FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 201150. December 11, 2013.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ENRIQUE TAPA y CABALIN, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated December 11, 2013 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 201150 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, versus ENRIQUE TAPA y CABALIN, accused-appellant.
The present appeal assails the September 13, 2011 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04463, which affirmed with modification the Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Antipolo City, Branch 73, convicting appellant Enrique Tapa y Cabalin of violation of Section 5, Article II, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165. 3
On May 21, 2003, at around 9:45 p.m., a police asset informed PO2 Vandever Hernandez of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) at Lores Plaza, Antipolo City, that appellant was selling illegal drugs at Barangay Dela Paz, Antipolo City. 4 P/Supt. Raul Bargamento formed a buy-bust team composed of PO2 Hernandez as poseur-buyer, with PO3 Jaime Cariaso, PO3 Norman Platon and PO3 Sherwin Bulan as back-up officers. 5 They prepared two 100-peso bills and one 200-peso bill as marked money. 6 The team proceeded to the target area and the police asset pointed to appellant. PO2 Hernandez approached and inquired from appellant if he has shabu. Appellant replied, "meron, magkano?"7 After PO2 Hernandez handed the marked money, appellant took something from his pocket. Seeing that it was a plastic sachet of white crystalline substance, PO2 Hernandez arrested appellant and made the pre-arranged signal by shouting "Sarhento, eto na!" 8They seized the marked money and two other plastic sachets with white crystalline substance from appellant. PO2 Hernandez immediately marked the sachets with "JC1," "JC2" and "JC3" 9 and brought the seized items to the PDEA Office. Thereafter, PO3 Cariaso delivered the items to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory. Upon examination, the specimens were found positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. 10
Appellant was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. 11 He entered a plea of "not guilty." 12ACcaET
After trial, the RTC rendered a Decision finding appellant guilty of the crime charged and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay P50,000 in moral damages and P50,000 in exemplary damages.
The CA affirmed the trial court's Decision but modified the penalty to life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000. The CA also deleted the award of moral and exemplary damages.
The sole issue for our resolution is whether appellant's guilt for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Appellant claims that the PDEA agents failed to conduct a physical inventory and to take photographs of the seized shabu, in the presence of the accused immediately after seizure and confiscation, and there were no representatives from the media and the Department of Justice as well as any elected public official. Thus, he argues that the PDEA agents failed to comply with the requisites of Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 relative to the seizure and custody of dangerous drugs.
The appeal has no merit.
In People v. Presas,13 the Court has held that the failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the required physical inventory and photograph of the evidence confiscated pursuant to said guidelines, does not automatically render accused's arrest illegal or the items seized from him inadmissible. A proviso was added in the implementing rules 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."
In this case, the records show that after PO2 Hernandez confiscated the three sachets of shabu from appellant, he immediately marked them with "JC1," "JC2" and "JC3" at the place of arrest, after which appellant and the seized items, as marked, were brought to the headquarters. 14 P/Supt. Bargamento made a request for laboratory examination. 15 Thereafter, the marked items were delivered by PO3 Cariaso to the PNP Crime Laboratory, Camp Crame, Quezon City for laboratory examination. 16 Per Chemistry Report No. D-578-03 prepared by the forensic chemist, Police Inspector May Andrea Bonifacio, the specimen were found positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. 17The same items remained with the PNP Crime Laboratory prior to their presentation in evidence, as it was PI Bonifacio who presented the seized items in court. 18
Under the circumstances of this case, although the police officers did not strictly comply with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of R.A. 9165, we hold that their noncompliance did not affect the evidentiary weight of the drugs seized from appellant as the chain of custody of the evidence was shown to be unbroken.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated September 13, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04463 is hereby AFFIRMED.
Costs against accused-appellant. ECaTAI
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 2-21. Penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta with Associate Justices Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla and Agnes Reyes-Carpio concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 11-14. Penned by Judge Ronaldo B. Martin.
3. The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
4. Rollo, p. 3; TSN, January 20, 2005, pp. 3-4.
5. Id.; TSN, July 29, 2005, pp. 4-5.
6. Id.; records, p. 117.
7. Id. at 3-4; TSN, January 20, 2005, pp. 4-6.
8. Id. at 4; id. at 6-7.
9. Id.; id. at 7.
10. Id.; records, p. 121.
11. Id.; id. at 1-2.
12. Id. at 5; id. at 19.
13. G.R. No. 182525, March 2, 2011, 644 SCRA 443, 455.
14. TSN, January 20, 2005, pp. 7-8.
15. Records, p. 119.
16. Id. at 119 & 122.
17. Id. at 121.
18. TSN, August 18, 2005, pp. 8-10.