561 Phil. 752
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
That on or about the 7th day of June, 2003, in the City of Makati, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously without being authorized by law, sell, distribute and transport zero point zero two gram (0.02) of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.The accusatory portion of the Information charging him with violation of Section 11 of Article II of the same Act, which was docketed as Crim. Case No. 03-1942, reads:
CONTRARY TO LAW.[3] (Underscoring supplied)
That on or about the 7th day of June, 2003, in the City of Makati, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess or otherwise use any dangerous drug and without the corresponding license or prescription, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, direct custody and control Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) weighing zero point zero one gram (0.01) which is a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.From the evidence for the prosecution, the following version is culled:
CONTRARY TO LAW.[4] (Underscoring supplied)
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is rendered against accused RUSSEL NAVARRO alias "Jhong" as follows:As stated early on, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court.[11]
1. Finding him GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165 (Criminal Case No 03-1941) and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00,
2. Finding him GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165 (Criminal Case No. 03-1942) and (considering that the quantity of shabu subject matter of the case is only 0.01), sentencing him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one day as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and one day, as maximum pursuant to the Indeterminate Sentence Law. (R.A. [No.] 4103, as amended).
In both cases, the period during which he was under detention shall be considered in his favor.
The Branch Clerk of Court (OIC) is directed to transmit to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) the two (2) plastic sachets of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride with a combined weight of 0.03 gram[s] subject of these cases, for said agency's appropriate disposition.
SO ORDERED.[10] (Underscoring supplied)
While, with a few exceptions, this Court has, as a rule, deferred to trial courts' assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their determination of facts, considering the gravity of the offenses and the severity of the penalties imposed, a thorough, hard review of the records of the cases was conducted. No ground or reason to reverse the decision on review has been gathered, however, albeit a modification of the penalty in the case for illegal possession of shabu is in order.I
. . . IN FINDING [HIM] GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIMES CHARGED.II
. . . IN NOT CONSIDERING THE ILLEGALITY OF [HIS] ARREST.[13]
It is a settled rule 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.From the transcript of stenographic notes of the proceedings in the cases, this Court finds the testimonies of the police officer and the two MADAC operatives credible, straightforward, and corroborate each other. Appellant's denial, absent any evidence to buttress it, is, like alibi, a self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testified on affirmative matters.[16]x x x x
Unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive or were not properly performing their duty, their testimonies with respect to the operation deserve full faith and credit.[14]
Bare denials cannot prevail over the prosecution witnesses' positive identification of appellants as the persons who were in possession of the shabu, who delivered it to the poseur-buyer, and who received payment for it. The records clearly show that they were entrapped through a buy-bust operation. Their denial cannot prevail over the positive testimony of the police officers who had no reason or ill motive to testify falsely against them. As earlier adverted to, the officers' testimonies were consistent, unequivocal and replete with details of the transaction with appellants and, therefore, merit our full faith and credence.[15]
Arrest without warrant; when lawful. ─ A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:Since appellant was arrested in flagrante delicto while selling a sachet of shabu to the poseur-buyer, his arrest without warrant was legal.
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
(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 temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof, the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail, and he shall be proceeded against in accordance with Rule 112, Section 7. (Italics in the original; emphasis supplied)
Search incident to lawful arrest.-A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense, without a search warrant.On appellant's claim that there was no proof that the substance in the sachets was indeed shabu, the same fails. The Physical Science Report found that the substance contained inside both sachets which came from appellant was positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. That the forensic chemist who examined the contents of the sachets was not presented as a witness does not render the Physical Science Report hearsay as the parties stipulated, during the Pre-trial of the cases, that it was issued by a qualified Forensic Chemist of the PNP Crime Laboratory. Thus the Pre-trial Order[17] dated August 14, 2003 chronicled the stipulations of the parties as follows:
Additionally, the defense admitted the documentary evidence of the prosecution including the Physical Science Report ─ Exhibit "D."x x x x
3. That the Drug Enforcement Unit through SP/Insp. Leandro Mendoza Abel made a Request for Laboratory Examination;
4. That the PNP Crime Laboratory through Engr. Richard Allan B. Mangalip conducted an examination on the specimen submitted.
5. That Physical Science Report was issued by the PNP Crime Laboratory Office detailing the findings of the Forensic Chemist; and
6. The qualification of the Forensic Chemistx x x x[18] (Underscoring supplied)
COURTAs for appellant's invocation of the equipoise rule ─ that if the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty, and does not suffice to produce a conviction[21] ─ the same must be denied.
The prosecution has filed its formal offer of exhibits. There is no comment yet from the defense. So, the comment will be verbal.
ATTY. REGALA
Yes. Your Honor. As regards to Exhibit A and submarkings your Honor, up to Exhibit D, we admit the existence of the document. . .x x x x
Exhibits A to G,[19] being the subject of the stipulations between the parties during the pretrial are admitted.[20] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
A fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000) must thus be added to the prison term imposed in Criminal Case No. 03-1942.ARTICLE II
Unlawful Acts and Penaltiesx x x x
Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs . . .x x x x
. . . [I]f the quantity involved is less than [10 grams], the penalties shall be graduated as follows:x x x x
(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty years and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of . . . "shabu" . . . (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)