FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 228952. August 28, 2019.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.ELDON LUMAKWAS BLAS, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 28, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 228952 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ELDON LUMAKWAS BLAS, Accused-Appellant.) — The Court dismisses this appeal from the decision 1 promulgated on October 13, 2016, whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01229-MIN the decision 2 dated October 23, 2013 by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 6, Mati City, Davao Oriental finding the accused-appellant guilty of violation of Section 5, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 or the ComprehensiveDangerousDrugsActof2002 in Criminal Case No. 4987-06.
The CA held that the prosecution was able to establish the elements of the offense charged as well as the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated drug. It also disregarded the accused-appellant's denial of the accusations.
The Court sees no cogent reason to reverse the CA.
The elements for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 are: (a) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for the thing. What is material in prosecutions for illegal sale of shabu is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpusdelicti as evidence. 3 The Court finds that these have all been established by the prosecution.
Insofar as the integrity of the prohibited drug is concerned, a review of the records revealed that the identity of the prohibited drug confiscated from accused-appellant had been preserved. The fact that there was a variance between the weight of the prohibited drug in the Information and the chemistry report did not automatically taint the integrity of the confiscated drug. More importantly, as testified by PO1 Masinadiong, he was in possession of the drug from its confiscation until its turn over to the crime laboratory. He was also the one who marked the confiscated drug with his initials. Indubitably, the confiscated drug was the same item submitted to the crime laboratory. The integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated drug is preserved when the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit at least between the time it came into possession of the police officers and until it was tested in the laboratory to determine its composition up to the time it was offered in evidence. 4
WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES the appeal and AFFIRMS the October 13, 2016 decision of the Court of Appeals.
SO ORDERED."Jardeleza,J.,took no part;Hernando, J., designated Additional Member per Raffle dated July 15, 2019.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-10; penned by Associate Justice Ronaldo B. Martin with the concurrence of Associate Justice Romulo V. Borja (retired) and Associate Justice Oscar V. Badelles.
2. CA rollo, pp. 39-45; penned by Judge Nino A. Batingana.
3.People v. Bautista, G.R. No. 177320, February 22, 2012, 666 SCRA 518, 529-530.
4.People v. Dela Rosa, G.R. No. 185166, January 26, 2011, 640 SCRA 635, 653.