THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 242703. July 8, 2019.]
RICHARD A. ASTRERA, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 8, 2019, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 242703 (RICHARD A. ASTRERA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES). — Petitioner Richard Astrera was charged with illegal possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu in an Information dated September 22, 2011, viz.:
That on or about the 13th day of June 2011, at Barangay Anoling, Municipality of General Nakar, Province of Quezon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously possess methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug, contained in seven (7) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets weighing 0.12 gram, 0.66 gram, 1.53 gram[s], 1.00 gram, 4.64 gram[s], 0.73 gram and 0.99 gram with a total weight of 9.67 gram[s] and the other one (1) with white crystalline substance. 1
Upon arraignment, petitioner entered a plea of "not guilty." Trial then ensued.
Version of the Prosecution
On June 13, 2011, Chief Police Inspector Ruben Ballera of the General Nakar Municipal Police Station formed a search team to implement a search warrant at petitioner's house in Sitio Libis, Barangay Anoling, General Nakar, Quezon. The police team, led by Police Senior Inspector Robert Santos, invited barangay officials Kagawad Ernesto Villanueva, Mamerto Astejada, Jr., and Rizalito Cuerdo to witness the conduct of the search.
When the search team arrived at petitioner's house, they served the search warrant on petitioner who signed the same. The barangay officials were likewise apprised of the contents of the search warrant. Thereafter, the search was conducted by Police Officer (PO) 2 Mhadelick Astejada, Senior Police Officer (SPO) 1 Rommel Valera, accompanied by Kagawad Villanueva, and in the presence of petitioner, his mother, and his sister. The police officers then went to petitioner's room. Inside, PO2 Astejada recovered eight heat-sealed plastic sachets in a coin purse that was found in a drawer. Seven of the recovered sachets contained white crystalline substance while one merely contained residue.
Afterwards, PO2 Astejada called SPO1 Valera to assist him in the inventory. SPO1 Valera marked the confiscated sachets "RAA-01" to "RAA-08" in the presence of petitioner, his mother, his sister, and the barangay officials. On the other hand, Police Officer Panorotan took photographs of the items. Thereafter, SPO1 Valera prepared the Certificate of Seized Evidence with the signatures of the witnesses. Petitioner was arrested as a result of the search and was brought to the police station.
When the team arrived at the police station, SPO1 Valera, who was in custody of the seized items, turned over the evidence to PO3 Norman Astrera who signed the Chain of Custody Form. He then placed the evidence in a locked cabinet in the evidence room to which he had sole access. The next day, PO3 Astrera, together with PO2 Astejada, brought the seized items to Lucena City Crime Laboratory for examination. The confiscated items were personally received by Police Senior Inspector Sotero Rodrigo, Jr., from PO3 Astrera and PO2 Astejada. He then conducted an examination of the contents of all the items which yielded positive results for methamphetamine hydrochloride, also known as shabu.
Version of the Defense
Petitioner denied the charge against him and narrated a different version of the events. He averred that on the date of the incident, he was at the house of his friend, Rudy Pano, watching people play tong-its. Suddenly, police officers on board a van arrived. One of the police officers, who was identified as PO2 Astejada, instructed petitioner not to run. He then searched his body but found nothing. Afterwards, the police officers boarded him to the van and brought him to his sister's house which was the alleged subject area of the search warrant.
At his sister's house, PO2 Astejada again frisked petitioner but still found nothing in his body. The other police officers went inside the house while some stayed outside. Petitioner averred that he waited for an hour outside as the police officers were waiting for the search warrant that was issued against him to be retrieved. His mother and his sister, on the other hand, were in the living room. When the warrant arrived, petitioner was brought inside the living room while the police officers conducted the search. PO2 Astejada and two other police officers went inside his sister's room where they allegedly found plastic sachets. Petitioner was then instructed to come inside the room. The plastic sachets that were already on the bed were shown to him. Thereafter, several barangay officials arrived and pictures were taken. He was also made to sign a document which he did out of fear.
In a Decision 2 dated November 29, 2016, the trial court found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. Petitioner was sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as maximum. Also, he was ordered to pay a fine of PhP300,000.00, to suffer all the accessory penalties, and to pay the costs of the suit.
The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered against accused RICHARD A. ASTRERA finding him GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, this Court hereby imposes upon him the penalty of imprisonment which is Six (6) Years and One (1) Day, as minimum, up to Twelve (12) Years and One (1) Day, as maximum, and to pay a fine of Php300,000.00, to suffer all the accessory penalties and to pay the cost of suit.
The items/specimens subject of this case, the same being illegal per se, are ordered confiscated in favor of the government to be disposed of in accordance with the applicable provision of Section 21 of RA 9165, and its implementing rules and regulations. 3
Aggrieved, petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals.
In its Decision 4 dated April 24, 2018, the Court of Appeals decreed:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated November 4, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Infanta, Quezon, Branch 65, in the case docketed as Criminal Case No. 2011-147-1 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. For Violation of Section 11(2), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, RICHARD A. ASTRERA is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of TWENTY (20) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT and a fine of FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P400,000.00).
The bail bond posted by the accused-appellant is hereby ordered CANCELLED. Accordingly, the Division Clerk of Court is hereby DIRECTED to issue the corresponding Warrant for the arrest of herein accused-appellant. 5
First, the Court of Appeals held that petitioner is barred from questioning whether the search warrant was validly issued since it was raised only when he appealed to the appellate court. Thus, he had waived his right to question its legality. Second, the Court of Appeals ruled that the chain of custody remained to be unbroken despite the presence of procedural lapses. The Court of Appeals expounded that these flaws are not fatal so as to outweigh the positive and categorical testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses who sufficiently established that the alleged prohibited drugs seized from petitioner were the exact items that tested positive for shabu and were eventually presented before the trial court. The Court of Appeals concluded that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence were duly preserved. And third, the Court of Appeals observed that petitioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the specimen examined by the forensic expert is different from the specimen that was presented during the trial. Hence, the presumption that the police officers had regularly performed their official duty prevails.
Petitioner then sought for a reconsideration but his Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the Court of Appeals in its Resolution 6 dated September 19, 2018.
Undeterred, petitioner filed the instant petition for review on certiorari assailing the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals.
After a thorough evaluation of the allegations, issues and arguments raised by petitioner, the Court denies the instant petition. Settled is the rule that factual findings of the trial court and its evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are accorded great respect. It will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is shown that the trial court has overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied any fact or circumstance of weight and substance. 7 In the case at bench, the Court finds no compelling reason to deviate from the findings of both the trial and appellate courts. As correctly observed by both trial and appellate courts, the prosecution has sufficiently established that the chain of custody remained unbroken as proven by the following links:
First, the seizure and marking were done at the place the drugs were found and in the presence of the accused-appellant, the accused-appellant's sister, apprehending police officers and barangay tanods;
Second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officers, SPO1 Rommel Valera (SPO1 Valera) and PO2 Mhadelick Astejada (PO2 Astejada), to the custodian, PO3 Norman Astrera (PO3 Astrera), for safekeeping;
Third, the turnover of the illegal drug by the custodian PO3 Astrera and apprehending officer PO2 Astejada to the forensic chemist, Sr./Insp. Sotero Rodrigo, Jr., for laboratory examination within 24-hours from seizure; and
Fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court. 8
Further, petitioner failed to show any convincing evidence so as to establish that the police officers did not duly perform their official duties in the manner prescribed by law. Other than his bare assertion of frame-up, there was also a dearth of evidence that would indicate that they were driven by ill motive in implicating petitioner to the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Thus, the presumption of regularity in the performance of the police officers' duties must be upheld. 9
Anent the allegation that the search warrant was defective, the Court notes the appellate court's observation that during the pre-trial conference, petitioner admitted to the due execution thereof. Petitioner, therefore, cannot question at this stage the validity of the search warrant since he already waived his right to raise any objection to the same during the trial. Hence, the Court is duty-bound to admit the validity of the search warrant. 10
The Court, however, sees the need to modify the penalty imposed against petitioner. The penalty for the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, with a quantity of five grams or more but less than 10 grams, is imprisonment of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to life imprisonment and a fine ranging from PhP400,000.00 to PhP500,000.00.
In People v. Obias, 11 appellant therein was guilty of illegal possession of 5.921 grams of shabu. Thus, the penalty of twenty (20) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to thirty (30) years, as maximum, and a fine of PhP400,000.00 was imposed. This is because any period in excess of twenty (20) years and one (1) day is still within the range of the penalty.
In conformity with People v. Obias, the proper penalty to be imposed is twenty (20) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to thirty (30) years, as maximum. Considering, however, that petitioner was found to have illegally possessed 9.67 grams of shabu, 3.7 grams more than that found in Obias, the Court deems it proper to increase the fine to PhP500,000.00.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated April 24, 2018 and Resolution dated September 19, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 39571 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS that petitioner is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for twenty (20) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to thirty (30) years, as maximum, and to pay the fine of PhP500,000.00.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 36.
2.Id. at 78-90; penned by Presiding Judge Arnelo C. Mesa.
3.Id. at 90.
4.Id. at 35-50; penned by Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante with Associate Justices Jose C. Reyes, Jr. (now a member of this Court) and Maria Elisa Sempio Diy.
5.Id. at 50.
6.Id. at 53-55.
7.People v. Jubail, 472 Phil. 527, 546 (2004).
8.Rollo, p. 46.
9.People v. Fundales, Jr., 694 Phil. 322, 337 (2012).
10.Demaisip v. Court of Appeals, 271 Phil. 392, 403-404 (1991).
11. G.R. No. 222187, March 25, 2019.