SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 213416. September 26, 2016.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSE PAGDANGANAN Y OMEGA AKA "BADS", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 26 September 2016 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 213416 — People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, v. Jose Pagdanganan y Omega aka "Bads," 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).
We agree with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the CA that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt all the elements for the crime of violation of Section 5 (unauthorized sale of shabu) and Section 11 (illegal possession of shabu), Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 or The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. PO1 Arvin Genove (PO1 Genove) of the District Anti-Illegal Drugs, Special Operation Task Force, Caruncho Avenue, Pasig City, testified that during a buy-bust operation conducted on April 28, 2005 at Rosario Village, Brgy. Sta. Lucia, Pasig City, he acted as the poseur-buyer; that he was introduced by the confidential informant to appellant as a buyer of shabu; that after the introductions, appellant gave him one heat-sealed plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance; in turn, he gave to appellant the P300.00 marked money; that after making the pre-arranged signal, he informed appellant that he is a police officer; that appellant attempted to evade arrest but he was eventually caught; that appellant was frisked and five more plastic sachets believed to contain shabu were recovered from his possession; that upon confirmatory laboratory examination, the confiscated items tested positive for shabu; and that appellant has no authority to sell or possess said shabu. PO3 Ronald Rioja corroborated the testimony of PO1 Genove. EDATSI
The CA properly brushed aside appellant's contentions that the identity of the confiscated items was not proved and that the chain of custody was not properly established, to wit:
Prevailing over accused-appellant Pagdanganan's arguments however, is that the records showed that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved.
After PO1 Genove confiscated from accused-appellant Pagdanganan the six (6) plastic sachets of suspected shabu, PO1 Genove immediately marked the six (6) plastic sachets at the place where accused-appellant Pagdanganan was arrested.
Upon the arrival of the police officers at their headquarters, a Request for Laboratory Examination of the items seized from accused-appellant Pagdanganan was made by PO1 Genove. This Request, along with the seized items were then submitted by PO1 Genove and PO3 Rioja to PSI Ebuen of the Crime Laboratory on April 29, 2005 at 1:30 in the morning.
The seized items were then subjected to chemical examination by PSI Ebuen, who found the seized items to be positive for the presence of methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. Such finding was even admitted by the defense when the testimony of PSI Ebuen was dispensed with after the prosecution and the defense entered into stipulation of facts.
Along with the fact that the plastic sachets of shabu seized from accused-appellant Pagdanganan were properly identified, no 'break' in the chain of custody of the prohibited drug existed. The testimonial, documentary, and object evidence presented by the prosecution established every link in the custody of the prohibited drug — from the moment PO1 Genove confiscated the plastic sachets from accused-appellant Pagdanganan, to the time . . . PO1 Genove brought the plastic sachets to the police headquarters, until the time PO1 Genove and PO3 Rioja turned over the plastic sachets to PSI Ebuen of the Crime Laboratory.
This flow of events leads to no other conclusion than that the specimens examined by P/Sr. Insp. Ebuen, which tested positive for shabu, and which were presented as evidence during the trial, were the same ones taken from accused-appellant Pagdanganan.
Absent any evidence, as was the case here, showing that there was tampering with the evidence, the presumption of regularity in the handling and custody of the evidence is to be upheld. . . . 1
The penalty for the unauthorized sale of shabu, regardless of the quantity and purity involved, is life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10 million. There being no other attendant circumstances, the penalty imposed by the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, which is life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00, is proper. On the other hand, the penalty for illegal possession of shabu, if the quantity is less than five grams, 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. Hence, the lower courts properly imposed upon appellant the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to sixteen (16) years, as maximum, and a fine of P300,000.00 with accessory penalties provided for under the law. TaDSCA
WHEREFORE, we ADOPT the findings of facts of the trial court as affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed September 18, 2013 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04410 which affirmed the January 27, 2010 Joint Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 164, in Crim. Case Nos. 14096-D and 14097-D finding appellant Jose Pagdanganan y Omega aka "Bads" guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.(Carpio, J., on official leave; Brion, J., designated as Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2374 dated September 14, 2016)"
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. CA rollo, pp. 114-115.