Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81822:191730&catid=1571&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 02:48:12+00:00

Document:
G.R. NO. 191730, June 05, 2013 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MYLENE TORRES Y CRUZ, Accused-Appellant.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MYLENE TORRES Y CRUZ, Accused-Appellant.
This is an appeal from the Decision1 dated 11 February 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 03454, affirming in toto the Decision2 dated 17 August 2007 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 154, in Criminal Case No. 15342-D, finding herein appellant Mylene Torres y Cruz guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of shabu, under Section 5,3 Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, thereby, sentencing her to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and ordering her to pay a fine of P1,000,000.00.
On or about [17 January 2007], in Pasig City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, [herein appellant], did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and give away to PO1 Jayson Rivera, a police poseur[-]buyer, one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic bag containing 0.04 gram of white crystalline substance, which was found positive to the test for methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of the said law.5 (Emphasis supplied).
On arraignment, appellant, with the assistance of counsel de oficio, pleaded NOT GUILTY6 to the crime charged.
There being no other facts proposed for further stipulation between the parties, the pre-trial conference was terminated and trial on the merits thereafter ensued.
The prosecution presented as witnesses Police Inspector 1 Jayson Rivera (PO1 Rivera) and PO1 Jeffrey Male (PO1 Male), who were the designated poseur-buyer and immediate back-up officer, respectively, in the buy-bust operation conducted against appellant. Both are members of the Philippine National Police (PNP) assigned at the Eastern Police District, District Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Force (DAIDSOTF), Pasig City.
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the [herein appellant] MYLENE TORRES y Cruz GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged in the Information and she is sentenced to suffer LIFE IMPRISONMENT. She is also ordered to pay a fine of ONE MILLION PESOS[.]22 (Emphasis supplied).
In a Decision dated 11 February 2010, the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the Decision of the trial court. It held that all the elements of the crime charged, i.e., illegal sale of drugs, have been proven and established beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. The same was coupled with the presentation in court of corpus delicti as evidence. It also found the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies sufficient to establish the various links in the chain of custody of the seized prohibited drug. This, despite the police officers’ failure to take photographs and to inventory the drug seized from appellant, the prosecution was able to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the illegal drug. The police officers were found not to have any motive other than their duty to enforce the law.
Appellant is now before this Court contending that the police officers did not comply with the mandatory procedure for handling dangerous drugs set forth in Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, particularly the physical inventory and the taking of photograph of the seized item; and that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the one-heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance that was admitted in evidence during trial was the same item seized from her during the buy-bust operation. Such gap in the chain of custody of the seized item created reasonable doubt on appellant’s culpability, thus, merits her acquittal from the crime charged.
Appellant’s contentions fail to persuade.
To begin with, it is a fundamental principle that findings of the trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve the credibility of witnesses are accorded respect when no glaring errors; gross misapprehension of facts; and speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings.25 This is so because the trial court is in a unique position to observe the witnesses’ demeanor on the witness stand.26 The above rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals,27 like in the case under consideration.
Undoubtedly, the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt appellant’s guilt for the offense of sale of shabu in violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.
x x x Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and 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[.] (Italics, emphasis and underscoring supplied).
Notably, after the sale was consummated, that is, when appellant received the buy-bust money from PO1 Rivera and handed to the latter the one-heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance, the seized item remained in possession of PO1 Rivera until he and the rest of the buy-bust team, together with the appellant, returned to their office. On arrival thereat, PO1 Rivera placed a scotch tape and put his initials on the one-heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance before turning it over to the investigator. Thereafter, a Request for Laboratory Examination of the one-heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance was prepared by the team leader of the buy-bust team, i.e., PS/Insp. Esguerra. Such request, together with the one-heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance, was brought to the crime laboratory for qualitative analysis. PS/Insp. Carino, PNP Forensic Chemical Officer, received and examined the same, which yielded positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride or “shabu.” Moreover, the one-heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance, which was found positive for shabu, was positively identified by PO1 Rivera in court to be the same item he confiscated from appellant.
Although Section 21(1) of [Republic Act] No. 9165 mandates that the apprehending team must immediately conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph them, non-compliance with said section 21 is not fatal as long as there is a justifiable ground therefor, and as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated/seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team. Thus, the prosecution must demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized have been preserved.
We note that nowhere in the prosecution evidence does it show the “justifiable ground” which may excuse the police operatives involved in the buy-bust operation in the case at bar from complying with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, particularly the making of the inventory and the photographing of the drugs and drug paraphernalia confiscated and/or seized. However, such omission shall not render accused-appellant's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him as inadmissible in evidence. In People v. Naelga [G.R. NO. 171018, 11 September 2009, 599 SCRA 477], We have explained that what is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items because the same will be utilized in ascertaining the guilt or innocence of the accused.
It must be stressed that said “justifiable ground” will remain unknown in the light of the apparent failure of the accused-appellant to challenge the custody and safekeeping or the issue of disposition and preservation of the subject drugs and drug paraphernalia before the RTC. x x x.
As a final note, appellant’s bare denial cannot prevail over the positive identification by PO1 Rivera that she is the same person who sold the shabu to him. For the defense of denial to prosper, appellant must adduce clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that government officials have performed their duties in a regular and proper manner, which she failed to do. Furthermore, appellant failed to show any motive on the part of the buy-bust team to implicate her in a crime she claimed she did not commit. This Court has repeatedly held that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary suggesting ill-motive on the part of the police officers.43 In this case there was none.
Under the law, the offense of illegal sale of shabu carries with it the penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00), regardless of the quantity and purity of the substance.44 Reviewing the penalties imposed by the trial court, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeal, this Court finds them to be in order.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision or the Court or Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.H.C. No. 03454 dated 11 February 2010 is hereby AFFIRMED. No Costs.
Brion,* (Acting Chairperson), Del Castillo, Perlas-Bernabe, and Leonen,** JJ., concur.
* Per Special Order No. 1460 dated 29 May 2013.
** Per Special Order No. 1461 dated 29 May 2013.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Pampio A. Abarintos with Associate Justices Josefina Guevara­Salonga and Stephen C. Cruz, concurring. Rollo, pp. 2-20.
2 Penned Judge Abraham B. Borreta CA rollo, pp. 13-18.
SEC. 5. Sale, Trading, Administration,. Dispensation, Deliver, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who unless authorized law shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any [or] such transactions.
4 CA rollo, pp. 9-10.
6 As evidenced by the Certificate of Arraignment and RTC Order both dated 14 February 2007. Records, pp. 18 and 20.
7 Exhibit "A." Id. at 36.
8 Exhibit "B." Id. at 37.
9 Exhibit "B." Id. at 38-39.
10 Per RTC Order dated 21 March 2007. Id. at 26-27.
11 Exhibit “F” (100-peso bill with Serial No. GZ833513) and Exhibit “F-1” (100-peso bill with Serial No. SN147653). Id. at 41.
12 Exhibit “D.” Id. at 40.
13 Testimony of PO1 Rivera, TSN, 25 April 2007, pp. 2-6; Testimony of PO1 Male, TSN, 13 June 2007, p. 3.
14 Id. at 6-7; Id. at 3-4.
15 Appellant’s arrest was also evidenced by the Joint Affidavit of Arrest executed by PO1 Rivera and PO1 Male (Exhibit “C”), as well as by the Arrest and Booking Report. Records, pp. 38-39.
16 Testimony of PO1 Rivera, TSN, 25 April 2007, pp. 7-9; Testimony of PO1 Male, TSN, 13 June 2007, pp. 4-5.
17 Id. at 9-10; Id. at 6.
18 Id.; Id. at 6 and 16.
19 Per Physical Sciences Report No. D-63-07E (Exhibit “B”). Id. at 37.
20 Testimony of Appellant, TSN, 1 August 2007, pp. 3-8.
21 Testimony of Flordeliza De Vera, id. at 11-13.
22 CA rollo, p. 17.
23 Per Notice of Appeal dated 24 August 2007. Id. at 25.
25People v. Santos, G.R. NO. 176735, 26 June 2008, 555 SCRA 578, 592.
26People v. Ariola, 418 Phil. 808, 816 (2001).
27People v. Gaspar, G.R. NO. 192816, 6 July 2011, 653 SCRA 673, 686.
28People v. Bara, G.R. NO. 184808, 14 November 2011, 660 SCRA 38, 43; People v. Gaspar, id.; People v. Cruz, G.R. NO. 187047, 15 June 2011, 652 SCRA 286, 298; People v. Manlangit, G.R. NO. 189806, 12 January 2011, 639 SCRA 455, 463; People v. Santos, supra note 25 at 592-593.
29People v. Bara, id.; People v. Cruz, id.
30 Testimony of PO1 Rivera, TSN, 25 April 2007, p. 8.
32People v. Cortez, G.R. NO. 183819, 23 July 2009, 593 SCRA 743, 762.
33People v. Martinez, G.R. NO. 191366, 13 December 2010, 637 SCRA 791, 812.
34People v. Cortez, supra note 32 at 762.
(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 seized.
36People v. Cortez, supra note 32 at 763.
38People v. Bara, supra note 28 at 45.
39 Supra note 28 at 46.
40 G.R. NO. 187741, 9 August 2010, 627 SCRA 494, 506-507.
41 545 Phil. 520 (2007) cited in People v. Lazaro, Jr., G.R. NO. 186418, 16 October 2009, 604 SCRA 250, 274 and People v. Desuyo, G.R. NO. 186466, 26 July 2010, 625 SCRA 590, 609.
42People v. Sta. Maria, id. at 534.
43People v. Arriola, G.R. NO. 187736, 8 February 2012, 665 SCRA 581, 591.
44People v. Desuyo, supra note 41 at 609.

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