THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 191895. September 27, 2017.]
AILEEN CAPALAD Y TALADTAD, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated September 27, 2017, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 191895 (AILEEN CAPALAD y TALADTAD, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.) — For review is the decision promulgated on February 2, 2010, 1 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction of the petitioner by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 2, in Manila in Criminal Case No. 07-249364 for the illegal possession of one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing shabu weighing 0.017 gram in violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). 2
The information filed in the RTC alleged:
That on or about December 29, 2006, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused without being authorized by law to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession and under his custody and control one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing ZERO POINT ZERO ONE SEVEN (0.017) gram of white crystalline substance known as "shabu" containing methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 3
The Prosecution relied chiefly on PO2 Almario Alcantara, its lone witness, who testified that at about 11:30 in the evening of December 29, 2006, he and his three fellow officers — all then assigned at Police Station I on Raxabago Street, Tondo, Manila — were on duty patrolling Benita Street in Gagalangin, Tondo, Manila to address the robbery incidents in the area when he spotted the petitioner handing a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance to a certain Bart; that at the time he was only five paces away from her; that he immediately grabbed her right hand and confiscated the plastic sachet; that he placed her under arrest; that Bart was able to escape by running away from the scene of the arrest; that his fellow officers tried to pursue Bart, but did not catch up with the latter; that he then apprised the petitioner of her constitutional rights; that they brought her to the Tondo Medical Center for examination before haling her to Police Station 1, where they turned her over to Officer Said Sotu for investigation and documentation; that he also turned over the sachet containing the confiscated substance to the investigator who marked the sachet with his initials "ACT;" and that he prepared the request for laboratory examination. 4
The RTC dispensed with the testimony of the Forensic Chemist P/Sr. Insp. Elisa G. Reyes because the parties had stipulated during the pretrial that it was she who had conducted the laboratory examination on the seized substance. 5
On his part, the petitioner denied the charge. She insisted that she had been awakened because three police officers had entered her house on December 29, 2006, telling her that they were looking for a person who had run toward her house; that they had arrested and brought her with them to the police station; that at the police station, PO2 Alcantara and PO2 Navoa had demanded from her P10,000.00 in exchange for her release; and that she was subjected to an inquest proceeding. 6
The petitioner's grandmother, Teresita Rosales, corroborated the petitioner's version. Around 5:00 pm on December 29, 2006, Rosales noticed a commotion in front of her house. Police Officers Navoa, Alcantara and Fajardo then entered her house and took the petitioner who was then asleep, and boarded her in a pedicab. Police Officer Alcantara later on demanded P10,000.00 for the release of her granddaughter. Around midnight of the same date, the officers returned to her house and reiterated their demand. Rosales mentioned that she and the petitioner did not have any previous quarrels with the police officers involved. She admitted that despite the extortion, she did not file a complaint against the officer. 7
The RTC convicted the petitioner as charged, disposing:
WHEREFORE, from the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered, finding accused, Aileen Capalad y Taladtad, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, she is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 12 years and 1 day as minimum to 17 years and 4 months as maximum; to pay a fine of P300,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs.
The specimen is forfeited in favor of the government and the Branch Clerk of Court, accompanied by the Branch Sheriff, is directed to turn over with dispatch and upon receipt the said specimen to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper disposal in accordance with the law and rules.
SO ORDERED.8
The petitioner appealed her conviction to the CA. She insisted that the RTC should not have given full weight and credence to the Prosecution's evidence and convicted her despite the failure to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Nonetheless, the CA, finding no compelling reason to reverse the RTC, promulgated its now assailed decision, to wit:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED(sic) and decision of Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 2, in Criminal Case No. 07-249364 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.9
Issue
The petitioner is on her final appeal for the reversal of her conviction. She posits that the Prosecution did not establish a faithful compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165; that the integrity of the dangerous drugs presented as evidence had not been preserved considering that PO2 Alcantara had not marked the confiscated item at the place of the arrest, contrary to the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and of the Implementing Rules of R.A. No. 9165; that there were also no inventory of the seized item and taking of pictures thereof; and that such omissions by the apprehending officers were fatal to the Prosecution's case against her.
Ruling of the Court
The appeal lacks merit.
For a successful prosecution of the offense of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the Prosecution must establish the following essential elements, namely: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object that is identified as a dangerous drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. 10
The Prosecution fully discharged its burden of establishing the elements of the crime charged. PO2 Alcantara apprehended the petitioner for having in her possession and control a transparent plastic sachet containing what appeared to be white crystalline substances. In the ensuing laboratory examination, the substances were certified to be positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. It became her burden to prove during the trial that she had the authority under the law to possess the substances; yet, she did not discharge her burden. At the trial, too, the Prosecution reliably identified the dangerous drugs confiscated from the petitioner; such drugs were indispensable evidence of the corpus delicti. Considering that mere possession of dangerous drugs without authority of law constituted the offense of illegal possession defined and punished by Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165, 11 the petitioner was properly declared guilty of the offense charged beyond reasonable doubt.
We stress the settled rule that the findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses, and its assessment of the probative weight of the testimonies, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings are accorded respect, if not conclusive effect. This is more true when such findings are affirmed by the CA, and they then are generally binding upon us. 12 The Court has no cogent reason to disturb the unanimous factual findings of the CA and the RTC.
The petitioner submits that the Prosecution did not convincingly establish the chain of custody respecting the illegal drugs; hence, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were not duly preserved.
The submission is bereft of merit. Every link in the chain of custody of the confiscated items was properly recorded, from the time of confiscation until their offer as evidence. We agree with the CA and so hold that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were duly preserved. Indeed, a perfect chain of custody may not always be possible. Thus, we have recognized that what Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 requires is a substantial and not necessarily absolute compliance with the requirements of the law on chain of custody. This means that the accused in a drug-related prosecution can still be convicted even without an absolute compliance provided that the State tenders a justifiable ground for excusing the non-compliance with the requirements. Section 21 of the IRR for R.A. No. 9165 specifies that the non-compliance with the requirements for justifiable grounds shall not render such seizures of and custody over said items void and invalid as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer or team. What is essential is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items considering that such items would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. 13
Notwithstanding PO2 Alcantara's failure to mark the seized items immediately after the arrest of the petitioner, the chain of custody remained unbroken. The records show that PO2 Alcantara immediately turned over the seized items to investigator Said Sotu who himself marked the items with his own initials. PO2 Alcantara attested to the making of the markings by Sotu, as well as to the preparation of the request for the laboratory examination. The seized items and the request were received in due course by P/Sr. Insp. Reyes, the forensic chemist who conducted the laboratory examination on the items. Lastly, PO2 Alcantara positively identified the marked specimens during the trial as the items he had confiscated from the petitioner.
In contrast, the petitioner's denial of the charge went unsubstantiated by competent evidence. In order to prosper, her denial needed to be substantiated by strong and convincing evidence. 14 This is because denials are easily fabricated and are the common ploy for those accused of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Further, this Court finds no cogent reason to reverse the RTC's assessment of the police officers' credibility, which was affirmed by the CA. The trial court's assessment, absent the credible demonstration that it was tainted with arbitrariness or with oversight of a fact of consequence or influence, is entitled to great weight, if not conclusive and binding effect on the Court, especially if the assessment was affirmed by the CA. 15
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition for review on certiorari for its lack of merit; AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on February 2, 2010; and ORDERS the petitioner to pay the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 67-79; penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando, with the concurrence of Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao and Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez.
2.Id. at 42-47.
3.Id. at 42.
4.Id. at 69.
5.Id.
6.Id. at 70.
7. Id. at 70-71.
8. Id. at 47.
9.Id. at 79.
10.Id. at 80.
11.People v. Bontuyan, G.R. No. 206912, September 10, 2014, 735 SCRA 49, 61.
12.People v. Prajes, G.R. No. 206770, April 02, 2014, 720 SCRA 594, 601, citing People v. Vitero, G.R. No. 175327, April 3, 2013, 695 SCRA 54, 64-65.
13.People v. Torres, G.R. No. 191730, June 5, 2013, 697 SCRA 452, 466.
14.People v. Andres, G.R. No. 193184, February 7, 2011, 641 SCRA 602, 610; citing People v. Gonzaga, G.R. No. 184952, October 11, 2010, 632 SCRA 551, 569.
15. See People v. Garcia, G.R. No. 200529, September 19, 2012, 681 SCRA 465, 477.