People vs. Tamaño and Gulmatico Case Digest

People of the Philippines vs. Susan M. Tamaño and Jaffy B. Gulmatico

G.R. No. 208643. December 5, 2016

Facts

On July 30, 2004, appellants were charged with Violation of Section 5 (Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs), Section 11 (Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs) and Section 12 (Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drug Paraphernalia), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 in five (5) separate Informations. Upon arraignment on September 13, 2004, both appellants pleaded not guilty to the respective charges against them.

The evidence of the prosecution may be summed up as follows: On July 22, 2004, P03 Gepaneca of the PDEA was informed by a confidential agent that one alias "Susan Kana" was selling shabu in Brgy. Gustilo, Zone 6, Lapaz, Iloilo City. The following day, P03 Gepaneca and the agent conducted a surveillance of the said area wherein the agent pointed to a woman identified as "Susan Kana."

On July 27, 2004, after confirmation from the agent that that they could purchase shabu from "Susan Kana," a buy-bust team was formed by P/Sr. Inspector Rapiz. Around 11 :30 in the morning, the team proceeded to the target area in Brgy. Gustilo. After waiting for a while, appellants arrived. P03 Gepaneca was introduced by the agent to one Susan Kana who turned out to be appellant Susan Tamafio. Then, P03 Gepaneca took the P500 buy-bust money and handed it to appellant Tamafio who, in tum, told appellant Gulmatico to give a sachet of shabu to P03 Gepaneca. After appellant Gulmatico handed to P03 Gepaneca one (1) plastic sachet of shabu weighing 0.220 gram (Exhibits "J-1 "), the latter took off his cap as a signal that the transaction was consummated. At that point, PO1 Aguenido immediately arrested and searched the persons of appellants. The P500.00 bill (Exhibits "M-1 ") was recovered from the right hand of appellant Tamafio; and from her right pocket, a big plastic sachet was recovered containing three (3) plastic sachets of suspected shabu with markings "Susan", "Merriam and "Kelly" (Exhibits "J-2 ", "J-3 ", "J-4") with a total weight of 0.345 gram. Also, four (4) empty plastic sachets and two (2) pieces of disposable lighters (Exhibits "P-1 " and "P-2 "), among others, were recovered from the bag of appellant Tamañio.

On the other hand, POI Aguenido recovered from the right pocket of appellant Gulmatico twenty-four (24) sachets of suspected shabu (Exhibits "K-2" to "K-25 ", "E-2-A ") with a total weight of 8.695 grams and two (2) small sachets of suspected shabu (Exhibits "K-27" and "K-28"); and, from his plastic bag were recovered fifteen (15) empty plastic sachets, one (1) plastic straw (Exhibits "L-1 ") and nine (9) sliced aluminum foils (Exhibits "T-1" to "T-9 "). The seized items were brought to the police officers' office and were accordingly marked by SP03 Calaor and turned over to PDEA Exhibit Custodian SP04 Gafate. The following day, SP03 Calaor took the same items to the Iloilo City Prosecution Office where they were all inventoried. Thereafter, SP03 Calaor submitted some of the items, including the sachets of suspected shabu, to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. P/Insp. Ompoy, Forensic Chemical Officer, examined the sachets, and the contents turned positive to the test for methampheatmine hydrochloride (shabu), while the plastic straw revealed traces of shabu, as stated in Chemistry Report No. D-17304 (Exhibits "E" and "E-3 '').

On May 29, 2007, the RTC rendered a Decision convicting appellants of Violation of Sections 5, 11 and 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. On August 31, 2012, the CA affirmed the appellants' conviction.

Issues:

1. Whether the buy-bust operation conducted by the police was valid.
2. Whether the chain of custody rule was complied.

Rulings:

1. Yes. In every prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu in this case, the following elements must be sufficiently proved to sustain a conviction therefor: ( 1) the identity of the buyer, as well as the seller, the object and consideration of the sale; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the dangerous drugs seized as evidence. 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. Settled is the rule that as long as the police officer went through the operation as a buyer and his offer was accepted by appellant and the dangerous drugs delivered to the former, the crime is considered consummated by the delivery of the goods.

The appellants who were caught in flagrante delicto were positively identified by the prosecution witnesses as the same persons who sold one (I) plastic sachet containing 0.220 gram of white crystalline substance, later confirmed as shabu, for a consideration of P500.00. The said plastic sachet of shabu was presented in court, which the prosecution identified to be the same object sold by appellants. Likewise, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses established how the transaction with appellants happened from the moment the informant introduced P03 Gepaneca, the poseur-buyer, to appellants, as someone interested in buying their stuff, up to the time P03 Gepaneca handed to appellant Tamafio the P500.00 bill and, in turn, appellant Gulmatico handed to him the plastic sachet of suspected shabu, thus, consummating the sale transaction between them. SP03 Calaor caused the plastic sachet of suspected shabu be examined at the PNP Crime Laboratory. The item weighing 0.220 gram was tested positive to the test for methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), as evidenced by Chemistry Report No. D-17304 prepared by P/Insp. Ompoy, the Forensic Chemical Officer. It must be noted that the defense admitted the expertise of P/Insp. Ompoy who examined the drug specimens. Thus, the collective evidence presented during the trial by the prosecution adequately established that a valid buy-bust operation was conducted. Appellants conspired and confederated with each other to sell shabu. Appellant Tamafio received the P500 bill, while appellant Gulmatico handed the shabu to the buyer. Their respective acts lead to no other conclusion except that they have a common design and purpose -to sell shabu.

With respect to the prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following facts must be proved: (a) the accused was in possession of dangerous drugs, (b) such possession was not authorized by law, and ( c) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of dangerous drugs. We also conform to the lower courts' findings that all the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs were adequately proven by the prosecution. When an accused is caught in flagrante delicto in accordance with Section 5(a) of Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, the police officers are not only authorized, but are duty-bound, to arrest him even without a warrant.18 Thus, since appellants' arrest was legal, the search and seizure that resulted from it were likewise lawful.

2. Yes. We find untenable the contention of appellants that since the provision of Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 was not strictly complied with, the prosecution allegedly failed to prove the identity and integrity of the seized prohibited drugs.

In the prosecution of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and, in sustaining a conviction therefor, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must definitely be shown to have been preserved. This requirement necessarily arises from the illegal drug's unique characteristic that renders it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution either by accident or otherwise. Thus, to remove any doubt or uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the seized drug, evidence must definitely show that the illegal drug presented in court is the same illegal drug actually recovered from the accused-appellant; otherwise, the prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under R.A. No. 9165 fails. In this regard, the aforesaid provisions outline the procedure to be observed by the apprehending officers in the seizure and custody of dangerous drugs.

However, under the same proviso aforecited, non-compliance with the stipulated procedure, under justifiable grounds, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items, for as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officers.

In the cases at bar, PO1 Aguenido immediately searched the persons of appellants. From the right pocket of appellant Tamafio, a big plastic sachet was recovered containing three (3) plastic sachets of shabu with a total weight of 0.345 gram. On the other hand, PO I Aguenido recovered from the right pocket of appellant Gulmatico twenty-four (24) sachets of shabu with a total weight of 8.695 grams and two (2) small sachets of shabu. The seized items were brought to the police officers' office and were accordingly marked by SP03 Calaor and turned over to PDEA Exhibit Custodian SP04 Gafate. The following day, SP03 Calaor took the same items to the Iloilo City Prosecution Office where they were all inventoried. Thereafter, SP03 Calaor submitted some of the items including the sachets of shabu to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. P/Insp. Ompoy, Forensic Chemical Officer, examined the sachets and the contents were positive to the test for methampheatmine hydrochloride (shabu). During the trial of the cases, P03 Gepaneca, P/Sr. Inspector Rapiz, PO1 Aguenido, SP03 Calaor, SP04 Gafate and P/Insp. Ompoy testified for the prosecution. They properly identified the Chemistry Repmi and the subject specimens when presented in court. From the foregoing, the prosecution was able to demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated drugs had not been compromised because it established the crucial link in the chain of custody of the seized item from the time it was first discovered until it was brought to the court for examination.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED and the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated August 31, 2012 in CA-G.R. CEB-CR-H.C. No. 00762 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION on the fine imposed in Criminal Case No. 04-59520. For Violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, JAFFY B. GULMATICO is hereby sentenced to suffer a penalty of imprisonment of TWENTY (20) YEARS and ONE (I) DAY TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT and a fine of FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P400,000.00).