THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 232356. March 11, 2020.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. JULIE NAVA y DATING, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 11, 2020, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 232356 (People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee,v. Julie Nava y Dating, Accused-Appellant). — This appeal 1 assails the Decision 2 dated 31 March 2016 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06834. The CA affirmed the Decision 3 dated 27 December 2013 of Branch 39, Regional Trial Court of Daet (RTC), Camarines Norte in Criminal Case No. 14836, finding accused-appellant Julie Nava y Dating (accused-appellant), guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Antecedents
Accused-appellant was charged in an Information, the accusatory portion of which states:
"That on or about 10:15 o'clock in the morning of June 11, 2011 at Purok 9, Brgy. VIII, Municipality of Daet, Province of Camarines Norte, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to gain, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, distribute or transport one (1) small heat-sealed/masking tape sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.60 gram of white crystalline substance with markings "RFA" and marked as specimen A, known as Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug, per Chemistry Report No. D-51-2011, without authority of law, to the damage and prejudice of the general welfare and the state."
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty. 5 Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
Version of the Prosecution
Acting on an information obtained on 09 June 2011, the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), Region V Office, formed a buy-bust operation against accused-appellant. Allegedly, she was selling shabu at her residence in Purok 9, Barangay VIII, Daet, Camarines Norte. 6
On 11 June 2011, the buy-bust team composed of Intelligence Officer 1 Rodel F. Abina (IO1 Abina) as the poseur buyer, Senior Inspector Erwin V. Magpantay (SI Magpantay) as the arresting officer, and members of the Provincial Anti-Crime Task Force (PACTF) proceeded to the, target area. SI Magpantay positioned himself at a nearby store near accused-appellant's house while IO1 Abina and the confidential agent arrived on board a motorcycle. As IO1 Abina and the confidential agent alighted from the motorcycle, accused-appellant approached them. The confidential' informant introduced IO1 Abina to accused-appellant as an interested buyer. Accused-appellant asked IO1 Abina for the price, and the latter replied P5,000.00. IO1 Abina handed the buy-bust money, and in turn, accused-appellant gave him a plastic sachet with suspected shabu. Subsequently, IO1 Abina executed the pre-arranged signal and SI Magpantay immediately arrested accused-appellant. IO1 Abina recovered the buy-bust money. 7
At the place of arrest, IO1 Abina marked, photographed, and inventoried the seized item in the presence of Barangay Kagawad Henry Pamano (Barangay Kagawad Pamano), Department of Justice (DOJ) representative Ely R. De Leon, and media representative Rey B. Mago. 8 At the PACTF Office, the request for laboratory examination was prepared and the seized item was delivered by IO1 Abina to the crime laboratory for examination. PSI Grace Yebra Gorospe received and examined the plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance with a total net weight of 0.60 gram, which turned out positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride 9
Version of the Defense
Accused-appellant denied the charges against her. She claimed getting some air in front of her house when an "Operation Barangay Linis" was conducted in their area. Suddenly, IO1 Abina arrested her, allegedly, for selling illegal drugs. Accused-appellant was brought to the balcony of her house and a female, operative conducted body search on her but found nothing. She was brought back to the place of her arrest and the police officers inventoried and photographed the item allegedly taken from her. 10
Ruling of the RTC
In its Decision dated 27 December 2013, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 and sentenced her to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00. 11 The RTC found that the prosecution established the elements of illegal sale of prohibited drugs as she was caught in flagrante delicto, selling one (1) plastic sachet of shabu weighing 0.60 gram to the poseur-buyer. 12
Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed to the CA.
Ruling of the CA
In its Decision dated 31 March 2016, the CA affirmed the RTC ruling. The CA held that the inconsistencies alleged by accused-appellant were minor and insignificant. The elements of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 were established. Lastly, the CA found that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item were properly preserved. 13
Hence, this appeal.
Ruling of the Court
The appeal has no merit.
In order to properly secure the conviction of an accused charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must prove: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. 14 Both the RTC and the CA found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. The prosecution was able to satisfactorily establish offense charged as accused-appellant sold one (1) plastic sachet of shabu to IO1 Abina during a legitimate buy-bust operation.
Settled is the rule that factual findings of the RTC, when affirmed by the CA, are entitled to great weight and respect by this Court and are deemed final and conclusive when supported by the evidence on record. 15 Absent any showing that the trial and the appellate courts overlooked certain facts and circumstances that could substantially affect the outcome, their rulings must be upheld, 16 as in this case. Also, no ill-motive was shown on the part of the police officers to tarnish their positive testimonies. The Court has time and time again held that categorical and consistent positive identification, without any ill motive, prevails over alibi and denial. 17
Further, this Court notes that the buy-bust team sufficiently complied with the chain of custody rule under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165.
Case law states that in illegal sale of prohibited drugs, it is essential that the identity of the prohibited drug be established with moral certainty. In order to obviate any unnecessary doubts on the identity of the dangerous drugs, the prosecution has to show an unbroken chain of custody of the same. It must be able to account for each link in the chain of custody over the dangerous drug from the moment of seizure up to its presentation in court as evidence of the corpus delicti. 18
In this case, the prosecution was able to clearly establish the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated sachet of shabu. It was clear that IO1 Abina retained possession and control of the shabu from the time it was recovered from accused-appellant until its turn over to the forensic chemist for qualitative examination.
It is glaring from the records that after accused-appellant was arrested during the buy-bust operation, the buy-bust team conducted the inventory in the place of arrest. The marking, photographing, and inventory were witnessed by accused-appellant, an elected public official, and representatives from the media and DOJ. Thereafter, IO1 Abina retained custody of the confiscated item and brought the same to the crime laboratory for examination. After laboratory analysis, the submitted specimen gave positive result to the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride. From the foregoing, this Court holds that the PDEA agents complied with the chain of custody rule. Thus, the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti had been duly preserved.
Accused-appellant contends that the seized sachet was contaminated when it was placed on the ground for photographing and inventory. She likewise claims that the prosecution failed to take photographs of the actual buy-bust transaction. These claims of inconsistencies, however, are immaterial since they are not requisites under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 and the rule on the chain of custody of evidence. Moreover, except for accused-appellant's bare allegations, there was no evidence that the sachet of shabu was indeed altered, tampered, contaminated, substituted, exchanged, or planted.
Accused-appellant also argues that there was a discrepancy between the request for examination of the seized item and what was actually transmitted to the crime laboratory for examination. As properly found by the CA, however, the discrepancy was justifiably explained by IO1 Abina who was in custody of the sachet of shabu. In his testimony, IO1 Abina positively asserted that he put the masking tape with the marking on the plastic sachet and had it sealed before delivering it to the crime laboratory.
Clearly, accused-appellant merely rehashes factual matters that both the CA and the RTC thoroughly considered and judiciously resolved. Their unanimous findings compel us to uphold accused-appellant's conviction because she failed to show any fact or circumstance that the lower courts ignored or mis-appreciated, which, if properly noted, would change the outcome in her favor. Unless sufficient basis is given for reversing their common findings, this Court will not act to reverse and disturb the same.
In conclusion, this Court affirms accused-appellant's conviction for the offense charged. Thus, the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 imposed by the CA is sustained, being within the range provided by law.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. Accordingly, the Decision dated 31 March 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06834 is AFFIRMED. Accused-appellant Julie Nava y Dating is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, defined and penalized under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 in Criminal Case No. 14836. Accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer; the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00).
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 18-21.
2.Id. at 2-17; penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan-Castillo and concurred in by Associate Justices Florito S. Macalino and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles of the Tenth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
3. Records, Criminal Case No. 14836, pp. 128-132; penned by RTC Judge Winston S. Racoma.
4. Records, Criminal Case No. 14836, pp. 1-2.
5.Id. at 31.
6.Rollo, p. 3.
7.Id. at 3-4.
8. Records, p. 12.
9.Id. at 18.
10.Rollo, pp. 4-5.
11. Records, p. 132.
12.Id. at 128-132.
13.Rollo, pp. 6-17.
14.People v. Sumili, 753 Phil. 342-353 (2015); G.R. No. 212160, 04 February 2015, 750 SCRA 143.
15.Guevarra v. People, 726 Phil. 183-196 (2014); G.R. No. 170462, 05 February 2014, 715 SCRA 384, citing Maxwell Heavy Equipment Corporation v. Yu, 653 Phil. 338, 343 (2010); see also People v. Jao, 810 Phil. 1028-1039 (2017); G.R. No. 225634, 07 June 2017.
16.Id.
17.People v. Ascarraga, G.R. No. 222337, 23 July 2018.
18.See People v. Viterbo, 739 Phil. 593, 601 (2014); G.R. No. 203434, 23 July 2014, 730 SCRA 672.