3t\epulllic o( tiJe ~~IJilippines

~uprPmr Q[ourt
.itlam! (1

SECOND DIVISION

PEOPLE OF TilE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 184606

P!ainriff~Appe!lee.

Present:

CARPIO, Chairperson.
- versus- BRION,
DELCASTILLO,
PEREZ, and
PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ..

CALEXTO DUQUE FUN DALES, JR., Promulgated:

Accused-Appellant. SEP 0 5 Z91~~J~J;.o
\ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -~X ~-

DECISION

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

1
On appeal is the April 18, 2008 Decision of the Cmn1 of Appeals (CA) in
CA-C.R. CR-H.C. No. 02274, which affirmed the March 18, 2006 Decision 2 or
the Regional ·rrial Court (RTC) of Parafiaque City, Branch 259, in Criminal Case
No. 03-1425. Said RTC Decision declared appellant Calexto Duque Fundales, Jr.
(<.lppelbnt) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II,
Rejlllhlic Act (RA) No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2()()2 and sentenced him to sutler the penalty of lite imprisonment and to pay a
lint' nrtJ'iOO,OOO.OO.

Factual Antecedent.\·

On Decen1ber 8, 2003, appella1:t was charged with violations of Section 51 /t#dft

/

C\ /11//(1. pp. <J9-I 07: permed b) Associate .lust ice .lapar H. Dimaampao and concurred in by Associate
.I u~t i..:c~ \1 e~rio L. Ci uari i'ie~ Ill and Romeo F. Barza.
Ren1rd~. pp. _:286-_:>l) I. penned by .ludge Zosimo \/. Escano
Decision 2 G.R. No. 184606

(illegal sale of dangerous drugs), Section 11 (illegal possession of dangerous

drugs), and Section 12 in relation to Section 14 (illegal possession of drug
paraphernalia) of Article II, RA No. 9165. The Informations read as follows:

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 03-1425

(For violation of Section 5, Article II, RA No. 9165)

That on or about the 2nd day of December 2003, in the City of Parañaque,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, not being lawfully authorized by law, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully[,] and feloniously sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away
to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport Methylamphetamine
Hydrochloride (shabu) in the total weight 0.10 gram, a dangerous drug, in
violation of the above-cited law.

CONTRARY TO LAW.3

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 03-1426

(For violation of Section 11, Article II, RA No. 9165)

That on or about the 2nd day of Dec. 2003, in the City of Parañaque,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess did then and there willfully,
unlawfully[,] and feloniously have in his possession and under his control and
custody Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) weighing 0.02 gram, a
dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.

CONTRARY TO LAW.4

In the charge for illegal possession of drug paraphernalia, appellant was

charged together with Ricardo Duque Fundales (Ricardo), Chulo Duque Fundales
(Chulo), Jerico Cabangon Hugo (Jerico), and Joel Manuel Gomez (Joel). The
Information reads:

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 03-1427

(For violation of Section 12 in relation to Section 14, Article II, RA No. 9165)

That on or about the 2nd day of Dec. 2003, in the City of Parañaque,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, conspiring and confederating together and all of them mutually helping
and aiding one another, being in the proximate company of five (5) persons and
having gathered together, not being lawfully authorized to possess and/or use any

3
Id. at 1.
4
Id. at 9.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 184606

dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously possess
and have under their control any equipment, instrument, apparatus and other
paraphernalia for or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting
or introducing any dangerous drug into the body, in violation of the above-cited
law.

CONTRARY TO LAW.5

During arraignment, the appellant and his co-accused pleaded not guilty.6
Thereafter, the parties agreed to terminate the pre-trial7 and set the case for trial on
the merits.

Version of the Prosecution

On the evening of December 2, 2003, the Chief of the Intelligence Unit of

the Station Anti-Illegal Drug Special Task Force of Parañaque City Police, Police
Superintendent Alfredo Valdez (P/Supt. Valdez), received an information from a
confidential informant about the illegal drug trade operations conducted by the
Fundales brothers. P/Supt. Valdez thus formed a buy-bust team composed of PO1
Ariel Ilagan, PO1 Cesarie Soquiña (PO1 Soquiña), PO1 Emmanuel Salvaloza,
PO3 Regalado Adriatico and CE Ronald Tangcoy. The group then proceeded to
008 Jordan Street, Sitio Nazareth, Barangay San Isidro, Parañaque City for the
buy-bust operation.

The group arrived in the vicinity of the target area at around 9:00 p.m.8
PO1 Soquiña, who was designated as the poseur-buyer, and the informant
proceeded to the house of the appellant.9 The team remained inside their vehicles
about 20 meters away from the target area. The informant then introduced PO1
Soquiña to the appellant as the person interested in buying shabu worth P500.00.10

5
Id. at 10.
6
Id. at 13.
7
Id. at 30.
8
TSN, May 23, 2005, p. 15.
9
Id. at 17.
10
Id. at 19.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 184606

After PO1 Soquiña handed the P500.00 marked money to the appellant,11 the
latter then went inside his house and when he reappeared, he handed to PO1
Soquiña five plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance.12 PO1
Soquiña then lit a cigarette which was the pre-arranged signal to inform the rest of
the team that the buy-bust operation had been consummated.13 Hence, the team of
back-up police officers proceeded to appellant’s house to apprehend him.14 Inside
the house, the police officers saw Jerico, Ricardo, Chulo, and Joel who appeared
to be engaged in a pot session hence they were also arrested along with the
appellant.15

The five sachets of white crystalline substance sold by appellant, together

with one sachet obtained from the group and the drug paraphernalia, were
immediately marked and inventoried. The same were then submitted to the crime
laboratory of the Philippine National Police (PNP) for examination.16 After
conducting a forensic examination, P/Insp. Richard Allan B. Mangalip
(Mangalip), Chief of the Physical Science Section and Forensic Chemical Officer
of the PNP Crime Laboratory, issued Physical Science Report No. D-1402-03S17
confirming that the specimen submitted yielded positive for the presence of
Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride.

Version of the Defense

On December 2, 2003, appellant was at home with Ricardo, Chulo, Joel,

and Jerico repairing a washing machine.18 At around 4:30 p.m., eight persons
suddenly entered his house without warning and permission.19 Aside from their
weapons and handcuffs, there was no indication that the men were police officers

11
Id. at 20.
12
Id. at 21-22.
13
Id. at 22.
14
Id. at 23.
15
Id. at 24.
16
Records, p. 6.
17
Id.
18
Id. at 214; TSN, June 21, 2005, p. 5.
19
Id. at 216-217; id. at 7-8.
Decision 5 G.R. No. 184606

since they were all in civilian clothing.20 Once inside, the men shouted, “Walang
gagalaw, sumama kayo sa amin”.21 They were then brought to the Coastal Police
Station and detained there for two days.22

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

On March 18, 2006, the RTC rendered its Decision convicting appellant in
Criminal Case No. 03-1425 for illegal sale of shabu and dismissing Criminal Case
No. 03-1426 for illegal possession of dangerous drugs and Criminal Case No. 03-
1427 for illegal possession of drug paraphernalia, for insufficiency of evidence.
The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, finding Calexto

Duque Fundales, Jr[.] GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for Violation of
Section 5 Article II RA 9165 he is hereby sentenced to life imprisonment and to
pay a fine of P500,000.00. The case against him under Crim. Case No. 03-1426
for alleged [violation] of Section 11 Art. II RA 9165 is ordered DISMISSED
being considered absorbed in the commission of Violation of Section 5 under
Crim. Case No. 03-1425. The case for alleged Violation of Section 12 in relation
to Section 14 Art. II RA 9165 against accused Calexto Duque Fundales, Jr[.],
Ricardo Duque Fundales, Chulo Duque Fundales, Jerico Cabangon Hugo
and Joel Manuel Gomez is also ordered DISMISSED for insufficiency of
evidence.

The Clerk of Court is directed to prepare the Mittimus for the immediate
transfer of accused Calexto Duque Fundales, Jr[.] to the New Bilibid Prisons,
Muntinlupa City and to forward the specimen subject of this case to the
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for proper disposition.

The Jail Warden of this jurisdiction is hereby ordered to immediately

release JERICO CABANGON HUGO from custody unless there be some
other legal reason to warrant his further detention.

SO ORDERED.23

In finding appellant guilty of illegal sale of shabu, the RTC gave due
consideration to the testimonies of the law enforcement officers.24 It held that “no

20
Id. at 216; id. at 7.
21
Id. at 218; id at 9.
22
Id. at 219-222; id. at 10-11.
23
Records, pp. 290-291. Emphases in the original.
24
Id. at 290.
Decision 6 G.R. No. 184606

ill-motive or [wrongdoing] could be ascribed to the herein police officers with

respect to the buy-bust operation x x x.”25 It gave full credit and weight to the
testimony of PO1 Soquiña who positively identified the appellant as the person
from whom he bought five plastic sachets of shabu during the buy-bust operation.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

On appeal, the CA affirmed the trial court’s Decision disposing as follows:

WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision dated 18 March 2006 of the

Regional Trial Court of Parañaque City, Branch 259, in Criminal Case No. 03-
1425 finding appellant Calexto Fundales, Jr. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of violation of Section 5, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 is hereby
AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.26

Not satisfied with the Decision of the CA, the appellant is now before this
Court adopting the same issues he raised in the appellate court, viz:

I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT.

II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL WEIGHT AND
CREDENCE TO THE EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION AND
DISREGARDING THE DEFENSE OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

III
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE EXISTENCE
OF THE BUY-BUST OPERATION.

IV
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE
PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY IN THE PERFORMANCE OF
OFFICIAL DUTY IN FAVOR OF THE ARRESTING OFFICERS.27

25
Id.
26
CA rollo, p. 107.
27
Id. at 30.
Decision 7 G.R. No. 184606

Issue

The main issue for resolution is whether the appellant is guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of RA No. 9165.

Our Ruling

The appeal lacks merit.

“Conviction is proper in prosecutions involving illegal sale of [dangerous]

drugs if the following elements are present: (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 thereto.”28

This Court is convinced that the prosecution sufficiently discharged the

burden of establishing the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs and in
proving the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

The identity of the buyer and the seller were both established by the
prosecution, appellant being the seller and PO1 Soquiña as the poseur-buyer. The
object of the transaction was the five sachets of Methylamphetamine
Hydrochloride or shabu and the consideration was the P500.00 marked money.
Both such object and consideration have also been sufficiently established by
testimonial and documentary evidence presented by the prosecution. As to the
delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor, PO1 Soquiña caught appellant
in flagrante delicto selling and delivering the prohibited substance during a buy-
bust operation. He also personally handed to appellant the marked money as
payment for the same. Clearly, the above-mentioned elements are present in this
case.

28
People v. Sembrano, G.R. No. 185848, August 16, 2010, 628 SCRA 328, 339.
Decision 8 G.R. No. 184606

Appellant insists that the prosecution failed to establish his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. He argues that the prosecution’s failure to present the forensic
chemist during trial was fatal to its cause. According to the appellant, the
laboratory report has no probative value since the forensic chemist did not attest to
the report’s authenticity.29 In view of this, he points out that the prosecution failed
to establish the corpus delicti.

This Court is not persuaded. We have already ruled in a number of cases

that non-presentation of the forensic chemist in illegal drugs cases is an
insufficient cause for acquittal.30

In People v. Quebral,31 we held thus:

The accused-appellants also point out that, since the chemist who
examined the seized substance did not testify in court, the prosecution was
unable to establish the indispensable element of corpus delicti. But this claim is
unmeritorious. This Court has held that the non-presentation of the forensic
chemist in illegal drug cases is an insufficient cause for acquittal. The corpus
delicti in dangerous drugs cases constitutes the dangerous drug itself. This means
that proof beyond doubt of the identity of the prohibited drug is essential.

Besides, corpus delicti has nothing to do with the testimony of the

laboratory analyst. In fact, this Court has ruled that the report of an official
forensic chemist regarding a recovered prohibited drug enjoys the presumption of
regularity in its preparation. Corollarily, under Section 44 of Rule 130, Revised
Rules of Court, entries in official records made in the performance of official
duty are prima facie evidence of the facts they state. Therefore, the report of
Forensic Chemical Officer Sta. Maria that the five plastic sachets PO3 Galvez
gave to her for examination contained shabu is conclusive in the absence of
evidence proving the contrary. x x x (Citations omitted.)

Thus, it is of no moment that Forensic Chemical Officer Mangalip was not

presented as witness. The non-presentation as witnesses of other persons who had
custody of the illegal drugs is not a crucial point against the prosecution.32 “It is
the prosecution which has the discretion as to how to present its case and it has the

29
CA rollo, pp. 36-37.
30
People v. Sultan, G.R. No. 187737, July 5, 2010, 623 SCRA 542, 556.
31
G.R. No. 185379, November 27, 2009, 606 SCRA 247, 255.
32
People v. Padua, G.R. No. 174097, July 21, 2010, 625 SCRA 220, 235.
Decision 9 G.R. No. 184606

right to choose whom it wishes to present as witnesses.”33 What is important is

that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs are properly preserved
as it had been so in this case.

Besides, it has not escaped our attention that during the proceedings before
the trial court, both the prosecution and the defense agreed to dispense with the
testimony of the forensic chemist. During the trial held on August 19, 2004, the
parties stipulated as regards the probative value of the documents and physical
evidence marked as Exhibits “A” to “C.”34 Exhibit “A” pertained to the letter
request for laboratory examination of the specimens. Exhibit “B” was the
specimen subject to laboratory examination; while Exhibit “C” was the Physical
Science Report No. D-1402-03S submitted by the forensic chemist. The parties
likewise stipulated that it was Forensic Chemical Officer Mangalip who
conducted a qualitative examination on the specimens.

Appellant next claims that the pieces of evidence adduced by the

prosecution were obtained in violation of Sections 21 and 86(a) of RA No. 9165
regarding the proper custody and disposition of seized narcotic substances and
dangerous drugs. He also avers that the prosecution failed to prove that the police
officers coordinated and reported the buy-bust operation with the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency (PDEA).

The provisions of RA No. 9165 cited by the appellant are meant to

safeguard the accused in drugs cases against abuses of law enforcement officers.
They provide for the proper handling of confiscated dangerous drugs in order to
prevent malicious imputations of guilt upon an unsuspecting accused.

However, as correctly ruled by the CA, this Court has already held in
People v. Sta. Maria35 that:

33
People v. Rivera, G.R. No. 182347, October, 17, 2008, 569 SCRA 879, 893.
34
Records, p. 85.
35
G.R. No. 171019, February 23, 2007, 516 SCRA 621, 633-634.
Decision 10 G.R. No. 184606

[T]he failure of the law enforcers to comply strictly with Section 21 was not fatal.
It did not render [the] appellant’s arrest illegal nor the evidence adduced against
him inadmissible.

The law excuses non-compliance under justifiable grounds. However,

whatever justifiable grounds may excuse the police officers involved in the buy-
bust operation in this case from complying with Section 21 will remain
unknown, because appellant did not question during trial the safekeeping of the
items seized from him. Indeed, the police officers’ alleged violations of Sections
21 and 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 were not raised before the trial court but
were instead raised for the first time on appeal. In no instance did appellant least
intimate at the trial court that there were lapses in the safekeeping of seized items
that affected their integrity and evidentiary value. Objection to evidence cannot
be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court to reject the
evidence offered, he must so state in the form of objection. Without such
objection he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal.

As in the above-quoted case, the appellant here did not question during trial
the alleged improper handling of the items seized from him, it being the proper
time for him to raise such objections. We cannot thus accept such belated
argument of the appellant especially so when the integrity of the items seized from
him was shown to have been preserved. Evidence on record shows that the seized
drugs were inventoried. “Slight infractions or nominal deviations by the police
from the prescribed method of handling the corpus delicti should not exculpate an
otherwise guilty defendant.”36

Appellant further claims that the police officers failed to coordinate and
report the buy-bust operation with the PDEA. To appellant, this tainted the
presumption of regularity in the performance of duty of the police officers. He
likewise posits that the arresting officers had insufficient authority to conduct the
said operation.

36
People v. Sultan, supra note 30 at 552.
Decision 11 G.R. No. 184606

Section 8637 of RA No. 9165 deals with inter-agency relations of the PNP
and other law enforcement agencies with the PDEA. It is an administrative
provision designating the PDEA as the lead agency in dangerous drugs cases. We
have already ruled that nothing in RA No. 9165 suggests that it is the intention of
the legislature to make an arrest in drugs cases illegal if made without the
participation of the PDEA.38 In the implementing rules and regulations of RA No.
9165, Section 86(a) clearly states:

(a) Relationship/Coordination between the PDEA and Other Agencies. – The

PDEA shall be the lead agency in the enforcement of the Act, while the PNP,
the NBI and other law enforcement agencies shall continue to conduct anti-
drug operations in support of the PDEA xxx Provided, finally, that nothing in
this IRR shall deprive the PNP, the NBI, other law enforcement personnel and
the personnel of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) from effecting
lawful arrests and seizures in consonance with the provisions of Section 5, Rule
113 of the Rules of Court. (Emphasis supplied)

Suffice it to state that in this case, the danger of abuse that the provision
seeks to prevent is not present. We therefore see no reason why the non-
participation of the PDEA would render the arrest illegal and the evidence
obtained therein inadmissible considering that the integrity and evidentiary value

37
Section 86. Transfer, Absorption, and Integration of All Operating Units on Illegal Drugs into the
PDEA and Transitory Provisions. – The Narcotics Group of the PNP, the Narcotics Division of the
NBI and the Customs Narcotics Interdiction Unit are hereby abolished; however they shall continue
with the performance of their task as detail service with the PDEA, subject to screening, until such
time that the organizational structure of the Agency is fully operational and the number of graduates of
the PDEA Academy is sufficient to do the task themselves: Provided, That such personnel who are
affected shall have the option of either being integrated into the PDEA or remain with their original
mother agencies and shall, thereafter, be immediately reassigned to other units therein by the head of
such agencies. Such personnel who are transferred, absorbed and integrated in the PDEA shall be
extended appointments to positions similar in rank, salary, and other emoluments and privileges
granted to their respective positions in their original mother agencies.
The transfer, absorption and integration of the different offices and units provided for in this
Section shall take effect within eighteen (18) months from the effectivity of this Act: Provided, That
personnel absorbed and on detail service shall be given until five (5) years to finally decide to join the
PDEA.
Nothing in this Act shall mean a diminution of the investigative powers of the NBI and the PNP
on all other crimes as provided for in their respective organic laws: Provided, however, That when the
investigation being conducted by the NBI, PNP or any ad hoc anti-drug task force is found to be a
violation of any of the provisions of this Act, the PDEA shall be the lead agency. The NBI, PNP or any
of the task force shall immediately transfer the same to the PDEA: Provided, further, That the NBI,
PNP and the Bureau of Customs shall maintain close coordination with the PDEA on all drug related
matters.
38
People v. Sta. Maria, supra note 35 at 634.
Decision 12 G.R. No. 184606

of the seized prohibited substances and dangerous drugs have been properly
preserved.

Appellant further asserts that no buy-bust operation took place contrary to

the testimony of the arresting officers. He claims that on the day of the alleged
buy-bust operation, he was at home repairing a washing machine.

Appellant’s contention does not deserve serious consideration. It is well-

settled that the testimonies of the police officers in dangerous drugs cases carry
with it the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions.
“Law enforcers are presumed to have performed their duties regularly in the
absence of evidence to the contrary.”39 In this case, PO1 Soquiña narrated in a
straightforward manner the circumstances leading to the sale of shabu. He
positively and categorically identified appellant as the seller of the drugs. Absent
any clear showing that the arresting officers had ill motive to falsely testify against
the appellant, their testimonies must be respected and the presumption of
regularity in the performance of their duties must be upheld. Appellant himself
testified that he never had any personal encounter with the police prior to his
arrest,40 thus negating any ill-motive on the part of the police officers.

The appellant, on the other hand, offers mere denial as his defense. He
claims that he was merely fixing a washing machine at the time of the arrest and
that the alleged buy-bust operation was fictitious. However, other than his own
self-serving testimony, appellant has not offered any evidence to support this
claim. We have held that “[a] bare denial is an inherently weak defense x x x.”41
Appellant’s denial is unsubstantiated by any credible and convincing evidence.
Between the positive and categorical testimonies of the arresting officers on one
hand, and the unsubstantiated denial of the appellant on the other, we are inclined
to uphold the former.

39
People v. Padua, supra note 32 at 238.
40
Records, p. 226; TSN, June 21, 2005, p. 17.
41
People v. Quigod, G.R. No. 186419, April 23, 2010, 619 SCRA 407, 424.
I kcisio11 13 G.R. No. 184606

All told, this Court thus sustains the RTC's conviction of the appellant for
\ iolation of Section 5, Article II of RA No. 9165, as affim1ed by the CA.

\VHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The April 18, 2008 Decision of

the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02274 is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

Associate Justice

\\'E CONCUR:

tJZ:.__ I
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson

DAUJMJfJ~
ARTURO D. BRION JOS
.--/ssociate Jztstice

ESTELA M. MfRL~RNABF:
Associate Justice
I )ccision 14 G.R. No. 184606

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions itl the above Decision had been reached in
consultation bet(xe the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.

Qtc~
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chai1person

CERTIFICATION

certi1)' that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Di\'ision.

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

ChiefJustice