Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53057:gr-183656-2009&catid=1522&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 11:39:22+00:00

Document:
GILBERT ZALAMEDA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
We review in this Petition for Review on Certiorari the decision1 and resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 30061 that affirmed the February 8, 2006 decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 64, Makati City.3 This RTC decision found petitioner Gilbert Zalameda (petitioner) guilty of violating Section 114 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 (The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), and sentenced him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment for twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, as maximum. The trial court likewise found the petitioner and his co-accused Albert Villaflor (Villaflor) guilty of violating Section 125 of R.A. No. 9165, and sentenced them to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment for four (4) months and one (1) day, as minimum, to two (2) years and seven (7) months, as maximum.
That on or about the 14th day of September, 2003, in the City of Makati, Philippines, and a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess any dangerous drug and without the corresponding license or prescription, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously possess one (1) heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing zero point zero three (0.03) gram of Methylampethamine Hydrochloride (shabu), which is a dangerous drug.
That on or about the 14th day of September 2003, in the City of Makati, Philippines and a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping and aiding one another, not being lawfully authorized to carry dangerous paraphernalia, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in their possession two (2) aluminum foil strips and three (3) unsealed transparent sachets with traces of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, three (3) other pieces of aluminum foils strips, one (1) stainless scissor and one (1) disposable lighter which are instruments, apparatuses or paraphernalia fit or intended for ingesting or introducing any dangerous drug into the body.
6. The qualification of the Forensic Chemist.
The prosecution reserved its right to present and mark additional exhibits in the course of the trial.
The defense did not mark any exhibit but reserved the right to present and mark them in the course of the trial.
With the stipulation entered into by the prosecution and the defense, the testimony of Forensic Chemist Karen S. Palacios is dispensed with.
Joint trial on the merits followed. The essential facts, based on the records, are summarized below.
On cross examination, he testified that Villaflor was a friend of his sister, Julie; and that the latter requested Villaflor to borrow money from their (his sister's and his) mother, whose house was located in a nearby street.33 The money was for the baptism of Julie's daughter scheduled for the next day.34 He did not anymore accompany Villaflor to his mother's house because her mother was already asleep.35 He declared that he did not personally know the persons who arrested them prior to their arrest.36 He also added that PO2 De Guzman demanded P20,000.00 from him in exchange for his liberty.
1. In Criminal Case No. 03-3559, the accused GILBERT ZALAMEDA y SUMILE is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section 11, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 and is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate imprisonment of TWELVE (12) YEARS, ONE (1) DAY as minimum to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS as maximum pursuant to the Indeterminate Sentence Law, R.A. No. 4103, as amended, and to pay a fine of P300,00.00.
2. In Criminal Case No. 03-3560, the accused GILBERT ZALAMEDA y SUMILE and accused ALBERT VILLAFLOR y HUERTE are found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section 12, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 and are sentenced to suffer the indeterminate sentence of FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY as minimum, to TWO (2) YEARS, SEVEN (7) MONTHS, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P10,000.00.
In both cases, the period during which the accused were held under detention shall be considered in their favor pursuant to existing rules.
The dangerous drug subject matter of Criminal Case No. 03-3559 consisting of 0.03 gram of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu and the pieces of drug paraphernalia recovered from the accused and subject of Criminal Case No. 03-3560 are hereby transmitted to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for its appropriate disposition.
In the present petition,40 petitioner alleges that the items confiscated from him were inadmissible, and that the prosecution failed to prove the existence of the illegal drug.
Illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165 carries the following elements: (1) possession by the accused of an item or object identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) the possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the free and conscious possession of the drug by the accused.47 On the other hand, the elements of illegal possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs under Section 12 are: (1) possession or control by the accused of any equipment, apparatus or other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body; and (2) such possession is not authorized by law. The evidence for the prosecution showed the presence of all these elements.
PO2 De Guzman duly and positively identified the petitioner as the person he saw sniffing shabu with Villaflor, and as the same person from whose right pocket he recovered a rectangular plastic sachet containing white crystalline substances. He also narrated how the police inadvertently found various drug apparatus and paraphernalia scattered on top of the petitioner's bed. Per Report No. D-1142-03S of Police Inspector Palacios, the plastic sachet recovered from the petitioner was examined and found to contain 0.03 gram of methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a prohibited drug. The two aluminum foil strips and three unsealed transparent plastic sachets recovered on top of the petitioner's bed also tested positive for the presence of shabu. Thus, the petitioner knowingly possessed shabu - a prohibited drug - and had under his control various drug paraphernalia without legal authority to do so, all in violation of Sections 11 and 12 of R.A. No. 9165.
PO2 De Guzman testified in a spontaneous, straightforward and categorical manner, proving all the elements of the crimes charged; he never wavered despite the grueling cross-examination by the defense counsel.
The petitioner alleges that since the warrantless arrest conducted by the police was illegal, the items seized from him as a result of said arrest were inadmissible.
This argument totally lacks merit.
c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.
After carefully evaluating the evidence in its totality, we hold that the prosecution successfully established that the petitioner was arrested in flagrante delicto.
We emphasize that the series of events that led the police to the petitioner's house and to his arrest were triggered by a "tip" from a concerned citizen that a "pot session" was in progress at the petitioner's house located on D. Gomez Street. Under the circumstances, the police did not have enough time to secure a search warrant considering the "time element" involved in the process (i.e., a pot session may not be for an extended period of time and it was then 5:15 a.m.). In view of the urgency, SPO4 Orbeta immediately dispatched his men to proceed to the identified place - 2725 D. Gomez Street - to verify the report. At the place, the responding police officers verified from a slightly opened door and saw the petitioner and Villaflor "sniffing smoke" to use the words of PO2 De Guzman, or "sumisinghot ng shabu" as PO2 De Guia put it. There was therefore sufficient probable cause for the police officers to believe that the petitioner and Villaflor were then and there committing a crime. As it turned out, the petitioner indeed possessed a prohibited drug and, together with Villaflor, was even using a prohibited drug and likewise illegally possessed drug paraphernalia, contrary to law. When an accused is caught in flagrante delicto, the police officers are not only authorized but are duty-bound to arrest him even without a warrant.
Section 13. Search Incident to Lawful Arrest. - A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant.
All the foregoing requirements for a lawful search and seizure are present in this case. The police officers had prior justification to be at the petitioner's place as they were dispatched by their desk officer; they arrested the petitioner and Villaflor as they had reason to believe that they were illegally using and possessing a prohibited drug and drug paraphernalia. The search of the petitioner incident to his arrest yielded the confiscated crystalline substance which later proved to be shabu. In the course of their lawful intrusion, they inadvertently saw the various drug paraphernalia scattered on the bed. As these items were plainly visible, the police officers were justified in seizing them.
The petitioner also harps on the fact that the police did not conduct a prior surveillance to verify the tipped information. We emphasize that the "tip" has reference to an ongoing pot session - an activity that does not usually last for an extended period. We have held that when time is of the essence, the police may dispense with the need for prior surveillance.55 Simply stated, a prior surveillance is not necessary where the police operatives are pressed for time to capture a suspected offender, as in this case. Thus, the absence of a surveillance did not undermine the validity of the petitioner's arrest.
As the lower courts did, we find the petitioner's story unworthy of belief.
We find the petitioner's claim that he was arrested and detained in the evening of September 13, 2003 to be self-serving and uncorroborated by any separate competent evidence. The petitioner, in fact, admitted that he has no proof of such detention in his testimony of March 31, 2004.59 The justification that the petitioner offered for Villaflor's presence at his place, in the absence of any corroborating evidence, is likewise questionable. Allegedly, Villaflor was asked by Julie to borrow from Milagros money to be used in a baptism to be held on the following day. No reason exists in the records explaining why Villaflor would proceed to the petitioner's house and stay there, given the urgency of his task and given that, by the petitioner's own admission, Milagros was expecting Villaflor that night. The questionable status of this basic component of the denial, to our mind, renders the whole denial itself questionable. The latin maxim "falsus in unus, falsus in omnibus"60 best explains our reason.
The petitioner's denial must likewise fail in light of the positive identification and declarations made by the prosecution witnesses. As we stated earlier, these witnesses testified in a straightforward and categorical manner regarding the identities of the malefactors. They did not waver despite the defense counsel's rigid questioning.
Courts generally view the defense of denial with disfavor due to the facility with which an accused can concoct it to suit his or her defense. As evidence that is both negative and self-serving, this defense cannot attain more credibility than the testimonies of prosecution witnesses who testify clearly, providing thereby positive evidence on the various aspects of the crime committed. One such positive evidence is the result of the laboratory examination conducted by the PNP Crime Laboratory on the various drug and drug paraphernalia recovered from the petitioner and Villaflor which revealed that the following confiscated items tested positive for the presence of shabu: (a) one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with marking "GSZ" containing 0.03 gram of white crystalline substance; (b) two aluminum foil strips both with markings "AHV," each containing white crystalline substance; and (c) three unsealed transparent plastic sachets all with markings "RSG" each containing white crystalline substance. In addition, the drug tests conducted on the petitioner and Villaflor both yielded positive results.
Petitioner's claim of extortion is similarly untenable. An allegation of frame-up and extortion by police officers is a common and standard defense in most dangerous drug cases. It is viewed by this Court with disfavor, for it can be easily concocted. To substantiate such a defense, the evidence must be clear and convincing.61 In the present case, the petitioner was unable to support his allegation of extortion with any other evidence. The petitioner also admitted that he did not know the policemen previous to the arrest, hence negating any improper motive on the part of the police. Such lack of dubious motive coupled with the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, as well as the findings of the trial court on the credibility of prosecution witnesses, should prevail over the petitioner's self-serving and uncorroborated extortion claim. It is also worth noting that the petitioner has not filed a single complaint against the police officers who allegedly attempted to extort money from him.
The petitioner argues that the informant was never presented in court to corroborate the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
We do not find this argument convincing.
Under the circumstances, we do not find any necessity for additional corroborating testimony, particularly that of the confidential informant. Intelligence agents, due to the nature of their work, are often not called to testify in court so as not to reveal their identities publicly. Once known, they could no longer be used again and, worse, may be the object of revenge by the criminals they implicate. The prevailing doctrine is that their testimonies are not essential for conviction, nor are they indispensable to a successful prosecution. With the testimonies of the arresting officers, they would be, after all, merely corroborative and cumulative.
The petitioner alleges that the prosecution failed to establish the evidence's chain of custody because the police operatives failed to strictly comply with Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165. He adds that the police did not immediately mark, photograph and inventory the drugs and drug paraphernalia at the place where they were seized.
A: This is the plastic sachet that I have recovered from the possession of accused Zalameda, sir.
A: I put markings, sir.
A: Inside the headquarters, sir.
A: Gilbert Sumile Zalameda, sir.
Q: May I request, Your Honor, that this white crystalline substance contained in a plastic sachet with markings GSZ be marked as Exhibit F, Your Honor. Now, you mentioned also that you were able to recover drug paraphernalia from the bed.
A: I placed markings sir.
A: Albert Huerte Villaflor, sir.
A: Yes, sir, this is the one.
A: I also placed markings, sir.
A: Yes, sir. These are the plastic sachets.
A: I placed the markings, sir.
A: My initial, sir, RSG.
A: Yes, sir. This is the one.
A: I also found three rolled aluminum foil, sir.
Q: Please point them out to us.
Q: We request, Your Honor, that the bag identified by the witness be marked as Exhibit M. Now, you also mentioned that you brought Zalameda to the headquarters.
A: We also brought him to the headquarter[s].
A: Our desk officer prepared the necessary paper to turn over the two suspects to the investigator.
A: The investigator prepared a request addressed to the crime lab. for laboratory examination of the confiscated evidence, sir.
A: The investigator also made a request for drug test examination addressed to the Crime Laboratory.
Q: And did you come to know what was the result of the examination conducted?
Q: And what was the result?
A: The result is positive, sir.
Q: What do you mean positive?
A: Positive, sir, for methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, sir.
Q: How about the drug test?
A: The accused also gave positive result.
Thus, the prosecution established the crucial link in the chain of custody of the seized items from the time they were first discovered until they were brought for examination. Besides, as earlier stated, the petitioner did not contest the admissibility of the seized items during trial. The integrity and the evidentiary value of the drug seized from the petitioner were therefore duly proven not to have been compromised.
We also reject the petitioner's claim that the non-presentation of the forensic chemist was fatal to the prosecution's case. The petitioner never raised in issue before the trial court the non-presentation of Police Inspector Palacios. In fact, the defense during the pre-trial agreed to dispense with her testimony.72 It must also be stressed that Police Inspector Palacios is a public officer, and her report carries the presumption of regularity. Besides, Section 44, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that entries in official records made in the performance of his duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a duty specifically enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.73 Police Inspector Palacios' findings that Exhibits "F," "G," "H," "I," "I-1," and "I-2" were found positive for the presence of shabu are, therefore, conclusive in the absence of evidence proving the contrary.
We sustain the penalty imposed by the RTC and affirmed by the CA in Criminal Case No. 03-3559, as it is within the range provided for by law.
Meanwhile, Section 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 provides that the penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and a fine ranging from Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) to Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who unless authorized by law, shall possess or have under his/her control any equipment, instrument, apparatus and any other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body.
The courts a quo sentenced the petitioner to suffer the indeterminate penalty of four months and one day, as minimum, to two years and seven months, as maximum in Criminal Case No. 03-3560. Pursuant to Section 12 of R.A. No. 9165, we increase the minimum to six (6) months and one (1) day imprisonment.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court of Appeals decision and resolution dated March 18, 2008 and July 15, 2008, respectively, in CA-G.R. CR No. 30061 are AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that in Criminal Case No. 03-3560, petitioner Gilbert Zalameda is SENTENCED to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six (6) months and one (1) day, as minimum, to two (2) years and seven (7) months, as maximum.
The CA decision finding the petitioner guilty of violation of Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165 in Criminal Case No. 03-3559 is AFFIRMED in all respects.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, and concurred in by Associate Justice Mario L. GuariÃ±a III and Associate Justice Sixto C. Marella, Jr.; rollo, pp. 87-96.
3 Penned by Judge Delia H. Panganiban; id., pp. 60-68.
4 Sec.11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs.
5 Sec. 12. Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs.
6 CA records, p. 10.
9 Pre-trial Order, id., pp. 33-34.
10 TSN, January 28, 2004, pp. 3-4, 15-16.
11 Id., pp. 3 and 24.
12 Id., pp. 4, 23-24.
17 Id., pp. 5 and 27.
19 Id., pp. 6 and 20.
20 Id., pp. 6 and 21.
22 Id., pp. 7 and 20.
24 Id., p. 14; See also Pre-Trial Order, records, pp. 33-34.
26 See Physical Science Report No. D-1142-03S, records, p. 55.
27 TSN, January 28, 2004, pp. 14-15.
28 TSN, March 31, 2004, pp. 4-5.
37 RTC Decision, rollo, pp. 67-68.
41 Comment, id., p. 132.
46 See People v. Rivera, G.R. No. 182347, October 17, 2008.
47 People v. Naquita, G.R. No. 180511, July 28, 2008, 560 SCRA 430.
48 TSN, January 28, 2004, pp. 3-4.
51 See People v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 184804, June 18, 2009.
52 See People v. Divina, G.R. No. 174067, August 29, 2007, 531 SCRA 631.
53 See People v. Laguio, Jr., G.R. No. 128587, March 16, 2007, 518 SCRA 393.
54 See People v. Salanguit, G.R. NOS. 133254-55, April 19, 2001, 356 SCRA 683.
55 See Quinicot v. People, G.R. No. 179700, June 22, 2009.
56 TSN, March 31, 2004, pp. 4-6.
58 Id., pp. 4 and 11.
60 False in part, fake in everything.
61 See People v. Boco, G.R. No. 129676, June 23, 1999, 309 SCRA 42.
62 See People v. Lopez, G.R. No. 172369, March 7, 2007, 517 SCRA 749.
63 See Dimacuha v. People, G.R. No. 143705, February 23, 2007, 516 SCRA 513.
64 G.R. No. 129676, June 23, 1999, 309 SCRA 42.
65 See People v. Gum-Oyen, G.R. No. 182231, April 16, 2009.
66 The initials of petitioner Gilbert S. Zalameda.
67 The initials of Albert H. Villaflor.
68 The initials of PO2 Renato S. De Guzman.
69 See Physical Science Report No. D-1142-03S, records, p. 55.
70 TSN, January 28, 2004, pp. 10-15.
71 TSN, January 28, 2004, pp. 10-15.
73 See People v. Bandang, G.R. No. 151314, June 3, 2004, 430 SCRA 570.
74 See People v. Naquita, G.R. No. 180511, July 28, 2008, 560 SCRA 430; People v. Mateo, G.R. No. 179478, July 28, 2008, 560 SCRA 375; People v. del Monte, G.R. No. 179940, April 23, 2008, 552 SCRA 627; People v. Pringas, G.R. No. 175928, August 31, 2007, 531 SCRA 828; People v. Sta. Maria, G.R. No. 171019, February 23, 2007, 516 SCRA 621.
75 See People v. Teodoro, G.R. No. 185164, June 22, 2009.
76 G.R. No. 179940, April 23, 2008, 662 SCRA 627.

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