FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 223514. June 6, 2019.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.MICHAEL OSTOS y ESCABARTE AND RUBY JANE BORJA y DE VERA, accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 6, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 223514 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MICHAEL OSTOS y ESCABARTE AND RUBY JANE BORJA y DE VERA, Accused-Appellants) — We DISMISS this appeal from the decision 1 promulgated on March 31, 2015, whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the decision 2 rendered on August 13, 2013 by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 03, Tuguegarao City, finding the accused-appellants guilty of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), for failure of the accused-appellants to sufficiently show that the CA thereby committed reversible error in affirming the decision of the trial court. HTcADC
Anent the issue of the alleged failure of the PDEA operatives to physical inventory, photograph and mark of the seized item at the place of arrest, 3 the Court agrees with the CA that the failure to immediately mark and inventory the seized drug did not negate the fact that the integrity and evidentiary value of the same had been sufficiently preserved. The CA correctly observed that —
x x x the absence of evidence that the buy-bust team made an inventory and took photographs of the seized drugs from accused-appellants was not fatal since the prosecution was able to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the shabu. IO1 Agleham, the poseur-buyer, marked the seized items in front of accused-appellants, the barangay captain, barangay kagawad, media representative, DOJ representative and other members of the buy-bust team, immediately upon arrival at the PDEA office. IO1 Agleham then delivered the seized items to the duty investigator, who in turn sent the same to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination on the same day. During trial, IO1 Agleham was able to identify the said markings and explain how they were made.
Clearly, there was no hiatus or confusion in the confiscation, handling, custody and examination of the shabu. The illegal drugs that were confiscated from accused-appellants, taken to the police headquarters, subjected to qualitative examination at the crime laboratory, and finally introduced in evidence against accused-appellants were the same illegal drugs that were confiscated from them when they were caught inflagrate delicto selling the same. 4
WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES the appeal; AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on March 31, 2015 by the Court of Appeals; and ORDERS the accused-appellants to pay the costs of suit. CAIHTE
SO ORDERED."Jardeleza, J., no part due to prior action as Solicitor General; Lazaro-Javier, J., designated Additional Member per Raffle dated April 10, 2019; Carandang, J., on official leave.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-12; penned by Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda, with the concurrence of Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon and Associate Justice Pedro B. Corales.
2. CA rollo, pp. 63-72; penned by Judge Marivic A. Cacatian-Beltran.
3. Pursuant to Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 9165.
4.Rollo, p. 10.