SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 201566. August 7, 2013.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. REGIDOR DE VEGA SESE @ "REGGIE", respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 07 August 2013 which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 201566 (People of the Philippines v. Regidor de Vega Sese @ "Reggie"). — In our Resolution 1 dated April 15, 2013, we denied the appeal filed by appellant Regidor de Vega Sese and affirmed the November 25, 2011 decision 2 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR H.C. No. 04716.
In the present motion for reconsideration, 3 the appellant alleged that the police did not strictly comply with the procedure in the handling and safekeeping of the seized evidence. He further maintained that the chain of custody over the confiscated items had been broken.
We find the arguments raised in the motion to be mere rehashes of those already considered and ruled upon in our Resolution denying the appellant's appeal.
The presented evidence showed that the police substantially complied with the procedures mandated by law for the proper custody of the seized drug. To recall, after the members of the Tarlac police recovered the plastic sachet, allegedly containing shabu, from the appellant, they brought him and the seized item to the Santiago Police Station. Upon their arrival, Police Officer 2 Isagani Tiglao marked the seized plastic sachet with his initials "IGT." This marked sachet was brought to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory, where it was received by the forensic chemical officer, Police Inspector Jebie Timario. Per Chemistry Report No. D-153-06, the submitted specimen was found positive for the presence of 4.574 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. TAacHE
From these proven facts, it is clear that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the shabu confiscated from the appellant were therefore duly proven not to have been compromised. The failure to strictly follow the directives of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 is not fatal and will not necessarily render the items confiscated from an accused inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the appellant's motion for reconsideration for lack of any substantial and meritorious argument. This denial is final. No further pleadings shall be entertained.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 48-50.
2.Id. at 2011.
3.Id. at 51-55.