FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 232241. March 13, 2019.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.REDENTOR CARSE y RAGOJOS, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated March 13, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 232241 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. REDENTOR CARSE y RAGOJOS, Accused-Appellant) — We dismiss this appeal from the decision 1 promulgated on February 3, 2017, whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the decision 2 rendered on June 30, 2015 by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 7, Aparri, Cagayan finding the accused guilty of violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002).
In so affirming the RTC, the CA ruled that the accused-appellant was lawfully arrested after being caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu to the poseur-buyer in a valid buy-bust operation; that the prosecution had successfully established all the elements of illegal sale of shabu; and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were properly preserved.
We do not find error on the part of the CA.
To establish the crime of illegal sale of shabu, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt the concurrence of the following elements: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and consideration of the sale; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and payment for the thing. It is necessary to establish that the sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the thing sold as evidence of the corpus delicti. 3
The foregoing elements have been successfully established by the prosecution. IO2 Rosario D. Vicente, the poseur-buyer, positively narrated in detail the events that led to the seizure of shabu from the accused-appellant until its presentation in court as evidence. As aptly stated by the CA, the confidential informant introduced IO2 Vicente to the accused as the buyer and the latter asked them to go with him to his house; the accused showed the item to IO2 Vicente and asked for payment; IO2 Vicente handed the P1,000.00 buy-bust money to the accused, who in turn gave her a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance which was later on found positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, weighing more or less 0.074 gram as stated in Chemistry Report No. D-125-2013. CAIHTE
Anent the chain of custody, the Court also agrees with the CA that the buy-bust team substantially complied with the requirement of the law on the inventory, marking, and photographing of the confiscated shabu. The totality of the evidence shows that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated illicit drugs were duly preserved.
The fact that the marking of the seized drug was not done immediately after its confiscation at the place of arrest will not necessarily invalidate the seizure nor make the confiscated items inadmissible as evidence. Notably, the alleged failure of the apprehending team to strictly comply with the rule on chain of custody was raised for the first time on appeal. Nevertheless, the apprehending team had substantially explained in their Brief 4 that the marking of the seized drug was done at the police station because the crowd was beginning to build up at the area immediately after the operation. 5 At this juncture, We quote the following observation by the CA regarding the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug:
There is nothing in the records which would indicate that the shabu left the hands of IO2 Rosario from the moment she received the same until her team reached the police station where she marked the seized sachet with "EXH.-A RDV 11-21-2013," took pictures of the same, and prepared the Inventory of Seized Properties/Items in the presence of a barangay official and representative of the Provincial Prosecutor. IO2 Rosario delivered the plastic sachet of shabu to the PDEA crime laboratory which was duly received by PO2 Delayun and then turned over to PSI Glen who conducted the qualitative examination on the seized item which was found positive for methamphetaminehydrochloride. These pieces of evidence sufficiently show that the integrity of the shabu was intact and never compromised. 6
Finally, the accused-appellant's defense of denial cannot overcome the positive testimony of the prosecution witnesses. The defense of denial, unless substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, cannot be given weight in law for being negative and self-serving. 7
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on February 3, 2017 by the Court of Appeals and ORDERS the accused to pay the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-14; penned by Associate Justice Pedro B. Corales, with the concurrence of Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon and Associate Justice Renato C. Francisco.
2. CA rollo, pp. 47-54; penned by Judge Oscar T. Zaldivar.
3.People vs. Bartolome, G.R. No. 191726, February 6, 2013, 690 SCRA 159, 167.
4. CA rollo, pp. 59-77.
5. CA rollo, p. 76.
6.Rollo, pp. 12-13.
7.People vs. Oandasan, Jr., G.R. No. 194605, June 14, 2016, 793 SCRA 278, 290.