People v. Alias

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 192942. March 31, 2014.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. JOEL PACA ALIAS "JOEL BAGA", appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 31 March 2014 which reads as follows:

G.R. No. 192942 (People of the Philippines v. Joel Paca alias "Joel Baga"). — We resolve the appeal filed by appellant Joel Paca from the September 30, 2008 decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC. No. 00842. 1

In a decision 2 dated June 21, 2007, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 58, Cebu City, convicted the appellant of illegal possession of shabu under Section 11, Article 2 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165. 3 The RTC gave credence to the prosecution's version of the events leading to the crime, as testified to by Police Officer (PO)2Edward Abatayo, PO2 Antonio Pizarras, and Barangay Tanod Alfredo Mosqueda, Sr. The RTC rejected the appellant's claim that he was not a resident of the place where the search was conducted by virtue of a search warrant, and also the contention that there was improper handling of the seized items.

For the illegal possession of shabu weighing 6.49 grams, the RTC imposed a sentence of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to life imprisonment, and to pay a fine ranging from four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00). ITDHSE

On intermediate appellate review, the CA affirmed the RTC's judgment of conviction.

We now rule on the final review of the case.

Our Ruling

We dismiss the present appeal.

We find no reason to reverse the RTC's findings on the appellant's guilt on the charge against him, less so in the present case where the CA affirmed the RTC's judgment of conviction.

"[I]n a prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drug[s], it must be shown that (1) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug, (2) such possession is not authorized by law, and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug." 4 These elements were properly established through the positive and credible testimonies of PO2 Abatayo and PO2 Pizarras, who conducted the search on the premises of the appellant's residence. That the house subject of the search was owned by the appellant's mother is immaterial; both the RTC and the CA found that the appellant had exclusive control and dominion over the place where the prohibited drugs were found. In People v. Tira, 5 the Court ruled that the accused cannot avoid conviction if his right to exercise control and dominion over the place where the contraband is located is shared with another. Conviction need not be predicated upon exclusive possession, and a showing of non-exclusive possession would not exonerate the accused. Such fact of possession may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence and any reasonable inference drawn therefrom. Thus, the testimony of Barangay Tanod Mosqueda (the appellant's own witness) declaring that the search was conducted at the appellant's house should provide ample support to the ruling of the lower courts. 6

The appellant claims that the belated marking of the seized items at the police station failed to comply with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, which is tantamount to an acquittal. We see no merit to this contention. We have already ruled that non-compliance with this requirement would not necessarily render the items seized or confiscated inadmissible. Strict compliance with the letter of Section 21 is not required if there is a clear showing that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items have been preserved, i.e., the items being offered in court as exhibits are, without a specter of doubt, the very same ones recovered in the buy-bust operation. 7

Although the marking of the seized drugs was done at the police station, the prosecution was able to properly account for their chain of custody. After the drugs were found, the officers had these items inventoried at the appellant's residence, to which a corresponding receipt, was issued and signed. These were then marked at the police station before having been submitted to the crime laboratory for examination where they tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride. 8 There is no showing that the integrity of the seized items had been compromised as to warrant the appellant's acquittal of the crime charged.

WHEREFORE, the decision dated September 30, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC. No. 00842 is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED. SACTIH

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Penned by Associate Justice Priscilla Baltazar-Padilla, and concurred in by Associate Justices Franchito N. Diamante and Edgardo L. delos Santos; rollo, pp. 3-10.

2. Docketed as Criminal Case No. CBU-73893; CA rollo, pp. 72-83.

3. Otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."

4. People v. Hajili, 447 Phil. 283, 295 (2003).

5. G.R. No. 139615, May 28, 2004, 430 SCRA 134, 151.

6. CA rollo, p. 77.

7. People v. Roa, G.R. No. 186134, May 6, 2010, 620 SCRA 359, 371-372, citation omitted; People v. Alberto, G.R. No. 179717, February 5, 2010, 611 SCRA 706, 718; People v. Capco, G.R. No. 183088, September 17, 2009, 600 SCRA 204, 213; and People v. Teodoro, G.R. No. 185164, June 22, 2009, 590 SCRA 494, 507.

8. Rollo, p. 7.