FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 229679. August 28, 2019.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.JHUN MIMBATAS y RASUL ALIAS "JHUN", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 28, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 229679 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JHUN MIMBATAS y RASUL alias "Jhun," Accused-Appellant.) — We dismiss the appeal from the decision 1 promulgated by the Court of Appeals (CA) on May 14, 2015 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05490 whereby the CA affirmed the December 1, 2011 decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 151, Pasig City, finding herein accused-appellant guilty of violation of Section 15, Article III in relation to Section 21 (b), Article IV of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6425 3 in Criminal Case No. 11248-D.
Anent the integrity of the confiscated item from the accused-appellant, the Court agrees with the courts a quo that the law enforcers had preserved the integrity of the same. While the specific requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 may not apply herein, the law nevertheless did not dispense with the chain of custody rule. Hence, in Catuiran v. People, 4 We explained as follows:
We begin with the precept that in criminal prosecutions, fundamental is the requirement that the elemental acts constituting the offense be established with moral certainty as this is the critical and only requisite to a finding of guilt. In prosecutions involving narcotics, the narcotic substance itself constitutes the corpusdelicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Of prime importance therefore in these cases is that the identity of the dangerous drug be likewise established beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, it must be established with unwavering exactitude that the dangerous drug presented in court as evidence against the accused is the same as that seized from him in the first place. The chain of custody requirement performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. Indeed, it is from the testimony of every witness who handled the evidence from which a reliable assurance can be derived that the evidence presented in court is one and the same as that seized from the accused. 5 [Emphasis Supplied]
Here, the seized item remained with P/Insp. Mannan Maurip (Maurip) from the time of confiscation until he marked the same and personally delivered to Forensic Chemist P/Insp. Vivian Sumobay (Sumobay). Both Maurip and Sumobay had consistently detailed the condition and the markings of the containers. In sum, the integrity of the seized article had been properly preserved and any challenge thereto should be disregarded.
As regards the penalty imposed, the Court modifies the same to conform with the prevailing law at that time. Under Section 15, R.A. No. 6425, the penalty for the sale of regulated drug is imprisonment ranging from six years and one day to twelve years and a fine ranging from six thousand to twelve thousand pesos. Applying the indeterminate sentence law, the minimum imposable penalty is from 6 months and one day to 6 years. Thus, following the relevant provisions of the RevisedPenalCode, 6 the Court sentences the accused-appellant to imprisonment of 2 years, 4 months and 1 day as minimum to 8 years and 1 day, as maximum. The Court also orders the accused-appellant to pay a fine in the amount of six thousand pesos.
WHEREFORE, We DISMISS the appeal; AFFIRM with MODIFICATION the May 14, 2015 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05490, in that the accused shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of 2 years, 4 months and 1 day, as minimum, to 8 years and 1 day, as maximum; and ORDERS the accused-appellant to pay a fine in the amount of Six Thousand Pesos (P6,000.00).
SO ORDERED."Jardaleza, J.,took no part;Inting, J., designated additional member per Raffle dated July 17, 2019.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-11; penned by Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon, concurred by Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. (now a member of this Court) and Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario.
2. CA rollo, pp. 25-56; penned by Presiding Judge Maria Teresa Cruz-San Gabriel.
3.Dangerous Drugs Actof 1972.
4. G.R. No. 175647, May 8, 2009, 587 SCRA 567.
5.Id. at 576-577.
6. See Article 64 (1).