FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 193246. June 5, 2013.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. RONNIE QUIRIMIT y PRESTOSA, appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 5, 2013 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 193246 (People of the Philippines v. Ronnie Quirimit y Prestosa). — We resolve the appeal, filed by accused Ronnie Quirimit y Prestosa (appellant), from the 23 March 2010 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR.-HC No. 03354. 1
The RTC Ruling
In its 15 February Decision, 2 the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dagupan City, Branch 41, convicted appellant of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. 9165), the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The RTC found that the prosecution duly proved that the appellant sold and delivered the shabu weighing 9.35 grams to PO2 Marlo Velasquez, who had acted as poseur buyer. It held that the buy-bust operation was validly conducted in all respects, which clearly established appellant's guilt in flagrante delicto. Hence, the RTC sentenced him to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000. ISCaTE
The CA Ruling
On intermediate appellate review, the CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC. The CA found that the prosecution was able to establish the chain of custody, specifically, the identity and integrity of the prohibited drug. The appellate court also ruled that the positive identification made by PO2 Velasquez prevailed over the appellant's defenses of denial and alibi which have purportedly become common ploys arising from prosecutions for violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act.
Both the appellant and the prosecution opted to file their respective manifestations in lieu of supplemental briefs. 3
We now rule on the final review of the case.
Our Ruling
We deny the appeal.
After a careful review of the records of the case, we see no reason to reverse or modify the findings of the RTC on the identity and integrity of the shabu discovered during the buy-bust operation, less so in this case where the said findings were affirmed by the CA.
In his assignment of errors, appellant contends that the apprehending officers failed to comply with the letter of Section 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules of R.A. 9165. He argues that the prosecution never established that the plastic sachet confiscated from him was marked immediately upon its seizure. There was also purportedly no showing that an inventory or photograph of the seized drug was made in the presence of the local police, media, and representatives from the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) or the Department of Justice (DOJ). 4 Further, appellant admits that while his testimony supporting his alibi was never corroborated, 5 the defense of alibi deserves merit especially when coupled with improbabilities of the prosecution evidence.
Contrary to the misleading contention of appellant, Section 21 (a) of the law does not absolutely mandate that the apprehending officers physically inventory and photograph the seized drug at the place where accused was apprehended. It specifically states that the inventory and photograph-taking may be conducted "at the nearest police station or the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable." The records of the case show that the sachets of shabu were physically inventoried and photographed at the PDEA office in Tebeng, Dagupan City, in the presence of appellant, the arresting team, and the local elective officials, including the barangay captain of the locality. 6 TADcCS
As for PO2 Velasquez's failure to specify where he had marked the items seized, it has long been held that failure of the arresting officers to mark the illegal drugs at the place of arrest does not render the confiscated items inadmissible in evidence. 7 In People v. Resurreccion, the Court stated:
What Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rule do not expressly specify is the matter of "marking" of the seized items in warrantless seizures to ensure that the evidence seized upon apprehension is the same evidence subjected to inventory and photography when these activities are undertaken at the police station rather than at the place of arrest. Consistency with the "chain of custody" rule requires that the "marking" of the seized items — to truly ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence — should be done (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator (2) immediately upon confiscation.
To be able to create a first link in the chain of custody, then, what is required is that the marking be made in the presence of the accused and upon immediate confiscation. "Immediate Confiscation" has no exact definition. Thus, in People v. Gum-Oyen, testimony that included the marking of the seized items at the police station and in the presence of the accused was sufficient in showing compliance with the rules on chain of custody. Marking upon immediate confiscation contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team. (Emphasis supplied) 8
That no media representatives were present during the inventory is also immaterial. It does not affect the validity of the buy-bust transaction, nor of the integrity of the illegal substance seized. Failure to comply strictly with Section 21 (a) does not necessarily render the arrest of an accused illegal or the items seized or confiscated from them inadmissible. The said provision, continues with a caveat to the buy-bust requirements, viz.: "Provided further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items." What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the evidentiary value of the seized items, as these would be used in the determination of the guilt or the innocence of the accused. In this case, the CA correctly held that the chain of custody of the illicit drug remained unbroken.
Lastly, we find that the RTC and the CA correctly rejected the appellant's defense of alibi. Time and again, we have stressed virtually to the point of repletion that alibi is one of the weakest defenses that an accused can invoke because it is easy to fabricate. In order to be given full faith and credit, an alibi must be clearly established and must not leave any doubt as to its plausibility and veracity. 9 Here, the appellant even admits that his alibi remains uncorroborated. He also admitted that he did not personally know any of the apprehending officers and members of the buy-bust team, and thus failed to proffer any evidence of ill motive on their part.
WHEREFORE, the 23 March 2010 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-HC No. 03354 is hereby AFFIRMED." ETAICc
Very truly yours,
EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
By:
LIBRADA C. BUENADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Penned by Associate Justice Isaias Dicdican and concurred in by Associate Justices Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla; rollo, pp. 2-15.
2.Docketed as Criminal Case No. 2005-0298-D, penned by Judge Emma M. Torio; CA rollo, pp. 10-16.
3.Rollo, pp. 27-28 and pp. 34-37.
4.CA rollo, pp. 48-49.
5.Id. at 50.
6.Rollo, p. 5.
7.Imson v. People, G.R. No. 193003, 13 July 2011, 653 SCRA 826, 835.
8.G.R. No. 186380, 12 October 2009, 603 SCRA 510.
9.People v. Robelo, G.R. No. 184181, 26 November 2012.