FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 220139. July 9, 2018.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROBERTO ROY RUBI A.K.A. ROBERT ROY RUBI, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 9, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 220139 — People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, v. Roberto Roy Rubi a.k.a. Robert Roy Rubi, 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. The poseur-buyer, Police Officer 2 (PO2) Gil Orozco (PO2 Orozco), positively identified accused-appellant Roberto Roy Rubi as the seller of shabu in the buy-bust operation. He categorically testified during trial that accused-appellant gave him one small plastic pack of white crystalline substance in exchange for the P300.00 marked money. Upon qualitative examination at the crime laboratory, the seized item weighing 0.06 gram tested positive for shabu. PO2 Neil Ryan Talle (PO2 Talle), who was with PO2 Orozco during the buy-bust operation, corroborated the latter's testimony. HTcADC
There is no merit in accused-appellant's argument that the testimony of PO2 Talle cannot be used to corroborate that of PO2 Orozco since the former admitted to have not heard the conversation between accused-appellant and PO2 Orozco during the buy-bust. It is wise to quote in this regard the argument of the Office of the Solicitor General in its Appellee's Brief, viz.:
A witness' perception of the events that transpired involves all or either one of the five sense organs of the human body, i.e., the sense of sight, hearing, smell, touch and taste. In the case at bar, even without exactly hearing the conversation between PO2 Orozco and accused-appellant, PO2 Talle can perfectly deduce that a drug transaction is taking place [he] being a police officer highly trained in these circumstances. By using the sense of sight, he was able to clearly see the gestures of accused-appellant as he handed the plastic sachet of shabu to PO2 Orozco who in turn handed the buy-bust money. Thus, it is clear that PO2 Talle has personal knowledge of the drug buy-bust and his testimony perfectly corroborates the testimony of PO2 Orozco. 1
It is also understandable that PO2 Talle did not hear the conversation considering that the transaction was supposed to be discreet, the same being illegal. Besides, even if uncorroborated, the testimony of PO2 Orozco alone sufficiently established the elements of the crime charged for being positive and credible and in the absence of any ill motive on his part to testify falsely against accused-appellant. As held in People v. Garcia, 2
x x x [T]he familiar rule [is] that the testimony of a single witness, if positive and credible, is enough to convict an accused. For indeed, criminals are convicted not on the number of witnesses presented against them, but on the credibility of the testimony of even one witness. It bears [to] stress that it is the quality, not the quantity, of testimony that counts. To be sure, a corroborative testimony is not necessary where the details of the crime have been testified to with sufficient clarity. As there was nothing to indicate in this case that police officer Enmodias was inspired by ill-motive to testify mendaciously against appellant, the trial court had every reason to accord full faith and credit to his testimony. 3
With respect to the alleged inconsistency in the testimonies of PO2 Orozco and PO2 Talle as to who made the pre-arranged missed call signal, the CA aptly held that the said inconsistency did not refer to the elements of the crime committed. It has been ruled that "[i]f the cited inconsistency has nothing to do with the elements of a crime, it does not stand as a ground to reverse a conviction." 4 CAIHTE
Lastly, with respect to the identity and evidentiary value of the seized drug, the Court agrees with the conclusion of both the trial court and the CA that the same had been properly preserved.
Section 21 (1) of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165, 5 as amended by RA 10640, 6 provides as follows:
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. aScITE
Here, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses established that upon the arrest of accused-appellant, PO2 Orozco turned over to PO2 Talle the seized item in the crime scene since the latter was the designated seizing officer. While PO2 Talle intended to mark the seized item in the crime scene, he was not able to do so after their team leader decided to withdraw from the premises due to the fact that there were many persons milling around them and some even tried to rescue the accused-appellant by pulling him out. PO2 Talle remained in custody of the seized item from the crime scene to their headquarters where upon arrival, PO2 Talle marked the same with the initials R.L.R. which stands for the name of the accused-appellant, Roberto Lepiten Rubi. Likewise, an inventory was conducted and photographs were taken in the presence of the accused, a member of the media, and a barangay official. PO2 Talle, together with PO2 Orozco, then delivered the seized item to the crime laboratory. The same was received and examined by P/Supt. Mutchit G. Salinas (P/Supt. Salinas) as stipulated by the parties. Results showed that the specimen contained 0.06 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride and this was reduced into writing by P/Supt. Salinas through Chemistry Report No. D-050-2010. The parties also stipulated that P/Supt. Salinas can identify the seized item and also the report she made on her examination thereon. Also stipulated upon is the fact that the seized item was turned over by P/Supt. Salinas to Evidence Custodian PO3 Bucayan, 7 who in turn, produced the same before the trial court on February 25, 2010. When presented on trial, PO2 Talle was able to identify the seized item as the same pack of shabu which he marked with the initials R.L.R.
Accused-appellant bewails the fact that instead of PO2 Talle, it was PO2 Orozco who signed the delivery receipt of the seized item when it was turned over to the crime laboratory. Suffice it to state, however, that the prosecution was able to sufficiently provide an explanation for this. Both PO2 Talle and PO2 Orozco testified that they were together when they delivered the seized item to the crime laboratory and it happened that it was PO2 Orozco who signed the delivery receipt. Indeed, the Court recognizes substantial adherence to the requirements of RA 9165 and its implementing rules and regulations so long as the police officers present justifiable reason for their imperfect conduct and show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item had been preserved, 8 as in this case.
There is also no merit in accused-appellant's argument anent the non-presentation of the officer who received the seized item in the crime laboratory and the forensic examiner. It must be recalled that the parties already stipulated upon the fact that P/Supt. Salinas received the seized item in the crime laboratory, examined the same, reduced into writing the result of such examination and turned over the same to the evidence custodian, who in turn, produced the seized item before the court. There is therefore no more need to present P/Supt. Salinas. Besides, "there is no rule which requires the prosecution to present as witness in a drug case every person who had something to do with the arrest of the accused and the seizure of the prohibited drugs from him. The discretion on which witness to present in every case belongs to the prosecutor." 9 DETACa
In fine, the Court entertains no doubt that accused-appellant was guilty of the crime 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.
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 March 26, 2015 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-HC. No. 01672 affirming the March 22, 2013 Judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 57 in Criminal Case No. CBU-87916, which found accused-appellant Roberto Roy Rubi a.k.a. Robert Roy Rubi guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED." Leonardo-De Castro, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2559 dated May 11, 2018; Bersamin, J., designated as additional member per November 29, 2017 raffle vice Jardeleza, J., who recused due to prior action as Solicitor General; Gesmundo, J., designated as Acting Member of the First Division per Special Order No. 2560 dated May 11, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENAActing Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. CA rollo, p. 38.
2. 372 Phil. 155 (1999).
3.Id. at 168.
4.People v. Clara, 715 Phil. 259, 279 (2013).
5. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
6. 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."
7. First name not available from the records.
8.People v. Watamama, 692 Phil. 102, 107 (2012).
9.Id. at 107-108.