People v. Mendoza
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On April 24, 2006, Armando Mendoza y Potolin a.k.a. "Jojo" was charged in two separate Informations with violations of Sections 11 and 5 of Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165. In Criminal Case No. 4637, he was accused of unlawfully possessing two teabags of marijuana weighing 0.95g and 0.97g. In Criminal Case No. 4638, he was accused of unlawfully selling, delivering, and giving away four teabags of marijuana weighing 0.96g, 1.11g, 0.97g, and 0.98g, respectively, to poseur-buyer PO2 Elvin E. Ricote for ₱200.00. The prosecution presented evidence that a confidential informant (CI) informed the Provincial Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Group (PAIDSOTG) about Mendoza's drug-selling activities. After surveillance confirmed the information, a buy-bust operation was coordinated with the Philippine Drugs Enforcement Agency (PDEA). On April 20, 2006, PO2 Ricote, acting as the poseur-buyer, met Mendoza in a sari-sari store, introduced by the CI. Mendoza agreed to sell four teabags of marijuana for ₱50.00 each. Mendoza handed the teabags to PO2 Ricote, who then gave the marked money. PO2 Ricote signaled his backup, PO3 Alberto Parena, who arrested Mendoza. Mendoza was informed of his constitutional rights and frisked, yielding the marked money and two additional teabags of marijuana. The seized items and Mendoza were brought to the barangay hall for inventory and then to the police station. The seized items were submitted for laboratory analysis, which confirmed the presence of marijuana. Mendoza denied the charges, claiming he was framed and that money was taken from a jar and pictures were taken of him with items on a table. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 13, Carigara, Leyte, in Criminal Case No. 4637, convicted Mendoza for violation of Section 11 of RA 9165 and sentenced him to twelve (12) years and one (1) day imprisonment and a fine of ₱300,000.00. In Criminal Case No. 4638, the RTC convicted Mendoza for violation of Section 5 of RA 9165 and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of ₱1,000,000.00. The RTC found that Mendoza's denial could not overcome the positive identification by police officers. Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA), in its Decision dated March 24, 2015, affirmed Mendoza's conviction for violation of Section 5 (illegal sale) but acquitted him for violation of Section 11 (illegal possession) due to the prosecution's failure to prove the corpus delicti for the latter charge. The CA found that the two teabags confiscated from Mendoza were not presented in court, and there was no testimony regarding their whereabouts. Mendoza filed a partial appeal to the Supreme Court. The Petition: The accused-appellant raised two assignments of error: (1) the trial court erred in convicting him despite the prosecution's failure to prove the corpus delicti; and (2) the trial court erred in convicting him of the crime charged because the elements for the prosecution for sale of illegal drugs were not established.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the elements of illegal sale of marijuana. Whether the chain of custody of the seized marijuana was broken, thus creating reasonable doubt. Whether the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses created reasonable doubt. Whether the apprehension of the accused was a result of instigation rather than entrapment.
Ruling
The appeal is dismissed. The decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the conviction of Armando Mendoza y Potolin a.k.a. "Jojo" for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the sufficiency of proof for illegal sale of marijuana: The Court affirmed the CA's finding that all elements of illegal sale of marijuana were satisfactorily proven. These elements include the identities of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration, and the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor. PO2 Ricote, the poseur-buyer, positively identified the appellant as the seller, and the marked money was handed as payment. The substance sold was confirmed to be marijuana through laboratory analysis, and it was presented in court and identified by PO2 Ricote based on the markings he made. The Court reiterated that what is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of the corpus delicti. On the chain of custody: The Court found no break in the chain of custody of the seized marijuana. The prosecution established the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit from seizure to presentation in court. PO2 Ricote testified that after the arrest, the appellant and items were brought to the barangay hall for inventory, where a receipt of property seized and a certificate of inventory were executed in the presence of the barangay chairman. PO2 Ricote marked the teabags with "EA-1" to "EA-4." The items were then brought to the police station for blotter. A request for laboratory examination was prepared, and the seized items were received by SPO1 Cesar Cruda and submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory. The Forensic Chemist, P/C Insp. Zata, examined the specimens, which tested positive for marijuana. The items were resealed, marked, and turned over to the evidence custodian. The four teabags of marijuana were presented in court and identified by PO2 Ricote. The Court emphasized that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. On inconsistencies in testimonies: While acknowledging minor inconsistencies between PO2 Ricote and PO3 Parena regarding who made the markings and the exact number of teabags sold, the Court held that these did not necessarily render their testimonies incredible. The Court stressed that PO2 Ricote's testimony as the poseur-buyer was consistent with the documentary evidence, such as the Receipt of the Property Seized and the Certificate of Inventory, which listed four teabags and the marked money. Furthermore, the Forensic Chemist confirmed the markings "EA-1" to "EA-4" on the four teabags submitted for examination. Thus, PO2 Ricote's testimony was corroborated by documentary evidence. On entrapment vs. instigation: The Court found that the apprehension was a typical buy-bust operation, a form of entrapment, not instigation. The Court distinguished between entrapment, where the criminal intent originates in the mind of the accused and law enforcement merely facilitates apprehension, and instigation, where law enforcement lures an otherwise unwilling person into committing a crime. The Court noted that there was prior surveillance confirming Mendoza's illegal activities, and the CI introduced PO2 Ricote as a buyer. Mendoza negotiated the price and consummated the sale. The Court reiterated that a police officer's act of soliciting drugs during a buy-bust operation, or "decoy solicitation," is not prohibited and does not invalidate the operation, especially when there is evidence of the accused's predisposition to commit the crime.
Main Doctrine
The prosecution satisfactorily proved all the elements of illegal sale of marijuana, including the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration, and the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor. The chain of custody of the seized items was also established, preserving their integrity and evidentiary value.