G.R. NO.

184496 December 2, 2013

HADJI HASHIM ABDUL, Petitioner,
vs.
HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (FIFTH
DIVISION) and PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
DECISION
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
"Where the issue has become moot and academic,
there is no justiciable controversy, and adjudication
thereof would be of no practical use or value as
courts do not sit to satisfy scholarly interest, however
intellectually challenging."1
Challenged in the instant Petition for Certiorari2 with
prayer for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) is the
May 14, 2008 Resolution3 of respondent
Sandiganbayan (respondent) in Criminal Case No.
27744. Said Resolution suspended for a period of 90
days petitioner), Tan-Alem Abdul (Abdul) and
Candidato S. Domado (Domado) from their
respective official positions as Municipal Mayor,
Human Resource Management Officer, and Budget
Officer of the Municipality of Mulondo, Lanao del
Sur. Likewise questioned is respondent’s
Resolution4of September 2, 2008 denying petitioner
‘s Motion for Reconsideration.
The Undisputed Facts
Petitioner was first elected as municipal mayor of
Mulondo, Lanao del Sur in the May 1998 election
and re-elected for a second term in the May 2001
election. It was while serving his second term as
municipal mayor when the Office of the
Ombudsman-Mindanao filed an Information on
September 5, 2002 charging petitioner, along with
Abdul and Domado, with falsification of public
documents, defined and penalized under Article
171(2) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).5
The Information6 states:
That sometime on 22 April 1999, or prior or
subsequent thereto, in the Municipality of Mulondo,
Lanao del Sur, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the accused HADJI HASHIM
ABDUL, being then the Municipal Mayor of the
Municipality of Mulondo, Lanao del Sur, a high
ranking official, TAN-ALEM ABDUL, being then the
Human Resource Management Officer, and
CANDIDATO S. DOMADO, being then the Budget
Officer, all public officers, taking advantage of their
official positions and committing the offense in
relation to their office, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, conspiring with one
another, make it appear that Engr. Zubair F. Murad
as Municipal Engineer prepared and signed the
Local Budget Preparation Form Nos. 152, 153 and
154 known as the Program Appropriation and
Obligation by Object, Personnel Schedule and
Functional Statement and General Objective,
respectively, when in truth and in fact, as the
accused well knew that said Zubair F. Murad was
never employed as Municipal Engineer of the said
Municipality, to the damage and prejudice of public
interest. CONTRARY TO LAW.7
During the arraignment, petitioner and his co-
accused pleaded not guilty to the offense charged.
Before the commencement of the trial, the Office of
the Special Prosecutor (OSP) moved for the
suspension pendente lite of the petitioner and his
co-accused as mandated under Section 13 of
Republic Act No. 3019 (RA 3019) or the Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act,8 which provides:
Section 13. Suspension and loss of benefits. – Any
incumbent public officer against whom any criminal
prosecution under a valid information under this Act
or under Title Seven, Book II of the Revised Penal
Code or for any offense involving fraud upon
government or public funds or property whether as a
simple or as complex offense and in whatever stage
of execution and mode of participation, is pending in
court, shall be suspended from office. x x x
The OSP averred that suspension under the above-
quoted section is mandatory. In his
Comment,9 petitioner asserted that he cannot be
suspended pendente lite because the crime for
which he was charged is not among those
enumerated under Section 13 of RA 3019. He was
not charged under RA 3019 or Title Seven, Book II
of the RPC. Neither does fraud upon government or
public funds or property cover falsification of public
document nor fraud per se, an ingredient of the
offense of falsification of public document. Finding
the charge as squarely falling within the ambit of
Section 13, RA 3019, respondent granted in its
Resolution10 of October 9, 2003 the OSP’s motion
and accordingly ordered the suspension pendente
lite of the petitioner and his co-accused from their
respective positions and from any other public office
which they may now or hereafter be holding for a
period of 90 days from notice. Petitioner moved for
reconsideration,11 but the same was denied in a
Resolution12 dated February 11, 2004. Thus, on
March 2, 2004 he filed with this Court a Petition for
Certiorari with Prayer for TRO13 alleging that the
suspension order was issued with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. In a
Resolution14 dated March 10, 2004, the Court
dismissed the Petition, which dismissal attained
finality on July 12, 2004.15 The suspension order,
however, was no longer implemented because it
was superseded by the expiration of petitioner’s
second term as municipal mayor and his
unsuccessful bid for re-election during the May 2004
election. During the May 2007 election, petitioner
emerged as the winner in the mayoralty race and
again sat as Mayor of Mulondo, Lanao del Sur. On
February 21, 2008, the OSP once again moved for
his and his co-accused’s suspension pendente lite to
implement respondent’s final and executory
suspension order of October 9, 2003. 16 In his
Comment and Opposition, 17 petitioner called
attention to respondent’s pronouncement in its
Resolution18 dated December 20, 2004 that his
defeat in the May 2004 election has effectively
rendered his suspension moot and academic.
Nonetheless, respondent, through its Resolution of
May 14, 2008, 19 ordered anew the suspension of
petitioner from his present position for a period of 90
days. Petitioner moved for reconsideration,20 but the
same was denied in a Resolution21 dated September
2, 2008.1âwphi1 Undeterred, petitioner filed on
October 2, 2008 the present Petition for Certiorari
with prayer for TRO submitting again the sole issue
of whether the Sandiganbayan acted with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in suspending him pendente lite from his
position as mayor of Mulondo, Lanao del Sur. On
December 3, 2008, the Court issued a TRO
enjoining the implementation of the suspension
Order.22 Subsequently, on November 24, 2009 while
the present Petition was pending before the Court,
respondent Sandiganbayan promulgated its
Decision23 acquitting petitioner and his co-accused
of the offense charged.
Our Ruling
We dismiss the Petition for being moot and
academic. For a court to exercise its power of
adjudication, there must be an actual case or
controversy. Thus, in Mattel, Inc. v. Francisco24 we
have ruled that "[w]here the issue has become moot
and academic, there is no justiciable controversy,
and an adjudication thereof would be of no practical
use or value as courts do not sit to adjudicate mere
academic questions to satisfy scholarly interest
however intellectually challenging." In the present
case, the acquittal of herein petitioner operates as a
supervening event that mooted the present Petition.
Any resolution on the validity or invalidity of the
issuance of the order of suspension could no longer
affect his rights as a ranking public officer, for legally
speaking he did not commit the offense charged.
Notwithstanding the mootness of the present
Petition, petitioner nevertheless implores us to make
a clear and categorical resolution on whether the
offense of falsification of public documents under
Article 171 of the RPC is included in the term "fraud"
as contemplated under Section 13 of RA 3019. As
earlier quoted, to warrant the suspension of a public
officer under the said Section 13, he must be
charged with an offense (1) under RA 3019, or (2)
under Title Seven, Book II of the RPC, or (3)
involving fraud upon government or public funds or
property. Admittedly, petitioner in this case was not
charged under RA 3019. Neither was he charged
under Title Seven, 25Book II of the RPC as the crime
of falsification of public documents under Article 171
of the RPC is covered by Title Four, 26 Book II
thereof. The relevant question now is whether
falsification of public documents is considered as
fraud upon government or public funds or property.
This issue is not of first impression. Close but not
exactly similar with the factual backdrop of this case
is Bustillo v. Sandiganbayan.27 Petitioner therein
was charged with falsifying municipal vouchers
which, as used in government, are official
documents.28 He asserted the said offense does not
involve "fraud or property;" hence, his suspension
finds no basis in Section 13 of RA 3019. In
construing the term "fraud" as used in Section 13 of
RA 3019, the Court held in said case that the same
is understood in its general sense, that is, referring
to "an instance or an act of trickery or deceit
especially when involving misrepresentation."29
And since vouchers are official documents signifying
a cash outflow from government coffers, falsification
thereof invariably involves fraud upon public
funds.30 Again, in Bartolo v. Sandiganbayan, Second
Division, 31 the Court citing Bustillo underscored the
fact that "the term fraud as used in Section 13 of
[RA] 3019 is understood in its generic sense."32
In upholding the suspension of therein petitioner, the
Court held that "the allegation of falsification of the
three public documents by making it appear that the
flood control project was 100% complete [when in
fact it was not,] constitutes fraud upon public
funds."33
In the same vein, the act imputed against petitioner
constitutes fraud upon government or public
funds.1âwphi1 This was aptly explained by
respondent in its Resolution34 dated October 9,
2003, viz:
x x x The existence of fraud in the commission of the
offense charged can be easily associated from the
natie of the acts of herein accused when they made
it appear and signed Local udget Preparation Forms
No. 152, 153 and 154, when in truth and in fact, said
Engr. Murad was not even an employee of the
Municipality of Mulondo, Lanao del Sur. As a
consequence of this act, several projects, their costs
and extent, were authorized without the careful
assessment of [the] legitimate municipalengineer.
This alone is sufficient to justify the Court’s
conclusion that, indeed, the alleged act of accused
constitutes fraud upon the government.35
In fine , we reiterate that he issue on the validity or
invalidity of petitioner’s suspension had mooted
considering his acquittal by the Sandiganbayan in its
November 24, 2009 Decision. As such, there is no
justiciable controversy for this Court to adjucate.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DISMISSED for being
moot and academic.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 205413 December 2, 2013
PEOPLE OF THE PHILLIPINES, Appellee,
vs.
ROGELIO MANICAT y DE GUZMAN, Appellant.
DECISION
BRION, J.:
We resolve the appeal, filed by Rogelio Manicat y de
Guzman (appellant), from the decision1 of the Court
of Appeals (CA), dated May 4, 2012 in CA-G.R. CR-
HC No. 03930. The decision affirmed with
modification the January 14, 2009 decision2 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 169, Malabon
City, in Crim. Case No. 24550-MN, finding the
appelant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of rape, and sentencing hime to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua, without elligibility of
parole.
The RTC Ruling
In its January 14, 2009 decision, the RTC found the
appelant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of simple
rape. It gave credence to the testimony of AAA, the
13-year old victim, that while she was on her way to
buy coffee and sugar, the appellant pulled her inside
his house, undressed her, and then forced her to lie
down on her back. The appellant afterwards inserted
his penis inside her vagina. AAA explained that she
felt pain but she did not cry because the appellant
threatened to kill her if she made any noise.
According to the RTC, the fact that AAA is afflicted
with mild mental retardation with a mental age of 7-8
years old does not make her an incompetent
witness, as she testified in a clear and
straightforward manner. Thus, the RTC sentenced
the appellant to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua, without eligibility for parole, and ordered
him to pay the victim the sum of ₱50,000.00 as civil
indemnity, ₱50,000.00 as moral damages, and
₱25,000.00 as exemplary damages.
The CA Decision
On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC judgment with
the modification that the award of exemplary
damages in the amount of ₱25,000.00 be deleted.
The CA held that AAA testified in a "straightforward,
candid and convincing manner." 3
Her testimony was corroborated by Medico Legal
Report No. M-257-01 dated April 29, 2001 stating
that the victim is in a non-virgin physical state. The
CA noted that the Clinical Abstract issued by the
National Center for Mental Health does not indicate
whether AAA’s condition impairs her capacity as a
witness. It also explained that AAA’s credibility
cannot be impaired by her behavior as a rape victim
because rape victims do not all react in the same
way. The CA rejected the appellant’s defense of
denial and alibi for failure to substantiate these
defenses. Lastly, the CA found that the penalty of
"reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole" was
proper because under Resolution No. 24-4-
10, 4 those convicted of offenses punished with
reclusion perpetua are disqualified from the benefit
of parole.
Our Ruling
We deny the appeal, but modify the awarded
indemnities. For the charge of rape (under Article
266-A of the Revised Penal Code [RPC], as
amended) to prosper, the prosecution must prove
that: (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a
woman; and (2) he accomplished this act through
force, threat or intimidation, when she was deprived
of reason or otherwise unconscious, or when she
was under 12 years of age or was demented.
In the present case, the prosecution established the
elements of rape required under Article 266-A of the
RPC.
First, the appellant had carnal knowledge of the
victim. AAA was straightforward when she testified
that the appellant inserted his penis into her vagina.
Her testimony was supported by Medico Legal
Report No. M-257-01 dated April 29, 2001, reflecting
the victim’s non-virgin physical state. We have held
that when the testimony of a rape victim is consistent
with the medical findings, there is sufficient basis to
conclude that there has been carnal knowledge.5
Second, the appellant employed threat, force and
intimidation to satisfy his lust. AAA categorically
testified that she resisted when the appellant pulled
her inside his house. She also recalled that she
cried when the appellant inserted his penis into her
vagina. Nonetheless, she was helpless and afraid to
make further noise because the appellant
threatened to kill her. These facts sufficiently
indicate that the appellant’s acts were against AAA’s
will.
Being afflicted with mild mental retardation does not
mean that AAA’s testimony was merely imagined.
We agree with the RTC and the CA’s conclusion that
the testimony of a mental retardate depends on the
quality of her perceptions and the manner she can
make these known to the court.6
In the present case, the questions asked were
couched in terms that AAA could easily understand,
as recommended by Ma. Cristina P. Morelos, M.D.,
Medical Officer III.7
Hence, we are convinced that AAA understood the
questions propounded to her, which she answered
in a clear and straightforward manner. Contrary to
the appellant’s argument, the behavior of the victim
does not establish the truth or falsity of her
accusation. "As a matter of settled jurisprudence,
rape is subjective and not all victims react in the
same way; there is no typical form of behavior for a
woman when facing a traumatic experience such as
a sexual assault." 8
In addition, the appellant’s denial cannot overturn his
conviction in light of AAA’s positive testimony. We
have consistently held that positive identification of
the accused, when categorical and consistent and
without any showing of ill motive of the part of the
eyewitness testifying, should prevail over the mere
denial of the appellant whose testimony is not
substantiated by clear and convincing evidence.9
We reject the appellant’s argument that the phrase
"without eligibility for parole" is a penalty which is
appropriate only to qualified rape. Article 266-B of
the RPC10 is explicit that rape committed through
force, threat, or intimidation is punishable
by reclusion perpetua.
On the other hand, Resolution No. 24-4-1011 states
that those convicted of offenses punishable
by reclusion perpetua are disqualified for parole.
Thus, the RTC did not alter the appropriate penalty
for simple rape as it merely reflected the
consequence of having been convicted of a crime
punishable by reclusion perpetua.
We reinstate the award of exemplary damages to
deter similar conduct and to set an example against
persons who abuse and corrupt the youth. We set
the amount of ₱30,000.00 to conform to prevailing
jurisprudence.
Finally, interest at rate of six percent (6%) per
annum shall be applied to the award of civil
indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages
from the finality of judgment until fully paid.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals
dated May 4, 2012 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03930 is
AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS: (a)
the appellant is further ordered to pay AAA
₱30,000.00 as exemplary damages; and (b) he is
ordered to pay interest, at the rate of 6% per annum
to the award of civil indemnity, moral damages, and
exemplary damages from finality of judgment until
fully paid.
G.R. No. 180661 December 11, 2013
GEORGE ANTIQUERA y CODES, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
DECISION
ABAD, J.:
This case is about a supposed warrantless arrest
and a subsequent search prompted by the police
officers' chance sighting through an ajar door of the
accused engaged in pot session.
The Facts and the Case
On January 13, 2004 the second Assistant City
Prosecutor of Pasay City charged the accused
George Codes Antiquera* and Corazon Olivenza
Cruz with illegal ·possession of paraphernalia for
dangerous drugs 1 before the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Pasay City in Criminal Case 04-0100-
CFM. 2 Since the accused Cruz jumped bail, the
court tried her in absentia. 3
The prosecution evidence shows that at around 4:45
a.m. of February 11, 2004, PO1 Gregorio Recio,
PO1 Laurence Cabutihan, P/Insp. Eric Ibon, PO1
Rodelio Rania, and two civilian operatives on board
a patrol car and a tricycle were conducting a police
visibility patrol on David Street, Pasay City, when
they saw two unidentified men rush out of house
number 107-C and immediately boarded a jeep.
Suspecting that a crime had been committed, the
police officers approached the house from where the
men came and peeked through the partially opened
door. PO1 Recio and PO1 Cabutihan saw accused
Antiquera holding an improvised tooter and a pink
lighter. Beside him was his live-in partner, Cruz, who
was holding an aluminum foil and an improvised
burner. They sat facing each other at the living
room. This prompted the police officers to enter the
house, introduce themselves, and arrest Antiquera
and Cruz.4
While inspecting the immediate surroundings, PO1
Cabutihan saw a wooden jewelry box atop a table. It
contained an improvised burner, wok, scissors, 10
small transparent plastic sachets with traces of white
crystalline substance, improvised scoop, and seven
unused strips of aluminum foil. The police officers
confiscated all these and brought Antiquera and
Cruz to the Drug Enforcement Unit of the Philippine
National Police in Pasay City for further investigation
and testing.5
A forensic chemical officer examined the confiscated
drug paraphernalia and found them positive for
traces of methamphetamine hydrochloride or
"shabu."6
Accused Antiquera gave a different story. He said
that on the date and time in question, he and Cruz
were asleep in their house when he was roused by
knocking on the door. When he went to open it,
three armed police officers forced themselves into
the house. One of them shoved him and said, "D’yan
ka lang, pusher ka." He was handcuffed and
someone instructed two of the officers to go to his
room. The police later brought accused Antiquera
and Cruz to the police station and there informed
them of the charges against them. They were shown
a box that the police said had been recovered from
his house.7
On July 30, 2004 the RTC rendered a Decision8 that
found accused Antiquera and Cruz guilty of the
crime charged and sentenced them to a prison term
ranging from six months and one day to two years
and four months, and to pay a fine of ₱10,000.00
each and the costs of the suit.
The RTC said that the prosecution proved beyond
reasonable doubt that the police caught accused
Antiquera and Cruz in the act of using shabu and
having drug paraphernalia in their possession. Since
no ill motive could be attributed to PO1 Recio and
PO1 Cabutihan, the court accorded full faith and
credit to their testimony and rejected the self-serving
claim of Antiquera.
The trial court gave no weight to accused
Antiquera’s claim of illegal arrest, given PO1 Recio
and PO1 Cabutihan’s credible testimony that, prior
to their arrest, they saw Antiquera and Cruz in a pot
session at their living room and in possession of
drug paraphernalia. The police officers were thus
justified in arresting the two without a warrant
pursuant to Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of
Criminal Procedure.9
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) rendered a
Decision10 on September 21, 2007 affirming in full
the decision of the trial court. The accused moved
for reconsideration but the CA denied it.11 The
accused is now before this Court seeking acquittal.
The Issue Presented
The issue in this case is whether or not the CA erred
in finding accused Antiquera guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of illegal possession of drug
paraphernalia based on the evidence of the police
officers that they saw him and Cruz in the act of
possessing drug paraphernalia.
Ruling of the Court
The prosecution’s theory, upheld by both the RTC
and the CA, is that it was a case of valid warrantless
arrest in that the police officers saw accused
Antiquera and Cruz through the door of their house,
in the act of having a pot session. That valid
warrantless arrest gave the officers the right as well
to search the living room for objects relating to the
crime and thus seize the paraphernalia they found
there.
The prosecution contends that, since the seized
paraphernalia tested positive for shabu, they were
no doubt used for smoking, consuming,
administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing
dangerous drug into the body in violation of Section
12 of Republic Act 9165. That the accused tested
negative for shabu, said the prosecution, had no
bearing on the crime charged which was for illegal
possession of drug paraphernalia, not for illegal use
of dangerous drugs. The prosecution added that
even assuming that the arrest of the accused was
irregular, he is already considered to have waived
his right to question the validity of his arrest when he
voluntarily submitted himself to the court’s
jurisdiction by entering a plea of not guilty.12
Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal
Procedure provides that a "peace officer or a private
person may, without a warrant, arrest a person
when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense." This is an arrest in flagrante
delicto.13 The overt act constituting the crime is done
in the presence or within the view of the arresting
officer.14
But the circumstances here do not make out a case
of arrest made in flagrante delicto.
1. The police officers claim that they were alerted
when they saw two unidentified men suddenly rush
out of 107 David Street, Pasay City. Since they
suspected that a crime had been committed, the
natural thing for them to do was to give chase to the
jeep that the two fleeing men boarded, given that the
officers were in a patrol car and a tricycle. Running
after the fleeing suspects was the more urgent task
but the officers instead gave priority to the house
even when they heard no cry for help from it.
2. Admittedly, the police officers did not notice
anything amiss going on in the house from the street
where they stood. Indeed, even as they peeked
through its partially opened door, they saw no
activity that warranted their entering it. Thus, PO1
Cabutihan testified:
THE COURT:
Q – By the way, Mr. Cabutihan, when you followed
your companion towards the open door, how was
the door open? Was it totally open, or was it partially
open?
A – It was partially open Your Honor.
Q – By how much, 1/3, 1/2? Only by less than one
(1) foot?
A – More or less 4 to 6 inches, Your Honor.
Q – So how were you able to know, to see the
interior of the house if the door was only open
by 6 inches? Or did you have to push the door?
A – We pushed the door, Your Honor.
xxxx
Q – Were you allowed to just go towards the door of
the house, push its door and peeped inside it, as a
police officer?
A – Kasi po naghinala po kami baka may…
Q – Are you not allowed to – Are you not required to
get a search warrant before you can search the
interior of the house?
A – Yes, Your Honor.
Q – What do you mean by yes? Would you first
obtain a search warrant before searching the interior
of the house?
A – Yes, Your Honor.
Q – So why did you not a [sic] secure a search
warrant first before you tried to investigate the
house, considering your admission that you
suspected that there was something wrong inside
the house?
A – Because we saw them that they were engaged
in pot session, Your Honor.
Q – But before you saw them, you just had to
push the door wide open to peep through its
opening because you did not know what was
happening inside?
A – Yes, Your Honor.15 (Emphasis supplied)
Clearly, no crime was plainly exposed to the view of
the arresting officers that authorized the arrest of
accused Antiquera without warrant under the above-
mentioned rule. Considering that his arrest was
illegal, the search and seizure that resulted from it
was likewise illegal.16 Consequently, the various
drug paraphernalia that the police officers allegedly
found in the house and seized are inadmissible,
having proceeded from an invalid search and
seizure. Since the confiscated drug paraphernalia is
the very corpus delicti of the crime charged, the
Court has no choice but to acquit the accused.17
One final note. The failure of the accused to object
to the irregularity of his arrest by itself is not enough
to sustain his conviction. A waiver of an illegal
warrantless arrest does not carry with it a waiver of
the inadmissibility of evidence seized during the
illegal warrantless arrest.18
WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS
ASIDE the Decision dated September 21, 2007 and
Resolution dated November 16, 2007 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR 28937 and ACQUITS the
accused George Antiquera y Codes of the crime of
which he is charged for lack of evidence sufficient to
establish his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.1âwphi1 The Court further ORDERS the
cancellation and release of the bail bond he posted
for his provisional liberty.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 206738 December 11, 2013
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
ERLINDA MALI y QUIMNO a.k.a.
"Linda", Accussed-Appellant.
DECISION
REYES, J.:
For review is the Decision1 dated January 31, 2013
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No.
00863-MIN which affirmed the Decision2 dated
August 11, 2010 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Zamboanga City, Branch 13, in Criminal Case No.
5228 (20390), convicting Erlinda Mali y Quimno
a.k.a. "Linda" (accused-appellant) of illegally selling
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
The Antecedents
On January 26, 2004, a buy-bust operation was
carried out in Sucabon,Zone II, Zamboanga City, by
the members of the Task Group Tumba Droga, now
the Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task
Force,3 of the Philippine National Police (PNP)
inZamboanga City. The operation led to the arrest of
the accused-appellant4 who was charged of violating
Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165
or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Actof 2002,
under the following criminal information, viz:
That on or about January 26, 2004, in the City of
Zamboanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
not being authorized by law to sell, deliver, transport,
distribute or give away to another any dangerous
drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, SELL and DELIVER to PO1
HildaD.Montuno, a member of the PNP, who acted
as buyer, one (1) small size heat-sealed transparent
plastic packweighing 0.0188 grams of white
crystalline substance which when subjected to
qualitative examination, gave positive result to the
tests for METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE
(shabu), knowing [the]same to be a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.5
On March 17, 2004, an ocular inspection was
conducted, whereby the shabustated in the criminal
information was presented before the RTC and the
accused-appellant by the Forensic Chemist of the
PNP Regional Crime Laboratory, Zamboanga City,
Police Chief Inspector (PC/Insp.) Mercedes D.
Diestro (Diestro). The presentation was witnessed
by a representative from the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency, Senior Police Officer (SPO) 4
Bonifacio Morados.6 In the ensuing arraignment, the
accused-appellantentered a "Not Guilty" plea.
Thereafter, pre-trial and trial were held.
The prosecution presented the testimoniesof the
police officers whoparticipatedinthebuy-bust
operation,Police Officer(PO) 1 Hilda D. Montuno
(Montuno) and SPO 1 Amado Mirasol, Jr. (Mirasol),
as well as the investigator in charge of the case,
PO3 Efren A. Gregorio(Gregorio), and
PC/Insp.Ramon Manuel, Jr. (Manuel), Officer-in-
Charge of the PNP Crime Laboratory Office.
Documentary and object evidence were likewise
submitted, such as: Request for Laboratory
Examination,7Chemistry Report No. D-024-
2004,8 Affidavit of Poseur-buyer,9 Affidavit of
Arresting Officer,10 Complaint Assignment Sheet No.
1234,11 Acknowledgment Receipt of the buy-bust
money,12 Case Report,13 Forwarding Report,14 one
piece small size heat-sealed transparent plastic
sachet containing shabu,15 six strips of folded
aluminum foils16 and marked money consisting of
one ₱100.00 bill with serial number KM67878817.
Taken collectively, the foregoing evidence showed
that:
On January 26, 2004, at around 1:00p.m., a
confidential informant arrived at the Zamboanga City
Police Station and reported to PO1 Montuno about
illegal drug activities in Sucabon, Zone II, by a
woman known as "Linda". PO1 Montuno forthwith
relayed the information to Police Senior Inspector
(PS/Insp.)Ricardo M. Garcia (Garcia) who,
thereafter, summoned the members of the Task
Group Tumba Droga for a briefing. They came up
with an entrapment plan to be staged by a buy-bust
team composed of PS/Insp. Garcia,SPO1Mirasol,
PO2 Rudy Deleña,PO2 Ronald Cordero, and PO1
Montuno, who was designated as the poseur-
buyer.18 PS/Insp. Garcia prepared and gave
Montuno ₱100.00 as marked money19 with
serialnumberKM678788for whichshe signed an
Acknowledgment Receipt.20
At around 2:15 p.m., the team proceeded to
Sucabon on board an L-300 van which they parked
in front of the Bureau of Fire before walking towards
the inner portion of Sucabon. PO1 Montuno and the
informant sauntered in front of the group with SPO1
Mirasol trailing behind from a distanceof about eight
to ten meters while the rest of the team followed.21
When they reached the target area, theinformant
pointed to a lady in brown sleeveless shirt and pants
waiting by a table and identified her as Linda.22 PO1
Montuno and the informant approached
Lindawho,upon recognizing the latter, asked how
much they intendedto buy. PO1 Montuno answered
"pisolang", which in street lingo means one hundred
pesos. Linda then took out a small transparent
plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance
from her pocket and handed the same to PO1
Montuno, whointurngave the ₱100.00 marked
money.23 Immediately thereafter, PO1 Montuno
executed the pre-arranged signal by extending her
left hand sideward.24
Upon seeing PO1 Montuno’s signal, SPO1 Mirasol,
who positioned himself at a nearby billiard hall,
approached them.25 PO1 Montunointroduced herself
as a police officer to Lindaand placed her under
arrest by asking her to sit. She then frisked Linda
andwas able to recover from her a small plastic
sachet containing six strips of aluminum foil.
Afterwards, she informed Linda of her violation and
apprised her of her constitutional rights.26
Linda was taken to the Zamboanga City Police
Station where it was learned that her full name is
Erlinda Mali yQuimno.27 PO1 Montuno marked the
plastic sachet suspected as containing shabuwith
her initials "HM" as well as the sachet containing
strips of aluminum foil. She also wrote her initials
"HDM" on the ₱100.00 marked money.28
PO1 Montuno turned over the confiscated items, the
marked money and thepersonof accused-appellantto
PO3 Gregorio.29 Upon receipt, PO3 Gregorio wrote
his initials "EG" on the plastic sachet suspected as
containing shabuand "EAG" on the other sachet of
aluminum foil strips.30
Subsequently, PO3 Gregorio prepared the Request
for Laboratory Examination and personally brought
the same together with the seized evidence to
thePNP Crime Laboratory Office.31 Forensic
chemist, PC/Insp. Diestro conducted a laboratory
examinationon the specimen subject of the request
and it tested positive for the presence of
methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu" as
shown in Chemistry Report No. D-024-2004.32
PC/Insp. Diestro was unable to take the witness
stand because at the time of trial, she was on official
study leave in Manila. Instead, it was PC/Insp.
Manuel as the Officer-in-Chargeof the Crime
Laboratory Office who brought a copy of the
chemistry report to the court. The actual evidence
custodian of the report isPO1 Christopher Paner
who was, however, dispatched to Basilan hence
unavailable to testify.33
For her part, the accused-appellant, interposed the
defense of denial and frame-up.1âwphi1 She and
the other defense witness, Kalingalang
Ismang(Ismang), claimed that there was no buy-bust
operation actually conducted by thepolice and the
prohibited drugpresented as evidence was planted.
They narrated that at around 2:00 p.m. of January
26, 2004, they were outside the accused-appellant’s
house in Sucabon playing Rami-rami,a cards game,
with a certain Golpe. During the game, the accused-
appellant left to urinate and when she came back, a
woman arrived and asked Ismangwho Erlinda was.
In reply, Ismangpointed tothe accused-appellant
who just remained silent.34
The woman, who was with four male companions in
civilian clothing but armed, then approached the
accused-appellant, held her and brought her inside
her house. The woman asked the accused-appellant
who was sellingshabu. The accused-appellant
replied thatshe does not know. Thereafter, the
woman’s companions searched the accused-
appellant’s house but found nothing. They then
brought the accused-appellant to the police station
in Zamboanga City where she was again questioned
about the peddler of shabu to which she gave the
same reply. She was thereafter detained and then
brought to the Hall of Justice.35
Ruling of the RTC
The RTC accorded more credence to the
straightforward and consistent testimony of PO1
Montuno which proved all the elements for illegal
sale of drugs. Her testimony also showed that the
entrapment operation passed the objective test as
she was able to narrate the complete details of the
transaction, from how she acted as a buyer, to the
consummation of the sale and the accused-
appellant’s eventual arrest. The RTC also noted that
in view of the lack of a showing that the arresting
officers were impelled by evil motive to indict the
accused-appellant, they are presumed to have
performed their duties in a regular manner and as
such their positive testimonies carry more
evidentiary value than the accused-appellant’s bare
denial, an inherently weak and self-serving defense.
Accordingly, the accused-appellant was convicted of
the crime charged and sentenced as follows in the
RTC Decision36 dated August 11, 2010, viz:
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, this
Court finds ERLINDA MALI y QUIMNO guilty beyond
reasonable doubt for violating Section 5, Article II of
R.A. 9165and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of
life imprisonment and pay a fine of five hundred
thousand pesos (₱500,000[.00]) without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency.
The methamphetamine hydrochloride used as
evidence in this case is hereby ordered confiscated
and the Clerk of Court is directed to turn over the
same to the proper authorities for disposition.
SO ORDERED.37
Ruling of the CA
On appeal to the CA, the accused-appellant argued
that the totality of the evidence for the prosecution
did not support a finding of guilt beyond reasonable
doubt due to the following errors, viz: (1) no buy-bust
operation transpired and the prohibited drug
presented by the prosecution as subject of the
alleged illegal sale was planted; (2) the arresting
officers did not comply with the chain of custody rule
under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 when they failed
to mark, inventory and photograph the prohibited
drug allegedly seized from her; (3) the chemistry
report wasnot properly identified during trial by the
forensic chemist; and (4) no evidence was
presented asto what happened to the sachet from
the time it was submitted to the crime laboratory until
it was presented in court.
In its Decision38 dated January 31, 2013, the CA
denied the appeal and concurred with the RTC’s
findings and conclusions. The CA upheld the
veracity of the buy-bust operation. Anent the
supposed non-compliance with the marking,
inventory and photography requirements in R.A. No.
9165, the CA remarked that the accused-appellant is
considered to have waived any objections on such
matters since she failed toraise the same before the
RTC. At any rate, non-compliance with Section 21 of
R.A. No. 9165 is not necessarily fatal to the
admissibility of theseized prohibited drug because
the apprehending team was able to preserve their
evidentiaryvalue and integrity whentheyimmediately
turned over the effects of the crime and the buy-bust
money to the police investigator on the same day.
This, the CA concluded, manifests the prudence of
the arresting officers in securing the integrity and
probative value of the items confiscated from the
accused appellant. Moreover, non-compliance with
Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 concerns not the
admissibility of evidence but rather its evidentiary
weight or probative value, which, in this case was
correctly ruled by the RTC to heavily favor the
prosecution.
The CA’s judgment is now subject to the Court’s
automatic review.39 In a Resolution40 dated July 8,
2013, the Court required the parties to file their
supplemental briefs. Instead of so filing, however,
the parties manifested that they are instead adopting
their respective Briefs before the CA where their
legal arguments and positions havealready been
fully expounded and amplified.41 The Manifestations
are hereby noted and we shall resolve accordingly.
The Issue
Forthe Court’s resolutioniswhether or not the guilt of
the accused-appellant for illegal sale of
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabuwas
proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court’s Ruling
We affirm the accused-appellant’s conviction and
the penalties meted her.
Illegal sale of prohibited drugs, like shabu, is
committed upon the consummation of the sale
transaction which happens at the moment the buyer
receives the drug from the seller. If a police officer
goes through the operation as a buyer, the crime is
consummated when he makes an offer to buy that is
accepted by the accused, and there is an ensuing
exchangebetween them involving the delivery of the
dangerous drugs to the police officer.42
In any case, the successful prosecution of the
offense must be anchoredona proofbeyond
reasonable doubtoftwoelements,to wit: (a) the
identity of the buyer and the seller, theidentity of the
object and the consideration of the sale; and (b) the
delivery of the thing sold and of the payment for the
thing. What is material is the proof showing that the
transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with
the presentation in court of the thing sold as
evidence of the corpus delicti.43
The confluence of the above requisites is
unmistakable from the testimony of the poseur-buyer
herself, PO1 Montuno, who positively testified that
the illegal sale actually took place when she gave
the ₱100.00 marked money to the accused-appellant
in exchange for the shabu, thus:
PROSECUTOR ORILLO:
xxxx
Q:And, what happened next, after the briefing, which
according to you, took for, more or less, thirty (30)
minutes?
A:We proceeded, at or about 2:15, to the area at
Sucabon.44
x xxx
Q:So, what happened next?
A:When we reachednearthe area, we stopped,
because the Informant pinpointed to me that "the
lady waiting there, at the wooden table, wearing
brown sleeveless shirt and pants is your target".
xxxx
Q:After the Informant pointed to you the place where
that certainLinda was, what did you do next?
A:We approached Linda.
xxxx
Q:So, when you approached, you and the Informant
approached Linda, what happened next?
A:Since the Informant and Linda, they know each
other already, it was Linda who said, "cuanto tu
compra?"("how much will you buy?")
Q:And, then?
A:And, then, I replied, "₱100.00"; "piso lang".
Q:At that time, when your Informant was conversing
with Linda, how far were you from Linda and the
Informant?
A:More or less, myself to the Stenographer’s table
(estimated at 1 ½ meters)
Q:Now, what happened next, Madam Witness, after
you replied, "piso lang"?
A:Then she got something from her pocket (witness
demonstrated by gesturing as if getting something
from her right front pocket).
Q:And, then, what happened next, after she got
something from her pocket?
A:She gave it to me; the suspect gave it to me, and
she demanded for money.
Q:What was that something given?
A:Small heat-sealed transparent plastic containing
suspected shabu.
Q:And, you said, she demanded for the money?
A:Yes, Sir.
Q:What did you do?
A:I gave it to her.
Q:How did you give it?
A;When I got the shabu, I inspected it, I tried to
check, then, I gave the money to her (witness is
demonstrating by motioning the act of giving money,
pretending to hold something and extending her
right hand forward).
PROSECUTOR ORILLO:
Q:And, is that money the money, the marked money
that was given to you by P/S Insp[.]Garcia during the
briefing?
A:Yes, Sir.
Q:What does it consist of?
A:It is a ₱100.00 bill.
Q:And, you gave it to Linda?
A:Yes, Sir.
Q:The marked money?
A:Yes, Sir.
Q:Did she receive it?
A:Yes, Sir.45[sic]
The straightforward testimony of PO1 Montuno
about the details of her transactionwiththe accused-
appellant passed the"objective"testin buy-bust
operations. It is clear from her narration that the
following elements occurred: the initial contact
between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer
to purchase, the promise or payment of the
consideration and the consummation of the sale by
the delivery of the illegal drug subject of the sale.46
The Court cannot accord merit to the accused-
appellant’s claim that the foregoing events did not
take place because she was actually framed-up.
Such argument brings to the fore the appreciation by
the trial court of the credibility of witnesses, a matter
it is most competent to perform having had the first
hand opportunity to observe and assess the conduct
and demeanor of witnesses.47 Settled is the rule that
the evaluation by the trial court of the credibility of
witnesses is entitled to the highest respect and will
not be disturbed on appeal.48
By way of exception, such findings will be re-opened
for review only upon a showing of highly
meritoriouscircumstances such as when the court’s
evaluation was reached arbitrarily, or when the trial
court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied
certain facts or circumstances of weight and
substance which, if considered, would affect the
result of the case.49 However, none of these
circumstancesobtain in the present case and thus,
there is no compelling reason for the Court to review
or overturn the RTC’s factual findings and evaluation
of the testimony of witnesses.
At any rate, we have examined the records ofthe
case and found that the prosecution’s narration
vividly replicates the actual event that preceded the
accused-appellant’s arrest and indictment.
Moreover, allegations of frame-up aresusceptible to
fabrication and are thus assessed with caution by
courts. To substantiate such defense, the evidence
must be clear and convincing and must show that
the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by
any improper motive or were not properly performing
their duty otherwise the police officers’ testimonies
on the operation deserve full faith and credit.50 Here,
the accused-appellantdid not even ascribe any
illmotive to PO1 Montuno that could have induced
her to falsely testify against the former. Neither do
the records indicate any distorted sense of duty on
the part of the buy-bust team. Thus, with
corroborative documentary evidence to back up the
testimonies of prosecution witnesses, the
presumption that PO1 Montuno and the rest of the
buy-bust team regularly performed their duties must
be upheld.
The courts a quo correctly rejected the accused-
appellant’s contention that the chain of custody rule
was not fulfilled.
First, the fact that PO1 Montuno marked the plastic
sachet seized from the accused-appellant at the
ZamboangaCity Police Station and notat the crime
scene did not impair its admissibility as evidence or
the integrity of the chain of custody. As clarified in
People v. Angkob,51 marking upon
"immediate"confiscation of the prohibited items
contemplates even that which was done at the
nearest police station or office of the apprehending
team.52
Theallegation that noinventory of
theitemsseizedfromtheaccused-appellant was made
is belied bythe ComplaintAssignment SheetNo. 1234
signed by PS/Insp. Garcia enumerating the items
confiscated from the accused-appellant during the
buy-bust operation: "one (1) small size heat sealed
transparent plastic pack containing suspected
shabu(methamphetamine hydrochloride),
markedmoney of one hundred peso bill with SN
KM678788 and six(6) strips/fol[d]ed aluminum foil."53
Anent the failure of the buy-bust team to take
photographs of the confiscated plastic sachet of
shabu, it must be noted that while Section 21,
paragraph 1, Article II of R.A. No. 916554 dictates the
procedural safeguards that must be observed in the
handling and custody of confiscated drugs, the
implementing rules and regulations (IRR) of the law
provides for a qualification such that non-compliance
withthe procedure will not nullify the confiscation of
the drugs, thus:
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial
custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately
after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory
and photograph the same in thepresence 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,
that the physical inventory and photograph shall be
conducted at the place where the search warrant is
served; or at the nearest police station or at the
nearest office of the apprehending officer/team,
whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless
seizures; 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 seizuresof and custody over said
items[.]55 (Emphasis ours)
In the recent People v. Cardenas,56 we underscored
the provisoby stressing that R.A. No. 9165 and its
IRR do not require strict compliance with the chain of
custody rule:
The arrest of an accused will not be invalidated and
the items seized from him rendered inadmissible on
the sole ground of non-compliance with Sec. 21,
Article II of RA 9165. We have emphasized that
what is essential is "the preservation of the integrity
and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the
same would be utilized in the determination of the
guilt or innocence of the accused."
Briefly stated, non-compliance with the procedural
requirements under RA 9165 and its IRR relative to
the custody, photographing, and drug-testing of the
apprehended persons, is not a serious flaw that
canrender void the seizures and custody of drugs in
a buy-bust operation.57 (Emphasis supplied)
The failure to photograph the confiscated sachet of
shabuis not fatal to thetotality of the evidence for the
prosecution. Such fact is immaterial to the legitimacy
of the buy-bust operation for it is enough that it is
established that the operation was indeed conducted
and that the identity of the seller and drugs subject
of the sale are proved.58
Second, the failure of the forensic chemist to testify
in court did not undermine the case for the
prosecution. The non-presentation of the forensic
chemist in illegal drug cases is an insufficient cause
for acquittal. This is because the corpus delicti in
criminal cases on prohibited drugs has nothing to do
with the testimony of the laboratory analyst.59
The corpus delictiin dangerous drugs cases
constitutes the dangerous drug itself. To sustain
conviction, its identity must be established in that the
substance bought during the buy-bust operation is
the same substance offered in court as exhibit. The
chain of custody requirement performs this function
as it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning
the identity of the evidence are removed.60
Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation
No. 1, Series of 2002 which implements R.A. No.
9165 defines "chain of custody" as follows:
"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 itemshall 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[.]
In People v. Arriola,61 we enumerated the different
links that the prosecution must establish with respect
to thechain of custody in a buy-bust operation, to
wit:(1)the seizure and marking,if practicable, of the
illegal drug recovered from the accused by the
apprehending officer; (2)the turnover of the illegal
drug seized by the apprehending officer to the
investigating officer; (3)the turnover by the
investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic
chemist for laboratory examination; and (4)the
turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug
seized by the forensic chemist to the court.62
Tested against the foregoing guidelines, the Court
finds that the prosecution adequately established
that there was no break in the chain of custody over
the shabuseized from the accused-appellant.
During the buy-bust operation, the accused-
appellant gave PO1 Montuno a small transparent
plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance
in exchangeforthe latter’s paymentof ₱100.00.63
After arresting the accused-appellant, PO1 Montuno
heldon to the confiscated plastic sachet until they
reached the Zamboanga City Police Station where
she marked the same with her initials
"HM".64 Thereat, an inventory of the items seized
from the accused-appellant, including the small
transparent plastic sachet containing white
crystalline substance, was also made in the
Complaint Assignment Sheet signed by the team
leader of Task Force Tumba Droga, PS/Insp.
Garcia.65
Thereafter, PO1 Montuno turned over the marked
plastic sachet to the investigating officer,66 PO3
Gregorio, who in turn, also wrote his initials "EG"
thereon.67
Within the same day, PO3 Gregorio prepared the
Request for Laboratory Examination and personally
brought the marked plastic sachet to the PNP Crime
Laboratory Office where it was received by PO2
Danilo Cabahug.68 Based on her Chemistry Report
No. D-024-2004, forensic chemist, PC/Insp. Diestro
received the plastic sachet with marking EG HM and
examined itscontents which testedpositive for the
presenceof shabu.69
Lastly, the same small transparent plastic sachet
with markings EG HM and the white crystalline
substance it contains were identified in open court
by PO1 Montuno and she confirmed that the
marking she placed at the police station is the same
marking on the plastic sachet presented as evidence
in court, viz:
PROSECUTOR ORILLO:
xxxx
Q How about the shabu, which you said, you bought
from the accused, and can you still identify it?
A Yes, because I placed my marking before turning
it over.
Q Will you describe to this Honorable Court the
condition of this item?
A A very small heat-sealed plastic sachet.
Prosecutor Orillo:
Q I am showing to you, Madam Witness, a small
heat-sealed transparentplastic pack containing
shabu, will you go over this and tell the Honorable
Court what is this, in relation to the shabu that you
bought from the accused, using the marked money?
A This is the very one, because I placed marking on
it, the one I bought from the suspect.
Q And, you said, you placed your marking on it?
A Yes, Sir.
Q When you turned it over to your Police Station?
A Yes, Sir.
Q Where is your marking?
A These letters, HM; this is covered by the masking
tape (witness pointing to the initial "HM", where "H"
is covered by the white masking tape).70
The details by which PO1 Montuno was able to
identify her markings leave no room for doubt that
indeed, the heat-sealed plastic sachet of shabu
presented during trial was the exact item sold to her
by the accused-appellant during the buy-bust
operation. As a matter of fact, even during cross-
examination, PO1 Montuno was able to declare
another distinct feature of the marking she placed on
the confiscated sachet containing shabu amidst rigid
cross-examination by the defense, thus:
ATTY. TALIP:
xxxx
Q If shown to you another very orsmall sachet of
about the same size with the same marking, HM,
would you know the difference between one to the
other?
A Yes, Ma’am, after we placed the marking, we
brought it already to the crime laboratory.
Q Were you the one who brought it?
A No, Ma’am.
Q You have no knowledge of that?
A As far as the purpose of the investigation only.
Q Exactly, that's why I am asking you, because your
knowledge of the sachet only stops there, on the
sachet with marking HM. So, I am asking you, if
shown another set of sachet of about the same size
with the same marking, would you be able to
distinguish one from the other?
A Yes, it depends on the marking.
Q Similar marking, HM; anyone could write those
letters.
A Because I am particular with my marking, because
I wrote it with a blue pilot pen.71
Indeed, POI Montuno's meticulous identification of
the small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet
containing shabu precludes any misgivings of
tampering from the time it was submitted to the
crime laboratory until it was presented in court.
All told, there exists no reason for the Court to
overturn the courts a quo in finding the accused-
appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
offense of illegal sale of shabu as defined and
penalized in Section 5, Article II ofR.A. No. 9165.72
Pursuant to the same provision, the R TC and the
CA were correct in imposing the penalty of life
imprisonment and ₱500,000.00 fine upon the
accused-appellant.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision
dated January 31, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00863-MIN is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.