Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=84239:59876&amp;catid=1594&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 04:26:22+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 207988, March 11, 2015 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BRIAN MERCADO Y SARMIENTO, Accused-Appellant.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BRIAN MERCADO Y SARMIENTO, Accused-Appellant.
Upon arraignment, the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to said charges.5 Trial thereafter proceeded.
[A]t around 10:00 a.m. on July 27, 2007, acting on a tip from a confidential informant that accused-appellant was selling shabu, the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Unit (SAID-SOU) of the Philippine National Police (PNP) organized a buy-bust operation [with] SPO2 Wilfredo Quillan as team leader, PO3 [Ramon] Galvez as poseur-buyer, and SPO1 [Fernando] Moran, PO2 Eugene Amaro, PO2 Celso Santos and PO3 Jose Martirez as members. After SPO2 Quillan briefed the buy-bust team, a pre-operation report was prepared. PO3 Galvez was provided with two (2) one hundred-peso bills which he marked on the right portion with his initials “RG”. Then, the team and the informant boarded a passenger jeepney and proceeded to Phase 3-D, Camarin, Caloocan City. When the informant pointed to accused-appellant, PO3 Galvez approached him and said, “[p]’re, pa-iskor naman”, offering to buy P200.00 worth of shabu. He then handed the buy-bust money and accused-appellant brought out from his pocket three (3) pieces of plastic sachets, chose one (1) sachet and gave it to PO3 Galvez. As the sale was already consummated, PO3 Galvez introduced himself as a police officer, arrested accused-appellant, and gave the pre-arranged signal to his companions by scratching his nape. When SPO1 Moran rushed in, PO3 Galvez marked the plastic sachet with “BMS/RG” and told SPO1 Moran about the remaining two (2) plastic sachets in accused-appellant’s pocket. SPO1 Moran then frisked him and confiscated the items which he marked as “BMS/FM-1” and “BMS/FM-2”. Thereafter, they brought accused-appellant and the confiscated items to the SAID-SOU office in Samson Road, Caloocan City, and turned them over to the investigator, PO2 [Randulfo] Hipolito, who prepared the corresponding evidence acknowledgment receipt and request for laboratory examination.
(b) In Crim. Case No. C-77993, the penalty of Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to Fourteen (14) years and a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00).
It is well-settled that objection to the admissibility of evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desire the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of objection. Thus, as the trial was already concluded, [w]e can no longer turn back to find out the justifiable grounds for the omission of the legal requisites.
In any case, the procedural lapse did not render accused-appellant’s arrest illegal or the evidence adduced inadmissible. If there is non-compliance with Section 21, the issue is not of admissibility, but of weight – evidentiary merit or probative value – to be given the evidence. After a scrutiny of the records, [w]e find the evidence adduced more than sufficient to prove the charges against accused-appellant. Therefore, considering that no circumstance exists to put the trial court’s findings in error, [w]e apply the time-honored precept that findings of the trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve credibility are accorded respect when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts and speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings.
Upon elevation of this case before this Court, the Office of the Solicitor General manifested that it will no longer file its supplemental brief and, instead, will adopt all the arguments in its brief filed before the CA.16 On the other hand, accused-appellant raised the issue that the court a quo gravely erred in convicting him notwithstanding the police operatives’ patent non-compliance with the strict and mandatory requirements of R.A. No. 9165.
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 and possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, in violation of Sections 5 and 11, respectively, of R.A. No. 9165.
Upon perusal of the records of the case, we see no reason to reverse or modify the findings of the RTC on the credibility of the testimony of prosecution’s witnesses, more so in the present case, in which its findings were affirmed by the CA. It is worthy to mention that, in addition to the legal presumption of regularity in the performance of their official duty, the court a quo was in the best position to weigh the evidence presented during trial and ascertain the credibility of the police officers who testified as to the conduct of the buy-bust operation and in preserving the integrity of the seized illegal drug.
Undoubtedly, the prosecution had indeed established that there was a buy-bust operation22 showing that accused-appellant sold and delivered the shabu for value to PO3 Ramon Galvez (PO3 Galvez), the poseur-buyer. PO3 Galvez himself testified that there was an actual exchange of the marked-money and the prohibited drug. Likewise, accused-appellant was fully aware that what he was selling was illegal and prohibited considering that when PO3 Galvez told him, “pre, pa-iskor naman,” the former immediately answered, “magkano?,” then when the poseur-buyer replied, “dos lang,” it resulted to the production of three (3) pieces of plastic sachets from accused-appellant’s pocket. Thereafter, the corpus delicti or the subject drug was seized, marked, and subsequently identified as a prohibited drug. Note that there was nothing in the records showing that he had authority to possess them. Jurisprudence had pronounced repeatedly that mere possession of a prohibited drug constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of any satisfactory explanation.23 Above all, accused-appellant likewise failed to present contrary evidence to rebut his possession of the shabu. Taken collectively, the illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs by accused-appellant were indeed established beyond reasonable doubt.
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 from the moment he was arrested, during the time he was transported to the police station, and up to the time the drug was submitted to the crime laboratory for examination. The same witnesses also identified the seized drug with certainty when this was 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-appellant 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 Chemical Officer of the Northern Police District Crime Laboratory Office, Caloocan City, Police Chief Inspector Albert S. Arturo.32 In other words, there is no question as to the integrity of the evidence against accused-appellant.
It is well-settled that objection to the admissibility of evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of objection. Thus, as the trial was already concluded, [w]e can no longer turn back to find out the justifiable grounds for the omission of the legal requisites.
In fine, considering the pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution, the denial and allegation of extortion of the accused-appellant fails. 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 the prosecution witnesses who testify clearly, providing thereby positive evidence on the various aspects of the crime committed.35 Consequently, we find no cogent reason to disturb the decisions of the RTC and the CA. Accused-appellant Bryan Mercado y Sarmiento is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The CA Decision in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 04942 dated 26 September 2012, is AFFIRMED in all respects.
Sereno, C.J., (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin, and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.
1Rollo, pp. 2-15; Penned by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez with Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario and Socorro B. Inting concurring.
2 Records, pp. 202-213; Penned by Judge Aurelio R. Ralar, Jr.
5 Id. at 22; Certificate of Arraignment dated 13 August 2007.
10 Id. at 208 citing People v. Bandang, et al., G.R. No. 151314, 3 June 2004, 430 SCRA 570, 578-579.
11 Id. at 209-210 citing People v. Bongalon, 425 Phil. 96, 114 (2002); and People v. Wu Tuan Yuan, 466 Phil. 791, 802-803 (2004).
12 Id. at 210-211 citing People v. Bang-ayan, 534 Phil. 70, 82 (2006).
13Rollo, pp. 9-10; CA Decision.
17 People v. Lardizabal, G.R. No. 89113, 29 November 1991, 204 SCRA 320, 329.
18People v. Tiu, 469 Phil. 163, 173 (2004); Chan v. Formaran III, et al., 572 Phil. 118, 132-133 (2008).
19People v. Pagkalinawan, 628 Phil. 101, 114 (2010).
20People v. Andres, 656 Phil. 619, 627 (2011) citing People v. Serrano, 634 Phil. 406, 420 (2010).
21People v. Bautista, G.R. No. 177320, 22 February 2012, 666 SCRA 518, 530 citing People v. Naquita, 582 Phil. 422, 445 (2008).
23People v. Quiamanlon, G.R. No. 191198, 26 January 2011, 640 SCRA 697, 706 citing Fuentes v. CA, 335 Phil. 1163, 1164-1165 (1997).
24People v. De Guzman, 564 Phil. 282, 293 (2007).
25People 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, G. R. No. 147230, 449 Phil. 813, 822 (2003).
26People v. Soriaga, 660 Phil. 600, 605 (2011) citing People v. Tamayo, 627 Phil. 369 (2010) and People v. De Leon, supra note 22 at 136.
28Malillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 587 (2008).
29People v. Salonga, 617 Phil. 997, 1010 (2009).
30People v. Le, G.R. No. 188976, 29 June 2010, 622 SCRA 571, 583.
31People v. Domado, 635 Phil. 93-94 (2010).
32 Records, pp. 203-204; RTC Decision.
33Rollo, p. 14; CA Decision.
35 Zalameda v. People, 614 Phil. 710, 733 (2009).

References: v. 
 v. 
In fine
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.