People v. Mercado

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 232460. March 25, 2019.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.ANDREW KIM SANTOS MERCADO, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated March 25, 2019which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 232460 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANDREW KIM SANTOS MERCADO, Accused-Appellant.) — After a judicious review of the records, the Court DENIES the appeal and AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on February 10, 2017 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08160, 1 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the ruling 2 rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 203, Muntinlupa City, in Criminal Case No. 10-652 on February 2, 2016, adjudging the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002).

The Court agrees with the CA that the accused-appellant was apprehended through a valid buy-bust operation. A buy-bust operation is considered valid as long as it passes the "objective test" which requires that "the details of the purported transaction during the buy-bust operation must be clearly and adequately shown." 3 The testimony of the sole witness of the prosecution, IO1 Laura Nebato, satisfied this test when she narrated in detail the illicit transaction starting from her initial contact with the accused-appellant, her offer to purchase the prohibited drug from the accused, the payment, up until the delivery the prohibited drug by the accused.

It is said that the testimony of a lone witness deserves full faith and credit, as long as it is positive and clear and not a result of improper motive to impute a serious offense against the accused. 4 Herein accused failed to prove that IO1 Nebato was motivated by ill-will to testify falsely against him. In fact, he categorically admitted during cross-examination that he did not know IO1 Nebato and was unaware of any reason why the PDEA operatives would impute such a grave offense upon his person. 5

Anent the rule on chain of custody, We remained convinced that the prosecution had sufficiently proved every link in the chain of custody, to wit:

x x x the chain of custody was established through the following links: (1) the poseur buyer IO1 Laura Nebato received from accused-appellant at Pedro E. Diaz Street, Muntinlupa City the subject of illegal sale, the ten (10) plastic sachets contained in a white sando plastic bag, and marked the white sando plastic bag and the ten (10) plastic sachets with "LPN 27-09-10 EXH. A" and "LPN 27-09-10 EXH. A-1" to "LPN 27-09-10 EXH. A-10," respectively, in the presence of accused-appellant, arresting officer IO Ryan Reyes, media representative Francis Epino, Kagawad Jose Ruiz, Jr. and Kagawad Jonathan Burce; (2) the seized items remained in the custody of IO1 Laura Nebato until arrival at the PDEA-MMRO and after marking, inventory-taking and photographing, she prepared the request for laboratory examination; (3) the request for laboratory examination and the marked items seized from accused-appellant were delivered to the PDEA Laboratory Service by IO1 Laura Nebato and was received by Forensic Chemist Elaine Erno; (4) Chemistry Report No. PDEA-DD010-391 of PDEA Laboratory Service confirmed that the marked items seized from accused-appellant were positive for the presence of shabu; and, (5) the marked items were offered in evidence as Exhibits "S" to "BB." 6 CAIHTE

The failure of the PDEA operatives to immediately mark and inventory the confiscated illicit drug at the place of arrest did not negate the fact that the integrity and evidentiary value of the same had been sufficiently preserved. IO1 Nebato had satisfactorily explained that the marking and inventory-taking were done at the PDEA-MMRO in Quezon City because they had found it impractical and potentially dangerous to do the same at the place of arrest because a crowd had started to build up; that the accused-appellant lived near the area; and that a suspected drug group was operating in the same area. Further, the prosecution had established that the confiscated items remained in the custody of IO1 Nebato during the entire travel to PDEA-MMRO.

Finally, We do not give credence to the defense of frame-up and denial put up by the accused for being self-serving and uncorroborated. We often look upon these defenses with great disfavor as they may be conveniently concocted and are routinely asserted to by culprits arrested for violations of R.A. No. 9165. 7

WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the appeal for lack of merit and AFFIRMS the February 10, 2017 decision promulgated by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08160.

SO ORDERED." Jardeleza, J., on official business.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 2-32; penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta, with the concurrence of Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion and Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela.

2. CA rollo, pp. 51-64; penned by Presiding Judge Myra C. Quiambao.

3.People v. Dumagay y Suacito, G.R. No. 216753, February 7, 2018.

4.Garcia v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 110983, March 8, 1996, 254 SCRA 542, 551.

5.Rollo, p. 29.

6.Id. at 22.

7.People v. Bautista, G.R. No. 177320, February 22, 2012, 666 SCRA 518, 536.