SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 257093. March 14, 2022.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.GERONIMO ESTIMADA y SAURE, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated14 March 2022which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 257093 (People of the Philippines v. Geronimo Estimada y Saure). — The Court NOTES:
1. the manifestation (in lieu of supplemental brief) dated November 8, 2021 of the Office of the Solicitor General, in compliance with the Resolution 1 dated September 13, 2021, dispensing with the filing of supplemental brief since all legal issues and arguments were exhaustively discussed in its brief filed before the Court of Appeals; and
2. the supplemental brief for the appellant dated November 22, 2021 in compliance with the Resolution dated September 13, 2021.
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DISMISS the appeal for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in affirming the conviction of accused-appellant Geronimo Estimada y Saure (Estimada) of the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, as defined and penalized under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, 2 otherwise known as 'Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.'
As correctly ruled by the courts a quo, all the elements of the aforesaid crimes 3 are present as the prosecution clearly established that Estimada was caught in flagrante delicto selling 2.3935 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu to Agent Serafina Tenenan (Agent Tenenan), the designated poseur buyer, during a legitimate buy-bust operation conducted by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA)-Cordillera Administrative Region at Lubas, La Trinidad, Benguet.
Furthermore, all the links 4 of the chain of custody had likewise been established, considering that: (a) after Estimada was arrested, Agent Tenenan marked the seized items in his presence at the place of arrest; (b) Agent Tenenan brought the seized items to the PDEA office, where the inventory and taking of photographs were conducted in the presence of Estimada, Barangay Kagawad Janet Tao-ing, and media representative Jorton Gamdana; (c) Agent Tenenan turned over the seized items to PDEA Chemist Maria Cecilia Bucasas (PDEA Chemist Bucasas) for laboratory examination, wherein, after examination, the contents thereof tested positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug; and (d) PDEA Chemist Bucasas took custody of the seized items for safekeeping until she personally delivered the same to the trial court for identification. 5
WHEREFORE, the Court ADOPTS the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Decision 6 dated July 11, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11666 finding accused-appellant Geronimo Estimada y Saure GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, as defined and penalized under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as 'Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.' Accordingly, he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine in the amount of P500,000.00. CAIHTE
SO ORDERED." Zalameda, J., no part due to prior action in the Court of Appeals; Kho, Jr., J. designated additional member per Raffle dated February 28, 2022.
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 61.
2. Entitled 'AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES' approved on January 23, 2002.
3. The elements of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 are: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment; while the elements of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 are: (a) the accused was in possession of an item or object identified as a prohibited drug; (b) such possession was not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. (See People v. Crispo, 828 Phil. 416, 429 [2018]; People v. Sanchez, 827 Phil. 457, 465 [2018]; People v. Magsano, 826 Phil. 457, 465 [2018]; People v. Manansala, 826 Phil. 947, 958-959 [2018]; People v. Miranda, 824 Phil. 1042, 1050 [2018]; and People v. Mamangon, 824 Phil. 735, 736 [2018]; all cases citing People v. Sumili, 753 Phil. 342, 348 [2015] and People v. Bio, 753 Phil. 730, 736 [2015].)
4. 'Thus, the following links should be established in the chain of custody of the confiscated item: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.' (People v. Que, 824 Phil. 882, 895 [2018], citing People v. Nandi, 639 Phil. 134, 144-145 [2010]).
5. See Transcript of Stenographic Notes, March 22, 2018, p. 6.
6.Rollo, pp. 8-36.