Asiga Mining Corporation Vs. Manila Mining Corporation and Basiana Mining Exploration Corporation

People of the Philippines Vs. Susan M. Tamaño and Jaffy B. Gulmatico
G.R. No. 208643. December 5, 2016

Criminal Case No. 04-59517

The appellants who were caught in flagrante delicto were positively identified by the prosecution witnesses as the same persons who sold one (1) plastic sachet containing 0.220 gram of white crystalline substance, later confirmed as shabu, for a consideration of P500.00. The said plastic sachet of shabu was presented in court, which the prosecution identified to be the same object sold by appellants.

Likewise, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses established how the transaction with appellants happened from the moment the informant introduced PO3 Gepaneca, the poseur-buyer, to appellants, as someone interested in buying their stuff, up to the time PO3 Gepaneca handed to appellant Tamaño the P500.00 bill and, in turn, appellant Gulmatico handed to him the plastic sachet of suspected shabu. SPO3 Calaor caused the plastic sachet of suspected shabu be examined at the PNP Crime Laboratory. The item weighing 0.220 gram was tested positive to the test for methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), as evidenced by Chemistry Report No. D-17304 prepared by P/Insp. Ompoy, the Forensic Chemical Officer. Lastly, the defense admitted the expertise of P/Insp. Ompoy who examined the drug specimens.

Criminal Case Nos. 04- 595118 and 04-59520

As a result of the search on the persons of appellants, appellant Tamaño was found to be in possession of a big plastic sachet containing three (3) plastic sachets of shabu, a dangerous drug, with markings "Susan", "Merriam and "Kelly", and with a total weight of 0.345 gram. On the other hand, appellant Gulmatico was found to be in possession of twenty-four (24) sachets of shabu with a total weight of 8.695 grams and two (2) small sachets of shabu. Both could not present any proof or justification that they were fully authorized by law to possess the same. Both appellants were found in possession of dangerous drugs.

1.    Discuss whether or not the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs were adequately and satisfactorily established by the prosecution.

In Criminal Case No. 04-59517, the aforesaid elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs were adequately and satisfactorily established by the prosecution:

(1) the identity of the buyer, as well as the seller, the object and consideration of the sale;

(2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor

The collective evidence presented during the trial by the prosecution adequately established that a valid buy-bust operation was conducted. Appellants conspired and confederated with each other to sell shabu. Appellant Tamaño received the P500 bill, while appellant Gulmatico handed the shabu to the buyer. Their respective acts lead to no other conclusion except that they have a common design and purpose - to sell shabu.

2.    Are the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs properly established?

Yes.

With respect to the prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following facts must be proved: (a) the accused was in possession of dangerous drugs, (b) such possession was not authorized by law, and (c) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of dangerous drugs.

The mere possession of a prohibited drug constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi (intent to possess) sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of any satisfactory explanation.

In cases Criminal Case Nos. 04- 595118 and 04-59520, all the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs were present. As a result of the search on the persons of appellants, both appellants were found in possession of dangerous drugs. Both could not present any proof or justification that they were fully authorized by law to possess the same. When an accused is caught in flagrante delicto in accordance with Section 5(a) of Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, the police officers are not only authorized, but are duty-bound, to arrest him even without a warrant. Thus, since appellants' arrest was legal, the search and seizure that resulted from it were likewise lawful.

3.    Appellants argue that the prosecution witnesses committed contradiction as to the identity of their subject person which was identified as one Susan Kana, and which allegedly points to the fact that there was no buy-bust operation at all. Is the contention correct?

This argument is flawed. The fact that appellants were caught in flagrante delicto makes the discrepancies between the names of the suspects in the surveillance reports and the names of the accused immaterial. What is material is that the transaction or sale actually took place, as in this case. What matters is not the existing familiarity between the buyer and the seller or the time and venue of the sale, but the fact of agreement and the acts constituting sale and delivery of the prohibited drugs.

4.    Discuss the chain of custody.

Chain of Custody means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition.

The chain of custody rule requires the identification of the persons who handled the confiscated items for the purpose of duly monitoring the authorized movements of the illegal drugs and/or drug paraphernalia from the time they were seized from the accused until the time they are presented in court.

5.    What is the effect of the failure to strictly comply with the chain of custody rule?

While the procedure on the chain of custody should be perfect and unbroken, in reality, it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain. Thus, failure to strictly comply with Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 does not necessarily render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible. The most important factor is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item.

6.    The accused alleged that there was no inventory made, and thus he must be acquitted. Is he correct?

No.

In a number of cases, the implied judicial recognition of the difficulty of complete compliance with the chain of custody requirement, substantial compliance is sufficient as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item are properly preserved by the apprehending officers. The failure to photograph and conduct physical inventory of the seized items are not fatal to the case against the accused, and do not ipso facto render inadmissible in evidence the items seized. What is important is that the seized item marked at the police station is identified as the same item produced in court.

Therefore, in the cases under consideration, even though there was no inventory of the items at the place where the buy bust was held, this will not render appellants' arrest illegal or the items seized from them inadmissible. There is substantial compliance by the police officers as to the required procedure on the custody and control of the confiscated items. The succession of events established by evidence and the overall handling of the seized items by the prosecution witnesses all show that the items seized were the same evidence subsequently identified and testified to in open court.

7.    Will the defense of denial, frame-up or extortion prosper in this case?

No.

Their mere denial cannot prevail over the positive and categorical identification and declarations of the police officers. As evidence that is both negative and self-serving, this defense of alibi cannot attain more credibility than the testimony of the prosecution witness who testified clearly, providing thereby positive evidence on the crime committed. One such positive evidence, in this case, is the result of the laboratory examination conducted on the drugs recovered from the appellants which revealed that the plastic sachets tested positive for the presence of "shabu."

Furthermore, the defense of frame-up or denial in drug cases requires strong and convincing evidence because of the presumption that the law enforcement agencies acted in the regular performance of their official duties. The presumption that official duty has been regularly performed can only be overcome through clear and convincing evidence showing either of two things: (1) that they were not properly performing their duty, or (2) that they were inspired by any improper motive.

In the present cases, appellants failed to overcome such presumption. The bare denial of the appellants cannot prevail over the positive testimony of the prosecution witnesses that appellants are the persons who sold shabu.

8.    Discuss the rules on the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witness.

Settled is the rule that, unless some facts or circumstances of weight and influence have been overlooked or the significance of which has been misinterpreted, the findings and conclusion of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect and will not be disturbed because it has the advantage of hearing the witnesses and observing their deportment and manner of testifying. The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the CA as in these cases.