FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 207536. March 11, 2019.]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.ARNEL GUMSAT y RAVENA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated March 11, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 207536 — (THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ARNEL GUMSAT y RAVENA, Accused-Appellant) — The Court resolves to DISMISS the appeal from the September 25, 2012 decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05086 entitled People of the Philippines v. Arnel Gumsat y Ravena for failure of the accused-appellant to sufficiently show any reversible error on the part of the CA in affirming his conviction for violations of Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165. 2
The accused-appellant posits that the police did not properly inventory the seized items; that the prosecution did not present the evidence custodian, the person who received the specimen at the crime laboratory and the forensic chemist; 3 that the buy-bust team should have immediately conducted an inventory and photograph the seized items after confiscation; Accordingly, the CA erred in upholding the conviction despite the State's failure to establish the chain of custody and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug items.
The Court sees no reason to deviate from the findings of the CA.
Indeed, in every prosecution for illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the presentation in evidence of the seized drug, as an integral part of the corpus delicti, is most material. 4 Thus, it is vital that the identity of the prohibited drug be proved with moral certainty. The fact that the substance bought or seized during the buy-bust operation is the same item offered in court as exhibit must also be established with the same degree of certitude. 5 It is in this respect that the chain of custody requirement performs its function. It ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. 6
Contrary to the assertions made by the accused-appellant, the State had adequately established the chain of custody of the seized prohibited drugs. The CA discussed the matter in this wise: cHDAIS
The identity of the white crystalline substance was established by the testimony of PO1 Ancheta, who testified as to the following matters based on his own personal knowledge; (1) he was the buyer of the shabu and the seller was the appellant; (2) the sachet of shabu was presented as evidence together with the two other plastic sachets confiscated by SPO1 Agbayani from the possession of the appellant; (3) the arresting officers later proceeded to their office where they requested for a laboratory examination of the white crystalline substance; (4) PO1 Ancheta were properly identified by the arresting officer in open court and pointed to his initials. "DA " that he placed on the plastic sachet that was sold to him by the appellant.
The prosecution presented the Initial Laboratory as well as the existence of the Chemistry Report confirming the Initial Report. The report states that Specimens A, B1 and B2 are positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
In the light of the foregoing testimonial and documentary evidence, which were found credible by both the trail court, the crimes of attempt to sell a dangerous drug as well as the possession of a dangerous drug were sufficiently proven beyond reasonable doubt.
A testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain. 7 What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items. Even Section 21 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 91658 provides that the custodial chain rule may not be rigorously applied, provided the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team.
Moreover, the integrity of the evidence is presumed to be preserved, unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered with. 9 As such, the accused-appellant bears the burden to show that the evidence was tampered or meddled with to overcome a presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers and the presumption that they properly discharged their duties. 10
Here, the prosecution had established that the apprehending police officers had custody of the drug seized from the accused-appellant from the moment that they placed him under arrest, during the time they transported him to the police station up to such moment that they submitted the seized item to the crime laboratory for examination.
The Court notes that the parties herein had stipulated 11 as to the testimonies of SPO3 Loreto Ancheta, SPO3 Burbano, SPO3 Teodoro Flojo, Inspector Anamelisa Bacani and Ms. Sangalang. In People v. Steve, We considered the stipulation of the parties as to the testimony of the forensic chemist to have sufficed to show that the integrity of the evidence against accused-appellant was indeed preserved. 12 We find no reason to depart from a similar ruling.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court DISMISSES the appeal; and AFFIRMS the September 25, 2012 decision promulgated by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 05086 entitled People of the Philippines v. Arnel Gumsat y Ravena. ISHCcT
SO ORDERED." Jardeleza, J., no part due to prior action as Solicitor General; Hernando, J., designated Additional Member per Raffle dated March 11, 2019.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-17; penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison, with the concurrence of Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon.
2. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
3.Id. at 35-36.
4.People v. Doria, G.R. No. 125299, January 22, 1999, 301 SCRA 668, 718.
5.People v. Cortez, G.R. No. 183819, July 23, 2009, 593 SCRA 743, 762.
6.Id.; citing Malillin v. People, G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 619, 632.
7.People v. Cortez, supra note 42, at 763.
8. SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof; Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items x x x. (Emphasis supplied.)
9.People v. Ventura, G.R. No. 184957, October 27, 2009, 604 SCRA 543, 562, citing People v. Agulay, G.R. No. 181747, September 26, 2008, 566 SCRA 571, 595.
10.Id.
11.Rollo, p. 4.
12.People of the Philippines v. Mike Steve y Basman and Rashid Mangtoma y Noni, G.R. No. 204911, August 6, 2014, 732 SCRA 385, 400.