SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 195850, February 16, 2015
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ABOLA BIO Y PANAYANGAN, Accused-Appellant.
R E S O L U T I O N
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
Assailed in this appeal is the September 21, 2010 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03859, which affirmed the January 5, 2009 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 82, Quezon City, finding appellant Abola Bio y Panayangan (appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Sections 5 (illegal sale of dangerous drugs) and 11 (illegal possession of dangerous drugs), Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The evidence for the prosecution established that at around 9:00 p.m. of September 8, 2003, an asset reported to Police Superintendent Nilo Wong (P/Supt. Wong), Chief of the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Unit (SAID-SOTU), Novaliches Police Station, the alleged illegal drugs activities of appellant. P/Supt. Wong immediately formed a team composed of SPO3 Mario Concepcion, PO2 Noel Magcalayo, PO1 Edmond Paculdar, PO1 Emeterio Mendoza, PO1 Michael Collado and PO2 Fernando Salonga (PO2 Salonga). As PO2 Salonga would act as the poseur-buyer, he was provided with two 100-peso bills as buy-bust money.
The team then proceeded to the designated area along Ramirez St., Brgy. Nova Proper. Upon arrival thereat an hour later, the asset introduced PO2 Salonga to the appellant as a buyer of shabu. After a brief conversation, appellant agreed to the sale. PO2 Salonga handed to appellant the two 100-peso bills and, in turn, the latter gave the former a plastic sachet. PO2 Salonga thereupon scratched his head as the pre-arranged signal to his companions that the sale had been consummated. He then introduced himself to appellant as a police officer and apprehended him. However, before he could handcuff appellant, a woman later identified as appellant’s wife, suddenly grabbed appellant such that the latter was able to run away. PO2 Salonga gave a chase and caught appellant, who, when searched, was found possessing another plastic sachet suspected to contain shabu.
Appellant, together with the buy-bust money previously marked with PO2 Salonga’s initials “FAS” and the two plastic sachets, were then brought to the Novaliches Police Station. Thereat, the plastic sachet subject of the sale was marked with the initial “FAS”3 while the sachet recovered from appellant’s possession with “FAS-1.”4 They were thereafter turned over to the duty desk officer for booking and later, to PO1 Oliver Estrelles (PO1 Estrelles), the police investigator on duty. Afterwards, appellant and the above-mentioned pieces of evidence were brought by PO2 Salonga and PO1 Estrelles to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory. A qualitative examination conducted by Forensic Chemist P/Insp. Leonard Arban5 shows that each sachet contained a net weight of 0.15 gram of white crystalline substance that tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu as indicated in Chemistry Report No. D-927-03.6cralawred
For his part, appellant interposed the defenses of denial and extortion. He claimed that he was just buying charcoal when arrested. One of the policemen who is not familiar to him demanded P80,000.00 for settlement.
After trial, the RTC rendered a Decision7 on January 5, 2009 finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. 9165. It ruled that the elements for the prosecution of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs have been established. The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision reads:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
a) Re: Criminal case No. Q-03-120914 – The Court finds accused ABOLA BIO y PANAYANGAN guilty beyond reasonable doubt of a violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and accordingly, hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) Pesos.
b) Re: Criminal Case No. Q-03-120915 – The Court finds accused ABOLA BIO y PANAYANGAN guilty beyond reasonable doubt of a violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and accordingly, hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY as MINIMUM to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS as MAXIMUM and to pay a fine in the amount of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P300,000.00) PESOS.
The Branch Clerk of Court is hereby ordered to transfer the possession and custody of the dangerous drugs subject of these cases to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for proper disposition and final disposal.
SO ORDERED.8cralawlawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed judgment of conviction is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.10cralawlawlibrary
In the recent case of People vs. Jakar Mapan Le, the Supreme Court clarified that there are links that must be established in the chain of custody in the buy-bust situation: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.
In the present case, the links in the chain have been duly proven. During the conduct of the buy-bust operation, PO2 SALONGA, the poseur-buyer, was able to confiscate two (2) plastic sachets of shabu from accused-appellant: the first one was sold to him in exchange for the buy-bust money, and the second one was recovered from the latter during the routinary frisk conducted by PO2 SALONGA. He thereafter gave the plastic sachets to SPO3 CONCEPCION, who kept the same in his custody until they reached the police station, where SPO3 CONCEPCION, in turn, surrendered them to the desk officer who placed the appropriate markings thereon. Subsequently, the seized items were turned over to PO1 ESTRELLES, the police officer on duty, who prepared the request for laboratory examination on the specimens, which he delivered, together with the seized plastic sachets, to the PNP Crime Laboratory on September 9, 2003. [Thereupon], forensic chemist P/INSP ARBAN duly received the request for laboratory examination and the confiscated items and conducted the qualitative examination thereon, which yielded positive results.
Thus, the prosecution in this case was able to establish the integrity and the evidentiary value of the shabu seized from accused-appellant, hence, there was substantial compliance with the requirements of the law. It must be stressed that non-compliance with Sec. 21 of [R.A.] 9165 does not render an accused’s arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. The requirements under [R.A.] 9165 and its implementing rules are not inflexible. What is essential 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.’15cralawlawlibrary
Endnotes:
* Per Special Order No. 1910 dated January 12, 2015.
1 CA rollo, pp. 106-116; penned by Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe (now a Member of this Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Bienvenido L. Reyes (now a Member of this Court) and Elihu A. Ybañez.
2 Records, pp. 132-140; penned by Judge Severino B. De Castro, Jr.
3 Exhibit “B-1”, id. at 146.
4 Exhibit “B-2”, id.
5 His testimony was dispensed with per stipulation of the prosecution and the defense on April 14, 2004.
6 Exhibit “C,” id. at 148.
7 Id. at 132-140.
8 Id. at 139-140.
9 CA rollo, pp. 106-116.
10 Id. at 115.
11People v. Dela Rosa, G.R. No. 185166, January 26, 2011, 640 SCRA 635, 646.
12 People v. Desuyo, G.R. No. 186466, July 26, 2010, 625 SCRA 590, 604.
13People v. Unisa, G.R. No. 185721, September 28, 2011, 658 SCRA 305, 327.
14 G.R. No. 172971, June 16, 2010, 621 SCRA 73, 85.
15 CA rollo, pp. 113-114.
16Hoi Wai Pang v. People, G.R. No.176229, October 19, 2011, 659 SCRA 624, 633 citing Aquino v. Paiste, 578 Phil. 244, 257-258 (2008).
17People v. Naquita, 582 Phil. 422, 448-449 (2008).
18 See Section 2, Indeterminate Sentence Law.