Today is Tuesday, December 17, 2013

Search

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila T !RD D!"!S!#$ G.R. No. 199735 October 24, 2012

PEOPLE OF THE PH L PP NES, Plaintiff%&ppellee, 's( !S ! MUS! " P N!S!LO, !R! MONONG!N " P!P!O, F! S!H !#!S " M!M!, $%& M 'E SOL!LO " M LO', &ccused% &ppellants( D)*!S!#$ (EL!SCO, )R.,J.: This is an appeal see+in, to nullify the -ebruary 2., 2011 Decision 1 of the *ourt of &ppeals /*&0 in *&%1(R( *R% (*( $o( 0372., 3hich affirmed the #ctober 7, 200. Decision2 in *riminal *ase $o( 13234%D of the Re,ional Trial *ourt /RT*0, 5ranch 143 in Ta,ui, *ity( The RT* con'icted accused%appellants of 'iolatin, Section 2, &rticle !! of Republic &ct $o( /R&0 6142 or the *omprehensi'e Dan,erous Dru,s &ct of 2002 for sellin, dan,erous dru,s( The -acts &n !nformation char,ed the accused &isa Musa y Pinasilo /Musa0, &ra Monon,an y Papao, -aisah &bas y Mama /&bas0, and Mi+e Solano y Mlo+ /Solano0 3ith the follo3in,7 That, on or about the 1st day of 8une, 2009 in the Municipality of Ta,ui,, Metro Manila, Philippines and 3ithin the :urisdiction of this onorable *ourt, the abo'e%named accused, in conspiracy 3ith one another and actin, as an or,ani;ed or syndicated crime ,roup, 3ithout bein, authori;ed by la3, did, then and there 3illfully, unla3fully and +no3in,ly sell and ,i'e a3ay to one P#1 Rey Memoracion one /10 heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containin, 9(02 ,rams of 3hite crystalline substance, 3hich 3as found positi'e for Methamphetamine hydrochloride also +no3n as <shabu<, a dan,erous dru,, in 'iolation of the abo'e%cited la3( *#$TR&R= T# >&?(3 "ersion of the Prosecution The prosecution@s 'ersion of facts 3as anchored hea'ily on the testimony of Police #fficer 1 Rey Memoracion /P#1 Memoracion0( -rom the findin,s of the trial and appellate courts, ?e synthesi;e his testimony, as follo3s7 #n 8une 1, 2009, at or about 6700 p(m(, the Station &nti%!lle,al Dru,s%Special #peratin, Tas+ -orce of the Ta,ui, *ity Police recei'ed a report from an informant about the sellin, of prohibited dru,s by Musa and her cohorts at Maharli+a "illa,e, Ta,ui, *ity( The police immediately or,ani;ed a buy%bust operation 3hich included P#1 Danilo &ra,o /P#1 &ra,o0 and P#1 Memoracion as team members( The police a,reed that P#1 Memoracion 3as the desi,nated poseur%buyerA that fi'e one%

thousand peso /PhP 10000 bills 3ith Memoracion@s initials 3ere to be used as mar+ed moneyA and that Memoracion@s li,htin, of the ci,arette 3as the pre%arran,ed si,nal to si,nify the consummation of the transaction( The buy%bust team submitted a pre% operation report to the Philippine Dru, )nforcement &,ency and entered it in the police blotter( Thereafter, the buy%bust team, alon, 3ith the informant, proceeded to a nearby shoppin, mall /Sunshine Mall0 3here the police had arran,ed P#1 Memoracion and the informant to meet 3ith the alle,ed dru, dealers( The buy%bust team arri'ed at the mall at around 6792 p(m( The informant and Memoracion ali,hted from the 'ehicle 3hile the rest of the buy%bust team 3aited at the par+in, lot( The informant then introduced Memoracion, as a potential buyer, to &bas and Solano( P#1 Memoracion then told &bas and Solano that he 3anted to score shabu 3orth fi'e%thousandpesos /PhP 2,0000 but the t3o replied that they do not ha'e a'ailable stoc+s on hand( &bas and Solano offered to accompany P#1 Memoracion to Musa 3ho 3as at a nearby condominium unit at 5uildin, !!, Maharli+a "illa,e( Memoracion a,reed and pretended to ,o to the comfort room in order to inform P#1 &ra,o re,ardin, the chan,e of 'enue( P#1 Memoracion also chan,ed the pre%arran,ed si,nal from li,htin, a ci,arette to a phone rin, or <missed call< and as+ed the rest of the buy%bust team to follo3 them( Thereafter, the informant, Memoracion, &bas and Solano boarded a tricycle to Musa@s place( They arri'ed at the condominium at around 10730 in the e'enin, and 3ent to the 9th floor of the buildin, 3hile the rest of the buy%bust team remained at the ,round floor 3hile 3aitin, for Memoracions@s call( The four met Musa at the hall3ay outside Bnit 903( &bas introduced Memoracion to Musa as the buyer( Musa then ordered &ra Monon,an /Monon,an0 to count the money( &fter3ards, Musa too+ from her poc+et one /10 heat sealed plastic sachet of shabu and ,a'e it to P#1 Memoracion( The latter immediately made the call to P#1 &ra,o 3ho, to,ether 3ith t3o /20 other police officers,9 proceeded ri,ht a3ay to P#1 Memoracion@s location, 3hich 3as about 12 meters a3ay from the ,round floor(2 Bpon seein, accused%appellants, the police officers made the arrest( P#1 &ra,o confiscated from Monon,an the mar+ed money of fi'e PhP 1000 bills 3ith Memoracion@s initials( P#1 Memoracion, on the other hand, mar+ed the sei;ed sachet of shabu 3ith <&PM< or the initials of accused &isa Pinasilo Musa( e then deli'ered the confiscated item to the Philippine $ational Police /P$P0 *rime >aboratory, -ort 5onifacio, Ta,ui, *ity and reCuested an eDamination of the substance( The P$P *rime >ab Report sho3ed that the indicated substance 3ei,hin, 9(02 ,rams tested positi'e for shabu( 4 The prosecution li+e3ise presented P#1 &ra,o, 3ho stood as P#1 Memoracion@s bac+%up durin, the buy%bust operation, 7 to corroborate the fore,oin, 'ersion of e'ents( "ersion of the Defense !n defense, each of accused%appellants denied the accusations a,ainst them and submitted their respecti'e alibis, as follo3s7 &ccused &i;a Musa claimed that on 8une 1, 2009, she and her husband, 5a+ar Musa, 3ent to their friend Sonny Sa,ayno@s house, located at Bnit 212, 5uildin, 2, Maharli+a "illa,e, Ta,ui, *ity, to discuss their forthcomin, tra'el to Saudi &rabia and that 3hile they 3ere inside Sonny@s house, t3o police officers bar,ed into the house, 3hile their companions stood outside, and searched for prohibited dru,s, but found no shabu( &side from sayin, that &ra Monon,an 3as her nei,hbor, she denied +no3in, her and -aisah &bas that 3ell( &ccused &ra Monon,an a'erred that from the mornin, up to 12700 noon of 8une 1, 2009, she 3as 3ith her aunt abiba@s house at Bnit 903, 5uildin, 2, Maharli+a "illa,e, Ta,ui, *ity, 3ashin, clothes and loo+in, o'er her aunt@s childrenA that at about 12700 noon of the same day, a 'isitor, 3hose name 3as $orma, arri'ed and that at around 1700 o@cloc+ in the afternoon, Sonny Sa,ayno, -aisah &bas and the latter@s teDtmate, &n,ie, arri'edA that at about 3700 or 9700 o@cloc+ in the afternoon, policemen in ci'ilian clothes bar,ed into the house, searched for ille,al dru,s, but found none, and arrested herA that she 3ent to stay in her aunt@s place only for a 'acationA and that it 3as the first time she sa3 -aisah and &n,ie( She testified that &i;a 3as her nei,hbor but disclaimed +no3in, herA that she 3as 17 years old at the time of the complained incidentA and that her real name 3as &ra

$onon,an and not &ra Monon,an( &ccused Mi+e Solano alle,ed that on 8une 1, 2009 at around 11700 o@cloc+ in the mornin,, his cousin -aisah &bas reCuested him to accompany to Sunshine Mall to meet her teDtmate, &n,ieA that 3hile -aisah 3aited for &n,ie, Mi+e 3ent to the 2nd floor of the mall for 3indo3 shoppin,A that &n,ie arri'ed to,ether 3ith t3o pre,nant 3omen but left at 12700 o@cloc+ noon to ,o to a condominium in Maharli+a "illa,eA that after he and the t3o pre,nant 3omen had eaten in 8ollibee, a bi, man sat beside him, introduced himself as a policeman and ordered him to come 3ith him peacefully and to :ust eDplain in his office( e claimed not +no3in, &i;a Musa and &ra Monon,an and that he sa3 them for the first time only 3hen they boarded in the same 'ehicle( &nd, finally, accused -aisah &bas claimed that on that particular day, she and her cousin Mi+e Solano proceeded to Sunshine Mall to meet &n,ieA that she accompanied &n,ie to 5uildin, 2 of Maharli+a "illa,e 3here they met &n,ie@s cousin, Sonny Sa,ayno, at the 2th floor and that they all proceeded to the 9th floorA that 3hen they 3ere inside Sonny@s house, she sa3 &ra Monon,an, another female person and three childrenA that after they had eaten their lunch, she heard a ,unshot and disco'ered that Sonny 3as not there anymoreA that shortly thereafter, three persons in ci'ilian clothes bar,ed into the house, introduced themsel'es as policemen, po+ed a ,un at her and fri,htened and handcuffed herA that t3o of the operati'es 3ent inside the room and ransac+ed some of &ra@s belon,in,sA that the policemen accused her of sellin, ille,al dru,sA that no shabu 3as found in her possession(. Rulin, of the RT* The RT* found all the accused ,uilty as char,ed, to 3it7 ? )R)-#R), accused &i;a Musa y Pinasilo, -aisah &bas y Mama and Mi+e Solano y Mlo+, are found 1B!>T= beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of "iolation of Section 2, 1st para,raph &rticle !!, R& 6142 in relation to &rticle 42, 2nd para,raph of the Re'ised Penal *ode and are sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of Ten Million Pesos /PhP 10, 000, 000(000 and to pay the costs( &ccused &ra Monon,an y Papao is li+e3ise found 1B!>T= beyond reasonable doubt of the crime char,ed and, there bein, no miti,atin, or a,,ra'atin, circumstance, is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of from fourteen /190 years, ei,ht /.0 months and one /10 day of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to siDteen /140 years of reclusion temporal, as maDimum, and to pay a fine of PhP 200, 000(00 and to pay the costs( The period of pre'enti'e suspension is credited in her fa'or( 6 The RT* ,a'e credence to the testimony of P#1 Memoracion( !t found his testimony as <candid, strai,htfor3ard, firm, un3a'erin,, nay credible,< since it 3as not sho3n that P#1 Memoracion 3as <ill%moti'ated in testifyin, as he did in *ourt a,ainst all accused(<10 #n the other hand, the RT* re:ected accused%appellants@ defenses of alibi and denial because they failed to present clear and con'incin, e'idence to establish that it 3as impossible for them to be at the locus criminis at the time of the buy%bust operation(11 &s re,ards the penalty imposed, the RT* declared each of the accused liable as principal because it found the presence of conspiracy amon, all four accused(12 *itin, &rticle 42 of the Re'ised Penal *ode,13 it li+e3ise imposed the maDimum penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of PhP 10 million because of its findin, that the offense 3as committed by an or,ani;edEsyndicated crime ,roup( o3e'er, it reduced the penalty imposed a,ainst Monon,an because she 3as a minor at the time of the commission of the offense( Rulin, of the *& #n appeal, all of the accused assailed their con'iction and faulted the RT* in findin, them ,uilty beyond reasonable doubt for the sale of dan,erous dru,s( !n their 5rief, accused%appellants raised doubts on the credibility of the testimonies of the prosecution 3itnesses, and Cuestioned the rulin, of RT* for re:ectin, their alibis( They also a'erred that the prosecution failed to establish the corpus delicti of the offense and that the chain of custody rule under R& 6142 3as not complied 3ith since no

physical in'entory and photo,raph of the sei;ed items 3ere ta+en in their presence or in the presence of their counsel, a representati'e from the media and the Department of 8ustice and an electi'e official( -urthermore, they refuted the findin,s of the RT* that conspiracy eDisted amon, them, and that they 3ere members of an or,ani;edE syndicated crime ,roup( 19 $ot3ithstandin,, the *& affirmed the findin,s of the RT* but modified the penalty imposed on Monon,an, to 3it7 ? )R)-#R), the appealed Decision dated #ctober 7, 200. of the trial is affirmed, 3ith modification that the penalty meted upon accused%appellant &ra Monon,an is life imprisonment and fine of P10,000,000, but the case is hereby remanded to trial court for appropriate disposition under Section 21, R& $o( 6399 3ith respect to said accused F appellant( The Decision is affirmed in all other respects(12 The *& ruled that the RT* erred in reducin, the penalty of reclusion temporal in fa'or of Monon,an( !t reasoned that the penalty of life imprisonment as pro'ided in R& 6142 cannot be lo3ered because only the penalties pro'ided in the Re'ised Penal *ode, and not in special la3s, may be lo3ered by one or t3o de,rees( 14 The !ssues ! ?hether the *ourt of &ppeals erred in affirmin, the credibility of the testimonies of the prosecution 3itnessesG !! ?hether the *ourt of &ppeals erred in upholdin, the rulin, of the RT* in re:ectin, accused%appellants denials and alibisG !!! ?hether the *ourt of &ppeals erred in rulin, that there 3as compliance 3ith the chain of custody rule as reCuired by R& 6142G !" ?hether the *ourt of &ppeals erred in imposin, the maDimum penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of ten million pesos /Php 10,000,0000 a,ainst &>> of the accusedG The Rulin, of this *ourt ?e sustain the con'iction of accused%appellants( !n determinin, the ,uilt of the accused for the sale of dan,erous dru,s, the prosecution is obli,ed to establish the follo3in, essential elements7 /10 the identity of the buyer and the seller, the ob:ect of the sale and the considerationA and /20 the deli'ery of the thin, sold and its payment( There must be proof that the transaction or sale actually too+ place and that the corpus delicti be presented in court as e'idence( 17 !n findin, the eDistence of these elements, the trial and appellate courts in the present case upheld the credibility of the testimony of P#1 Memoracion, as supported by the testimony of P#1 &ra,o( !n this re,ard, ?e find no sufficient reason to interfere 3ith the findin,s of the RT* on the credibility of the prosecution 3itnesses pursuant to the principle that the trial court@s assessment of the credibility of a 3itness is entitled to ,reat 3ei,ht and sometimes, e'en 3ith finality( 1. ?here there is no sho3in, that the trial court o'erloo+ed or misinterpreted some material facts or that it ,ra'ely abused its discretion, the *ourt 3ill not disturb the trial

court@s assessment of the facts and the credibility of the 3itnesses since the RT* 3as in a better position to assess and 3ei,h the e'idence presented durin, trial(16 The rationale behind this principle 3as eDplained by the *ourt in People '( Din,lasan, 20to 3it7 !n the matter of credibility of 3itnesses, 3e reiterate the familiar and 3ell%entrenched rule that the factual findin,s of the trial court should be respected( The :ud,e a Cuo 3as in a better position to pass :ud,ment on the credibility of 3itnesses, ha'in, personally heard them 3hen they testified and obser'ed their deportment and manner of testifyin,( !t is doctrinally settled that the e'aluation of the testimony of the 3itnesses by the trial court is recei'ed on appeal 3ith the hi,hest respect, because it had the direct opportunity to obser'e the 3itnesses on the stand and detect if they 3ere tellin, the truth( This assessment is bindin, upon the appellate court in the absence of a clear sho3in, that it 3as reached arbitrarily or that the trial court had plainly o'erloo+ed certain facts of substance or 'alue that if considered mi,ht affect the result of the case( /)mphasis supplied(0 Moreo'er, the factual findin,s of the RT* are stren,thened by an affirmatory rulin, of the *&( Settled is the rule that the factual findin,s of the appellate court sustainin, those of the trial court are bindin, on this *ourt, unless there is a clear sho3in, that such findin,s are tainted 3ith arbitrariness, capriciousness or palpable error( 21&bsent any indication that the courts a Cuo committed misinterpretation of antecedents or ,ra'e abuse of discretion, the facts as established by the trial and appellate courts deser'e full 3ei,ht and credit, and are deemed conclusi'e( 22 &s re,ards accused%appellants@ denial and claim of frame%up, the trial and appellate courts correctly ruled that these defenses cannot stand unless the defense could sho3 3ith clear and con'incin, e'idence that the members of the buy%bust team 3ere inspired 3ith ill moti'es or that they 3ere not properly performin, their duties( The defenses of denial and frame%up are in'ariably 'ie3ed 3ith disfa'or because such defenses can easily be fabricated and are common ploy in prosecutions for the ille,al sale and possession of dan,erous dru,s(23 ere, in the absence of e'idence sho3in, ill moti'es on the part of the members of the buy%bust team, accused%appellants@ denials and plea of frame%up deser'e scant consideration in li,ht of the positi'e identification made by P#1 Memoracion and P#1 &ra,o( Similarly, accused%appellants@ alibis failed to fortify their claim of innocence because, 3hile they insist on their o3n 'ersion of e'ents, they failed to demonstrate compliance 3ith the reCuisites of the defense of alibi( !n People '( &pattad, 29 the *ourt reiterated the :urisprudential rules and precepts in assessin, the defense of alibi7 #ne, alibis and denials are ,enerally disfa'ored by the courts for bein, 3ea+( T3o, they cannot pre'ail o'er the positi'e identification of the accused as the perpetrators of the crime( Three, for alibi to prosper, the accused must pro'e not only that they 3ere some3here else 3hen the crime 3as committed, but also that it 3as physically impossible for them to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission( -ourth, alibi assumes si,nificance or stren,th only 3hen it is amply corroborated by credible and disinterested 3itnesses( -ifth, alibi is an issue of fact that hin,es on the credibility of 3itnesses, and the assessment made by the trial court H unless patently and clearly inconsistent H must be accepted(
1wphi1

!t is clear, therefore, that in order for the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused should demonstrate, by clear and con'incin, e'idence, that he or she 3as some3here else 3hen the buy%bust operation 3as conducted, and that it 3as physically impossible for him or her to be present at the scene of the crime either before, durin,, or after the offense 3as committed( 22 !t is on this thrust that the alibis made by accused%appellants failed to con'ince since all of them admitted that they 3ere 3ithin the 'icinity of 5uildin, 2, Maharli+a "illa,e, Ta,ui, *ity, 3hich, apparently, 3as the locus criminis of the offense( -urthermore, considerin, that alibi as e'idence is ne,ati'e in nature and self%ser'in,, it cannot attain more credibility than the testimonies of prosecution 3itnesses 3ho testify on clear and positi'e e'idence( 24 &nent the third issue, accused%appellants demand their acCuittal on the ,round that the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of R& 6142 or the *omprehensi'e Dan,erous Dru,s &ct of 2002 3as not complied 3ith( The said section states7 Section 21( *ustody and Disposition of *onfiscated, Sei;ed, andEor Surrendered Dan,erous Dru,s, Plant Sources of Dan,erous

Dru,s, *ontrolled Precursors and )ssential *hemicals, !nstrumentsEParaphernalia andEor >aboratory )Cuipment( H The PD)& shall ta+e char,e and ha'e custody of all dan,erous dru,s, plant sources of dan,erous dru,s, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as 3ell as instrumentsEparaphernalia andEor laboratory eCuipment so confiscated, sei;ed andEor surrendered, for proper disposition in the follo3in, manner7 /10 The apprehendin, team ha'in, initial custody and control of the dru,s shall, immediately after sei;ure and confiscation, physically in'entory and photo,raph the same in the presence of the accused or the personEs from 3hom such items 3ere confiscated andEor sei;ed, or hisEher representati'e or counsel, a representati'e from the media and the Department of 8ustice /D#80, and any elected public official 3ho shall be reCuired to si,n the copies of the in'entory and be ,i'en a copy thereof( *orollarily, the la3@s !mplementin, Rules and Re,ulations pro'ides7 S)*T!#$ 21( *ustody and Disposition of *onfiscated, Sei;ed andEor Surrendered Dan,erous Dru,s, Plant Sources of Dan,erous Dru,s, *ontrolled Precursors and )ssential *hemicals, !nstrumentsEParaphernalia andEor >aboratory )Cuipment( H The PD)& shall ta+e char,e and ha'e custody of all dan,erous dru,s, plant sources of dan,erous dru,s, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as 3ell as instrumentsEparaphernalia andEor laboratory eCuipment so confiscated, sei;ed andEor surrendered, for proper disposition in the follo3in, manner7 /a0 The apprehendin, officerEteam ha'in, initial custody and control of the dru,s shall, immediately after sei;ure and confiscation, physically in'entory and photo,raph the same in the presence of the accused or the personEs from 3hom such items 3ere confiscated andEor sei;ed, or hisEher representati'e or counsel, a representati'e from the media and the Department of 8ustice /D#80, and any elected public official 3ho shall be reCuired to si,n the copies of the in'entory and be ,i'en a copy thereofA Pro'ided, that the physical in'entory and photo,raph shall be conducted at the place 3here the search 3arrant is ser'edA or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehendin, officerEteam, 3hiche'er is practicable, in case of 3arrantless sei;uresA Pro'ided, further, that non%compliance 3ith these reCuirements under :ustifiable ,rounds, as lon, as the inte,rity and e'identiary 'alue of the sei;ed items are properly preser'ed by the apprehendin, officerEteam, shall not render 'oid and in'alid such sei;ures of and custody o'er said items( /)mphasis supplied(0 &t this :uncture, ?e reiterate that the essence of the chain of custody rule is to ensure that the dan,erous dru, presented in court as e'idence a,ainst the accused is the same dan,erous dru, reco'ered from his or her possession( 27 &s eDplained in *astro '( People72. &s a mode of authenticatin, e'idence, the chain of custody rule reCuires that the presentation and admission of the sei;ed prohibited dru, as an eDhibit be preceded by e'idence to support a findin, that the matter in Cuestion is 3hat the proponent clams it to be( This reCuirement is essential to ob'iate the possibility of substitution as 3ell as to ensure that doubts re,ardin, the identity of the e'idence are remo'ed throu,h the monitorin, and trac+in, of the mo'ements and custody of the sei;ed prohibited item, from the accused, to the police, to the forensic laboratory for eDamination, and to its presentation in e'idence in court( !deally, the custodial chain 3ould include testimony about e'ery lin+ in the chain or mo'ements of the ille,al dru,, from the moment of sei;ure until it is finally adduced in e'idence( !t cannot be o'eremphasi;ed, ho3e'er, that a testimony about a perfect chain is almost al3ays impossible to obtain( /)mphasis supplied(0 Since the <perfect chain< is almost al3ays impossible to obtain, non%compliance 3ith Sec( 21 of R& 6142, as stated in the !mplementin, Rules and Re,ulations, does not, 3ithout more, automatically render the sei;ure of the dan,erous dru, 'oid, and e'idence is admissible as lon, as the inte,rity and e'identiary 'alue of the sei;ed items are properly preser'ed by the apprehendin, officerEteam(26 !n the present case, accused%appellants insist on the police officer@s non%compliance 3ith the chain of custody rule since there 3as <no physical in'entory and photo,raph of the sei;ed items 3ere ta+en in their presence or in the presence of their counsel, a

representati'e from the media and the Department of 8ustice and an electi'e official(< ?e, ho3e'er, find these obser'ations insi,nificant since a re'ie3 of the e'idence on record sho3s that the chain of custody rule has been sufficiently obser'ed by the apprehendin, officers( Thru the testimonies of the P#1 Memoracion and P#1 &ra,o, the prosecution 3as able to pro'e that the shabu sei;ed from Musa 3as the 'ery same shabu presented in e'idence as part of the corpus delicti( The factual findin,s of the *&, affirmin, those of the RT*, are elucidatin,7 ere, the testimonial and documentary e'idence presented by the prosecution sho3ed that the inte,rity and e'identiary 'alue of the <shabu< 3as preser'ed( *ontrary to the accused%appellants alle,ations, the shabu specimen presented in court by the prosecution 3as the same item recei'ed from accused%appellant &i;a Musa by P#1 Memoracion( The buy%bust operation 3as conducted about 10730 in the e'enin, of 8une 1, 2009( !mmediately thereafter, P#1 Memoracion mar+ed the sei;ed sachet of shabu 3ith his initials <&PM< at the mas+in, tape, and the accused%appellants 3ere turned o'er to the police station for in'esti,ation( &t 1722 of 8une 2, 2009, P#1 Memoracion deli'ered to the P$P *rime >aboratory Ser'ice, SPD -ort 5onifacio, Ta,ui,, a ReCuest for >aboratory )Damination dated 8une 2, 2009, to,ether 3ith the sachet of shabu sei;ed form accused% appellant &i;a Musa( Stamped on the ri,ht portion of the ReCuest for )Damination sho3s the time and date of deli'ery at <01722 02 8une 09<, <R)*)!")D 5=7 $up 5acayan< and <D)>!")R)D 5=7 P#1 Memoracion(< Thus7 e0 )'idence Submitted #ne /10 transparent plastic sachet /heat sealed0 containin, 3hite crystalline substance suspected to be Methylamphetamine ydrochloride or shabu mar+ed <&PM<( /item purchased from &i;a Musa0 &t 0300 02 8une 2009, the P$P *rime >aboratory Southern Police District *rime >aboratory, -ort &( 5onifacio, Ta,ui, Metro Manila issued Physical Science Report $o( D%936%09S statin, that the heat salad plastic sachet 3ith mar+in,s <&PM< containin, 9(02 ,rams of crystalline substance yielded positi'e for shabu( &lso it bears stressin, that durin, the hearin, on May 2., 2007, accused%appellants, thru their counsel, stipulated on the testimony of the forensic chemist, Police !nspector Richard &llan Man,anib, 3ith respect to his forensic eDamination of the sub:ect sachet of shabu( *learly, the inte,rity of the sachet of <shabu< 3as duly preser'ed as it 3as duly mar+ed by P#1 Rey Memoracion and it 3as the 'ery same item transmitted to and eDamined by the P$P *rime >aboratory( 30 /)mphasis supplied(0 !t is li+e3ise si,nificant to note that a similar conclusion 3as reached in People '( Presas 31 3here the *ourt disposed, as follo3s7 !n this case, the failure on the part of the M&D&* operati'es to ta+e photo,raphs and ma+e an in'entory of the dru,s sei;ed from the appellant 3as not fatal because the prosecution 3as able to preser'e the inte,rity and e'identiary 'alue of the said ille,al dru,s( The concurrence of all elements of the ille,al sale of shabu 3as pro'en by the prosecution( The chain of custody did not appear to be bro+en( The reco'ery and handlin, of the sei;ed dru,s 3ere satisfactorily established( -ariIas 3as able to put the necessary mar+in,s on the plastic sachet of shabu bou,ht from appellant immediately after the consummation of the dru, sale( This 3as done in the presence of appellant and the other operati'es, and 3hile in the crime scene( The sei;ed items 3ere then brou,ht to the P$P *rime >aboratory for eDamination on the same day( 5oth prosecution 3itnesses 3ere able to identify and eDplain said mar+in,s in court( /)mphasis supplied(0 ence, the fact that the P#1 Memoracion and P#1 &ra,o did not ma+e an in'entory of the sei;ed items or that they did not ta+e photo,raphs of them is not fatal considerin, that the prosecution in this case 3as able to establish, 3ith moral certainty, that the identity, inte,rity, and e'identiary 'alue of the shabu 3as not :eopardi;ed from the time of its sei;ure until the time it 3as presented in court( -urthermore, ?e find enli,htenment in People '( "icente, 8r(732 Prosecutions in'ol'in, ille,al dru,s depend lar,ely on the credibility of the police officers 3ho conducted the buy%bust operation(

#ft%repeated is the rule that in cases in'ol'in, 'iolations of the *omprehensi'e Dan,erous Dru,s &ct, credence is ,i'en to prosecution 3itnesses 3ho are police officers for they are presumed to ha'e performed their duties in a re,ular manner, unless there is e'idence to the contrary( &bsent any indication that the police officers 3ere ill%moti'ated in testifyin, a,ainst the accused, full credence should be ,i'en to their testimonies(33/)mphasis supplied(0 &s stated, the records are bereft of any sho3in, that P#1 Memoracion and P#1 &ra,o 3ere ill moti'ated in testifyin, a,ainst accused%appellants( $either 3as there any indication that they 3ere in bad faith nor had di,ressed from their ordinary tour of duty( There is, therefore, no co,ent basis to taint their testimonies 3ith disbelief( ence, ?e submit to the presumption that both of them and the other police officers in'ol'ed in the buy%bust operation had performed faithfully the matters 3ith 3hich they are char,ed, and that they acted 3ithin the sphere of their authority( #mnia praesumumtur rite esse acta /&ll thin,s are presumed to ha'e been done re,ularly0( !n 'ie3 of the fore,oin, considerations, the *ourt finds no re'ersible error on the part of the RT* and *& in findin, accused% appellants ,uilty beyond reasonable doubt of 'iolatin, of Sec( 2, R& 6142 for sellin, dan,erous dru,s( $ot3ithstandin,, ?e rule that the penalty imposed a,ainst the accused%appellants must be modified( ?ith reference to accused%appellant Monon,an, the RT* found her to be a minor or 17 years old at the time of the commission of the offense(39 &ccordin,ly, it imposed the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of fourteen /190 years, ei,ht /.0 months and one /10 day of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to siDteen /140 years of reclusion temporal, as maDimum( 32 #n appeal, the *& increased the penalty of Monon,an to life imprisonment( 34 o3e'er, ?e find these impositions contrary to pre'ailin, :urisprudence( !n the recent People '( Mantalaba, 373here the accused 3as li+e3ise 17 years old at the time of the commission of the offense, the *ourt held, inter alia, that7 /a0 pursuant to Sec( 6. of R& 6142, the penalty for acts punishable by life imprisonment to death pro'ided in the same la3 shall be reclusion perpetua to death 3hen the offender is a minorA and /b0 that the penalty should be ,raduated since the said pro'ision adopted the technical nomenclature of penalties pro'ided for in the Re'ised Penal *ode( 3. The *ourt in the said case established the rules as follo3s7 *onseCuently, the pri'ile,ed miti,atin, circumstance of minority can no3 be appreciated in fiDin, the penalty that should be imposed( The RT*, as affirmed by the *&, imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua 3ithout considerin, the minority of the appellant( Thus, applyin, the rules stated abo'e, the proper penalty should be one de,ree lo3er than reclusion perpetua, 3hich is reclusion temporal, the pri'ile,ed miti,atin, circumstance of minority ha'in, been appreciated( $ecessarily, also applyin, the !ndeterminate Sentence >a3 /!S>&?0, the minimum penalty should be ta+en from the penalty neDt lo3er in de,ree 3hich is prision mayor and the maDimum penalty shall be ta+en from the medium period of reclusion temporal, there bein, no other miti,atin, circumstance nor a,,ra'atin, circumstance( The !S>&? is applicable in the present case because the penalty 3hich has been ori,inally an indi'isible penalty /reclusion perpetua to death0, 3here !S>&? is inapplicable, became a di'isible penalty /reclusion temporal0 by 'irtue of the presence of the pri'ile,ed miti,atin, circumstance of minority( Therefore, a penalty of siD /40 years and one /10 day of prision mayor, as minimum, and fourteen /190 years, ei,ht /.0 months and one /10 day of reclusion temporal, as maDimum, 3ould be the proper imposable penalty( /)mphasis supplied(0 Therefore, the penalty of imprisonment imposed a,ainst Monon,an should mirror the rulin, of the *ourt in Mantalaba in the absence of any miti,atin, circumstance or a,,ra'atin, circumstance other than the minority of Monon,an( *onseCuently, the penalty of imprisonment imposed on Monon,an should be siD /40 years and one /10 day of prision mayor, as minimum, and fourteen /190 years, ei,ht /.0 months and one /10 day of reclusion temporal, as maDimum( &s re,ards the fine imposed, the RT* sentenced accused%appellants the maDimum fine of PhP 10 million on the ,round that accused%appellants sold shabu as members of an or,ani;ed crime ,roup 36 or a dru, syndicate( !t ruled that &rticle 42 of the Re'ised Penal *ode, as amended by Sec( 23 of R& 7426, mandates that the maDimum penalty shall be imposed if the offense 3as committed by any person 3ho belon,s to an or,ani;edEsyndicated crime ,roup( 90 These findin,s 3ere e'entually affirmed by

*&(91 The records, ho3e'er, are bereft of any proof that accused%appellants operated as members of a dru, syndicate( 5y definition, a dru, syndicate is any or,ani;ed ,roup of t3o /20 or more persons formin, or :oinin, to,ether 3ith the intention of committin, any offense prescribed under R& 6142(92 !n determinin, 3hether or not the offense 3as committed by any person belon,in, to an or,ani;edEsyndicated crime ,roup, ?e are ,uided by the rulin, in People '( &lberca 93 3here the *ourt, after scrutini;in, the deliberations held by *on,ress on 3hat is no3 &rt( 42, para,raph 1/a0 of the Re'ised Penal *ode, held7 ?e hold that the trial court erred in findin, that accused%appellant and his companions constituted a syndicated or an or,ani;ed crime ,roup 3ithin the meanin, of &rticle 42, as amended( ?hile it is true they confederated and mutually helped one another for the purpose of ,ain, there is no proof that they 3ere a ,roup or,ani;ed for the ,eneral purpose of committin, crimes for ,ain, 3hich is the essence of a syndicated or or,ani;ed crime ,roup( DDDD ?hat emer,es from this discussion is the idea of a ,roup of personsA at least t3o in number, 3hich is or,ani;ed for the purpose of committin, crimes for ,ain(< /)mphasis supplied(0 &pplyin, this principle in &lberca, the *ourt held in People '( Santia,o7 99 &rticle 42 of the Re'ised Penal *ode, as amended by Section 23 of Republic &ct $o( 7426, mandates that the maDimum penalty shall be imposed if the offense 3as committed by any person 3ho belon,s to an or,ani;edEsyndicated crime ,roup( The same article defines an or,ani;edEsyndicated crime ,roup as a ,roup of t3o or more persons collaboratin,, confederatin,, or mutually helpin, one another for the purposes of ,ain in the commission of any crime( DDDD ?hile the eDistence of conspiracy amon, appellants in sellin, shabu 3as duly established, there 3as no proof that appellants 3ere a ,roup or,ani;ed for the ,eneral purpose of committin, crimes for ,ain, 3hich is the essence of the a,,ra'atin, circumstance of or,ani;edEsyndicated ,roup under &rticle 42 of the Re'ised Penal *ode( /)mphasis supplied(0 ?e find the present case similar to Santia,o( The eDistence of conspiracy amon, accused%appellants in sellin, shabu 3as duly established, but the prosecution failed to pro'ide proof that they operated as an or,ani;ed ,roup or as a dru, syndicate( *onseCuently, the a,,ra'atin, circumstance that <the offense 3as committed by an or,ani;edEsyndicated ,roup< cannot be appreciated( Thus, the maDimum PhP 10 million imposed by the trial and appellate courts upon each of accused%appellants should be modified accordin,ly( This is in consonance 3ith the dictum in *riminal >a3 that the eDistence of a,,ra'atin, circumstances must be based on positi'e and conclusi'e proof, and not merely on hypothetical facts no matter ho3 truthful the suppositions and presumptions may seem92 &,,ra'atin, circumstances 3hich are ta+en into consideration for the purpose of increasin, the de,ree of the penalty imposed must be pro'ed 3ith eCual certainty as the commission of the act char,ed as criminal offense( 94 !ncidentally, a sur'ey of recent :urisprudence 97 sho3s that the *ourt has consistently imposed a fine of fi'e hundred thousand pesos /PhP 200,0000 for 'iolation of Sec( 2, &rt( !! R& 6142 in the absence of any a,,ra'atin, circumstance( ? )R)-#R), The -ebruary 2., 2011 *& Decision *&%1(R( *R% (*( $o( 0372. findin, accused%appellants ,uilty of 'iolatin, Sec( 2, &rt( !! of R& 6142 is hereby &--!RM)D 3ith M#D!-!*&T!#$S that7 /a0 accused%appellant &ra Monon,an y Papao is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of siD /40 years and one /10 day of prision mayor, as minimum, and fourteen /190 years, ei,ht /.0 months and one /10 day of reclusion temporal, as maDimumA and /b0 each of the accused%

appellants shall pay a fine in the amount of fi'e hundred thousand pesos /PhP 200,0000( S# #RD)R)D( PRES# TERO ). (EL!SCO, )R. &ssociate 8ustice ?) *#$*BR7 LUC!S P. #ERS!M NJ &ssociate 8ustice RO#ERTO !. !#!* &ssociate 8ustice M!RT N S. ( LL!R!M!, )R.JJ &ssociate 8ustice )OSE C!TR!L MEN*O+! &ssociate 8ustice &TT)ST&T!#$ ! attest that the conclusions in the abo'e Decision had been reached in consultation before the case 3as assi,ned to the 3riter of the opinion *ourtKs Di'ision( PRES# TERO ). (EL!SCO, )R. &ssociate 8ustice *hairperson *)RT!-!*&T!#$ Pursuant to Section 13, &rticle "!!! of the *onstitution and the Di'ision *hairpersonKs &ttestation, ! certify that the conclusions in the abo'e Decision had been reached in consultation before the case 3as assi,ned to the 3riter of the opinion of the *ourtKs Di'ision( M!R ! LOUR*ES P. !. SERENO *hief 8ustice

Foot%ote,
J

Desi,nated additional member per Special #rder $o( 132. dated #ctober 6, 2012 ( Desi,nated actin, member per Special #rder $o( 1266% dated &u,ust 2., 2012(

JJ

Penned by &ssociate 8ustice -ernanda >ampas%Peralta and concurred in by &ssociate 8usticesPriscilla 8( 5alta;ar%Padilla and Manuel M( 5arrios(
1

Penned by 8ud,e >eili *ru; Suare;( Rollo, p( 2A records, p( 1( P#1 &leDander Sae; and P#3 )d,ar #rias, records, p( 120A TS$, May 20, 2002, pp( 31%32, 37( TS$, May 2., 2007, p( 6( Rollo, pp( 3%2A *& rollo, p( 17A TS$, May 2., 2007( Records, pp( 60%190A TS$, May 20, 2002( *& rollo, p( 1.( *& rollo, pp( 16%20A 27%2.( !d( at 16, 27( !d( !d(

10

11

12

R)"!S)D P)$&> *#D), &rt( 42( D D D The maDimum penalty shall be imposed if the offense 3as committed by any person 3ho belon,s to an or,ani;edEsyndicated crime ,roup(
13

&n or,ani;edEsyndicated crime ,roup means a ,roup of t3o or more persons collaboratin,, confederatin, or mutually helpin, one another for purposes of ,ain in the commission of any crime( /)mphasis supplied(0
19

Rollo, p( 7( !d( at 39( !d( at 33( People '( Pascua, 1(R( 1692.0, &u,ust 31, 2011( People '( 5autista, 1(R( $o( 161244, 8une 4, 2011( !d(A citin, People '( *ombate, 1(R( $o( 1.6301, December 12, 2010, 43. S*R& 767( 1(R( $o( 101312, 8anuary 2., 1667, 247 S*R& 24, 36(

12

14

17

1.

16

20

&siatico '( People, 1(R( $o( 162002, September 12, 2011A citin, People '( Luiamanlon, 1(R( $o( 16116., 8anuary 24, 2011 and -uentes '( *ourt of &ppeals, 1(R( $o( 106.96, -ebruary 24, 1667, 24. S*R& 703, 70.% 706(
21

22

People '( 1abrino, 1(R( $o( 1.66.1, March 6, 2011, 492 S*R& 1.7 and People '( *ombate, supra note 16( People '( &ndres, 1(R( $o( 1631.9, -ebruary 7, 2011( 1(R( $o( 1631.., &u,ust 10, 2011A citin, People '( )stoya, 1(R( $o( 12323., May 16, 2009, 92. S*R& 299(

23

29

People '( Sancholes, 1(R( $os( 110666 M 111000, &pril 1., 1667 citin, People 's( 5ania,a, et al(, 1(R( $o( >% 19602, 8anuary 2., 1641, 1 S*R& 2.3A See also errera, #scar M(, Remedial >a3, 5oo+ "!, Re'ised Rules on )'idence, 1666 ed( p( 37. citin, &rceno '( People, 1(R( $o( 11406., &pril 24, 1664A
22 24

People 's( &pattad, supra note 29( People '( Denoman, 1(R( $o( 171732, &u,ust 19, 2006, 264 S*R& 227, 247( 1(R( $o( 163376, &u,ust 12, 2011(

27

2.

People '( Pambid, 1(R( $o( 162237, 8anuary 24, 2011A People '( De Mesa, 1(R( $o( 1..270, 8uly 4, 2010, 429 S*R& 29.A and People '( Mariacos, 1(R( $o( 1..411, 8une 21, 2010, 421 S*R& 327(
26 30

Rollo, pp( 23%29( 1(R( $o( 1.2222, March 2, 2011( 1(R( $o( 1...97, 8anuary 31, 2011(

31

32

*itin, People '( Tamayo, 1(R( $o( 1.7070, -ebruary 29, 2010, 413 S*R& 224, 249A People '( "illamin, 1(R( $o( 172260, -ebruary 6, 2010, 412 S*R& 61, 104A and People '( 1um%#yen, 1(R( $o( 1.2231, &pril 14, 2006, 2.2 S*R& 44., 47.(
33 39

*& rollo, pp( 16%20A 27%2.( !d( at 20, 2.( Rollo, p( 39( 1(R( $o( 1.4227, 8uly 20, 2011, 429 S*R& 1..( &doptin, the principle in People '( Simon, 1(R( $o( 6302., 8uly 26, 1669, 239 S*R& 222( *& rollo, pp( 16, 27( !d( Rollo, p( 39( R& 6142, Sec( 3/o0(

32

34

37

3.

36

90

91

92

93

327 Phil( 36. /16640( 1(R( $o( 172324, $o'ember 2., 2007, 236 S*R& 16.( People '( Mon,ado, $o( >%29.77, 8une 30, 1646, 2. S*R& 492( People '( Rabanal, 1(R( $o( 1944.7, &u,ust 22, 2002, 3.7 S*R& 4.2(

99

92

94

People '( $icart, 1(R( $o( 1.2026, 8uly 9, 2012A People '( &bedin, 1(R( $o( 176634, &pril 11, 2012A People '( *ardenas, 1(R( $o( 160392, March 21, 2012A People '( 5autista, 1(R( $o( 177320, -ebruary 22, 2012A People '( &rriola, 1(R( $o( 1.7734, -ebruary ., 2012A People '( Blama, 1(R( $o( 1.4230, December 19, 2011A People '( &mansec, 1(R( $o( 1.4131, December 19, 2011A People '( 5uena'entura, 1(R( $o( 1.9.07, $o'ember 23, 2011A People '( >e,aspi, 1(R( $o( 1739.2, $o'ember 23, 2011A People '( 5ara, 1(R( $o( 1.9.0., $o'ember 19, 2011(
97

The >a3phil Pro:ect % &rellano >a3 -oundation