FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 250939. September 14, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROLANDO GUTIB y MURAO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated September 14, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 250939 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,versus ROLANDO GUTIB y MURAO, accused-appellant.
After a careful review of the records of the case, the Court AFFIRMS the Decision 1 dated August 19, 2019 of the Court of Appeals Special Seventh Division in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10071.
In criminal charges involving dangerous drugs, strict compliance by the police with the requirements of Section 21 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 (as amended by R.A. No. 10640) must be proven: 1) the seized drugs should be inventoried and photographed at the place of seizure or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable; 2) the physical inventory and photographing should be done in the presence of (a) the accused or his/her representative or counsel, (b) an elected public official, and (c) a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media; and 3) the accused or his/her representative and all of the aforesaid witnesses should sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. Failure to comply with these requirements casts doubt on the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti and warrants the acquittal of the accused. 2
In this case, the prosecution was able to prove the elements of both Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs beyond reasonable doubt. There was also compliance with the requirements of Section 21. After Rolando Gutib y Murao (Gutib) was arrested, marking, inventory and photographing were immediately done at the place of arrest in the presence of Gutib himself, Barangay Kagawad Emilio Perez and media representative Don King Zarate. 3 Furthermore, the prosecution was able to establish all the links in the chain of custody of the seized items from seizure, confiscation, marking, turnover to the investigator, delivery to the crime laboratory, and presentation before the Regional Trial Court. 4
Gutib relies on supposed inconsistencies between the testimony of poseur-buyer Police Officer 1 Hiromi Austria (PO1 Austria) and the documentary evidence to argue that his arrest was invalid and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence were not preserved. However, his arguments are mere strained readings of PO1 Austria's testimony on minor details of the case and are not sufficiently supported by the evidence on record.
In sum, all the elements of the crimes charged and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were proven beyond reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Court hereby ADOPTS and AFFIRMS the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Decision dated August 19, 2019 of the Court of Appeals Special Seventh Division in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10071, finding accused-appellant Rolando Gutib y Murao guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-27. Penned by Associate Justice Louis P. Acosta, with Associate Justices Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig concurring.
2.People v. Miranda, G.R. No. 229671, January 31, 2018, 854 SCRA 42.
3. Receipt/Inventory for Property Seized, records p. 56. See also photographs taken during inventory, records, pp. 57-58, and the testimony of PO1 Austria, TSN dated November 8, 2017, pp. 10-18.
4.See People v. Nandi, G.R. No. 188905, July 13, 2010, 625 SCRA 123, 133.