SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 204903. March 6, 2013.]
RODRIGO BOADO y CARIO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 06 March 2013 which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 204903 (RODRIGO BOADO y CARIO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES). — Before us is a petition for review on certiorari 1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, filed by Rodrigo Boado y Cario (petitioner), assailing the decision 2 dated May 30, 2012 and the resolution 3 dated November 20, 2012 issued by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 32913. The CA affirmed the decision 4 dated September 16, 2009 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 50, Villasis, Pangasinan, convicting the petitioner of violation of Section 11 (3), Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
The Facts
The facts of the case, as found by the RTC, are as follows:
On or about 9:30 p.m. of July 22, 2006, Joel Evangelista, the security guard on duty at the Villasis, Pangasinan public market, reported to the Villasis Police Station of the presence of a suspicious-looking van parked at the eastern shoulder of the Maharlika Highway in Barangay Bacag, Villasis, Pangasinan.
Immediately thereafter, Chief of Police Jimmy Agtarap dispatched Senior Police Officer (SPO) 4 Onofre Madrid, SPO2 Reynaldo Cabading and Police Officer (PO) 2 Vicente Lagan to the scene on board a police patrol car. The area of the parked van was approximately one (1) kilometer away from the police station. HcSETI
Upon arriving at the area, the police officers immediately spotted the van and parked behind it. A distinct smell, suspected to be marijuana smoke, emanated from the van. PO2 Lagan and SPO4 Madrid approached the driver's and passenger's sides of the van, respectively. Inside the van, they saw the petitioner smoking the suspected marijuana. PO2 Lagan then confiscated the substance being smoked by the petitioner and those wrapped in a newspaper found beside him, and marked the confiscated items on the scene. The confiscated items and the petitioner, who was informed of his constitutional rights, were brought to the police station.
At the police station, SPO1 Diosdado Macaraeg, the desk officer on duty, prepared the requests for the laboratory examination of the confiscated items and for the petitioner's drug test and medical examination. SPO4 Madrid forwarded the request for laboratory examination and the confiscated items to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory in Urdaneta City. Also, he prepared and submitted a spot incident report to the PNP Provincial Director. ICTcDA
The results of the laboratory examination confirmed that the "one partially burned suspected marijuana cigarette weighing 0.7 [gram] and suspected dried marijuana fruiting tops wrapped in a newsprint weighing 3.7 grams" confiscated from the petitioner were marijuana, a dangerous drug. 5
In its decision, 6 the RTC found the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section 11 (3), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and sentenced him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and one (1) day, as maximum, and to pay a fine of three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00).
On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC's decision. The petitioner moved for reconsideration but the CA denied his motion, hence, the present petition for review on certiorari filed with this Court.
The Petition
In his petition, the petitioner contends that the CA erred in giving weight and credence to the prosecution's version of the incident, effectively disregarding his testimony, and in finding for his guilt despite the broken chain of custody of the marijuana allegedly confiscated from him.
Our Ruling
We find the petition to be without merit.
We can only entertain questions of law in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The arguments raised in the present petition clearly show that the petitioner raised questions of fact, particularly on the appreciation of the prosecution's evidence and in showing an unbroken chain of custody of the confiscated marijuana, which are not proper subjects of a Rule 45 petition. aDACcH
The petitioner failed to show any extraordinary circumstance to justify a departure from the established doctrine that factual findings of the RTC, especially when affirmed by the CA, are conclusive on the Court and will not be disturbed on appeal. 7
Technicalities aside, we cannot agree with the petitioner's contentions. We find credible the testimonies of PO2 Lagan and SPO4 Madrid in positively identifying the petitioner as the person caught in possession of and smoking marijuana inside the parked van. 8 The facts narrated by these police officers are consistent with the physical and documentary evidence on record. 9 ACIDSc
Also, we find that the totality of the evidence presented by the prosecution leads to an unbroken chain of custody over the confiscated marijuana. Based from the prosecution's testimonial evidence, PO2 Lagan was the one who confiscated the marijuana from the petitioner, marked them with the letters "VML" on the scene, and forwarded them to SPO4 Madrid. SPO4 Madrid then instructed SPO1 Macaraeg to prepare the request for laboratory examination of the confiscated items. SPO2 Roberto Ramos Mones of the PNP Urdaneta Crime Laboratory received the request and the confiscated items, entered said request in the logbook, and forwarded the request and the confiscated items to Forensic Chemist and Police Inspector (P/Insp.) Dennis Burguillos, who then marked the specimens. P/Insp. Burguillos was presented in court to verify his markings on the confiscated items. 10
We, likewise, affirm the penalty imposed on the petitioner as we find it to be within the range provided under the law. 11
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMSthe May 30, 2012 decision and the November 20, 2012 resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 32913.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 11-13.
2.Penned by Associate Justice Angelita A. Gacutan, and concurred in by Associate Justices Magdangal M. de Leon and Francisco P. Acosta; id. at 28-40.
3.Id. at 42-43.
4.Id. at 60-71; penned by Judge Manuel F. Pastor, Jr.
5.Chemistry Report No. D-129-2006-U, prepared by Police Inspector Dennis Burguillos, Forensic Chemical Officer of the Urdaneta City PNP Crime Laboratory; id. at 61.
6.Supra note 4.
7.Pascual v. Coronel, G.R. No. 159292, July 12, 2007, 527 SCRA 474, 483.
8.Rollo, pp. 32-33.
9.Id. at 33.
10.Id. at 36-37.
11.R.A. No. 9165, Section. 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. — . . .
xxx xxx xxx
(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu", or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy", PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or less than three hundred (300) grams of marijuana.