THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 229154. July 5, 2017.]
NOEL MENDOZA y RAFANAN, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated July 5, 2017, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 229154 (Noel Mendoza y Rafanan, Petitioner, v. People of the Philippines, Respondent). — The Court INFORMS petitioner that he or his authorized representative may claim from the Cash Disbursement and Collection Division of this Court the excess payment of the prescribed legal fees in the amount of P470.00 under O.R. No. 0171265 dated August 6, 2016.
By its decision promulgated on June 21, 2016, 1 the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the judgment of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 29, in San Fernando City, La Union rendered on October 7, 2014 convicting him of a violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (ComprehensiveDangerousDrugsActof2002), and sentencing him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment for 12 years and one day, as minimum, to 14 years and nine months, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P300,000.00. 2
The petitioner anchors his present appeal on the contention that the findings and rulings of the RTC and the CA to the effect that the submission by Forensic Chemist Police Sr. Inspector (PSI) Maria Teresa Amor C. Manuel of her chemistry report and the items relevant thereto to one Luciano Trinidad who did not testify during the trial cast doubt on the integrity and evidentiary value of the marijuana ultimately presented in court as evidence of the corpusdelicti; and bared the possibility that the marijuana presented in court was different from that seized from him, thereby indicating that the chain of custody was broken.
The appeal lacks merit. SDHTEC
Although the proof of a perfect and unbroken chain of custody is always ideal in prosecutions of drug-related offenses, the realities and variables of actual police operations usually make an unbroken chain of custody physically and legally impossible. 3 Thus, the law itself — Republic Act No. 9165 and its implementing rules and regulations — recognizes such impossibility, and has provided that the non-compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 does not render void and invalid the seizure and custody of confiscated items as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the items are properly preserved. 4
In this case, the RTC and the CA considered the requirement for an unbroken chain of custody substantially complied with. We agree with them. The seized items were inventoried by PO3 Rodel Lopez at the place of the arrest and seizure, and in the presence of the petitioner. PO1 Rene P. Ebreo wrote his initials "RPE" and the date "1-31-13" on the plastic sachet containing the substance. Thereafter, the arresting team turned over the petitioner and the confiscated items to SPO4 Danilo Flores. Photographs were taken of the turn-over and the signing of the inventory receipt at the Sub-Station of the San Juan Police Station in La Union. PO2 Ebreo and PO3 Lopez themselves then personally brought and turned over the small plastic sachet containing the marijuana fruiting tops for examination to the PNP Crime Laboratory Regional Office 1 in Parian, San Fernando City, La Union. The sachet was received by PO3 Marie June Milo. It was PSI Manuel who received the request for the laboratory examination of the marijuana fruiting tops. According to PSI Manuel's Final Chemistry Report No. D-009-2013, the substances tested positive for the presence of marijuana, a dangerous drug. HSAcaE
During the trial, PO1 Ebreo identified the transparent plastic sachet containing the marijuana when it was presented to him, and asserted that the same was what he and his team had recovered from the petitioner. The sachet bore the initials of PO1 Ebreo and the date "1-31-13." PO3 Milo confirmed the same sachet as the one she had received from PO1 Ebreo for laboratory examination. On her part, PSI Manuel recalled that the same plastic sachet was turned over to her by PO3 Milo; and that she then examined the contents, noting both the case number "D-009-2013" and her signature on the item as well as the distinguishing marks she had then placed on the same.
The chain of custody requirement is essential to ensure that doubts regarding the identity of the evidence are removed through the monitoring and tracking of the movements of the seized drugs from the accused, to the police, to the forensic chemist, and finally to the court. 5 Any doubt on the identity of the evidence was already removed by the positive identification of the seized item in court by the police officers who had handled it from its seizure up to the time it was presented in court.
We also find untenable the claim of the petitioner that the item presented in court, being bulky, could not have fit into the pocket of his short pants. The RTC rebuffed him in that regard, however, and observed that the item presented as evidence had measured only 2x3 inches, and was thus small enough to be placed even inside a small pocket. 6 We accord credence to the RTC, for the factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the CA, are conclusive on this Court.
The petitioner insists that the police officers substituted what had been seized from him with another. The insistence is implausible. What the RTC said in respect of such argument, that it "does not find any logical reason why the Police Officers would change the item since the penalty imposable on the possession of a .001 gram of marijuana and on 8.34 grams of the same stuff is the same," 7 was undeniable, and should instead be reiterated. AScHCD
With the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized marijuana being preserved, and the chain of custody being unbroken, the conviction must be upheld. Indeed, the petitioner himself admitted that marijuana had been actually confiscated from him, viz.:
COURT:
Q: Are you confirming that something was confiscated from you?
A: Yes, Your Honor, there was.
Q: But you are saying that it was replaced with something?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: What was actually confiscated from you?
A: "Maliit lang po nakalagay sa plastic".
Q: But what is that?
A: Marijuana, Your Honor. 8
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on June 21, 2016 by the Court of Appeals; 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. 10-20; penned by Associate Justice Carmelita Salandanan-Manahan, with the concurrence of Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao and Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante.
2.Id. at 58-62; penned by RTC Presiding Judge Asuncion F. Mandia.
3.People v. Morate, G.R. No. 201156, January 29, 2014, 715 SCRA 115, 130-131.
4. Section 21 (a), Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165.
5.People v. Miranda, G.R. No. 209338, June 29, 2015, 760 SCRA 578, 594.
6.Rollo, p. 61.
7.Id.
8.Id. at 60.