SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 207934. September 11, 2013.]
ANTHONY MASAJO Y NAVAREZ, petitioner,vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 11 September 2013 which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 207934 (Anthony Masajo y Navarez v. People of the Philippines).
For resolution of the Court is the appeal filed by Anthony Masajo y Navarez from the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated 22 January 2013 in CA-G.R. CR No. 33821 which affirmed the Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 32 of San Pablo City in Criminal Case Nos. 15885-SP and 15886-SP finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 11 (Possession) and 12 (Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs), Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
The Antecedents
Petitioner was charged with violation of Sections 11 and 12 of Republic Act 9165, for possessing 0.08 gram of Shabu as well as equipment or paraphernalia used and intended to be used for sniffing shabu in two separate Informations docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 15885-P and 15886-P. TEcADS
The facts, on account of the prosecution, show that on 11 July 2005, the PNP of Sto. Tomas, Batangas, received information that appellant, who then had a standing warrant, was hiding at Barangay 4, Alaminos, Laguna. Upon receipt of the information, police operatives proceeded to the place and coordinated with the informant to confirm the report. Arriving at the area, PO1 Lunar went at the back of appellant's house where, through a wooden window, saw him sniffing shabu while seated in front of a table. PO1 Lunar entered the door of the kitchen which alerted the appellant who ran toward the other house where he was caught by the police. The warrant was then served upon him.
When appellant's room was searched, the PNP found on top of the table the following items: one (1) small plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance; one (1) plastic sachet with traces of shabu;one (1) piece of used aluminum foil; one (1) piece of broken glass tooter; and three (3) disposable lighters.
The police operatives then brought appellant and the confiscated paraphernalia to the PNP Alaminos Station and then to the Sto. Tomas PNP Station. While at the latter station, PO1 Lunar and PO2 Malapascua placed their markings on the seized items and prepared an inventory of the same before turning it over to PO3 Belandres, the duty investigator. Belandres, in turn, brought the items to the PNP Crime Laboratory, Regional Office 4 at Camp Vicente Lim, Canlubang, Calamba for examination. Thereupon, Belandres handed the same to Forensic Chemist Donna Villa Huelgas who conducted a qualitative examination on all the items resulting in the issuance of the Chemistry Report No. D-757-05, stating that: "she had found the plastic sachet with crystalline substance, the plastic sachet with traces of white crystalline substance and the used aluminum foil with traces of white crystalline substance, all positive for shabu." TCADEc
Appellant's defense, on the other hand, shows that in the afternoon of 11 July 2005, at about 5:30 o'clock in the afternoon, he was having dinner in the house of his live-in partner when someone forcibly kicked the back door of their house. Five armed men entered and aimed their guns at him, searched the house for 25 minutes and were able to find only an aluminum foil at the kitchen and a disposable lighter in his pocket. He claimed that there was no warrant of arrest shown to him; nonetheless, he was still brought to the police station of Alaminos, Laguna and later to the PNP of Sto. Tomas.
On 23 September 2010, the RTC rendered a Joint Decision finding petitioner guilty of the separate crimes charged under the two Informations.
On appeal to the CA, the said decision was affirmed. Hence, this petition arguing that:
1) The CA gravely erred in convicting the petitioner notwithstanding the apprehending team's non-compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165;
2) The CA erred in affirming the petitioner's conviction for the crimes charged despite the prosecution's failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt; DcAaSI
Mainly, petitioner argues that the prosecution failed to prove not only the elements of the offenses of sale and possession of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride under RA 9165, but also to comply with the indispensable requirement of proving the corpus delicti, in light of attendant substantial gaps in the chain of custody of the seized drug and paraphernalia. He contends that the prosecution failed to prove compliance with the statutory safeguards provided for in RA 9165 which raised doubts on the integrity and authenticity of the evidence subjected to laboratory examination and those which were presented in court. Likewise, he contends that the markings made in the seized items were not done at the scene of the crime as mandated by law.
Our Ruling
We deny the petition.
Well-settled is the rule that findings of fact of the trial court are accorded great respect, even finality when affirmed by CA, in the absence of any clear showing that facts and circumstances of weight or substance that could have affected the result of the case have been overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied. 3 Such exceptions warranting reversal of the findings of the lower courts do not exist in this case.
The petition at bench reiterates the same issues raised before the CA which the latter court had squarely passed upon. The CA, in explaining the unbroken chain of custody, painstakingly examine the evidence anew to determine the alleged procedural lapses in preserving the identity and integrity of the confiscated specimen which cast doubt to the corpus delicti of the crime. Giving credence to testimonial evidence of the prosecution, the CA pointed out that although the prescribed procedure under Section 21 (1), Article II of RA 9165 was not strictly complied with, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved by the apprehending team through the following circumstances: a) The First link. The records would show that the white crystalline substance (shabu) and the drug paraphernalia were immediately marked at the PNP Sto. Tomas Police Station by PO2 Malapascua and PO1 Lunar; that PO1 Lunar marked the crystalline substance, the tooter, the used and unused aluminum foils with his initials "AIL";and that, in turn, PO2 Malapascua marked and retrieved the plastic sachet with white crystalline substance with his initials "JRFM";b) The Second link. The records also disclosed that, after the respective markings were made, PO1 Lunar took custody of the items during the entire time the team was at the Alaminos Police Station, up to the time they reached the Sto. Tomas Police Station where PO1 Lunar turned over to SPO3 Juan Gonzales for investigation; and that the latter handed the seized items to PO3 Edwin Belandres; c) The Third link. PO3 Edwin Belandres testified that he was the one who delivered the request for laboratory examination and the specimen to the PNP Crime Laboratory; that he turned over the specimen to PO1 Randy B. Legaspi who received them on July 12, 2005; and that upon receipt of the specimen PO1 Legaspi stamped the request and gave it to Police Sr. Inspector Donna Villa P. Huelgas, the forensic chemist; and d) The Fourth link. The prosecution and defense stipulated that the request for laboratory examination was delivered by PO3 Edwin Belandres and that it was Police Sr. Inspector Donna Villa P. Huelgas, who conducted the laboratory examination; that the prosecution witnesses also testified that all the items that were brought to court were the same items that were confiscated from the accused-appellant and that these were subsequently delivered to the PNP Laboratory for examination; and that, in the course of their providing testimonial evidence, each of the seized items were identified and the markings and initials that they placed on the items were duly noted as well. 4 IHAcCS
Thus, as correctly stated by the CA, the chain of custody remained unbroken, thereby precluding the possibility that a person, not related in the chain of custody, ever gained possession of the seized evidence.
Further, petitioner, in raising the arguments of failure to comply with the requirements of RA 9165 and Section 21 of its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR), specifically the photographing of the seized items and conduct of inventory in the presence of a DOJ representative, the media or barangay officials, patterned his ratiocination to our ruling and/or disquisition in People v. De Guzman, 5 where we reversed the conviction of appellant De Guzman on the basis of non-compliance with the above-mentioned requirements.
Petitioner, however, overlooked the justifiable grounds for non-compliance thereof. As we have declared in De Guzman case, "non-compliance with the procedure shall not render void and invalid the seizure and custody of the drugs only when: (1) such non-compliance is attended by justifiable grounds; and (2) the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team." In this case, the circumstances appreciated by the lower courts fall within the scope of the proviso which provides acceptable grounds for non-compliance with the said IRR. As the CA clearly stated in its discussion of the first, second and third links in the chain of custody, the integrity of the seized items have been properly preserved.
WHEREFORE,the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 22 January 2013 in CA-G.R. CR No. 33821 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. AcHEaS
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Penned by Associate Stephen C. Cruz with Associate Justices Magdangal M. De Leon and Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez concurring. Rollo,pp. 35-61.
2.Id. at 86-94.
3.People v. De Guzman,G.R. No. 186498, 26 March 2010, 616 SCRA 652, 657 citing Valdez v. People,563 Phil. 934, 945 (2007).
4.Rollo,pp. 43-44.
5.People v. De Guzman, supra note 3.