Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83315:57309&catid=1586&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 16:45:46+00:00

Document:
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MIKE STEVE Y BASMAN AND RASHID MANGTOMA Y NONI, Accused-Appellants.
Before this Court is an appeal from the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02460 affirming in toto the Decision2 in Criminal Case No. 03-115457 rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 103 of Quezon City. The RTC Decision found Mike Steve y Basman and Rashid Mangtoma y Noni guilty beyond reasonable doubt of drug pushing, particularly for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. No. 9165), otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Upon arraignment, both accused Mike Steve and accused Rashid Mangtoma pleaded not guilty to said charge.5 Subsequently, a full-blown trial proceeded.
In 2003, a buy-bust operation was conducted by police officers PO3 Mohammad Sugod, Jr. and SPO3 Santiago Gonzales inside the Kimco Subdivision in Barangay Sauyo, Quezon City. The buy-bust team was formed due to the information received from the residents of the said subdivision regarding some illegal drug activities. Surveillances were made.
The team prepared buy-bust money and PO3 Sugod was assigned as the poseur buyer. As planned, the team’s informant made arrangement with the accused-appellants Mike Steve and Rashid Mangtoma for the purchase of one kilo of “shabu”. On February 20, 2003, the team proceeded to the target area. At around ten (10) in the morning, the informant communicated to the police officers of the arrival of the accused-appellants. PO3 Sugod transacted with accused-appellant Mangtoma. A plastic bag containing (almost) one kilo of “shabu” was handed over to PO3 Sugod. After witnessing the transaction, SPO3 Gonzales approached the parties involved who were also inside the car. SPO3 Gonzales declared “Pulis kami, huwag na kayong manlaban pa”. The accused-appellants were arrested and brought to the police station.
The item of the transaction was seized. It was subsequently subjected for laboratory examination in the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory. A chemistry report manifesting that the confiscated substance yielded positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride was issued by Forensic Chemist Officer May Andrea A. Bonifacio.
Both accused-appellants denied the commission of the crime. They alleged that a buy-bust operation was never conducted by the police officers. Both of them were temporarily staying in the residence of Spouses Pauto and Armpo Lilog when the policemen forced their way into the house. They were arrested together with the said spouses and a certain Noro.
The court a quo gave emphasis to the undisputed fact established by the prosecution that a buy-bust operation was properly conducted, including prior surveillances, by the police operatives; that both accused were positively identified to be the source of the “shabu” submitted as evidence before the trial court; and that both accused sold the same to the arresting officers for a consideration. In other words, it ruled that the testimonies of the police operatives are more credible and reliable since there was absence of any evil motive on their part to allegedly barge into the house of any person and arrest and charge both accused for such serious crime. On the other hand, the mere denials of the accused were found to be weak and self-serving. It further pointed out that there were inconsistencies on the accused respective testimonies, aggravated further by the doubtful credibility of their corroborating witnesses as shown by their demeanors and implausible version of the story, particularly as to the alleged bribery.
Whether or not the RTC and the CA erred in finding that the evidence of the prosecution was sufficient to convict both accused-appellants of the alleged sale of methylamphetamine hydrochloride or “shabu,” in violation of Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165.
Contrary to the claim of accused-appellants, the prosecution was able to clearly recount how the buy-bust operation20 was conducted, and the eventual submission of the subject sachet of “shabu” as part of its evidence. Both the trial court and the appellate court appreciated the evidence presented which certainly established that accused-appellants sold and delivered the 972.8 grams of “shabu” for a consideration of P600,000.00 to PO3 Mohammad Sugod, Jr. (PO3 Sugod, Jr.), the poseur buyer. PO3 Sugod, Jr. himself testified that there was an actual exchange of the buy-bust money and the prohibited drug. This fact was further corroborated by the testimony of SPO3 Santiago Gonzales, who acted as back-up for PO3 Sugod, Jr. during said operation. Likewise, it was shown that accused-appellant Rashid Mangtoma was fully aware that he was selling an illegal and prohibited drug as manifested by him uttering the words: “Isang kilo yan!;” while accused-appellant Mike Steve was also inside the vehicle where the said transaction took place silently participating with his consent. Consequently, the corpus delicti or the subject drug was seized, and subsequently identified as a prohibited drug through a forensic report admitted in evidence by the parties as stipulated. Taken collectively, the illegal sale of dangerous drugs by accused-appellants was indeed established beyond reasonable doubt in the present case.
From the testimonies of the police officers in the case at bench, the prosecution established that they had custody of the drug seized from the accused-appellants from the moment they were arrested, during the time they were transported to the police station, and up to the time the seized prohibited drug was submitted to the crime laboratory for examination. As regards to the handling of the seized drug, there are no conflicting testimonies or glaring inconsistencies that would cast doubt on the integrity thereof as evidence presented and scrutinized in court. It is therefore safe to conclude that, to the unprejudiced mind, the testimonies show without a doubt that the evidence seized from the accused-appellants at the time of the buy-bust operation was the same one tested, introduced, and testified to in court. This fact was further bolstered by the stipulations entered into between the parties as to the testimony of Forensic Chemist Bonifacio.27 Needless to say, the integrity of the evidence against accused-appellants was indeed preserved.
Again, findings of fact of the trial court as to the credibility of witnesses are accorded great weight and respect when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts, and speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. The rationale behind this rule is that the trial court is in a better position to decide the credibility of witnesses, having heard their testimonies and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during trial. This rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the CA.29 This Court does not find any convincing reason to depart from the ruling of the trial court, which was affirmed by the appellate court. Thus, We affirm the assailed Decision of the appellate court and uphold the conviction of both accused-appellants.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Court of Appeals Decision in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02460 dated 4 April 2011, is AFFIRMED in all respects.
1Rollo, pp. 2-15; Penned by Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser with Associate Justices Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Ricardo R. Rosario concurring.
2 CA rollo, pp. 18-23; Penned by Presiding Judge Jaime N. Salazar, Jr.
5 Id. at 18 and 20; Certificate of Arraignment and Order both dated 8 December 2003.
6 Id. at 25; Order dated 16 February 2004.
7 The prosecution proffered the testimonies of PO3 Mohammad Sugod, Jr., and SPO3 Santiago Gonzales; while the defense presented as its witnesses both accused-appellants Rashid Mangtoma and Mike Steve, with the testimonies of Datu Amirol Ambiong, Ateneo Tamayo, and Sultan Guinto as corroborating witnesses.
8Rollo, pp. 3-4; CA Decision dated 4 April 2011.
9 Records, pp. 110-116; RTC Decision dated 21 July 2006.
11 CA rollo, pp. 71-92; Brief for the Accused-Appellants dated 28 April 2008.
12Rollo, p. 14; CA Decision dated 4 April 2011.
13 Id. at 6 citing People v. Berdadero, G.R. No. 179710, 29 June 2010, 622 SCRA 196 and People v. Agulay, 588 Phil. 247 (2008).
14 Id. at 7-10 citing People v. Pambid, G.R. No. 192237, 26 January 2011, 640 SCRA 722.
16 Id. at 13-14 citing People v. Berdadero, G.R. No. 179710, 29 June 2010, 622 SCRA 196.
17People v. Tiu, 469 Phil. 163, 173 (2004); Chan v. Formaran, 572 Phil 118, 132-133 (2008).
18People v. Pagkalinawan, G.R. No. 184805, 3 March 2010, 614 SCRA 202, 215.
19People v. Andres, G. R. No. 193184, 7 February 2011, 641 SCRA 602, 608 citing People v. Serrano, G. R. No. 179038, 6 May 2010, 620 SCRA 327.
21 People v. Lardizabal, G.R. No. 89113, 29 November 1991, 204 SCRA 320, 329.
22People v. Sembrano, G. R. No. 185848, 16 August 2010, 628 SCRA 328, 342 citing People v. Lamado, G. R. No. 185278, 13 March 2009, 581 SCRA 544, 552 and People v. Remerata, G. R. No. 147230, 449 Phil. 813, 822 (2003).
24Malillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 587 (2008).
25People v. Le, G.R. No. 188976, 29 June 2010, 622 SCRA 571, 583.
26People v. Domado, G.R. No. 172971, 16 June 2010, 621 SCRA 73, 91-92.
28Zalameda v. People, 614 Phil. 710, 733 (2009).
29People v. Cruz, G. R. No. 187047, 15 June 2011,652 SCRA 286, 297-298.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.