FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 237850, September 16, 2020
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. RAYMOND BUESA Y ALIBUDBUD, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
PERALTA, C.J.:
For consideration of the Court is the appeal of the Decision1 dated December 7, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 08929 which affirmed the Decision2 dated December 5, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 34, Calamba City, Laguna, in Criminal Case Nos. 26604-2016-C (P) and 26605-2016-C (P), finding accused-appellant Raymond Buesa y Alibudbud guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
In two (2) separate Informations, Buesa was charged with Illegal Possession and Illegal Sale of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), committed in the following manner: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Criminal Case No. 26604-2016-C:Upon arraignment, Buesa pleaded not guilty to the charges filed against him. Subsequently, trial on the merits ensued. During the joint pre-trial, the prosecution presented the testimony of Police Officer 2 (PO2) Jessie Abad and, upon stipulation, dispensed with the testimony of PO2 Richard Arienda for being merely corroborative to that of PO2 Abad. For the defense, the lone testimony of Buesa was presented.
That on or about April 25, 2016 in Bay, Laguna and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused without any authority of law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously possess Four (4) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride with a total weight of 0.24 gram, a dangerous drug, in violation of the aforementioned law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Criminal Case No. 26605-2016-C:
That on or about April 25, 2016 in Bay, Laguna and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused without any authority of law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to a police poseur buyer One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride weighing 0.06 gram, a dangerous drug, in violation of the aforementioned law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.3 (Citations omitted)
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds accused RAYMOND BUESA y ALIBUDBUD GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 by selling 0.06 gram of shabu in a buy-bust operation and for possessing 0.24 gram of shabu [and] is accordingly SENTENCED to serve Life Imprisonment and to pay a Fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) for violation of Section 5 in Criminal Case No. 26605-2016-C (P) and Twelve (12) Years and One (1) Day, as minimum, to Fifteen (15) Years, as maximum, and to pay a Fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) for violation of Section 11 in Criminal Case No. 26604-2016-C (P).The RTC found that the prosecution duly established all the elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu. According to the trial court, the candid and credible testimony of the arresting officer, PO2 Abad, leaves no doubt that Buesa, indeed, sold shabu to PO2 Abad, acting as a poseur-buyer, in the presence of the confidential agent who introduced them to each other. After consummation of the sale of shabu, and pursuant to the legal buy-bust operation, PO2 Abad frisked Buesa which yielded a coin purse or a small pouch containing small plastic sachets of shabu. Thus, between Buesa's bare allegations of denial and frame-up and the prosecution's clear and straightforward evidence, the trial court found the latter to be more worthy of credence and belief.8
The five (5) transparent plastic sachets containing an aggregate weight of 0.30 gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride are ordered to be transmitted to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper disposition in accordance with law.
SO ORDERED.7
Despite this, Buesa maintains that the prosecution's case must necessarily fail because the evidence custodian at the crime laboratory to whom the seized items were delivered for their examination was not presented in court to complete the chain of custody. Thus, the manner by which the items were preserved was not established. We are not persuaded. Time and again, the Court has held that the failure to present each and every person who came into possession of the drugs is not fatal to the prosecution's case.22 In People v. Padua,23 we elucidated: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
- Their confidential agent informed PO2 Abad about the illegal drugs activities of the accused prompting the police officers to plan a buy-bust operation after they verified said information;
- The police officers duly prepared the requisite Coordination Form and Pre-Operation Report albeit such were not duly sent to the PDEA;
- Their informant accompanied them to the place of the accused and later to Marianville Subdivision in Brgy. Puypuy since the accused left his place;
- At 6:20 in the evening on April 25, 2016, the accused arrived onboard a motorcycle;
- PO2 Abad was introduced to the accused by their informant as the latter's friend who would like to buy shabu;
- PO2 Abad, acting as poseur buyer, told the accused that he would like to buy shabu worth P500.00;
- After being paid with the marked money consisting of a P500.00 bill, the accused gave to PO2 Abad the specimen in a plastic sachet containing 0.06 gram of shabu, then with the illegal transaction consummated PO2 Abad made the prearranged signal of holding the shoulder of the accused;
- PO2 Abad arrested the accused after introducing himself as a police officer and after PO2 Arienda handcuffed the accused, PO2 Abad conducted the preventive body search and recovered the marked P500.00 bill and confiscated a coin purse containing four plastic sachets of shabu from the possession of the accused;
- In the place of arrest PO2 Abad marked the shabu specimen subject of the buy-bust operation with "RB-BB" and the four other shabu specimens with "RB-1," "RB-2," "RB-3" and "RB-4;"
- In the police station, in the presence of Barangay Kagawad Pedro Perez of Brgy. Puypuy and media representative Efren Chavez, PO2 Abad conducted the inventory and after said witnesses signed the Receipt/Inventory of Evidence Seized, PO2 Abad took pictures of the accused and the two witnesses in front of the seized items;
- Thereafter, the police investigator prepared the Request for Laboratory Examination and Drug Test, then PO2 Abad brought the seized items with the requests to the Crime Laboratory Office;
- Chemistry Report No. LD-456-16 shows that the specimens submitted to the Crime Laboratory turned out positive for shabu, and said report was stipulated upon by the prosecution and the defense on its due execution and authenticity;
- PO2 Abad had clear custody of the shabu specimens from the place of the arrest after the markings until he delivered the same to the Crime Laboratory; and
- PO2 Abad identified in open Court the seized items and the marked money as well as the documents he and the police investigator prepared relative to the instant cases against the accused.21
[N]ot all [the] people who came into contact with the seized drugs are required to testify in court. There is nothing in Republic Act No. 9165 or in any rule implementing the same that imposes such requirement. As long as the chain of custody of the seized drug was clearly established not to have been broken and that the prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drugs seized, it is not indispensable that each and every person who came into possession of the drugs should take the witness stand.24 (Citation omitted)Unfazed, Buesa further raises the prosecution's failure to observe the strict procedure provided under Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640. According to him, he must be acquitted because no representative from the National Prosecution Service was present at the time of the conduct of the inventory. The argument, however, deserves scant consideration.
(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[.]Supplementing the above-quoted provision, Section 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165 provides: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
(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 of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that noncompliance 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[.]On July 15, 2014, R.A. No. 10640 was approved to amend R.A. No. 9165. Among other modifications, it essentially incorporated the saving clause contained in the IRR, thus: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items 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, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media 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/tean1, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures: Provided, finally, That noncompliance of 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 and custody over said items.The import of the foregoing excerpts is that under the original provision of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, after seizure and confiscation of the drugs, the apprehending team is required to immediately conduct a physical inventory and photograph the same in the presence of (1) the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel; (2) a representative from the media and (3) from the Department of Justice; and (4) any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. It is assumed that the presence of these persons will guarantee "against planting of evidence and frame up," i.e., they are "necessary to insulate the apprehension and incrimination proceedings from any taint of illegitimacy or irregularity." Now, the amendatory law mandates that the conduct of physical inventory and photograph of the seized items must be in the presence of (1) the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel; (2) an elected public official; and (3) a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.25
Thus, against this overwhelming evidence for the prosecution, Buesa's defenses of denial and frame-up must necessarily fail because they can easily be concocted and they are common and standard defense ploys in prosecutions for violation of R.A. No. 9165. In order to prosper, Buesa had the burden to prove his defenses of denial and frame-up with strong and convincing evidence, and defeat the presumption that the police officers properly performed their duties.35 But as duly found by the RTC and the CA, Buesa undeniably failed to discharge this burden.
Q: What did you do after successfully buying from the accused? A: After I handed to him the money, I immediately made the signal to my companion. xxxx Q: You said you were able to buy [from] the accused, how will you [be] able to identify the item that you bought from the accused? A: I marked it with RB-BB. Q: When did you mark it? A: On April 25, 2016. PROS. BELZA: [Q:] Was it immediately after you arrested the accused or during the inventory? [A:] After the arrest of the accused at the place of the incident, ma'am. xxxx PROS. BELZA: May we move that the plastic sachet with marking RB-BB be marked as Exhibit K for the prosecution. xxxx Q: What did you do [to] the items seize[d]? xxxx A: After the markings of the evidence, and considering that we are in the accident prone area, we decided to proceed to the police station, ma'am. PROS. BELZA: Q: Who was holding the items confiscated from the accused? A: Me, ma'am. Q: Where did you place it? A: Inside a transparent plastic, ma'am. Q: You said you went back to the police station for the conduct of inventory, who were with you during the inventory, Mr. Witness? A: The media representative, PO2 Arienda, and the barangay kagawad, ma'am. xxxx Q: After the conduct of the inventory, photograph taking, what else happened? xxxx A: We prepared the request for laboratory examination, ma'am. Q: Who delivered the said request? A: I was the one, ma'am. xxxx Q: Were you able to know the result of the examination? xxxx A: Yes, ma'am. Positive. PROS. BELZA The Chemistry Report was previously marked as Exhibit H, your honor. May we move that the FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION be bracketed and marked as Exhibit H-1 and the signature of the Forensic Chemist be marked as Exhibit H-2.34
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 2-13; penned by Associate Justice Romeo F. Barza, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Ma. Luisa Quijano Padilla and Maria Filomena D. Singh.
2 CA rollo, pp. 41-52; penned by Presiding Judge Maria Florencia B. Formes-Baculo.
3Rollo, p. 3.
4Id. at 4.
5Id. at 4-5.
6Id. at 5-6.
7 CA rollo, p. 52.
8Id. at 47-52.
9Rollo, p. 7.
10Id. at 24-32.
11People of the Philippines v. Jowie Allingag, et al., G.R. No. 233477, July 30, 2018.
12Id.
13Id.
14Id.
15Id., citing People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 29 (2017).
16Rollo, p. 8.
17People of the Philippines v. Frankie Magalong, G.R. No. 231838, March 4, 2019.
18Id.
19 624 Phil. 289 (2010).
20Id. at 304.
21 CA rollo, pp. 49-50.
22People of the Philippines v. Jimboy Suico, G.R. No. 229940, September 10, 2018.
23 639 Phil. 235 (2010).
24Id. at 251.
25People of the Philippines v. Lemuel Gonzales, G.R. No. 229352, April 10, 2019.
26Rollo, p. 10.
27Augusto Regalado v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 216632, March 13, 2019.
28 Records, p. 11.
29 TSN, September 19, 2016, p. 12.
30Supra note 17.
31 795 Phil. 859 (2016).
32Id. at 873, citing People v. Asislo, 778 Phil. 509 (2016); People v. Mammad, et al., 769 Phil. 782 (2015); Miclat, Jr. v. People, 672 Phil. 191 (2011); and People v. Felipe, 663 Phil. 132 (2011).
33People of the Philippines v. Frankie Magalong, supra note 17.
34 TSN , September 19, 2016, pp. 9-15.
35People of the Philippines v. Frankie Magalong, supra note 17.
36People v. Eda, 793 Phil. 885, 903 (2016).chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary