643 Phil. 712
VELASCO JR., J.:
FINDINGS
Qualitative examination conducted on the above-stated specimen gave POSITIVE result to the tests for the presence of Methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drugs (Exh. "C")[3]
On or about March 27, 2003 in Pasig City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, not being lawfully authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and give away to PO1 Roland A. Panis, a police poseur buyer, one (1) small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet, containing 0.03 gram of white crystalline substance, which was found positive to the test for methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of the said law.
Contrary to law.
(1) on the existence of the specimen (white crystalline substance contained in the plastic sachet marked as "Exh A RAP 3/27/03");
(2) that a request for the examination of the specimen was made;
(3) that P/Insp. Gural examined the same and, as a result, issued Chemistry Report No. D-548-03E;
(4) that P/Insp. Gural had no personal knowledge from whom the specimen was taken; and,
(5) that the examination led to the identification of the specimen as methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
WHEREFORE, the court finds accused Rosialda y Jamot @ Bong GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 and hereby imposes upon him the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand (Php500,000.00) Pesos, with the accessory penalties provided for under Section 35 of the said law.
The plastic sachet containing shabu (Exhs "D" and "D-1") is hereby ordered confiscated in favor of the government and turned over to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for destruction.
With costs against the accused.
SO ORDERED.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Appeal is hereby DENIED. The challenged Decision is AFFIRMED in toto.
- Whether there was ill-motive on the part of the arresting officer to give credence to the accused's allegation that he was framed; and,
- Whether the chain of custody of the alleged illegal drugs was indeed unbroken.
Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, 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 by 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 of such transactions.
In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must first be established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took place and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.
Affirmed by the appellate court, the RTC gave full credence to the testimonies of PO1 Panis and the other police officers. Such finding of the trial court must be given great respect and shall generally not be disturbed by this Court. This principle was revisited in Sumbillo v. People of the Philippines,[9] where this Court reiterated that:DIRECT EXAMINATION
Prosecutor Bautista: Mr. Witness, you are a member of Mayor Special Action Team (sic)? PO1 Panis: Yes, sir. Q: As a member of Mayor Special Action Team, will you tell us what you usually do? A: We are task[ed] to apprehend person of people (sic) engaged in illegal vices particularly on illegal drugs, sir. Q: Do you know the accused in this case? A: Yes, sir, he is present right now. Q: Why do you know him? A: I arrested him, sir. Q: Why was he arrested? A: Because he sold me illegal drugs of shabu (sic), sir. Q: Where was he arrested? A: Sampaguita St., Jabson Site, Rosario, Pasig City. Q: When was he arrested? A: Around 3:30 p.m., March 27, [2003], sir. Q: Will you tell us the circumstances of this buy-bust operation? A: At about 2 p.m., we received a phone call from one Kagawad Antonio Santos, "ka Tonying" of Parang, Rosario, he talked to our chief Police Inspector Villaroel, sir. Q: What was the conversation all about? A: After their conversation he ordered us to go to the office of Ka Tonying to give us the information, sir. Q: Did you heed this order? A: Yes, sir. Q: And what did you find out? A: We conducted a buy-bust operation and Inspector Villaroel gave me money, P100 peso bill to use in buying illegal drugs from one alias "Bong". Q: Were you able to proceed to this target area? A: Yes, sir. Q: What time was it when you proceeded to the area? A: More or less 3:15 p.m., sir. Q: Will you tell us what happened then? A: We arrived in the area, I was with the civilian asset, our informant saw alias "Bong", he approached him together with me and then I was introduced as a friend, sir. Q: Who was your companion at the time? A: At the time the civilian informant, sir. Q: You were introduced to the accused? A: Yes, sir. Q: And upon introduction, what transpired? A: I was asked "Anong kailangan naming" and we uttered "Iiscore kami ng shabu." Q: And what was your answer? A: He asked me how much, sir. Q: And what did you say? A: I told him P100, after that I handed the money, sir. x x x x Q: So, when this stuff was handed to you by the accused, you made the pre-arranged signal by scratching your head? A: Yes, sir. Q: Afterwards, what did you do? A: I immediately held his hand and I introduced myself as a Police Officer and told him of his violation and afterwards we have konting pagtatalo and he resisted, sir. Q: Did you inform him of his constitutional rights? A: Yes, sir.[8]
The assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is best undertaken by the trial court due to its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grilling examination. x x x The findings of the trial court on such matters are binding and conclusive on the appellate court unless some facts or circumstances of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted, which is not true in the present case.
Once the prosecution overcomes the presumption of innocence by proving the elements of the crime and the identity of the accused as perpetrator beyond reasonable doubt, the burden of evidence then shifts to the defense which shall then test the strength of the prosecution's case either by showing that no crime was in fact committed or that the accused could not have committed or did not commit the imputed crime, or at the very least, by casting doubt on the guilt of the accused. (Emphasis supplied.)
The defense of denial and frame-up has been invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor, for it can easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. In order to prosper, the defense of denial and frame-up must be proved with strong and convincing evidence. In the case before us, appellants miserably failed to present any evidence in support of their claims. Aside from their self-serving assertions, no plausible proof was presented to bolster their allegations. (Emphasis supplied.)
Apart from his defense that he is a victim of a frame-up and extortion by the police officers, accused-appellant could not present any other viable defense. Again, while the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by law enforcement agents should not by itself prevail over the presumption of innocence, for the claim of frame-up to prosper, the defense must be able to present clear and convincing evidence to overcome this presumption of regularity.
The procedure to be followed in the custody and handling of seized dangerous drugs is outlined in Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 which stipulates:
(1) The apprehending 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.
The same is implemented by Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165, viz.:
(a) The apprehending 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, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the 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.
The failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the required physical inventory and photograph of the evidence confiscated pursuant to said guidelines, is not fatal and does not automatically render accused-appellant's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. Indeed, the implementing rules offer some flexibility when a proviso added that `non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the 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.' The same provision clearly states as well, that it must still be shown that there exists justifiable grounds and proof that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence have been preserved.
This Court can no longer find out what justifiable reasons existed, if any, since the defense did not raise this issue during trial. Be that as it may, this Court has explained in People v. Del Monte that what is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. The existence of the dangerous drug is a condition sine qua non for conviction for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the crime and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction. Thus, it is essential that the identity of the prohibited drug be established beyond doubt. The chain of custody requirement performs the function of ensuring that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved, so much so that unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the evidence are removed.
To be admissible, the prosecution must show by records or testimony, the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit at least between the time it came into possession of the police officers and until it was tested in the laboratory to determine its composition up to the time it was offered in evidence. (Emphasis supplied.)