FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 219851. February 5, 2018.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. RODELIO IBIS y PONCE @ "ODENG", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedFebruary 5, 2018which reads as follows: ITAaHc
"G.R. No. 219851 — People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, v. Rodelio Ibis y Ponce @ "Odeng", accused-appellant.
After a careful review of the records of the case, the Court finds the appeal to be lacking in merit. We adopt the findings of facts of the trial court as affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA).
The prosecution had satisfactorily established the elements of illegal sale of shabu, to wit: (1) identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. Police Officer 1 Alfredo Mabutol, Jr. (PO1 Mabutol) who acted as the poseur-buyer positively identified accused-appellant as the seller of shabu during a buy-bust operation. Accused-appellant gave PO1 Mabutol a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance and, in exchange therefor, PO1 Mabutol handed accused-appellant the P100.00 buy-bust money. Upon qualitative examination at the crime laboratory, the seized item weighing 0.03 gram tested positive for shabu.
There is no reason for this Court to doubt that a valid buy-bust operation actually took place. Aside from the fact that they enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, the testimonies of the police officers regarding the conduct of the buy-bust operation corroborated each other. Moreover, no improper motive was imputed upon the police officers to concoct a story of buy-bust. Accused-appellant, his co-accused, and the police officers, testified that they did not know each other prior to the buy-bust operation. On the other hand, accused-appellant's version of the story and his claim of unlawful arrest were bereft of any sufficient support. Further, suffice it to state that "[a]ny objection involving the arrest or the procedure in the court's acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of an accused must be made before he enters his plea; otherwise the objection is deemed waived." 1 Here, accused-appellant made no such objection prior to his arraignment. In fact, he neither questioned the same during trial and, instead, he actively participated in the proceedings. He only raised the issue on appeal with the CA. At any rate, "jurisprudence dictates that the "illegal arrest of an accused is not sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment rendered upon a sufficient complaint after a trial free from error. It will not even negate the validity of the conviction of the accused." 2
Anent the inconsistencies pointed out by accused-appellant, it must be stated that if the cited inconsistency has nothing to do with the elements of the crime, it is not a ground to reverse a conviction. 3
With respect to the integrity and evidentiary value of the shabu subject of the sale, suffice it to state that in prosecution of cases involving illegal drugs,
the dangerous drugs itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and, in sustaining a conviction therefor, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must definitely be shown to have been preserved. This requirement necessarily arises from the illegal drug's unique characteristic that renders it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution either by accident or otherwise. Thus, to remove any doubt or uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the seized drug, evidence must definitely show that the illegal drug presented in court is the same illegal drug actually recovered from the accused-appellant; otherwise, the prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under [Republic Act (R.A.)] No. 9165 [otherwise known as The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002] fails. 4
It is in this regard that the procedure to be observed by the apprehending officers in the seizure and custody of dangerous drugs is outlined under Section 21, paragraph 1 of Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165, 5 as amended by RA 10640. 6 It must be noted, however, that the latter provision also provides that "noncompliance of 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 and custody over said items." Notably in this case, both the prosecution and the defense did not touch upon during trial the matter of whether or not an inventory of the seized drug was conducted and whether a photograph of the same was taken in the presence of individuals required by law. And while also nowhere in the prosecution's evidence would show any justifiable ground (if indeed no inventory and taking of photograph took place) "which may excuse the police operatives involved from making the physical inventory and taking of photograph of the drug confiscated and/or seized, such omission shall not render x x x the items seized/confiscated from [accused-appellant] as inadmissible in evidence. Said 'justifiable ground' will remain unknown in the light of the apparent failure of [accused-]appellant to specifically challenge the custody and safekeeping or the issue of disposition and preservation of the subject drug before the trial court. He cannot be allowed too late in the day to question the police officers' alleged noncompliance with Section 21 for the first time on appeal" 7 as he did in the CA.
Besides, what is expressly demanded by the chain of custody rule under the afore-stated enactments is "the identification of the persons who handled the confiscated items for the purpose of duly monitoring the authorized movements of the illegal drugs from the time they are seized from the accused[-appellant] until the time they are presented in court." 8 This is so because: CAIHTE
[t]he chain of custody requirement performs the function of ensuring that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved, so much so that unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the evidence are removed. To be admissible, the prosecution must show by records or testimony, the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit at least between the time it came into possession of the police officers until it was tested in the laboratory to determine its composition up to the time it was offered in evidence. 9
Here, PO1 Mabutol, who acted as poseur-buyer, marked the sachet handed to him by accused-appellant in exchange for the P100.00 buy bust money with the initials "CG-RI." Per stipulation of the parties, the specimen was then indorsed to SPO1 Fernando Lozado, the investigator, who thereupon prepared a letter-request for its laboratory examination. PO1 Mabutol testified that he himself brought the letter-request together with the specimen to the crime laboratory. Again as stipulated, Police Inspector May Andrea Bonifacio (P/I Bonifacio), a forensic chemist, received the request together with the specimen. Thereupon, P/I Bonifacio conducted thereon the requested examination and submitted an Initial Laboratory Report and Chemistry Report which both showed that the specimen was positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride. Thereafter, she turned over the specimen to the Evidence Custodian and retrieved the same for trial. When presented at trial, PO1 Mabutol properly identified the specimen. Clearly, "the prosecution was able to demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary value of the [seized] drug had not been compromised because it [was able to establish] the crucial link in the chain of custody of the seized item from the time it was [confiscated] until it was brought to the court for examination." 10 In view of the foregoing, the Court finds no reason to depart from the uniform rulings of the trial court and the CA that the integrity and evidentiary value of the shabu subject of the sale in this case had been preserved.
In fine, the Court entertains no doubt that accused-appellant is guilty of violation of Section 5, Article II, RA 9165 or The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The penalty for the unauthorized sale of shabu is life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10 million, regardless of its quantity and purity. Thus, appellant was properly sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00.
WHEREFORE, the Court ADOPTS the findings of facts of the trial court as affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed November 26, 2014 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05681 affirming the April 10, 2012 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 82 in Criminal Case No. Q-03-118387, which found accused-appellant Rodelio Ibis y Ponce @ "Odeng" guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."(J. Andres B. Reyes, Jr. designated as additional member per raffle of October 18, 2017 vice J. Francis H. Jardeleza who recused due to prior action as Solicitor General)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Saraum v. People, G.R. No. 205472, January 25, 2016, 781 SCRA 661, 670-671.
2.People v. Araza, 747 Phil. 20, 32 (2014).
3.People v. Gonzales, Jr., G.R. No. 192233, February 17, 2016, 784 SCRA 235, 242.
4.People v. Badilla, G.R. No. 218578, August 31, 2016, 802 SCRA 86, 100-101.
5. 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, x x x so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs, x x x shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the persons from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media 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, finally, That noncompliance of these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items.
6. AN ACT TO FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE ANTI-DRUG CAMPAIGN OF THE GOVERNMENT, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE SECTION 21 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE "COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002." Approved July 15, 2014.
7.People v. Badilla, supra note 4 at 101.
8.Id. at 101-102.
9.Id. at 102.
10.Id. at 103.