Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=82894:56733&catid=1581&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 04:33:12+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 196146, March 12, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. FREDDIE LADIP Y RUBIO, Accused–Appellant.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. FREDDIE LADIP Y RUBIO, Accused–Appellant.
Before this Court is an appeal from the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA–G.R. CR–H.C. No. 03635 affirming in toto the Decision2 in Criminal Case No. Q–06–144482 rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 103 of Quezon City. The RTC Decision found Freddie Ladip y Rubio (accused) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
That on or about 7th day of December, 2006, in Quezon City, accused without lawful authority did then and there willfully and unlawfully sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport, or act as broker in the said transaction, a dangerous drug, to wit: zero point thirteen (0.13) gram of white crystalline substance containing [methamphetamine] hydrochloride.
Upon arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty to said charge.4 Thereafter, a full–blown trial ensued.
It was further stated under oath that, prior to the turnover of the evidence to the investigator–on–duty in said station, PO1 Sibal and PO1 Tayag revealed that they placed their respective markings on the two (2) small heat sealed transparent plastic sachets,8 denominated as MS–FL–12–07–06 and RT–PU–12–07–06. Subsequently, an inventory of the seized items was made in the presence of the police operatives and the arrested persons. Photographs of the arrested persons, the marked money, and the seized items were likewise taken, followed by various requests for laboratory examination of said specimens, and for drug dependency examination of the arrested persons.9 Later on, the subject sachets were brought to the Quezon City Police District (QCPD) Crime Laboratory.
On the other hand, the accused had a different version of the facts surrounding his arrest. To put substance to his position, the defense presented the accused and a certain Lerma Cui (Lerma) as witnesses.
ACCORDINGLY, judgment is rendered finding the accused FREDDIE LADIP Y RUBIO, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of violation of Section 5 of RA 9165 (for drug pushing) as charged, and he is hereby sentenced to suffer a jail term of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of P500,000.00. Only the sachet sold to PO1 Sibal covers the case against the accused. The other sachet picked up by PO1 Tayag cannot be held beyond reasonable doubt as having come from the accused. Nonetheless, the statutory penalty is still as stated above as per RA 9165.
The trial court ruled that the testimonies of the police operatives are credible and reliable. On the other hand, the denials of the accused were found to be negative, weak, and self–serving. It further pointed out that the marking of the subject sachets made only in the police station was reasonable considering that during the arrest, there was a commotion which resulted to a crowd build–up, thereby giving rise to the probability of risk to the life and limb of the police, had they stayed there much longer. Hence, such belated marking was therefore deemed justified.
The CA affirmed in toto the decision of the RTC and dismissed the appeal.18 The appellate court ruled that the prosecution’s evidence established the essential elements of the crime. It held that failure to comply with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 will not render the arrest of the accused illegal, nor will it result to the inadmissibility in evidence against the accused of the illegal drugs seized in the course of the entrapment operation. What is of utmost relevance is the preservation of the integrity and maintenance of the evidentiary value of the confiscated illegal drugs, for in the end, the same shall necessarily be the thrust that shall determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.19 More so, the CA emphasized that in the prosecution of offenses relating to illegal sale, peddling and conveyance of prohibited drugs, what is of material and pivotal importance is proof that the sale of drugs actually took place, coupled with the presentation of the corpus delicti as evidence,20 and furthermore, that there is no showing of any indicia of ill or improper motive on the part of the police operatives to impute such serious crime against accused as manifested by their witnesses’ spontaneous and categorical declarations and account of the incident.21 These were all established and proven beyond reasonable doubt in the instant case.
When the case was elevated to this Court, accused, through the Public Attorney’s Office, and the Office of the Solicitor General, both manifested that they would no longer file their respective supplemental brief and, instead, they would adopt all the arguments in their briefs filed before the CA.22 In his Appellant’s Brief,23 accused raised the following assignment of errors: (a) the court a quo gravely erred in convicting the accused–appellant notwithstanding the prosecution’s failure to establish the chain of custody and integrity of the alleged seized illegal drugs; (b) the court a quo gravely erred in convicting the accused–appellant notwithstanding the prosecution witnesses’ incredible and highly inconsistent testimonies; and (c) the court a quo gravely erred in convicting the accused–appellant despite the prosecution’s failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Posed for resolution is whether or not the accused is guilty of illegal sale of dangerous drugs; and of similar importance is the course of the investigation and trial.
Ultimately, the above issues may be consolidated, to wit: whether or not the RTC and the CA erred in finding that the evidence of the prosecution was sufficient to convict the accused of the alleged sale of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, in violation of Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165.
On December 7, 2006 in what police station you were assigned?
Station 9 Anti Illegal Drug.
Do you remember having reported for duty on said date?
Who were with you at the time when you reported for duty?
PO1 Romeo Tayag, PO1 Almario, PO2 Zamora and PO2 Salas.
While you were on the said station, what happened if you still recall?
There was an informant who arrived in our station.
When this informant arrived in your station, what happened?
He told us that a certain Freddie Ladip in Area 1 is selling shabu.
After that information was given by the said informant, what did your team do, if any?
We made the pre–operation report, the buy bust money was also prepared.
Was there a briefing conducted?
In this briefing that was conducted by your chief, what was taken?
I will be the poseur buyer.
As a poseur buyer, what will you do?
I was tasked to buy shabu.
And what will you use to buy shabu?
Was it already marked when it was given to you?
Not yet I was the one who marked the money.
From whom did you receive the money?
In what denomination you used?
After you received the money, what did you do?
We placed marking on the upper left (sic).
What marking did you place?
Why do you have to mark the money?
After this pre–operation report was prepared, what else were discussed during the briefing?
I was tasked as a poseur buyer. After the money was given we went to the location.
Who was your back up?
Romeo Tayag. The other are back ups but on viewing distance.
You said you were tasked to buy shabu, how could (sic) the back up knew that the sale was already consummated?
We have the pre–arranged signal.
And what was the pre–arranged signal?
That the buy bust was already consummated.
What time did you proceed to the area?
At around 12:30 p.m. you were dispatched, what mode of transportation did you use?
Were you able to reach the area of your operation?
What exact place were you (sic) dispatched?
Area 1, Bgy. Botocan, Quezon City.
Where was the informant when you reached the said place?
When you reached the said place, what happened?
I together with the informant we went to the house of the suspect.
How did you go there?
How far is their vehicle from you?
The vehicle was parked on the street and the place where the supposed pusher is located in the looban.
What about your back up?
You said you were able to reach the house of the suspect, what happened when you reached the house of the suspect?
The informant introduced me to Freddie as the one who will buy shabu.
You said you reached the house of Freddie and you were introduced by the informant, how were you introduced by the informant to Freddie?
After you were introduced by the informant that you will buy shabu, what happened next?
And how much your answer?
And when you answered P300.00, what did he do?
After he asked for the money, what did you do?
After he got the money he gave me the small transparent sachet.
And what did you do after you received the sachet?
I executed the pre–arranged signal and I arrested Freddie.
You said you recovered the sachet and P300.00 worth of shabu, did you examine it?
You said you executed a pre–arranged signal, what happened after that?
After I removed my cap I arrested Freddie and my back ups went towards us.
Why did you arrest Freddie?
Because I was able to buy shabu from Freddie.
What else did you tell Freddie?
I introduced myself as police officer.
After introducing yourself as police officer, what else did you do?
I informed him of his constitutional rights.
I was able to recover P300.00 which I used to buy shabu.
From where did you recover it?
Before reaching the station who was in custody of the sachet you purchased from the accused?
How about the 3 pieces of P100.00.
When you reached the station, what did you do with the evidence?
Before we turn over to the investigator we placed the initial.
What does MSFL stand for?
MS Marcelino Sibal and FL Freddie Ladip.
How about the 3 pieces of marked money?
Turned over to the investigator.
Were you able to identify the plastic sachet you purchased from the accused?
Showing to you the plastic sachet, what can you say to this?
Witness identified the plastic sachet marked as Exhibit B and the signature as B–1 and B–2.
You said you were able to turn over to the investigator the money, where is the money now?
I have it but I was not able to bring it.
Before you present it to the inquest, what did you do with the P300.00?
We took pictures of the money.
Would you be able to identify the money?
Showing to you the xerox copy, what can you say to that?
This is the buy bust money.
We request that the 3 pieces of P100.00 be marked as EXHIBIT F, G and H.
Point to us the marking you placed before the operation?
With the illegal sale of dangerous drugs established beyond reasonable doubt, the handling of the evidence, or the observance of the proper chain of custody, which is also an indispensable factor in prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, is the next matter to be resolved.
The point, understandably, of the accused is noncompliance by the arresting officers with Section 21, Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165 regarding the chain of custody of seized drugs, particularly as to the following: (a) that no copy of the inventory was given to the accused or his representative; (b) that no photographs were taken in the presence of a representative from the media or the DOJ or any elected public officer; and (c) that there was no explanation of how the alleged sachets of shabu were handled and disposed of from the time these were turned–over to the crime laboratory, up to their presentation in court, is fatal to the prosecution’s case against him. Resolving this matter is of utmost importance because if proven, substantial gaps in the chain of custody of the seized drugs would cast serious doubts on the authenticity of the evidence presented in court and would then entitle the accused to an acquittal.
We are not persuaded by these arguments.
From the testimonies of the police officers in the case at bench, the prosecution established that they had custody of the drugs seized from the accused from the moment he was arrested, during the time he was transported to the police station, and up to the time the drugs were submitted to the crime laboratory for examination. The same witnesses also identified the seized drugs with certainty when these were presented in court. With regard to the handling of the seized drugs, 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 at the time of the buy–bust operation was the same one tested, introduced, and testified to in court. In short, there is no question as to the integrity of the evidence against the accused.
By way of reiteration, although this Court finds that the police officers did not strictly comply with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of the IRR implementing R.A. No. 9165, the noncompliance did not affect the evidentiary weight of the drugs seized from the accused, because the chain of custody of the evidence was shown to be unbroken under the circumstances of the case. As correctly found by the appellate court, the drugs confiscated from the accused were properly accounted for and forthrightly submitted to the Crime Laboratory for its extensive examination. The CA further ruled that nothing invited the suspicion that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized articles were jeopardized.
Also, it is a well–entrenched principle that 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 Court of Appeals.40 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 the accused.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Court of Appeals Decision in CA–G.R. CR–H.C. No. 03635 dated 22 September 2010, is AFFIRMED in all respects.
Carpio, (Chairperson), Brion, Del Castillo, and Perlas–Bernabe, JJ., concur.
1Rollo, pp. 2–16; Penned by Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang with Associate Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Manuel M. Barrios concurring.
2 CA rollo, pp. 13–15; Penned by Presiding Judge Jaime N. Salazar, Jr.
5 TSN, 27 February 2007, pp. 4–14.
6 Joint Affidavit, records, p. 12; TSN, 27 February 2007, pp. 11–14.
7 TSN, 27 February 2007, pp. 15–17; TSN, 21 May 2007, pp. 11–12.
8 TSN, 27 February 2007, pp. 18–19; TSN, 21 May 2007, pp. 14–15.
9 Records, pp. 3–4 and 7–8; Exhibits “A,” “D,” “I,” “J,” “J–1,” “J–2,” “K,” “K–1,” and “K–2”; TSN, 27 February 2007, pp. 21–24.
11 TSN, 31 January 2008, pp. 3–4.
14 TSN, 11 August 2008, pp. 2–5.
17 CA rollo, pp. 34–56; Brief for the Accused–Appellant.
22 Id. at 38–39; Resolution dated 19 September 2011.
23 CA rollo, pp. 34–56.
24People v. Tiu, 469 Phil. 163, 173 (2004); Chan v. Formaran III, et al., 572 Phil. 118 (2008).
25People v. Pagkalinawan, G.R. No. 184805, 3 March 2010, 614 SCRA 202, 215.
26People 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.
28 TSN, 27 February 2007, pp. 3–6.
31 Records, pp. 27–28; Both parties dispensed with the testimony of P/Insp. Ma. Shirleen Ballete, the Forensic Chemist who examined the specimen being subject matter of this case, and admitted in evidence her Chemistry Report No. D–525–2006 dated 7 December 2006. Said report categorically declared that, after qualitative examination conducted on the said specimen, the same was found to be a dangerous drug prohibited by law.
32People v. Sembrano, G. R. No. 185848, 16 August 2010, 628 SCRA 328, 342 citing People v. Llamado, G. R. No. 185278, 13 March 2009, 581 SCRA 544, 552, and People v. Remerata, 449 Phil. 813, 822 (2003).
33 People v. Soriaga, G.R. No. 191392, 14 March 2011, 645 SCRA 300, 305–306 citing People v. Tamayo, G.R. No. 187070, 24 February 2010, 613 SCRA 556, and People v. De Leon, supra note 27 at 136.
35 Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 587 (2008).
36 G.R. No. 186390, 2 October 2009, 602 SCRA 783, 795.
37People v. Le, G.R. No. 188976, 29 June 2010, 622 SCRA 571, 583.
38 People v. Domado, G.R. No. 172971, 16 June 2010, 621 SCRA 73, 91–92.
39Zalameda v. People, G. R. No. 183656, 4 September 2009, 598 SCRA 537, 556.

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