THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 201570. January 29, 2014.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. NUKTAR CUEVAS Y LUKMAN AND HAKIM AMIL Y BALAJI, respondent.
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. 201570 (People of the Philippines v. Nuktar Cuevas y Lukman and Hakim Amil y Balaji). — On October 30, 2003 the City Prosecutor of Marikina charged Nuktar Cuevas y Lukman (Cuevas) and Hakim Amil y Balaji (Anvil) with selling 48.51 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu in violation of Section 26 (b), Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) 9165 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Marikina City in Criminal Case 03-2766-D-MK. 1
PO1 Saturnino D. Mayonte testified that at around 10:00 a.m. on October 28, 2003 a police informant told the Philippine Drugs Enforcement Agency (PDEA) in Quezon City that a certain "Bonjing" and "K" were selling shabu in Marikina City. Responding to this, the PDEA created a buy-bust team that went to Provident Village in Marikina City at 1:30 p.m. on the same day. Bonjing, later identified as accused Cuevas, accompanied by K, later identified as accused Amil, approached the informant and the police officer who pretended to be a buyer. The latter handed over to Amil the boodle money that appeared to contain P100,000.00. In turn, Cuevas gave the police officer a plastic sachet that appeared to contain white crystalline substance. After arresting the accused, the police officer-poseur-buyer placed a marking on the seized item. 2TAECaD
Upon returning to their station, one of the arresting officers prepared the request for the examination of the seized substance by the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory. 3 It later tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. 4
For the defense, Cuevas testified that he asked Amil to accompany him to Sta. Lucia Mall in Marikina City. But, before they could enter the mall, three men with guns approached, blindfolded, and forced them to board a vehicle. They later found themselves in a subdivision. The men made several attempts to extort P500,000.00 from accused Cuevas but when he insisted that he did not have the means to meet their demands, they were brought to the Camp Crame compound where the men renewed their attempt to extort money from them in exchange for the dropping of the case. When this did not happen, the men took the accused to the Marikina City Jail where they were detained. 5
On June 2, 2009 the RTC found accused Cuevas and Amil guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charge of selling 48.51 grams of shabu in violation of Section 26 (b), in relation to Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 and sentence each of them to life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00. 6 The RTC found the buy-bust operation in order, including the identification of the accused as the sellers, the PDEA agent as poseur buyer, and the sale of the shabu.
Accused Cuevas and Amil appealed the RTC judgment to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC 04084 but on August 31, 2011 the latter court affirmed the RTC Decision, 7 hence, the present appeal before this Court.
The accused points out that they were illegally arrested, they were denied their right to counsel while at Camp Crame, the buy-bust operation was a sham, and the prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. CIaASH
The testimonies of the poseur buyer, the arresting officer, and forensic chemist provided a detailed and consistent account of the sequence of events that led to Cuevas' and Amil's arrests. The PDEA agent-poseur-buyer marked the plastic sachet which was eventually submitted to the crime laboratory in due course. The forensic chemist, opened the sealed plastic, tested the content, resealed it with his own mark, and later identified the same in Court. The prosecution evidence traced the movement of the evidence from beginning to end, meeting the Court's demand that the chain of custody of the seized prohibited drugs remain unbroken and be proven. 8
True, the police officers did not make the physical inventory of the evidence at the crime scene. But as the Court held in Imson v. People, 9 the only requirement of the law is that the marking be made in the presence of the accused and upon immediate confiscation, which may include the police station. In any case, Sections 21 and 86 of R.A. 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations would have these deficiencies excused so long as the integrity of the evidence is properly preserved. 10 As mentioned earlier, the evidence remained intact and its movement accounted for in the various testimonies of the police officers.
The prosecution established the identity of the buyer and the sellers, the object, as well as the delivery of the thing sold. The poseur buyer positively identified Cuevas and Amil as the persons who sold him the sachets of white crystalline substance to him. SHCaDA
On the other hand, the defense has only Cuevas' bare testimony to support its claim of a police frame up, a defense that is so easy to concoct.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS in toto the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC 04084 dated August 31, 2011 that sentenced each of accused-appellants Nuktar Cuevas y Lukman and Hakim Amil y Balaji to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment for violation of Section 26 (b), in relation to Section 5, Article II of Republic Act 9165 and, further, to pay a fine of P500,000.00.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. CA rollo, p. 69.
2. TSN, August 8, 2006, pp. 4-8, 16-17, 22.
3. TSN, April 29, 2008, pp. 31-32.
4. Chemistry Report D-1141-03, Folder 3, folder of exhibits, p. 2.
5. TSN, November 3, 2008, pp. 4, 6-11, 13, 16, 21.
6. Records, p. 287.
7. Penned by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. with Justices Mario L. Guarina III and Manuel M. Barrios concurring.
8. See Malillin v. People of the Philippines, 576 Phil. 576, 587 (2008).
9. G.R. No. 193003, July 13, 2011, 653 SCRA 826, 836.
10. People of the Philippines v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 189327, February 29, 2012, 667 SCRA 357, 368.