SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 244791. June 10, 2019.]
GERALD ESPELETA y MAGTIBAY A.K.A. "GERRY", 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. 244791 (Gerald Espeleta y Magtibay a.k.a. "Gerry" v. People of the Philippines)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the July 27, 2018 Decision 2 and the February 8, 2019 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 39941 for failure of petitioner Gerald Espeleta y Magtibay a.k.a. "Gerry" (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding his conviction for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, defined and penalized under Section 11, of Republic Act No. 9165, 4 otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
As correctly ruled by the CA, the prosecution had established all the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, 5 as it was shown that through a valid search warrant, 6 the apprehending officers found petitioner to be possessing shabu inside his house without any authority. 7 In this regard, the CA, also correctly ruled that the apprehending officers complied with the chain of custody rule, thereby preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs seized from petitioner. 8 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. 12-29.
2.Id. at 33-45. Penned by Presiding Justice Romeo F. Barza with Associate Justices Stephen C. Cruz and Carmelita Salandanan Manahan, concurring.
3.Id. at 48-50.
4. 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.
5. "For illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be established: '[1] the accused was in possession of dangerous drugs; [2] such possession was not authorized by law; and [3] the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of dangerous drugs.'" (People v. Ismael, G.R. No. 208093, February 20, 2017, 818 SCRA 122, 132, citing Reyes v. CA, 686 Phil. 137, 148 [2012]).
6. A long-standing rule is that a description of the place to be searched is sufficient if the officer with the warrant can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place intended and distinguish it from other places in the community. Any designation or description known to the locality that points out the place to the exclusion of all others, and on inquiry leads the officers unerringly to it, satisfies the constitutional requirement. (People v. Posada, 768 Phil. 324, 330 [2015], citing Yao, Sr. v. People, 552 Phil. 195, 220-221 [2007].)
7. See rollo, pp. 39-41.
8. See People v. Baradi, G.R. No. 238522, October 1, 2018. See also rollo, pp. 41-42.