People v. Huab y Magpayo

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 206058. March 13, 2019.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.RAFAEL MACALINO y TOLENTINO AND EMILY HUAB y MAGPAYO, accused, EMILY HUAB y MAGPAYO, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated March 13, 2019which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 206058 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RAFAEL MACALINO y TOLENTINO and EMILY HUAB y MAGPAYO, Accused; EMILY HUAB y MAGPAYO, Accused-Appellant) — After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolves to DISMISS the appeal against the decision promulgated by the Court of Appeals (CA) dated August 30, 2012 1 for failure of the accused-appellant to prove that the CA committed reversible error in affirming her conviction for illegal sale of shabu in violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

The accused-appellant argues that the State failed to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt; that the law enforcers failed to make an inventory and take a photograph of the seized items in violation of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165; that they also failed to mark the seized evidence in the place of seizure and in the presence of the accused; that the chain of custody was not properly established; and that the prosecution witnesses did not advance any justifiable reason for their failure to follow the rules on the custody and disposition of the seized drugs. 2

We disagree.

Factual findings of the appellate court affirming those of the trial court are binding on this Court, unless there is a clear showing that such findings are tainted with arbitrariness, capriciousness or palpable error. 3 Since the accused-appellant failed to prove that the courts a quo had overlooked or misapplied the facts and circumstances in this case, We shall defer and accord weight to their factual findings.

We likewise disregard the accused-appellant's allegation that the apprehending officers had failed to comply with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. On the contrary, the State had successfully established each link in the chain of custody which in People v. Kamad4 we have identified as the links that the prosecution must establish in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation to be as follows: 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 by the forensic chemist to the court. Thus, We find it apt to quote the following observation by the CA on the chain of custody of the seized item from the accused-appellant: aScITE

The rule on chain of custody x x x expressly demands the identification of the persons who handle the confiscated items for the purpose of duly monitoring the authorized movements of the illegal drugs and/or drug paraphernalia from the time they are seized from the accused until the time they are presented in court.

xxx xxx xxx

The failure of the law enforcers to comply strictly with Section 21 [is] not fatal. Noncompliance with Section 21 will not render the arrest of an accused illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him 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. Strict compliance with the letter of Section 21 is not required if there is a clear showing that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items have been preserved, i.e., the items being offered in court as exhibits are, without a specter of doubt, the very same ones recovered in the buy-bust operation. Hence, once the possibility of substitution has been negated by evidence of an unbroken and cohesive chain of custody over the contraband, such contraband may be admitted and stand as proof of the corpus delicti notwithstanding the fact that it was never made the subject of an inventory or was photographed pursuant to Section 21(1) of Republic Act No. 9165. (W)hile the chain of custody should ideally be perfect, in reality it is not, 'as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain.'

In the case at bar, We find that the integrity and evidentiary value of shabu sold by accused-appellant to PO3 Valdez were not compromised and the prosecution was able to establish the unbroken chain of custody of the illicit drug. PO3 Valdez, the arresting officer who acted as a poseur-buyer, testified in detail how he bought Php300.00 worth of shabu from accused-appellant, which was confiscated and marked by PO3 Valdez himself with the letter "A" at their office in Lores Country Plaza, and the shabu that he bought and the other confiscated sachets were turned over to the Investigation Department. PO3 Valdez likewise testified that the Chief Investigator (Police Chief Inspector Raul Loy Bargamento) prepared the Requests for Laboratory Examination both dated 17 July 2003 (Exhibits "F" and "I") to be conducted on the confiscated pieces of evidence or items marked "A" and "B" to "E" with submarkings for the purpose of determining the presence of dangerous drugs. PO3 Valdez testified that the specimens that were confiscated were brought to the Crime Laboratory of Camp Crame. The Requests show a receiving stamp of the PNP Crime Laboratory, Camp Crame, Quezon City, Chemistry Division showing that they were delivered by prosecution witness SPO1 Lapitan on 17 July 2003 and received by PI Fabros (Exhibits "F-2" ad "I-2").

The aforesaid Requests were identified by PI Sharon L. Fabors, Forensic Chemical Officer, as the same requests that their office received. PSI Fabros testified that after receiving the requests and the specimens attached thereto, she scrutinized the markings if they coincided with the markings on the specimens together with requests and logged them on the logbook before she proceeded with the examination. She likewise identified Chemistry Report Nos. D-854-03 and D-853-03 (Exhibits "H" and "K"), as well as the specimens attached thereto, and testified that she was the one who personally made the examination. The prosecution formally offered all of the specimens marked as Exhibits "G-1" to "G-3", "J" and the plastic sachet inside Exhibit "J" marked as "(A) D-583-03 (A) SLF" for the purpose of proving the existence of the illegal drugs bought and confiscated from accused Macalino and accused-appellant Huab. In an Order dated 08 February 2008, the trial court admitted all of the prosecution's exhibits. The results of the laboratory examination conducted by PI Fabros, as stated in the said Chemistry Reports signed by her (Exhibits "H-2" and "K-2"), show that the qualitative examinations conducted on the specimens gave positive result to the tests for the presence of methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug (Exhibits "H-1" and "K-1"). 5

Moreover, the failure of PO3 Valdez to conduct the inventory and marking at the place of arrest shall have no bearing on the validity of the buy-bust operation. Section 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 allows the inventory and marking at either the place of arrest or the nearest office of the apprehending officers. Based on the testimony of PO3 Valdez as corroborated by the other State witnesses, the marking and inventory were done at the office of the apprehending officers at the Lores Country Plaza. Hence, We do not find reason to invalidate the arrest of the accused-appellant and the seizure of the illegal drug she had delivered to PO3 Valdez.

Finally, We cannot allow the accused-appellant to belatedly cast doubt on the chain of custody. The CA had observed that the accused-appellant had only raised the issue for the first time on her appeal. In People v. Octavio, 6 We rejected the belated claim of the accused that the chain of custody had been broken. We said:

Finally, we note and agree with the observation of the CA that the issue regarding the break in the chain of custody of evidence was raised belatedly and only for the first time on appeal. In People v. Mateo, this Court brushed aside the accused's belated contention that the illegal drugs confiscated from his person was inadmissible because the arresting officers failed to comply with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. Whatever justifiable grounds may excuse the police officers from literally complying with Section 21 will remain unknown, because accused did not question during trial the safekeeping of the items seized from him. Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of an objection. Without such objection, he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal. HEITAD

Seeing no error on the part of the CA in affirming the conviction of the accused-appellant, We therefore sustain her conviction.

WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES the appeal and AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on August 30, 2012 by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05111.

SO ORDERED." Jardeleza, J., no part due to prior action as Solicitor General; Reyes, Jr., J., J., designated Additional Member per Raffle dated March 11, 2019.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 115-137; penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and concurred in by Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante and Associate Justice Niña G. Antonio-Valenzuela.

2.Id. at 21-32.

3.Asiatico v. People, G.R. No. 195005, September 12, 2011, 657 SCRA 450.

4. G.R. No. 174198, January 19, 2010, 610 SCRA 295.

5. CA rollo, pp. 131-134.

6. G.R. No. 199219, April 3, 2013, 695 SCRA 192.