SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 235579. January 28, 2019.]
ROBIN BALLESTEROS Y SABAS, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated January 28, 2019, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 235579 (Robin Ballesteros y Sabas v. People of the Philippines) — After a perusal of the records, this Court resolves to DENY the motion for reconsideration.
Petitioner argues that by virtue of its disquisition in People v. Lim, 1 the Court "made it mandatory for the arresting officers to state in their affidavits why they failed to comply with Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165," 2 and such failure shall result in the acquittal of the accused. Petitioner has misread the Court's ruling.
First, the precedent laid down in People v. Lim does not mean that failure to comply with the procedure provided in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 will result to an automatic acquittal of an accused from criminal liability. What remains controlling is the doctrine the Court has never failed to reiterate in a catena of cases that noncompliance with the regulations is not necessarily fatal as to render an accused's arrest illegal or the items confiscated from him inadmissible as evidence of his guilt. For what is of the utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated items that will be utilized in the determination of the accused's guilt or innocence. 3 Such that, when there is a failure to follow strictly the said procedure, the crime can still be proven, i.e., that the noncompliance was under justifiable grounds or that the shabu taken is the same one presented in court by proof of "chain of custody."
Such is the attendant circumstance in the case at bar. As already discussed, the arresting officers' noncompliance with the requirements is not fatal and did not render petitioner's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible 4 because the identity and integrity of the recovered shabu have been preserved.
Second, a reading of the Appellant's Brief 5 revealed that petitioner failed to specifically cite the alleged noncompliance committed by the arresting officers. The records show that the allegations were but couched in general terms, to wit:
Here, the prosecution failed to adduce justification for the apprehending officer's noncompliance with the requirement of inventory. 6
While petitioner alluded to lapses perpetrated by the arresting officers, he failed to mention what specific actions were actually committed. Indeed, to rule in favor of petitioner would amount to grave abuse of discretion for ruling grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures.
Third, petitioner raised the purported noncompliance and the doctrine laid down in People v. Lim only on appeal. It is a well-settled principle that issues of fact and arguments not adequately brought to the attention of the lower courts will not be considered by the reviewing courts as they cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. 7 Points of law, theories, issues, and arguments not brought to the attention of the trial court are barred by estoppel and cannot be considered by a reviewing court, as these cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. 8
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The September 24, 2018 Resolution of the Court is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018.
2.Rollo, pp. 151-152.
3.People v. Pringas, 558 Phil. 579, 593 (2007).
4.Id.
5.Rollo, pp. 48-69.
6.Id. at 67.
7.Canoy v. People, G.R. No. 214648 (Notice), January 21, 2015.
8.Id.