FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 239235. August 1, 2018.]
LOURDES CALINGASAN y CARAAN ALIAS "ODET",petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 1, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 239235 — Lourdes Calingasan y Caraan alias "Odet" v. People of the Philippines
This Court resolves to GRANT the Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by petitioner Lourdes Calingasan y Caraan, alias "Odet", seeking an additional period of thirty (30) days from the expiration of the reglementary period on May 31, 2018 within which to file said Petition for Review on Certiorari.
This Court has carefully reviewed the allegations, issues and arguments adduced in the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari, and accordingly resolves to DENY the same for: (1) raising factual issues; and (2) failure to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in its October 6, 2017 Decision and May 4, 2018 Resolution in CA-G.R. CR No. 38710. CAacTH
It is worth stressing that a petition for review under Rule 45 is limited only to questions of law. Factual questions are not the proper subject of an appeal by certiorari. In the present petition, petitioner contends that the prosecution failed to establish: (1) the legality of her arrest and the admissibility in evidence of the shabu allegedly seized from her; and the existence of (2) an unbroken chain of custody of evidence since the police officers did not follow the prescribed procedures in handling the seized illegal drug. While these issues may involve questions of law, their resolution also requires this Court to resolve the underlying issue of whether or not evidence exists to hold petitioner criminally liable for said offense. The latter question necessitates a review of the factual findings which is not a function of this Court. It is not the duty of this Court to analyze or weigh all over again evidence already considered in the proceedings below. This Court therefore finds no reason to disturb the factual findings of the trial court which were affirmed by the CA.
In any case, petitioner's argument that her warrantless arrest was unlawful fails to sway. It must be emphasized that petitioner can no longer question the legality of her arrest which should have been raised in a motion to quash the Information filed prior to her arraignment and entry of plea. In this case, petitioner did not file such motion. Thus, any objection on the legality of her arrest was deemed waived.
In addition, petitioner's arrest was reasonable and valid. PO1 Norwin A. Ilustre (PO1 Ilustre), other police officers, and the confidential informant were conducting an anti-illegal gambling operation in Barangay Cuta, Batangas City when they chanced upon petitioner, who was known for her involvement in illegal drug activities. PO1 Ilustre and the confidential informant approached petitioner and asked if they could buy shabu from her. Petitioner kept quiet but reached for her pocket and brought out a pink plastic container holding a transparent plastic sachet containing shabu. PO1 Ilustre, who was in civilian attire, immediately introduced himself as a police officer and arrested petitioner. These series of event shows that petitioner was caught in flagrante delicto of committing the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 for which she was arrested immediately. For committing a criminal offense in the presence of PO1 Ilustre, petitioner's case was an exception to the rule that requires a warrant of arrest.
Moreover, petitioner had failed to sufficiently show that the CA committed reversible error in affirming the trial court's Judgment finding her guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165. The prosecution proved the presence of the following elements of illegal possession of shabu: 1) that the accused was caught in possession of the object identified as prohibited or regulated drug; (2) that such possession was not authorized by law; and (3) that the accused freely and consciously possessed said drug. The arresting officer confiscated from petitioner a sachet containing .30 gram of shabu which she took out of her pocket. Petitioner had no legal authority to possess the shabu. She also made a free and conscious choice to possess the same and show it to the arresting officer. cEaSHC
In view of the positive identification by PO1 Ilustre of petitioner as the offender, her claim that she was in her house when PO1 Ilustre and two other police officers arrived, entered without permission, frisked her and took her money deserves scant consideration. There was also no evidence that PO1 Ilustre had any evil motivation to testify against petitioner. He is therefore entitled to the legal presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions and his testimony is accorded full faith and credence.
Petitioner's contention that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody of evidence fails to sway. After confiscating the shabu from petitioner, PO1 Ilustre marked the same. He was in possession of the seized shabu even as he took petitioner to the barangay hall where a barangay councilor and a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ) signed the inventory of items confiscated from petitioner. PO1 Ilustre then turned over the sachet of shabu to SPO2 Pepito Adelantar (SPO2 Adelantar). After arrival in the police station, SPO2 Adelantar prepared the request for the laboratory examination of the sachet of shabu. He and PO1 Ilustre then proceeded to the police crime laboratory to hand-over the seized sachet of shabu for the examination of the forensic chemist, PSI Herminia Carandang Llacuna (PSI Llacuna). The results of the laboratory test confirmed that the sachet seized from petitioner contained .30 gram of shabu. The sachet of shabu was given to the evidence custodian who delivered the same to the trial court where it was identified during trial by PO1 Ilustre as the same sachet of shabu confiscated from petitioner. Clearly, there was an unbroken link in the chain of custody of evidence.
Petitioner contends that the marking of the seized sachet of shabu should have included the signature of the arresting officer, PO1 Ilustre, and the time and place of the incident. She argues that the sachet of shabu should also be placed inside an evidence bag and turned over to the next officer in the chain of custody. These claims are immaterial since they are not requisites under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 and the rule on the chain of custody of evidence. Moreover, the fact remains that there was no evidence that the sachet of shabu was altered, tampered, contaminated, substituted, exchanged, or planted. IAETDc
Petitioner's argument that a member from the media should have witnessed the inventory of the seized shabu pursuant to Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 must be brushed aside. This provision of law, as amended by RA 10640, provides that the physical inventory of the seized items and photograph of the same shall be conducted in the presence of the accused with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. Here, there is full compliance with said provision of law as shown by the signatures of the barangay councilors and DOJ representative in the Certificate of Inventory of seized items while petitioner was in the barangay hall.
Contrary to the assertion of petitioner, the non-appearance of the DOJ representative and the barangay councilor at the time of the confiscation of the sachet of shabu does not violate Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. This provision of law requires their presence only after the arrest of the drug offender.
Under the law, the penalty for the unauthorized possession of .30 gram of shabu is imprisonment of 12 years and 1 day to 20 years and a fine ranging from P300,000.00 to P400,000.00. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty that must be imposed shall not be less than 12 years and 1 day of imprisonment and a fine of P300,000.00, as minimum, and shall not exceed 20 years of imprisonment and a fine of P400,000.00, as maximum. 1 In the absence of any modifying circumstances, the indeterminate penalty of 12 years and 1 day, as minimum, to 13 years and 1 day, as maximum and a fine of P300,000.00 imposed by the trial court and affirmed by the CA, was in order.
WHEREFORE, this Court resolves to AFFIRM the assailed Decision dated October 6, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CR No. 38710 finding petitioner Lourdes Calingasan y Caraan alias "Odet" GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. CTIEac
SO ORDERED." Leonardo-De Castro, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2559 dated May 11, 2018; Gesmundo, J., designated as Acting Member of the First Division per Special Order No. 2560 dated May 11, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENAActing Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. See Luy v. People, G.R. No. 200087, October 12, 2016, 805 SCRA 710, 723-725.