, G.R. No. 188707, July 30, 2014, p. 8.
42 Id., citing People v. Concepcion, et al., 578 Phil. 957, 976 (2008); People v. Macabalang, 538 Phil. 136, 148 (2006); People v. Astudillo, 440 Phil. 203, 224 (2002); People v. Chang, 382 Phil. 669, 684 (2000).
43People v. Villahermosa, G.R. No. 186465, June 1, 2011, 650 SCRA 256, 274, citing People v. Pendatun, 478 Phil. 201, 212 (2004).
44People v. Gutierrez, 622 Phil. 396, 409 (2009).
45People v. Macalaba, 443 Phil. 565, 576 (2003), quoting People v. Manalo, G.R. No. 107623, February 23, 1994, 230 SCRA 309, 319.
46 Reyes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 180177, April 18, 2012, 670 SCRA 148, 159.
47 TSN, June 16, 2009, pp. 11-12.
48 Id. at 12-13. This belied the contention of the defense that the sachet of shabu seized by IO1 Rallos was not segregated by IO1 Kintanar with those sachets he confiscated from Dela Peña (Appellant’s Brief, p. 8, CA rollo, p. 30).
49 One sachet was sold to him by Dela Peña; he confiscated 4 sachets from the pocket of Dela Peña; and one sachet was handed to him by IO1 Rallos. TSN, November 7, 2008, pp. 16-17.
50 TSN, November 7, 2008, p. 18.
51 Id. at 17.
52 Records (Crim. Case No. CBU-83578), p. 5.
53 TSN, January 14, 2009, pp. 7-8.
54 Appellant’s Brief, p. 10, CA rollo, p. 32.
55 See People v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 189327, February 29, 2012, 667 SCRA 357, 370, quoting People v. Sta. Maria, 545 Phil. 520, 534 (2007).
56 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:
(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[.]
57 Appellant’s Brief, p. 9, CA rollo, p. 31.
58 See the Certificate of Inventory ( Exhibit “G”), records (Crim. Case No. CBU-83578), p. 6.
59 Exhibit “H” and series, id. at 13.
60Rollo, p. 11.
61 G.R. No. 179936, April 11, 2012, 669 SCRA 322, 337, citing People v. Naquita, 582 Phil. 422, 441-442 (2008); People v. Del Monte, 575 Phil. 576, 586 (2008).
62 See People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214, 241 (2008).
63 People v. Angkob, G.R. No. 191062, September 19, 2012, 681 SCRA 414, 426, citing Imson v. People, G.R. No. 193003, July 13, 2011, 653 SCRA 826, 836.
64 G.R. No. 190342, March 21, 2012, 668 SCRA 827.
65 See People v. Mendoza, supra note 55.
66People v. Quiamanlon, G.R. No. 191198, January 26, 2011, 640 SCRA 697, 719, citing People v. Ventura, 619 Phil. 536, 555 (2009).
67 See People v. Miranda, 560 Phil. 795, 810 (2007).
68 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.
69 SEC. 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. x x x
x x x x
(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 ... methamphetamine hydrochloride or “shabu” x x x.
70People v. Sabadlab, G.R. No. 186392, January 18, 2012, 663 SCRA 426; Asiatico v. People, G.R.No. 195005, September 12, 2011, 657 SCRA 443.