SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 200532. August 3, 2015.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,plaintiff-appellee,vs. DANILO CAPCO Y SUMADLAB,accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 3 August 2015 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 200532 (People of the Philippines v. Danilo Capco y Sumadlab). — We resolve the appeal filed by appellant Danilo Capco (Capco) from the Court of Appeals' (CA) June 3, 2011 decision 1 in CA-G.R. CR H.C. No. 04039. The CA decision affirmed the June 30, 2009 decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 65, Makati City, finding Capco guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.
In its decision, the RTC gave credence to Norman Bilason's (Bilason) testimony that Capco possessed and sold methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. On this basis, the lower court sentenced Capco to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment in Criminal Case No. 08-1491 for illegal sale of shabu; and the indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, and eight (8) months, as maximum in Criminal Case No. 08-1492 for illegal possession of shabu.
On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC's decision. It found that Bilason's testimony was straightforward and credible, and that the drug's integrity had been preserved.
Our Ruling
After due consideration, we resolve to dismiss the appeal outright for lack of merit.
Capco's guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt
Capco alleged that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt because Bilason failed to give the specific details of the buy-bust operation.
In People v. Agcanas, 3 we held that positive identification, where categorical and consistent and absent any ill motive on the part of the witness, should prevail over a mere denial. acEHCD
We also held in People v. Naquita, 4 that the testimony of the members of the buy-bust team deserves full faith and credit. Public officers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, particularly in drug cases, in the absence of indicators showing proof to the contrary.
The record shows that Bilason categorically identified Capco as the person caught in flagrante of selling and possessing shabu. 5 Capco also failed to show that Bilason entertained ill motives when he gave his testimony.
The proper chain of custody was sufficiently proven
Capco pointed out that the prosecution failed to prove that the proper chain of custody was followed because the prosecution failed to present all the persons who handled the seized item.
The nonpresentation of all persons who handled the evidence as witnesses is not necessarily a defect fatal to the prosecution's case. 6
The prosecution possesses sufficient discretion to determine how it will present its case, as well as the right to choose whom and how many to present as witnesses. What the law specifically requires for conviction is the presentation of a complete case that proves the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution carries no additional burden beyond this point.
Additionally, the purpose of the rule on chain of custody is to ensure that the drug seized from the accused is the same drug offered in court. 7 We find from the records that the integrity of the drug has been duly preserved.
Specifically, we note that: 1) Bilason's Joint Affidavit of Arrest shows that the drugs were properly marked; 2) Barangay Captain Rodolfo Doromal signed the inventory receipt; 3) Police Officer 3 Rafael Castillo's letter-request for a laboratory examination shows that the seized items were transmitted to the PNP crime laboratory; and 4) the Physical Science Report shows that the seized items arrived at the PNP crime laboratory and that the examined specimen was shabu. 8
WHEREFORE, in these lights, the decision of the Court of Appeals dated June 3, 2011, in CA-G.R. CR H.C. No. 04039 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. SC Rollo, pp. 2-16; penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison, and concurred in by Associate Justices Noel G. Tijam and Leoncia R. Dimagiba.
2. CA rollo, pp, 13-21; penned by Judge Edgardo M. Caldona.
3. People v. Agcanas, G.R. No. 174476, October 11, 2011, 658 SCRA 842.
4. People v. Naquita, G.R. No. 180511, July 28, 2008, 560 SCRA 430.
5. Rollo, p. 8.
6. People v. Angkob, G.R. No. 191062, September 19, 2012, 681 SCRA 414.
7. People v. Climaco, G.R. No. 199403, June 13, 2012, 672 SCRA 631.
8. Rollo, p. 11.