THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 211461. July 31, 2017.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. SAMUEL LINGAO-LINGAO y ALCARES, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated July 31, 2017, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 211461 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SAMUEL LINGAO-LINGAO y ALCARES, Accused-Appellant). — The Court NOTES the letter dated May 14, 2017 of P/Supt. I Roberto R. Rabo, Superintendent of the New Bilibid Prison, Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, confirming the confinement therein of accused-appellant since November 17, 2012.
The accused-appellant seeks the review and reversal of the decision promulgated on July 4, 2013, 1 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the judgment rendered in Criminal Case No. 19598 on February 15, 2012 by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 30, in Dumaguete City finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of a violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). 2
After careful and judicious review of the records, the Court RESOLVESTODISMISS the appeal considering that the accused-appellant did not persuasively show that the CA had committed any reversible error in affirming the judgment finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged. TIADCc
The Prosecution competently and sufficiently established the guilt of the accused-appellant for the crime charged. The Court adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law rendered by the CA in its assailed decision because they were fully supported by the record. Verily, his denial of having been apprehended during a buy-bust operation could not overcome the firm and positive testimonies of some of the members of the entrapment team made up of policemen and an agent of the National Bureau of Investigation about his having been apprehended in the course of their legitimate buy-bust operation against him. His bare claim that he had been accosted, arrested and searched by an unknown person as he was innocently buying cigarettes at a store near the restaurant where he had just taken a meal does not persuade. Such claim, essentially a denial, could not gain traction in the face of the positive testimonies of the poseur-buyer who was a police officer.
Moreover, the CA fully debunked the allegation of the accused-appellant that the chain of custody had not been shown to be unbroken, observing to the contrary as follows:
x x x contrary to the contention of the appellant, the identity and chain of custody of the seized evidence were duly established by the prosecution. The alleged infirmities in the Certificate of Inventory are not the appellant's saving grace. Concededly, the failure to make an inventory will not even render appellant's arrest illegal or the item seized or confiscated from his inadmissible. Verily, failure of the police officers to faithfully comply with Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 is not fatal as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized item is properly preserved. Here, it bears stressing that the moment the item was seized, it was subsequently marked by SPO2 Germodo.He then prepared an inventory and photographs were taken by SI Tagle.Thereafter, the evidence was immediately forwarded to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. Thus, the prosecution satisfactorily established beyond all doubt the identity of the prohibited drugs and that it was the same item that was seized from appellant and which was subsequently offered and identified in court as evidence.3 (Bold emphasis supplied)
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on July 4, 2013 by the Court of Appeals; and ORDERS the accused-appellant to pay the costs of suit.
(Jardeleza, J., no part due to prior action as Solicitor General; Del Castillo, J., designated Additional Member per Raffle dated February 8, 2017)
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. CA rollo, pp. 147-158; penned by Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, with the concurrence of Justice Carmelita Salandanan-Manahan and Justice Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla.
2.Id. at 13-23; by Judge Rafael Cresencio C. Tan, Jr.
3.Id. at 131.