FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 200959. January 29, 2014.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARIO MIRANDA y GONZALES, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated January 29, 2014which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 200959 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, versus MARIO MIRANDA y GONZALES, accused-appellant.
Before us is an appeal from the December 20, 2010 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 04029, which affirmed the Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Batangas City finding appellant Mario Miranda y Gonzales guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. 3
In two separate Informations, 4 appellant was charged with unlawful possession of 64.93 grams of shabu, and with illegally selling one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing shabu weighing 0.47 gram. When arraigned, he pleaded not guilty to both charges. 5
The prosecution established that on November 5, 2003, a police asset informed Police Officer 1 Simeon Aldovino that he was able to buy shabu from appellant at the latter's rented apartment in Barangay Sto. Niño, San Pascual, Batangas. Immediately, the police officers planned a buy-bust operation. The asset and PO1 Aldovino proceeded to appellant's apartment, while police officers Jaime Collantes, Apolinar De Castro and Dominador Trencio acted as back-up. The asset knocked on the door of appellant's apartment and the latter opened it. He allowed the asset and PO1 Aldovino to enter. After the asset introduced PO1 Aldovino as a buyer of shabu, PO1 Aldovino gave appellant the marked bills. Appellant then went to the second floor of the apartment and returned with a sachet of shabu, which he gave to PO1 Aldovino. Thereafter, PO1 Aldovino went out of the apartment and waved to the other policemen to inform them that the sale was consummated. PO3 Collantes searched appellant and recovered the marked bills. They went to a room at the second floor and PO3 Collantes saw an open clutch bag on the bed with 30 more sachets of shabu. They arrested appellant and brought him to the police station. 6
Appellant and the seized items were turned over to SPO1 Zosimo Grantoza, the investigator on the case. PO1 Aldovino marked the shabu sold to him, while PO3 Collantes marked the clutch bag and the 30 sachets of shabu. The confiscated items were inventoried in the presence of barangay officials of San Antonio, San Pascual, Batangas. Councilor Pedro Talaik, appellant and the arresting officers signed the inventory. SPO1 Grantoza then prepared a request for laboratory examination. 7 Afterwards, PO1 Aldovino brought the specimen and the request directly to the Regional Crime Laboratory for examination where they were received by PO2 Marilyn Villaluz on November 6, 2003. Upon examination by Chemist Police Inspector Jupri Delantar, all the specimens were found to be positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. 8
For his part, appellant testified that he was arrested on November 5, 2003 between 10:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. in Barangay Sto. Niño, San Pascual, Batangas while waiting for a ride to McDonald's, Batangas City to meet his friends at a disco house. PO1 Aldovino arrived on board a tricycle and after its driver pointed to him as 'Papa Mar,' he was forcibly boarded on the tricycle and brought to the police station. He was searched at the police station and when nothing illegal was found on him, PO3 Collantes took his wallet and jewelry. He claimed that PO3 Collantes mauled and kicked him. Thirty minutes later, he was brought to the house of his employer at Barangay Sto. Niño, San Pascual, Batangas where police officers searched the house and allegedly found a clutch bag with sachets of shabu. He was forced to admit ownership of the clutch bag and the shabu. 9
The RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession and illegal sale of dangerous drugs. He was sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000 in Criminal Case No. 13262 for violation of Section 5, Article II of Rep. Act No. 9165 and to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000 in Criminal Case No. 13263 for violation of Section 11, Article II of the said law.
The CA, as aforesaid, affirmed the Decision of the RTC. Hence, this appeal where appellant raises the sole issue of whether his guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Our Ruling
We deny the appeal.
We agree with the CA and the RTC that the prosecution was able to prove appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the illegal possession of shabu. A closer review of the testimonies of PO3 Collantes, PO1 Aldovino, PO2 De Castro and PO1 Trencio reveals that they positively identified appellant as the person in possession of 30 sachets of shabu, which they found. in a gaping clutch bag on top of the bed. The seized clutch bag containing shabu was in plain view of the buy-bust team which came across the same inadvertently. Under the "plain view doctrine," unlawful objects within the "plain view" of an officer who has the right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented in evidence. 10 In this case, the seizure of the evidence in plain view complied with the following elements: (a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties; (b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be where they are; (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent; and (d) "plain view" justified mere seizure of evidence without further search. 11 DaScHC
It is undisputed that appellant's possession of such substance is not authorized under Rep. Act No. 9165. Likewise, the prosecution was able to prove appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the illegal sale of shabu. The CA and the RTC noted that PO1 Aldovino, who posed as the poseur-buyer, together with the informant, went to appellant's apartment to buy shabu. When PO1 Aldovino handed the two marked P500 bills to appellant, the latter went upstairs, and upon returning, gave PO1 Aldovino a sachet of shabu. After receiving the sachet of shabu from appellant, PO1 Aldovino waved to his companions to inform them that the sale was consummated.
Furthermore, the RTC was correct in ruling that the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation have substantially complied with the requirements ordained by Section 21 of Rep. Act No. 9165. The police officers, after the operation, immediately marked the confiscated items, conducted a physical inventory of the confiscated shabu upon arrival at the police station before the investigator, in the presence of appellant and an elected public official. Considering, however, that it was almost midnight, it is understandable that there were no DOJ representatives present to witness the inventory.
It has been held that strict compliance with the chain of custody rule is not required and that the arrest of an accused will not be invalidated and the items seized from him rendered inadmissible on the sole ground of noncompliance with Section 21, Article II of Rep. Act No. 9165. We have emphasized that what is essential 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." Briefly stated, noncompliance with the procedural requirements under Rep. Act No. 9165 and its implementing rules relative to the custody, photographing, and drug-testing of the apprehended persons, is not a serious flaw that can render void the seizure and custody of drugs in a buy-bust operation. 12 In the present case, there is no showing that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were compromised.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated December 20, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 04029, which affirmed the conviction of appellant Mario Miranda y Gonzales for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, is hereby AFFIRMED and UPHELD.
With costs against the appellant.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 2-18. Penned by Associate Vicente S.E. Veloso, with Associate Justices Francisco P. Acosta and Amy C. Lazaro-Javier concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 7-13. Penned by Presiding Judge Albert A. Kalalo.
3. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
4. Records (Crim. Case No. 13262), p. 1; records (Crim. Case No. 13263), p. 1.
5. Records (Crim. Case No. 13263), p. 13.
6. TSN, July 21, 2004, pp. 4-11; TSN, June 1, 2005, pp. 4-9.
7. TSN, June 1, 2005, pp. 9-11; TSN, March 14, 2006, pp. 7-11.
8. Chemistry Report No. D-2545-03; CA rollo, pp. 8-9.
9. TSN, August 22, 2007, pp. 3-13.
10. People v. Aspiras, 427 Phil. 27, 39 (2002), citing People v. Salanguit, 408 Phil. 817, 834 (2001).
11. Id., citing People v. Aruta, 351 Phil. 868, 879 (1998).
12. People v. Cardenas, G.R. No. 190342, March 21, 2012, 668 SCRA 827, 837.