THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 201478, August 23, 2017
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PAROK LUMUDAG Y RACMAN @ AKMAD, Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
BERSAMIN, J.:
The State bears the burden of establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Any doubt regarding the evidence of guilt is resolved in favor of the accused.
That on or about September 6, 2008, in the city of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, not being lawfully authorized by law to sell, trade, deliver or give away to another any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell ZERO POINT ZERO SIXTEEN (0.016) gram of white crystalline substance containing methylamphetamine hydrochloride commonly known as SHABU, a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law.3
On 6 September 2008, a confidential informant reported to Col. Roderick Mariano, Chief of the District Anti-Illegal Drug (DAID) Office at U.N. Avenue Police Station in Manila the alleged drug peddling activities of a certain alias Akmad along Arlegui St., Quiapo, Manila. Col. Mariano formed a team to conduct a buy bust operation headed by SPO4 Rafael Melencio, PO2 Richard Donato as the poseur buyer, and PO3 Eliseo Tolentino. PO2 Donato prepared the 200.00 marked bill as buy bust money and coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA).
At around 6:00 p.m. of the same day, PO2 Donato and PO3 Tolentino proceeded to Arlegui St., Quiapo, Manila on board the tricycle of the former, together with the confidential informant. The other police officers boarded a Tamaraw FX vehicle. When they arrived near the target area, PO2 Donato and the confidential informant walked toward MLQU (Manuel L. Quezon University) where accused-appellant was waiting. The informant approached accused-appellant and introduced PO2 Donato as a buyer of shabu. The latter handed the P200.00 marked money to accused-appellant. After receiving the money, accused-appellant took out from his pocket one (1) heat sealed plastic sachet and handed the same to PO2 Donato. The latter immediately executed the pre-arranged signal prompting the other police officers to approach and effect the arrest of accused-appellant.
PO2 Donato marked the confiscated drug "DAID". Afterward, accused-appellant was brought to the police station. The confiscated drug was submitted to the Manila Police District Crime Laboratory (MPDCLO) for laboratory examination. The forensic chemist, Police Senior Inspector (PSI) Erickson L. Calabocal, conducted a qualitative examination. PSI Calabocal found that the specimen tested positive for shabu or methamphetamine hydrochloride, a prohibited drug.
On the other hand, evidence for the defense sought to establish the following:
On 6 September 2008, accused-appellant, a vendor residing at Barter St., Quiapo, Manila, was throwing his garbage at said street. The bag of garbage accidentally fell on a pool of water on the road, thus hitting/splashing one of the men riding a motorcycle. One of the men alighted from the motorcycle and poked a gun at accused-appellant. He was brought to the DAID at U.N. Avenue Police Station where the police officers mauled him and demanded money from him. Accused-appellant learned of the charge against him when he was detained at the Manila City Jail. PO3 Tolentino was one of the persons who arrested him. Accused-appellant denied the charge filed against him.4
WHEREFORE, from the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered, finding the accused, Parok Lumudag y Racman @Akmad, GUILTY, beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, he is hereby sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs.
The specimen is forfeited in favor of the government and the Branch Clerk of Court, accompanied by the Branch Sheriff, is directed to tum over with dispatch and upon receipt the said specimen to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper disposal in accordance with the law and rules.
SO ORDERED.5
I.. THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE MATERIALLY INCONSISTENT AND INCREDIBLE TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES.II. THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE THE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME CHARGED.III. THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY DESPITE THE ARRESTING OFFICERS' NON-COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 21 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165 AND ITS IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS.7
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision of the RTC of Manila, Branch 2 dated 1 December 2009 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.8
Q: So, what happened when you were introduced? Who are you then in relation to the introduction?
A: That I am the buyer of shabu, sir.
Q: Was there any response of Akmad?
A: He agreed, sir.
Q: When he agreed what was his action?
A: And then, the CI introduced me of my willingness to buy a shabu, sir.
Q: So, when he agreed, what happened next?
A: And then, I handed the buy bust money worth of P200 to him, sir.
Q: In other words, after you were introduced you immediately gave the money?
A: Yes, sir, as willingness to buy and he agree to buy the shabu, sir.
Q: Were you saying anything when you gave the money?
A: None, sir.
Q: So, when it was handed to Akmad what happened next?
A: He took out one heat-sealed plastic sachet, sir, suspected to be shabu.
Q: So, he received the money?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: So, what happened when it was in his possession, the money?
A: He received the money, sir.
Q: So, what happened next?
A: He took out one heat-sealed plastic suspected to be shabu and gave it to me, sir.
Q: Coming from where?
A: At the right front pocket of maong pants, sir.
Q: So, he gave it to you?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What was the content of the plastic sachet?
A: One heat-sealed plastic sachet suspected shabu, sir.11
Section 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 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;
x x x x
x x x x
(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 ofwarrantless 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;
x x x x
TO: | The Director Bureau of Corrections 1770 Muntinlupa City |
WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision promulgated on July 13, 2011 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04286; ACQUITS accused-appellant PAROK LUMUDAG y RACMAN alias AKMAD on the ground that his guilt was not established beyond reasonable doubt; and DIRECTS his immediate release from confinement at the National Penitentiary in Muntinlupa City unless there are other lawful causes warranting his continuing confinement thereat.
The Court ORDERS the Director of the Bureau of Corrections to implement the immediate release of PAROK LUMUDAG y RACMAN alias AKMAD, and to report on his compliance within ten (10) days from receipt.
No pronouncement on costs of suit.
SO ORDERED."
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 2-14; penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo, with Associate Justice Josefina Guevara-Salonga and Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante concurring.
2 CA records, pp. 9-14; penned by Judge Alejandro G. Bijasa.
3 Id. at 9.
4 Rollo, pp. 3-5.
5 CA records, p. 14.
6 Id. at 16.
7 Id. at 34-35.
8Rollo, p. 14.
9 Id. at 16.
10People v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 182417, April 3, 2013, 695 SCRA 123, 130.
11 CA records, pp. 79-80.
12People v. Medenceles, G.R. No. 181250, July 18, 2012, 677 SCRA, 161, 167.
13Rollo, p. 13.
14People v. Sanchez, G. R. No. 175832, October 15, 2008, 569 SCRA 194, 212.
15People v. Robles, G.R. No. 177220, April 24, 2009, 586 SCRA 647, 657.
16People v. Coreche, G.R. No. 182528, August 14, 2009, 596 SCRA 350, 356-357.
17People v. Sanchez, supra, note 14, at 221.