FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 221448. June 25, 2018.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. JOEL MIRONTOS y HERNANDO a.k.a. "JOJO", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 25, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 221448 — People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, v. Joel Mirontos y Hernando a.k.a. "JOJO", 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 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. Prosecution witness PO3 Abraham Sala Momongan (PO3 Momongan) positively identified accused-appellant as the person who sold to him a sachet containing white crystalline substance for which he gave the latter a P100.00-marked money. Upon qualitative examination, the subject item weighing 0.0212 gram tested positive for shabu. EDCTIa
The prosecution likewise adequately established all the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Upon the arrest of accused-appellant, PO3 Momongan immediately seized from him a matchbox which he utilized as container of the items he was selling. It was later found out that the matchbox contained 10 more sachets containing white crystalline substance. When examined, the substance with a total weight of 0.2131 gram was likewise found positive for shabu. Accused-appellant failed to demonstrate any authority to possess the substance yet, from the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, he freely and consciously possessed it.
Anent the issue raised by accused-appellant regarding the chain of custody, the Court finds the same to be without merit.
True, buy-bust team member PO2 Ken Paul E. Balatero (PO2 Balatero) pointed to SPO4 Romeo Suson (SPO4 Suson), the case investigator, as the person who made the markings on the seized items. However, as elucidated by the trial court, "[b]etween PO3 Momongan's testimony who personally made the markings and PO2 Balatero's testimony, the former's testimony is credible and thus, should be given weight and credence." 1 The Court thus adheres "to the principle that the evaluation of the witnesses credibility is a matter best left to the sound discretion of the trial court because of its unique and direct opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand, to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude and, in the process, to ascertain if they were telling the truth or not." 2 Besides, SPO4 Suson himself stated on the witness stand that it was PO3 Momongan who made the markings. 3
Accused-appellant also assails the prosecution's version as to who received the seized items in the crime laboratory from PO3 Momongan. He points out that while PO3 Momongan stated that it was the forensic chemist, Engr. Aileen Undag Bernido (Engr. Bernido), who received the specimens, the stamp receipt on the request for laboratory examination, on the contrary, showed that it was SPO2 Calixto Bernido (SPO2 Bernido) who received the same. However, it must be stressed that during the hearing held on May 7, 2012, the parties already stipulated "[t]hat [it was] SPO2 Calixto Bernido [who] personally received from PO2 Abraham S. Momongan eleven (11) pieces of heat sealed rectangular sachets containing crystalline substances locally known as 'shabu' respectively marked as ASM1 to ASM-11 inclusive." 4 Hence, there should no longer be any dispute about this matter. At any rate, Engr. Bernido herself testified that she saw SPO2 Bernido receive the seized items as she was in the crime laboratory when PO3 Momongan came. 5 ADCIca
Anent the required photograph of the seized items, both the trial court and the CA acknowledged that there was indeed no showing that same was made. They also both held that such absence did not render the arrest of accused-appellant illegal or the items seized from him inadmissible since the integrity and evidentiary value of the said items have been preserved. Notably, the Court in the recent case of People v. Moner6 discussed as follows:
With regard to the third breach of procedure highlighted by Moner, the Court cites People v. Usman wherein we declared that the chain of custody is not established solely by compliance with the prescribed physical inventory and photographing of the seized drugs in the presence of the enumerated persons by law. In that case, the police officers who arrested and processed the accused did not perform the prescribed taking of photographs under the law but, nevertheless, the assailed conviction was upheld. The Court reasoned thus:
x x x [T]his Court has, in many cases, held that while the chain of custody should ideally be perfect, in reality it is not, 'as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain.' The most important factor is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items as they will be used to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. x x x
In the case at bar, the records indicate that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items had been preserved despite the procedural infirmities that accompanied the process. x x x 7 ACTIHa
In like manner, the absence of photographs of the seized items in this case did not render them inadmissible nor impair the chain of custody. As sufficiently established by the prosecution, upon arrest of accused-appellant by the police officers, they took him to the nearby barangay hall of Maquilao. It was there that PO3 Momongan marked the seized items and after which, they were inventoried by SPO4 Suson in the presence of the accused-appellant, the representatives from the Department of Justice and the media, and the barangay chairman. The buy-bust team together with the accused-appellant then proceeded to Tangub City Police Station, with PO3 Momongan still in custody of the seized items. SPO4 Suson then prepared a request for laboratory examination. Thereupon, PO3 Momongan personally delivered the request and the seized items to the crime laboratory and same were received by SPO2 Bernido. Eng. Bernido who was at the crime laboratory when the seized items were received thereupon conducted a laboratory examination on them. Results of the examination revealed that the sachets with markings ASM-1 to ASM-11 which all contained white crystalline substance were positive for shabu. Eng. Bernido then presented the specimens she examined before the court during trial while PO3 Momongan identified them as the same sachets that were seized from accused-appellant and which he marked and submitted to the crime laboratory. As can be gleaned, therefore, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved, hence, strict compliance with the requisites of Section 21 (1) of Republic Act (RA) 9165, as amended by RA 10640, 89 may be disregarded.
In fine, the Court entertains no doubt that accused-appellant was guilty of the crimes charged.
The penalty for 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, accused-appellant was properly sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00. On the other hand, the penalty for illegal possession of dangerous drugs as provided in Section 11, Article II of the same law is imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from P300,000.00 to P400,000.00, if the quantity of the dangerous drugs is less than five grams. In this case, the shabu found in accused-appellant's possession has a total weight of 0.2131 gram, a quantity less than five grams. Thus, he was properly meted the penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and eight months and to pay a fine of P300,000.00. HCSAIa
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 July 24, 2015 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01199-MIN affirming the July 20, 2013 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Tangub City, Branch 16 in Criminal Cases Nos. TC-2011-022 and TC-2011-023, which found accused-appellant Joel Mirontos y Hernando a.k.a. "JOJO" guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, is AFFIRMED. ACcaET
SO ORDERED." Leonardo-De Castro, J., on official leave; Del Castillo, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2562 dated June 20, 2018; Jardeleza, J., took no part; Perlas Bernabe, J., designated as Additional Member per Raffle dated October 18, 2017; Gesmundo, J., designated as Acting Member per Special Order No. 2560 dated May 11, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENAActing Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Records, p. 117.
2.People v. Romobio, G.R. No. 227705, October 11, 2017.
3. TSN, July 18, 2012, p. 6.
4. See Order dated May 7, 2012, records of Criminal Case No. TC-2011-022, p. 59.
5. TSN, November 4, 2011, p. 7.
6. G.R. No. 202206, March 5, 2018.
7.Id.; citations omitted.
8. 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.'
9. SEC. 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, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment 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, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment 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 person/s 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 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.