PEOPLE v. TRIPOLI

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RICHARD F. TRIPOLI and ROMULO B. IMPAS

G.R. No. 207001

June 7, 2017

Facts:

On or about the 27th day of January 2003, at about 1 :00 AM., in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this• Honorable Court, the said accused conniving and confederating together and mutually helping with (sic) each other, with deliberate intent and without being authorized by law, did then and there sell, deliver, or give away to a poseur buyer the following: two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic packets containing white crystalline substance, having a total weight of 5.64 grams, locally known as "SHABU", containing methyl amphetamine (sic) hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.

Accused-appellants pleaded not guilty upon arraignment.4 Trial on the merits ensued.

The prosecution's evidence would evince that on January 26, 2003, a team of policemen from the Criminal Investigation and Intelligence Branch . (CIIB), Cebu City Police Office, were briefed regarding a buy-bust operation to be conducted against Tripoli. P02 John Pempee Arriola (P02 Arriola) and the informant were designated as poseur-buyers and given two pieces of one hundred peso bills. The buy-bust money was placed in a package together with the "bodol" money and its serial numbers recorded in the police blotter.

At around 8:00 p.m., P02 Arriola informed SPOl Del Socorro thru text message that Tripoli will be going out of the motel to get the shabu and will return before 1:00 a.m. When Tripoli left, SPO 1 Del Socorro and P02 Olmedo entered room 315 to join P02 Arriola and the informant.

Shortly before 1:00 a.m., they heard a knock on the door. SPOl Del Socorro and P02 Olmedo hid inside the bathroom leaving the door slightly open so they could see who would enter the room and easily hear the conversation. SPOl Del Socorro and P02 Olmedo saw Tripoli enter the room with Impas. Impas handed the two plastic packets of shabu to P02 Arriola, who gave "bodol" money to Tripoli. SPO 1 Del Socorro and P02 Olmedo went out of the bathroom and immediately arrested the two accused after a short scuffle. The marked buy-bust money and "bodol" money were recovered from Tripoli. They were apprised of their constitutional rights and were brought to CIIB office at Camp Sotero Cabahug.

The two plastic packets were turned over to P03 Filomena Mendaros (P03 Mendaros), who marked both with the initials of the accused-appellants (RT/Rl-BB-1 and RT/RI-BB-2). The Chief of CIIB Police Senior Inspector Rodolfo Calope Albotra, Jr. requested the PNP crime laboratory to conduct an examination of the contents of the two plastic packets• for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. P02 Dhonel Salazar (P02 Salazar) delivered the request and the confiscated two plastic packets to the PNP crime laboratory which were received by P03 Rias. P/Inspector Patriana conducted a laboratory examination and issued Chemistry Report No .. D-139-2003 stating that the two plastic packets marked RT/Rl-BB-1 • and RT/Rl-BB-2 contained a total weight of 5.64 grams of white crystalline substance which tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.

For the defense, Tripoli declared that he worked as an asset for his former classmate P02 Salazar. On January 26, 2003, P02 Salazar asked him to go to the CIIB Office where he found SPO 1 Del Socorro, P02 Arriola, P02 Olmedo and P02 Salazar discussing a buy-bust operation to be conducted on a certain "Erwin". He was told to join the buy-bust operation and was tasked to convince Erwin to sell shabu to P02 Arriola. He knew Erwin because he accompanied Erwin's friend Patoc the day before to conduct a test-buy in Erwin's house.

He accompanied P02 Arriola, but instead of going to Erwin's house at the Ponce Compound, they proceeded to Queensland Motel. They checked-in and Tripoli was instructed to go to Ponce Compound and inform Erwin that a shabu buyer was waiting for him in Queensland Motel. He and Erwin went back to the Queensland Motel and after negotiations, P02 Arriola gave the PhPl0,000 "bodol" money, including the buy-bust money, to Erwin. Tripoli was instructed to accompany Erwin to the latter's house to get the shabu. Erwin asked hjm to wait for him as he would get the shabu elsewhere. Trip.oli waited for several hours for Erwin until a stranger, whom he later knew as Romulo Impas (Impas ), arrived and warned him that his life was in danger and that Erwin will not be coming back. Impas then accompanied him back to Queensland Motel and reported what happened. Tripoli and Impas returned to the CIIB Office, where they were interrogated and arrested.

Impas testified and corroborated Tripoli's testimony. He heard from the bystanders in the Ponce Compound that they will hurt Tripoli, whom they believed was a police asset. Impas approached Tripoli and warned him that his life was in danger. He then offered to accompany Tripoli back to Queensland Motel. They entered the room and saw two people inside. There was a knock at the door by someone who identified himself as a police officer. Tripoli was asked where the PhPl0,000 was, to which he replied, that it was with Erwin. Thereafter, they were brought to the police station where they were interrogated. The RTC found merit in the prosecution's witnesses' testimonies. It also noted that though the prosecution failed to present the "bodol" money,. it held that "delivery", which is one of the acts punishable in Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, is present in the instant case. The CA sustained the conviction of the accused-appellants.

Tripoli filed this appeal before Us, reiterating his arguments that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt because the informant was not presented in court; the corpus delicti and the chain of custody was not duly established; the presumption of innocence prevails Over the presumption of regular performance of official duties; the chemistry •report does not prove the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt; and the accused-appellant was not properly informed of his constitutional rights.

Issue:

Whether or not both accused RICHARD TRIPOLI Y FALCON and ROMULO IMPAS Y BALCONAN guilty of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.

Ruling:

We find no merit in the appeal.

The essential elements for illegal sale of shabu are as follows: (a) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for the thing. The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money consummate the illegal transaction. These elements are present in this case.

Accused-appellants' argument that the failure to present the informant is fatal to the prosecution's cause fails to impress. There is no need to present the informant/poseur-buyer/police asset.

First, the presentation of an informant as witness is not regarded as indispensable to the success of a prosecution of a drug-dealing accused. As a rule, the informant is not presented in court for security reasons, in view of the need to protect the informant from the retaliation of the culprit arrested through his efforts. Thereby, the confidentiality of the informant's identity is protected in deference to his invaluable services to law enforcement. Only when the testimony of the informant is considered absolutely essential in • obtaining the conviction of the culprit should the need to protect his security be disregarded.

Second, the identities of the accused-appellants were also confirmed by SP02 Del Socorro and P02 Olmedo. While the Court sanctions an acquittal for failure to present the informant, it does so when the police officers involved had no personal knowledge of the transaction. Here, the witnesses were inside the hotel room where the sale had transpired. Although they were in the bathroom when the accused-appellants entered the room, they left the door ajar so that they could hear and see what was happening. There was, therefore, no need for the presentation of the informant since the other witnesses presented had personal knowledge of the transaction as well.

With regard to the accused-appellants' argument that Section 21 of RA. 9165 was ignored, We find that the requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165 were substantially complied with.

The chain of custody requirement ensures the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items such that doubts as to the identity of the evidence are eliminated. "To be admissible, the prosecution must show by records or testimony, the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit at least between the time it came into possession of the police officers and until it was tested in the laboratory to determine its composition up to the time it was offered in evidence."

As the dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of both offenses, its identity and integrity 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.

This means that on top of the elements of possession or illegal sale, the fact that the substance [possessed or illegally sold], in the first instance, is the very substance adduced in court must likewise be established with the same exacting degree of certitude as that required sustaining a conviction. Thus, the prosecution must be able to account for each link in the chain of custody over the dangerous drug, from the moment it was seized from the accused up to the time it was presented in court as proof of the corpus dellcti. The chain of custody requirement "ensures that unnecessary doubts respecting the identity of the evidence are minimized if not altogether removed."

WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. The Decision dated March 28, 2012 of the Court of Appeals (CA), Cebu City in CA-G.R. CEB-CR-H.C. No. 00979, which affirmed the March 31, 2008 Decision of the RTC of Cebu City, Branch 10, in Criminal Case No. CB-65243, convicting accused-appellants Richard F. Tripoli and Romulo B. Impas for violation of Section 5, Article II, RA 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, is hereby AFFIRMED.