FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 199099. June 5, 2013.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. REYNALDO AMADEO Y SANTOS, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 5, 2013 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 199099 (People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, versus Reynaldo Amadeo y Santos, accused-appellant.).— This appeal challenges the March 11, 2011 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02790, which affirmed the April 16, 2007 Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 2, finding appellant Reynaldo Amadeo y Santos guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165. 3
Appellant was charged with selling 0.227 gram of shabu in an Information 4 dated May 31, 2004. When arraigned, he entered a plea of not guilty. 5
At the trial, the prosecution witnesses established that on May 29, 2004, Police Senior Inspector (P/S Insp.) Jay Baybayan received a report from a confidential informant about the illegal drug activities of a certain "Rey Paa" in Torres Bugallon and Primero de Mayo Streets in Tondo, Manila. He immediately formed a team to conduct a buy-bust operation. P/S Insp. Baybayan gave PO2 Gloybell Dimacali, the designated poseur-buyer, a P500 bill to be used as buy-bust money. After preparing a pre-operation report and coordinating with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, PO2 Dimacali, together with PO1 Alexander Suan and PO1 Jheonardin Carandang proceeded to the target area. 6 AEDISC
The confidential informant was already waiting for them when they arrived. The informant introduced PO2 Dimacali to appellant as a buyer of shabu. When appellant asked for the money, PO2 Dimacali handed the marked P500 bill and in turn, appellant gave him a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. After examining the contents of the plastic sachet, PO2 Dimacali signaled the other officers by scratching his head. Then he grabbed appellant and introduced himself as a police officer. Appellant was brought to the police station where PO2 Dimacali marked the plastic sachet in the presence of appellant. 7 The specimen was also submitted to the crime laboratory for examination where it was confirmed that the same was positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride. 8
In his defense, appellant alleged that on May 29, 2004, at around 4:30 p.m., he was at an eatery along Torres Bugallon Street. He was about to eat his porridge when three men in civilian clothes approached him and introduced themselves as police officers. PO2 Dimacali uttered, "Sumama ka ng maayos may itatanong lang kami sa iyo." Then the police officers brought him to the precinct where PO2 Dimacali asked for P12,000. Appellant, however, insisted that he had no money since he merely worked as a helper for his mother. 9
After trial, the RTC promulgated a decision convicting appellant, sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. The trial court found that the prosecution's evidence was sufficient to establish appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
On appeal to the CA, appellant argued that the shabu allegedly recovered from him was not immediately marked, but was marked for the first time only at the police station, thus raising the possibility that it may have been substituted with another. He stressed that such procedural lapse has raised doubts as to his guilt. 10
As aforesaid, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC Decision.
In this appeal, appellant raises the sole issue of whether the prosecution had established the chain of custody pursuant to Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 considering that the plastic sachet was not immediately marked by the arresting officers.
The appeal has no merit.
We have held that in prosecutions for violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, a noncompliance with the regulations is not necessarily fatal as to render an accused's arrest illegal or the items confiscated from him inadmissible as evidence of his guilt, for what is of the utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated items that will be utilized in the determination of his guilt or innocence. 11
Furthermore, Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 provides that noncompliance with the prescribed procedures does not necessarily result in the conclusion that the identity of the seized drugs has been compromised so that an acquittal should follow as long as the prosecution can demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized have been preserved.
We note that appellant and the seized item were immediately brought to Police Station 3 after appellant's arrest. At the police station, PO2 Dimacali marked the sachet with the initials "RAS" in the presence of appellant. The specimen was then submitted to the Western Police District Crime Laboratory by PO1 Suan, as shown by the stamp of receipt on the letter-request for laboratory examination. 12 The crime laboratory reported that the specimen tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride. Moreover, PO2 Dimacali positively identified the specimen in court. The defense did not question the identification, seizure and custody of the item. Neither did the defense show that the evidence was tampered with or meddled with, or that the police officers were motivated by ill will or bad faith, as to overcome the presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers and the presumption that public officers properly discharged their duties. 13 Thus, the CA was correct in ruling that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the shabu were shown to have been duly preserved. ScHADI
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. The Decision dated March 11, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02790, finding appellant Reynaldo Amadeo y Santos guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 is AFFIRMED.
With costs against the accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-12. Penned by Associate Justice Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente with Associate Justices Romeo F. Barza and Manuel M. Barrios concurring.
2.CA rollo, pp. 13-19. Penned by Presiding Judge Alejandro G. Bijasa.
3.The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
4.Records, p. 1.
5.Id. at 11.
6.TSN, January 27, 2005, pp. 5-11.
7.Id. at 11-16.
8.Records, p. 3.
9.TSN, September 4, 2006, pp. 3-7.
10.CA rollo, pp. 38-39.
11.People v. Bautista, G.R. No. 177320, February 22, 2012, 666 SCRA 518, 534-535.
12.Records, p. 82.
13.See People v. De Mesa, G.R. No. 188570, July 6, 2010, 624 SCRA 248, 257.