THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 202550. April 23, 2014.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EDWIN DELA CRUZ, a.k.a. EDWIL DELA CRUZ, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 23, 2014, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 202550 (People of the Philippines v. Edwin Dela Cruz, a.k.a. Edwil Dela Cruz). — On August 29, 2006 the Public Prosecutor filed charges of violation of Section 5 of Republic Act 9165 against the accused Edwil or Edwin Dela Cruz y Gardiola (Edwil) and Leila Dela Cruz y Odonio (Leila) before the Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Criminal Case 06-792. 1
At the pre-trial, the prosecution and both accused stipulated: 2 1) that they were the ones referred to in the case when it was called; 2) that the RTC had jurisdiction over them and their case; 3) that PS/Insp. Richard Allan Mangalip is an expert in forensic chemistry; 4) that he examined the contents of one small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet of 0.02 gram of white crystalline substance, marked as "EDC" which yielded positive for shabu; and 5) that the request for examination of the seized substance was executed in due course. Since the defense admitted the proffered testimonies of the forensic chemist, the prosecution waived his testimony. 3
To prove its case, the prosecution presented the testimonies of apprehending officers PO1 Glen Gonzales (Gonzales), PO1 Rondivar Hernaez (Hernaez), and SPO3 Benjamin Madriaga (Madriaga). 4 They testified in substance that on August 22, 2006 their unit, the Philippine National Police (PNP) Station Anti-illegal Drug Special Operation Task Force of Muntinlupa City received information that a certain "Edwin" was selling shabu at Barangay Bayanan, Purok 6, Muntinlupa. 5
Police Chief Superintendent Edgar S. Ferrater organized a buy-bust operation team composed of SPO1 Joel Vega who was to serve as leader, Gonzales as poseur buyer, and Hernaez as immediate back up. 6 The pre-arranged signal would be Gonzales touching his head with his left hand. 7 Gonzales photocopied the buy-bust money consisting of two P100.00 bills and signed the photocopy that formed part of a pre-operation report they faxed to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for coordination. 8STcADa
In the afternoon of the same day the team proceeded to accused Edwil's residence. Gonzales and the informant approached Edwil and bought shabu from him. Edwil accepted the buy-bust money, handed it to his wife, accused Leila, and gave Gonzales a transparent plastic sachet. Gonzales made the pre-arranged signal and then handcuffed Edwil. Hernaez came forward, handcuffed Leila, and recovered from her the buy-bust money. The police officers informed Edwil and Leila of their constitutional rights and the reason for their arrest, and then brought them to their station. 9
At the police station Gonzales prepared a certificate of inventory of the seized money and the plastic sachet marked "EDC" and took pictures of them. The specimens were brought to the crime laboratory with a request for laboratory examination and drug test. The laboratory report showed that the plastic sachet contained 0.02 gram of white crystalline substance that tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride. 10 The concerned police officers executed individual affidavits and prepared a spot report.
For the defense the accused Edwil and Leila testified 11 that they were at home on the day in question. Edwil was doing repair work in the house when a certain Dalton walked in and asked for his name. Dalton then told him to leave the room and when he did, he was immediately handcuffed. Dalton's companions, Benjie and Doc, entered the room and rummaged through his things. Edwil overheard them saying "negative." Benjie asked Edwil "saan ko daw itinatago 'yung itinatago ko?"
Subsequently, the men brought Edwil and Leila to the Muntinlupa City Hall. The men showed Edwil a photocopy of money and SPO3 Madriaga forced him to admit that the police recovered the money from him. They asked Edwil to reveal the identity of his boss but he gave no reply. He and his wife were jailed not knowing the reason for it. Dalton asked them for P20,000.00 for their release but when he failed to give it, the police filed the case against them. 12
On August 27, 2009 the RTC found accused Edwil guilty of the crime charged and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. The court, however, acquitted accused Leila for insufficiency of evidence. 13
Edwil appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC 04161 but on March 16, 2012 the CA denied the appeal and affirmed his conviction.
The Court is satisfied that neither the RTC nor the CA erred in finding the accused Edwil guilty as charged. The RTC had the advantage of observing the demeanor of the witnesses and closely assessing their credibility and truthfulness. Indeed, it acquitted accused Leila. The CA's affirmation of the RTC finding, on the other hand, enjoys great weight and persuasive effect. The prosecution has sufficiently proven beyond reasonable doubt Edwil's guilt. The records show that there was no break in the chain of custody of the confiscated illegal drug from the accused. The integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs had been preserved. Notably, the accused had been unable to show that they were mishandled, tampered with, or switched with some other evidence.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the Court of Appeals Decision dated March 16, 2012 in CA-G.R. CR-HC 04161, which upheld the Regional Trial Court's Decision dated August 27, 2009 in Criminal Case 06-792 finding the accused Edwil or Edwin Dela Cruz GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of unlawful sale of 0.02 gram of methylamphetamine hydrochloride in violation of Section 5 of Republic Act 9165. llcd
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Records, p. 1.
2. Id. at 39-40, Pre-Trial Order dated December 6, 2006.
3. Id.
4. Id. at 172, RTC Decision dated August 27, 2009.
5. CA rollo, p. 131.
6. Id.
7. Id. at 132.
8. Id. at 131-132.
9. Id. at 132.
10. Id. at 132-133.
11. Records, p. 175, RTC Decision.
12. Id.
13. Id. at 181.