SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 232615. August 23, 2017.]
RAMIL QUINTOS a.k.a. RAMIL QUÑO Y BALATERO, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated23 August 2017which reads as follows: ETHIDa
"G.R. No. 232615 (Ramil Quintos a.k.a. Ramil Quño y Balatero vs. People of the Philippines). — Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 filed by Ramil Quintos (Quintos), assailing the Decision 2 dated September 27, 2016 and the Resolution 3 dated April 20, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 02447, which affirmed the Judgment 4 dated September 4, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 57, in Criminal Case Nos. CBU-83956 and CBU-83957, convicting Quintos of violation of Section 11 of Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 5 and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fifteen (15) years and a fine of P300,000.00.
Facts
Quintos, together with Carlos Yunson (Yunson), were charged in two separate Informations for violations of Sections 11 and 12 of Article II of R.A. No. 9165. It was alleged that Quintos and Yunson had in their possession four (4) heat-sealed plastic sachets each containing 0.08, 0.05, 0.07 and 0.22 grams of shabu. They were also charged of having drug paraphernalia in their possession. During arraignment, Quintos pleaded not guilty to the charges. Trial ensued thereafter. 6
The prosecution witnesses established that on July 17, 2008, a team composed of Police Chief Inspector Richard Caballero, Senior Police Officer 1 Roel Leyson (SPO1 Leyson), SPO1 Arnold Bucayong (SPO1 Bucayong), SPO1 William Selibio (SPO1 Selibio), PO2 Eriberto Dacalos, Jr. and SPO2 Delfin Bontuyan implemented Search Warrant No. 1817-07-0908-17 at Quintos' house in Avocado Street, Mambaling, Cebu City. They introduced themselves as police officers to Quintos' wife, who was at the living room of the house. At the time, Quintos and Yunson were in the kitchen repacking shabu. When the police officers approached and introduced themselves to Quintos and Yunson, the two tried to hide the shabu and the drug paraphernalia that were on the table. The team recovered four (4) sachets of shabu inside the drawer of a four-layer plastic organizer on top of the table, several paraphernalia, and a .45 caliber pistol with six (6) live bullets located in the ceiling of the kitchen. 7
At the crime scene, SPO1 Leyson marked the plastic sachets of shabu "RQ-01SW" to "RQ-04SW" and the drug paraphernalia "RQ-01P" to "RQ-11P." Meanwhile, SPO1 Bucayong recorded and issued a Receipt for the recovered items, which was signed by two barangay tanods who witnessed the search. Thereafter, Quintos and Yunson were brought to the police station. SPO1 Bucayong turned over the four (4) sachets of shabu to SPO1 Selibio, who forwarded the same to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory for examination. The items were received by the duty desk officer, PO3 Abesia, and were turned over to forensic chemist, P/Insp. Rendielyn Sahagun. After checking that the markings on the specimens tallied with the description on the letter-request, P/Insp. Sahagun conducted a qualitative examination thereon. The examination yielded positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride. 8
On the other hand, the defense presented its own version. Quintos testified that he was with his live-in partner in his mother's house. Yunson was also there, as he was supposed to have his eye checked by Quintos' mother, who is an optometrist. Suddenly, two police officers entered the house looking for Ramil. Yunson then pointed at Quintos who was eating in the kitchen. One of the police officers arrested Quintos. They were brought outside the house and another person arrived, bringing with him a document. A barangay tanod was also present. The police officers searched the house without showing Quintos the search warrant. Thereafter, Quintos and Yunson were detained at the police station, where they learned of the charges against them. 9
Ruling of the RTC
The RTC rendered a Decision 10 on September 4, 2014, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court finds accused Ramil Quintos, a.k.a. Ramil Quño y Balatero guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fifteen [15] years and a fine of Php300,000.00. cSEDTC
A judgment of acquittal on reasonable doubt is hereby rendered in favor of the following:
1. accused Yunson for Violation of Section 11 of aforesaid law;
2. accused Quintos and Yunson for Violation of Section 12 of the same law.
The four packs of shabu and shabu [paraphernalia] are forfeited in favor of the government for proper disposal.
The Jail Warden of the Cebu City Jail is directed to release [Yunson] unless there exists other legal grounds for his continued detention.
SO ORDERED.11
Ruling of the CA
In its Decision 12 dated September 27, 2016, the CA affirmed the RTC decision, thus:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Judgment of the [RTC], Branch 57, Cebu City dated September 4, 2014, is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 13
Quintos moved for reconsideration 14 of the RTC decision, but the motion was denied by the CA in its Resolution 15 dated April 20, 2017.
Hence, this petition for review.
Issue
The core issue is whether the CA erred in finding Quintos guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11 of Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
Ruling of the Court
The Court resolves to deny the petition.
It must be stressed that factual findings of the appellate courts will not be reviewed nor disturbed on appeal to this court. 16 Only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari. 17 The factual findings of the CA bind this court. 18 Although jurisprudence has provided several exceptions to these rules, exceptions must be alleged, substantiated, and proved by the parties so this court may evaluate and review the facts of the case. In the present case, Quintos did not show that his petition falls under any of the recognized exceptions.
Quintos argues that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are unreliable, improbable and inconsistent which cast doubt to the veracity of their claim that they found illegal drugs in his house. He claims that there were inconsistencies between the testimonies of SPO1 Leyson and SPO1 Selibio. Quintos points out that SPO1 Leyson testified that he recovered four (4) sachets of shabu inside a plastic drawer, while SPO1 Selibio stated that there were three (3) sachets of shabu inside the plastic drawer because the fourth sachet was the one being repacked by Quintos. 19
The Court is not persuaded. Quintos' contention was already considered and passed upon by the CA. In its assailed decision, the CA explained that there was no inconsistency with respect to the actual number of sachets of shabu recovered. SPO1 Selibio clarified during his re-cross examination that there were three (3) sachets of shabu in the drawer and the fourth one was being repacked by Quintos. Upon seeing them, Quintos immediately placed the fourth sachet inside the plastic drawer. Hence, SPO1 Leyson was able to recover four (4) sachets of shabu inside the plastic drawer. 20
The well-established rule is that findings of the trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve credibility are accorded respect when no glaring errors; gross misapprehension of facts; or speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. 21 "[T]he determination by the trial court of the credibility of witnesses, when affirmed by the appellate court, is accorded full weight and credit as well as great respect, if not conclusive effect. 22 Moreover, in cases involving violations of R.A. No. 9165, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they are presumed to have performed their duty in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary.
Likewise, Quintos contends that there were gaps in the chain of custody since the apprehending officers did not take photographs of the seized items and that the inventory was not witnessed by a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official in violation of Section 21, paragraph 1, of Article II of R.A. No. 9165. 23 SDAaTC
Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, states that "[t]he apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory 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, a representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof."
The Court notes that while there were no representatives from the media or from the DOJ during the conduct of the search, the records show that the search and inventory was done in the presence of the barangay officials, Quintos' mother and his common law wife. Moreover, the confiscated sachets of shabu were immediately marked on site and inventoried by the police officers. Thus, the Court finds that there was compliance with the law and that the integrity of the seized items was not compromised.
In Mallillin v. People, 24 the Court explained the chain-of-custody rule as follows:
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. 25 (Citations omitted and emphasis Ours)
In the present case, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses convincingly established the continuous chain of custody which preserved the identity, integrity and evidentiary value of the illegal drugs that were seized from Quintos. They testified that the sachets of shabu recovered by SPO1 Leyson were turned over to SPO1 Bucayong for recording. SPO1 Bucayong returned the same items to SPO1 Leyson for marking. SPO1 Leyson then handed these items back to SPO1 Bucayong for custody from the crime scene until they reached the police station. At the police station, SPO1 Bucayong handed the specimens to SPO1 Selibio, who brought the same to the crime laboratory together with the letter request for examination. The seized items were received by PO3 Abesia, who turned them over to P/Insp. Sahagun. Thereafter, P/Insp. Sahagun examined the specimens and found these positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. She kept the items after examination, and she was the one who turned them over to the court when she took the witness stand to testify.
Finally, Quintos' denial is an intrinsically weak defense, especially in the face of positive assertions made by the prosecution witnesses who had no ill motive to falsely testify against him. Where there is nothing to show that the witnesses for the prosecution were actuated by improper motive, their positive and categorical declarations on the witness stand under the solemnity of an oath deserve full faith and credence. 26
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The Decision dated September 27, 2016 and the Resolution dated April 20, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 02447 are AFFIRMED." (Caguioa,J., on leave.)
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 6-28.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Edward B. Contreras, with Associate Justices Edgardo L. Delos Santos and Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig, concurring; id. at 92-104.
3.Id. at 120-121.
4. Issued by Presiding Judge Enriqueta Loquillano-Belarmino; id. at 54-60.
5. The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
6.Rollo, pp. 92-94.
7.Id. at 94.
8.Id. at 56; 94-95.
9.Id. at 57; 95.
10.Id. at 54-60.
11.Id. at 60.
12.Id. at 92-104.
13.Id. at 103.
14.Id. at 105-110.
15.Id. at 120-121.
16.Pascual v. Burgos, G.R. No. 171722, January 11, 2016, 778 SCRA 189, 205.
17. RULES OF COURT, Rule 45, Section 1.
18.Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Leobrera, 461 Phil. 461, 469 (2003).
19.Rollo, p. 14.
20.Id. at 98-99.
21.People v. Presas, 659 Phil. 503, 511 (2011).
22.People v. Sabadlab, 679 Phil. 425, 438 (2012).
23.Rollo, pp. 19-21.
24. 576 Phil. 576 (2008).
25.Id. at 587.
26.Suliman v. People, 747 Phil. 719, 732 (2014).