THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 202861. January 29, 2014.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ARNOLD CENA Y INGUA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated January 29, 2014, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 202861 (People of the Philippines v. Arnold Cena y Ingua). — The City Prosecutor's office of Mandaluyong charged the accused-appellant Arnold Cena (Cena) with selling dangerous drugs in violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) 9165 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of that city. 1
PO2 Jorge Gorgonia of the Mandaluyong Police Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Force testified that on September 28, 2005 a police informant reported that a certain Anong and Nadnad had been selling shabu on San Miguel St., Barangay Plainview, Mandaluyong City. SPO1 Victor Santos immediately organized a buy-bust operation involving four police officers, namely, PO2 Gorgonia, PO1 Franer Gomez, PO1 Pedro Sangcada, and PO2 Rommel Alfaro. PO2 Gorgonia was to act as poseur buyer. TIDaCE
The team proceeded to the reported area where PO2 Gorgonia and the informant met with accused Cena. The informant told Cena that PO2 Gorgonia, posing as buyer, wanted to buy shabu from him worth P200.00. Cena took the offered money and then went into his house. After about two minutes, he came back and handed one sachet of what appeared to be shabu to PO2 Gorgonia. Convinced that this was shabu, PO2 Gorgonia removed his cap, the signal that the buy-bust had been completed. They arrested Cena while PO2 Gorgonia marked the plastic sachet with the initials "JG." They then brought Cena and the seized article to the police station for processing. After submission for laboratory examination, 2 the content of the sachet proved to be shabu.
The prosecution dispensed with the presentation of the forensic chemist and PO3 Abundio Panes after the defense accepted the stipulations that the prosecution proposed to it. 3
Accused Cena testified that he was, on the day of the incident, repairing the gas stove of a certain "Manang," when SPO1 Santos approached him and asked if he was Gerwin. Although he denied that he was, the police officer nonetheless ordered him to carry a television set and board the police vehicle with it. To his surprise, the police brought him to the police station where he was detained. 4
On November 19, 2008 the RTC rendered a Decision finding accused Cena guilty beyond reasonable doubt of selling dangerous drugs in violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00. On appeal in CA-G.R. CR-HC 03801, the CA affirmed on March 2, 2012 the RTC Decision in toto, hence, this appeal. EHTIDA
Accused Cena points out that the police officers arrested him illegally, and therefore, the subsequent search they made of his person was just as illegal, rendering the sachet of shabu they took from him inadmissible in evidence. But Cena never raised the matter of the supposed illegality of his arrest before his arraignment. It is a settled rule that an accused is estopped from assailing the legality of his arrest if he did not raise it as an issue or move to quash the information against him on that same ground before arraignment. 5 At any rate, Section 5 (a), Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that a person may be arrested without a warrant if he is, among other things, actually committing an offense. Here, the police arrested Cena in flagrante delicto or in the course of a successful buy-bust operation. 6
On the issue of compliance with Section 21, Article II of R.A. 9165, the Court finds like the CA that the prosecution sufficiently established that the integrity of the seized shabu had been preserved. PO2 Gorgonia marked the plastic sachet with his initials "JG" 7 immediately after they arrested accused Cena and in his presence. This article was then turned over to PO2 Panes, the investigating officer, at the police station. 8 After the latter prepared the request for laboratory examination of the seized item, PO2 Gorgonia delivered the same to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory. 9 After examination of the plastic sachet and its contents, the same tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. 10 Clearly, the chain of custody remained unbroken.
True, Section 21, paragraph 2 of R.A. 9165 requires that the apprehending team to physically inventory and photograph the seized item in the presence of the accused or his representative or counsel, a representative each from the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official. But non-compliance with these requirements is not fatal. What is important is that the prosecution shows the continuous whereabouts of the seized evidence at least between the time it came into possession of the police officers and until it was tested in the laboratory. 11 This was done in this case.
Accused Cena's bare denial cannot overturn the presumption of regularity accorded to the apprehending officers who were performing their official duties. In the absence of proof of motive to falsely impute such a serious crime against him, such presumption as well as the trial court's finding regarding the credibility of the witnesses must prevail. 12
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMSin toto the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated March 2, 2012 in CA-G.R. CR-HC 03801. (Peralta, J., no part; Perlas-Bernabe, J., Additional Member; per Raffle dated September 10, 2012.)
SO ORDERED." DHEcCT
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Records, p. 1.
2. See TSN, January 24, 2007, pp. 18-27, 31.
3. Records, p. 35.
4. See TSN, April 1, 2003, pp. 4-3, 13-14.
5. Rebellion v. People, G.R. No. 175700, July 5, 2010, 623 SCRA 343, 348.
6. People v. Doria, 361 Phil. 595, 627 (1999), citing People v. Sibug, G.R. No. 108520, January 24, 1994, 229 SCRA 439, 500.
7. TSN, January 24, 2007, p. 27.
8. Id. at 31-32.
9. RTC Decision, records, p. 17.
10. Records, p. 7.
11. People v. Rosialda, G.R. No. 188330, August 25, 2010, 629 SCRA 507, 521.
12. Dimacuha v. People, 545 Phil. 406, 418 (2007).