SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 244832. June 10, 2019.]
ELNIE OSIN COLON, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated10 June 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 244832 (Elnie Osin Colon v. People of the Philippines)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the February 26, 2018 Decision 2 and the January 10, 2019 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB-CR No. 02928 for failure of petitioner Elnie Osin Colon (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in affirming his conviction 4 for violating Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165, 5 otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
Petitioner argued that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody. However, as correctly ruled by the CA, each link of the chain, from the time the items were seized from petitioner, to their turnover to the crime laboratory, and up to their presentation before the trial court, had been sufficiently proven by the clear and categorical testimony of Police Officer 2 Gian Paulo Saberon, and the documentary evidence presented. 6 Furthermore, the CA was also correct in holding that the failure to mark the sachets immediately after seizure at the place of arrest will not result to petitioner's acquittal. 7 It has already been ruled by the Court that the "failure to immediately mark the confiscated items at the place of arrest neither renders them inadmissible in evidence nor impairs the integrity of the seized drugs, as the conduct of marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team is sufficient compliance with the rules on chain of custody." 8 It should be emphasized that factual findings of the trial courts, when adopted and confirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive on this Court, and will generally not be reviewed on appeal, absent any of the recognized exceptions, 9 as in this case. HTcADC
SO ORDERED. (REYES, J., JR., J., on leave.)"
Very truly yours,
MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 11-31.
2.Id. at 91-106. Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo L. Delos Santos with Associate Justices Edward B. Contreras and Louis P. Acosta, concurring.
3.Id. at 117-118.
4. See the Decision dated December 21, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 8, penned by Presiding Judge Macaundas M. Hadjirasul. Id. at 34-43.
5. Entitled "AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on June 7, 2002.
6. See rollo, pp. 100-103.
7. See id. at 103-104.
8. See People v. Quilang, G.R. No. 232619, August 29, 2018. See also People v. Mamalumpon, 767 Phil. 845, 855 (2015), citing Imson v. People, 669 Phil. 262, 270-271 (2011); and People v. Ocfemia, 718 Phil. 330, 348 (2013), citing People v. Resurreccion, 618 Phil. 520, 532 (2009).
9. See Insular Investment and Trust Corporation v. Capital One Equities Corporation, 686 Phil. 819, 830-831 (2012).