SECOND DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 229507, August 06, 2018 ]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DOMINGO

ASPA, JR. Y RASIMO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

DECISION

PERALTA, J.:

Assailed in this appeal is the January 14, 2016 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA)
in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06767, which affirmed the April 2, 2014 Decision[2] of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Vigan City, Ilocos Sur (RTC), finding accused-appellant
Domingo Aspa, Jr. y Rasimo (Aspa) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of
Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. No. 9165), otherwise known as the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

The antecedents are as follows:

A spa was indicted for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A . No. 9165 in an
Information,[3] dated September 3, 2011. The accusatory portion of which reads:

That, on or about the 2nd day of September, 2011, in the City of Vigan,
Province of Ilocos Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without having been authorized
by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and
deliver to a poseur-buyer 7.8471 grams, more or less, of marijuana fruiting
tops, a dangerous drug.

Contrary to law.

When arraigned, Aspa pleaded not guilty to the charge. After pre-trial was terminated,
trial on the merits ensued.

Version of the Prosecution

As summarized by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) in the Appellee's Brief,[4]
the People's version of the event is as follows:
On September 2, 2011 while on duty at the Vigan City Police Station,
Deputy Chief of Police PCI Mar Louise Tamargo Bundoc received a report
from a confidential informant that a certain Domingo Aspa, Jr. is selling
marijuana. Thereafter, a buy-bust team against the suspect was constituted
with PCI Mar Louise Bundoc, SPO4 Elpidio Ponce, SPO2 Dionisio Adela, SPO1
Amado Somera, Jr., PO2 Denni[s] Reoliquio and PO1 Mark Anthony Italin as
members. PO1 Italin was briefed to act as the poseur-buyer and accompany
the confidential informant.

Later around 9:45 am, the buy-bust team proceeded to the northern part of
the Vigan Public Market near Pardo's Lechon Manok, where the buy-bust
operation will be conducted. They positioned themselves in front of Pardo's
Lechon Manok and in front of the north portion of the public market. After a
few minutes, appellant Domingo Aspa arrived. PO1 Italin, along with the
civilian informant, went to the alley beside Pardo's Lechon Manok. Then PO1
Italin heard the confidential informant asking Aspa whether he already has
the marijuana, to which Aspa answered in the affirmative. After their
conversation, Aspa handed over to the confidential informant three (3) heat-
sealed plastic sachets allegedly containing dried marijuana leaves. In turn,
the confidential informant handed over to Aspa the buy-bust money worth
Php300.00, in three (3) Php100.00 bills. After the transaction, the
confidential informant gave the pre-arranged signal, then Aspa was immediately
arrested.

At the crime scene, the recovered evidence were inventoried and marked by
SPO1 Somera, in front of appellant [and] in the presence of PO1 Italin,
members of the media and councilor from Barangay VIII. Thereafter, PO1
Lopez photographed the evidence. The suspect was then turned over to the
investigation section. The three (3) sachets of marijuana, on the other hand,
were carried by SPO1 Somera who then proceeded to the Crime Laboratory
at Ilocos Norte, together with the letter request for the confirmation and
identification of the substance personally prepared and delivered by him,
signed by PCI Mar Louise Bundoc. PSI Roanalaine B. Baligod received the
said letter request and conducted a qualitative examination to determine the
presence of marijuana after the examination. Consequently, she prepared
the pertinent laboratory and chemistry reports finding that the specimen
submitted yielded positive results to the test of marijuana, a dangerous
drug.[5]

Version of the Defense

Aspa raised the defense of denial. He gave the following version in the Appellant's
Brief[6] to support his plea for exoneration:

xxxx
13. On 2 September 2011, at around 8:00 o'clock in the morning, DOMINGO
R. ASPA, a tricycle driver by trade, was about to park his vehicle on the road
along the Vigan City Public Market to await passengers when a fellow
pedicab driver, Ernie Figuerres (Ernie), asked him to spare Two Hundred
Pesos (P200.00) to purchase marijuana. Not having the exact amount, he
gave him Five Hundred Pesos (P500.00). Upon his return, Ernie handed the
accused Three Hundred Pesos (P300.00) together with three (3) plastic
sachets containing marijuana leaves.

14. After parting ways, the accused walked towards his tricycle. However, he
was unable to reach the same as he was strangled on his way to it. Barely
able to breath, he fell down and was then asked where he secured the
contraband by his assailant who later introduced himself as a Policeman.

15. The Police officer sat on him while placing a call on his cellular phone
and after about twenty (20) to twenty-five (25) minutes, more policemen
arrived. While waiting, the officer asked him the source of his marijuana in
exchange for his liberty. The accused answered that the officer saw the
exchange as it transpired. The accused then denied all the accusations
leveled against him.[7]

After the trial, the RTC rendered judgment finding accused-appellant Aspa guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. The dispositive portion of the RTC
Decision, dated April 2, 2014, reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the Court finds the accused
DOMINGO ASPA, Jr., y RASIMO, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the
offense charged in the Information, hereby sentencing him to suffer LIFE
IMPRISONMENT without eligibility of parole and to pay a fine of five hundred
thousand pesos (Php500,000.00).

The 7.8471 grams of marijuana fruiting tops are hereby ordered confiscated
in favor of the government for proper disposal.

The Branch Clerk of Court is hereby directed to prepare the MITTIMUS.

SO ORDERED.[8]

According to the RTC, all the elements of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs
were satisfactorily established by the prosecution. The RTC gave weight and credence
on the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses PO1 Mark Anthony Italin (PO1 Italin),
SPO1 Amado Somera, Jr. (SPO1 Somera) and PO2 Dennis Reoliquio (PO2 Reoliquio)
which proved that Aspa was caught in flagrante delicto selling 7.8471 grams of
marijuana during a legitimate buy-bust operation.
The RTC declared that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated narcotics
were duly preserved. It rejected the defense of denial interposed by the appellant
because the same was not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence.

Undaunted, Aspa appealed his conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs before the
CA.

The CA Ruling

On January 14, 2016, the CA rendered its assailed Decision affirming Aspa's conviction
based on the same ratiocinations the RTC had rendered, the fallo of which states:

FOR THESE REASONS, the appeal is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.[9]

The CA ruled that the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs have been adequately
proven by the prosecution. The appellate court declared that the absence of the
representative from the Department of Justice during the buy-bust is of no moment
and would not affect the guilt of Aspa because the chain of custody of the seized
marijuana remains unbroken and evidentiary value thereof was duly preserved. Lastly,
the CA brushed aside Aspa's defense of denial for being self-serving and unsupported
by any plausible proof.

Maintaining his claim of innocence, Aspa filed the present appeal and posited the same
assignment of errors he previously raised before the CA, to wit:

I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL CREDENCE TO THE
PROSECUTION'S VERSION DESPITE THE PATENT IRREGULARITIES IN THE
CONDUCT OF THE BUY-BUST OPERATION.

II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-
APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S
FAILURE TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY AND INTEGRITY OF THE ALLEGED
CONFISCATED DRUGS CONSTITUTING THE CORPUS DELICTI OF THE
CRIME.[10]

In its Resolution[11] dated March 20, 2017, the Court directed both parties to submit
their Supplemental Briefs, if they so desire. On May 23, 2017, the OSG filed its
Manifestation and Motion[12] stating that it will no longer file a supplemental brief as its
Appellee's Brief had sufficiently ventilated the issues raised. On June 16, 2017, Aspa
filed a Manifestation (In Lieu of Supplemental Brief)[13] averring that he would adopt
all his arguments in his Appellant's Brief filed before the CA.

Aspa insists that his arrest has no legal anchor because no buy bust or entrapment
operation was ever conducted against him. The three sachets of marijuana were given
to him by a certain Ernie as payment for the P200.00 he earlier lent the latter.

The appeal is bereft of merit. Aspa 's conviction for violation of Section 5, Article II of
R.A. No. 9165 must stand.

In the main, Aspa wants this Court to reevaluate and reexamine the credibility of the
prosecution witnesses vis-a-vis defense witness. Fundamental is the rule that findings
of the trial court, which are factual in nature and which involve the credibility of
witnesses, are accorded respect when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts
or speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such
findings.[14] The reason is obvious. The trial court is in a better position to decide the
credibility of witnesses, having heard their testimonies and observed their deportment
and manner of testifying during the trial.[15]

We carefully examined the records of this case since what is at stake here is no less
than the liberty of Aspa. Try as we might, however, this Court failed to identify any
error committed by the RTC and the CA in the appreciation of the evidence as well as in
the similar conclusions they reached. The courts a quo have not overlooked or
disregarded arbitrarily any significant facts and circumstances in the case at bench.

Primarily, buy-bust operations are recognized in this jurisdiction as a legitimate form of

entrapment of the persons suspected of being involved in drug dealings.[16] Unless
there is a 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.[17] In the
prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs in a buy-bust operation, there must be a
concurrence of all the elements of the offense: (1) the identity of the buyer and the
seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the
payment thereof. The prosecution must also prove the illegal sale of the dangerous
drugs and present the corpus delicti in court as evidence.[18] The commission of the
offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs requires merely the consummation of the
selling transaction, which happens the moment the buyer receives the drug from the
seller. The crime is considered consummated by the delivery of the goods.[19]

All the above elements are present in the case at bench. PO1 Italin gave an
unequivocal account of the sale that took place on September 2, 2011 leading to the
arrest of the appellant. PO1 Italin testified that he was assigned to accompany the
confidential informant who acted as the poseur-buyer in a buy-bust operation
conducted at the northern part of the Vigan City Public Market; that upon reaching the
target site, he and the confidential informant proceeded in front of Pardo's Lechon
Manok, while the rest of the team strategically positioned themselves around the
parking area of the market; that after a few minutes, Aspa arrived and led the
informant to an alley; that he followed them closely as he was then only 2 to 3 meters
away from the two; that he heard the informant asked Aspa if he has the marijuana, to
which Aspa answered in the affirmative; and, that Aspa handed the three sachets
containing dried marijuana leaves to the informant who, in turn, gave the buy bust
money consisting of three P100.00 bills with the marking "DR," the initials of PO2
Dennis Reoliquio, the one who prepared the buy-bust money. SPO1 Somera and PO2
Reoliquio corroborated the testimony of PO1 Italin in its material points having also
seen how the transaction between Aspa and the confidential informant took place. This
Court notes that the accounts of these Police operatives of the incident dovetailed each
other and uniformly testified of having apprehended Aspa in the entrapment operation.

We find that the credible and positive testimonies of PO1 Italin, SPO1 Somera and PO2
Reoliquio are sufficient to prove that an illegal transaction or sale of marijuana took
place. Also, when the corpus delicti (three plastic sachets containing 7.8471 grams of
marijuana) were presented in court, PO1 Italin and SPO1 Somera positively identified
the same as the sachets of marijuana leaves that Aspa sold to the confidential
informant during the entrapment operation. Each bears the marking of "AES", the
initials of SPO1 Amado Somera, Jr. The totality of the evidence presented during trial clearly
points to Aspa as being engaged in the illegal sale of marijuana at the time he was
arrested.

Yet, Aspa wants us to undo his conviction. In his attempt at exculpation, He argues that
the failure of the Police operatives to comply with the procedure laid down in Section
21(1) of R.A. No. 9165 because the representative from the Department of Justice was
not present during the inventory of the alleged confiscated narcotics, is fatal to the
prosecution's cause. In the light of his foregoing submission, Aspa maintains that he is
entitled to an acquittal of the charge leveled against him.

The Court is not persuaded.

Evidence on record shows that the physical inventory of the seized marijuana leaves
and the taking of the photograph thereof were immediately conducted at the place of
the buy-bust operation by SPO1 Somera in the presence of Aspa, Michael Angelo Patron
(Patron), a member of the media from the Bomba Radyo, and Edgar Palos (Palos), a
barangay kagawad of Barangay VIII.[20] On cross-examination, PO1 Italin admitted
that they did not have with them the representative from the Department of Justice at
that time.[21] While nowhere in the prosecution evidence disclose an explanation why
the Police operatives failed to secure the presence of a representative from the
Department of Justice, such omission shall not render Aspa's arrest illegal or the items
seized/confiscated from him as inadmissible in evidence.

In People v. Dasigan,[22] the Court declared that the chain of custody is not established
solely by compliance with the prescribed physical inventory and photographing of the
seized drugs in the presence of the enumerated persons. In said case, no photographs
were taken by the apprehending officers, and the inventory was not shown to have
been made in the presence of selected public officials, yet we sustained the judgment
of conviction. This Court explained:
However, this Court has, in many cases, held that while the chain of custody
should ideally be perfect, in reality it is not, "as it is almost always
impossible to obtain an unbroken chain." The most important factor is the
preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items as
they will be used to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. Hence,
the prosecution's failure to submit in evidence the physical inventory and
photograph of the seized drugs as required under Article 21 of R.A. No.
9165, will not render the accused's arrest illegal or the items seized from
him inadmissible.[23]

Also, in the more recent case of People v. Teng Moner y Adam,[24] we sustained
accused-appellant's conviction despite the fact that no physical inventory and
photograph of the seized item in the presence of the accused, or his representative or
counsel, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution
Service or the media. In that case, the Court wrote –

To reiterate past pronouncements, while ideally the procedure on the chain

of custody should be perfect and unbroken, in reality, it is not as it is almost
always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain. Unfortunately, rigid
obedience to procedure creates a scenario wherein the safeguards that we
set to shield the innocent are likewise exploited by the guilty to escape
rightful punishment. Realizing the inconvenient truth that no perfect chain of
custody can ever be achieved, this Court has consistently held that the most
important factor in the chain of custody rule is the preservation of the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.

When the confiscated and/or seized drugs were not handled precisely in the manner
prescribed by the chain of custody rule, particularly the making of inventory and the
photographing of the drugs, its consequence would not relate to inadmissibility that
would automatically destroy the prosecution's case but rather to the evidentiary merit
or probative value to be given the evidence.[25] More importantly in this connection,
the Court, in the recent case of People v. Vicente Sipin y De Castro,[26] wrote:

The ponente further submits that the requirements of marking the seized
items, conduct of inventory and taking photograph in the presence of a
representative from the media or the DOJ and a local elective official, are
Police investigation procedures which call for administrative sanctions in
case of non-compliance. Violation of such procedure may even merit penalty
under R.A. No. 9165, to wit:

xxxx

However, non-observance of such Police administrative procedures should

not affect the validity of the seizure of the evidence, because the issue of
chain of custody is ultimately anchored on the admissibility of evidence,
which is exclusively within the prerogative of the courts to decide in
accordance with the rules on evidence.

At any rate, the Court finds that the presence of mediaman Patron and barangay
kagawad Palos during the conduct of the physical inventory and taking of photograph of
the confiscated drugs has protected the credibility and trustworthiness of the
September 2, 2011 buy-bust operation as well as the incrimination of Aspa. Further, the
Court is in complete accord with the findings of the RTC and the CA that the identity
and probative value of the seized marijuana leaves have not been compromised. The
prosecution had adequately shown the continuous and unbroken possession and
subsequent transfers of the subject three plastic sachets of marijuana leaves, through
the testimonies of PO1 Italin, SPO1 Somera, PO2 Reoliquio and Forensic Chemist PSI
Roanalaine B. Baligod (PSI Baligod), as well as the documentary evidence adduced by
the prosecution.

Prosecution evidence tends to show that PO1 Italin seized the three (3) sachets of
suspected marijuana leaves from accused-appellant Aspa and turned them over to
SPO1 Somera, who immediately marked each sachet with AES (which stands for Amado
Echalar Somera), his signature and the date of the buy-bust operation. SPO1 Somera
prepared an inventory receipt of the items seized at the place of the buy-bust
operation, while PO1 Bryan Lopez took pictures of the subject drugs and the inventory
proceedings. PO1 Italin was still in the area but he was helping the other members of
the PNP in controlling the crowd. SPO1 Somera retained possession and carried the
confiscated drugs when the buy-bust team headed back to the PNP, Vigan City Police
Station, where a request for laboratory examination was prepared and signed by PCI
Mar Louise Bundoc. SPO1 Somera, together with PCI Bundoc, delivered the request and
the three specimens at the Ilocos Norte Crime Laboratory, where they were received by
Forensic Chemist PSI Baligod and it was the latter who, after a full qualitative
examination, confirmed that the seized items were positive for marijuana, a dangerous
drug. PSI Baligod reduced her findings in Chemistry Report No. D-043-2011.

In addition, PSI Baligod had shed light anent the post-examination custody of the
subject marijuana leaves. She testified that after examining the seized narcotics, she
placed them inside a brown envelope, sealed it with masking tape and placed her
markings which consisted of the case number, her initials and date of examination.
Thereafter, she turned over the possession of the specimens to SPO3 Teodoro Casela
Floco, the Evidence Custodian of the Ilocos Norte Provincial Crime Laboratory, from
whom she got the same specimens before coming to the RTC to testify.[27]

Verily, the foregoing prosecution evidence persuasively proved that the three plastic
sachets of marijuana leaves presented in court were the same items seized from Aspa
during the entrapment operation. The prosecution had unwaveringly established that
the dangerous drug presented in court as evidence against Aspa are the same as those
seized from him in the first place. Moreover, it bears stressing that PO1 Italin and SPO1
Somera have positively identified the three plastic sachets of marijuana presented in
court as the same narcotics which their confidential informant had purchased and
received from Aspa during the September 2, 2011 entrapment operation. With regard
to the handling of the confiscated marijuana leaves, it appears that there were no
conflicting testimonies or glaring inconsistencies that would cast doubt on the integrity
and identity thereof, as the evidence presented and scrutinized in the trial court. In
fine, there is no question as to the integrity and identity of the subject three sachets of
marijuana.

In comparison to the overwhelming evidence of the prosecution, all that Aspa could
muster is the defense of denial. To begin with, we observe that he failed to proffer sufficient,
competent and independent evidence to support and bolster his defense of denial. In any
event, Aspa's denial must fail in the light of his positive identification by PO1 Italin, SPO2
Somera and PO2 Reoliquio in open court to be the same person they caught red-handed
selling marijuana. His bare denial, therefore, cannot prevail over such positive
identification made by the said prosecution witnesses[28] who harbored no ill-will against
him. More telling was Aspa's own admission that he only met the prosecution witnesses
when he was arrested and that he cannot think of any reason why said Police officers
would charge him with such an offense.[29] This goes to show that the prosecution
witnesses were not impelled with improper motive to falsely testify against the appellant.

Finally, the Court finds that the phrase "without eligibility for parole" need not be
appended to qualify Aspa's prison term of life imprisonment in line with the instructions
given by the Court in A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC[30] and, hence, must be deleted. Besides,
parole is extended only to those convicted of divisible penalties.[31] Therefore, the
dispositive portion of this decision should simply state that Aspa is sentenced to suffer
the penalty of life imprisonment without any qualification.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Court of

Appeals Decision dated January 14, 2016 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06767 is hereby
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant Domingo Aspa, Jr. y Rasimo is
found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic
Act No. 9165 and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of Life Imprisonment and to pay a
fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).

SO ORDERED.

Carpio, (Chairperson,) Perlas-Bernabe, Caguioa, and Reyes, Jr, JJ., concur.

[1] Penned by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez, with Associate Justices Rosmari D.

Carandang and Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez, concurring; rollo, pp. 2-7.

[2] Penned by Judge Marita Balloguing; CA rollo, pp. 42-52.

[3] Records, pp. 1-2.

[4] CA rollo pp. 59-69.

[5] Id. at 63-64. (Citations omitted )

[6] Id. at 29-40.

[7] Id. at 34-35. (Citations omitted)

[8] Id. at 52.

[9] Rollo, p. 7.

[10] CA rollo, p. 31.

[11] Rollo, pp. 13-14.

[12] Id. at 15-16.

[13] Id. at 19-21.

[14] People v. De Guzman, 564 Phil. 282, 290 (2007).

[15] People v. Villamin, 625 Phil. 698, 713 (2010).

[16] People v. Rebotazo, 711 Phil. 150, 162 (2013).

[17] People v. Miranda, 560 Phil. 795, 806 (2007).

[18] People v. Taculod, 723 Phil. 627, 641 (2013).

[19] People v. Dumlao, 584 Phil. 732, 738 (2008).

[20] TSN, June 13, 2012, p. 6.

[21] Id. at 19.

[22] 753 Phil. 288, 300 (2015).

[23] People v. Dasigan, supra.

[24] G.R. No. 202206, March 5, 2018.

[25] People v. Teng Moner y Adam, supra.

[26] G.R No. 224290, June 11, 2018. (Underscoring ours)

[27] TSN, February 8, 2012, pp. 7-9.

[28] People v. Bongalon, 425 Phil. 96, 115 (2002).

[29] TSN, July 17, 2013, pp. 14-15.

[30] Section II of A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC (Guidelines for the Proper Use of the Phrase

"Without Eligibility for Parole" in Indivisible Penalties) states:

xxxx

II.

In these lights, the following guidelines shall be observed in the imposition of penalties
and in the use of the phrase "without eligibility for parole":

(1) In cases where the death penalty is not warranted, there is no need to use
the phrase "without eligibility for parole" to qualify the penalty of reclusion
perpetua; it is understood that convicted persons penalized with an
indivisible penalty are not eligible for parole; and
(2) When circumstances are present warranting the imposition of the death
penalty, but this penalty is not imposed because of R.A. 9346, the
qualification of"without eligibility for parole" shall be used to qualify reclusion
perpetua in order to emphasize that the accused should have been
sentenced to suffer the death penalty had it not been for R.A. No.
9346.

[31] Id., August 4, 2015.

Source: Supreme Court E-Library

This page was dynamically generated
by the E-Library Content Management System (E-LibCMS)