FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 244576. June 10, 2019.]
ROSELYN RAMOS y ORTEGA, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 10, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 244576 (Roselyn Ramos Y Ortega v. People of the Philippines). — The petitioner's motion for an extension of thirty (30) days within which to file a petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED, counted from the expiration of the reglementary period.
After review, the Court resolves to DENY the petition for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in upholding the conviction of accused-appellant for violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165), otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
In the present case, all the elements of illegal possession of drugs were established. First, there was a validly conducted body search as part of the prison's standard procedure for visitors of detainees. A plastic sachet with white crystalline was found in accused's bra during the search, which laboratory findings later showed to be Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. Second, accused did not have authority to possess such dangerous drug. Third, accused was aware of being in possession of the dangerous drugs as it was purposely hidden inside her bra. HTcADC
The chain of custody likewise remains unbroken as the police officers substantially complied with the requirements under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. The plastic sachet was immediately marked after it was found on accused and soon thereafter, the inventory was conducted, which was witnessed by Barangay Captain Cajes. As a result, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item were preserved. Moreover, the trial court correctly gave more credence and weight to the credible testimony of SPO2 Monette Q. Whiteside as against the unsubstantiated allegations of accused. There was no evidence of bad faith or ill will or proof that the evidence has been tampered with. Indeed, the Court has often held that when the issues involve matters of credibility of witnesses, the findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies, and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings, are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect, even more so where the findings of the Regional Trial Court are sustained by the CA. 1
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated July 11, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 38920 is AFFIRMED, finding accused-appellant GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The Court sentences accused-appellant to suffer the penalty of 12 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months as maximum as well as to pay a fine of P300,000.00. CAIHTE
SO ORDERED."Carandang, J., on leave.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.People v. Dayaday, G.R. No. 213224, January 16, 2017, 814 SCRA 414, 422.