FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 239583. August 15, 2018.]
ENRICO REYES y STA. ANA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 15, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 239583 — Enrico Reyes y Sta. Ana v. People of the Philippines
This Court resolves to GRANT petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review on Certiorari seeking an additional period of thirty (30) days from the expiration of the reglementary period on June 15, 2018 within which to file said Petition for Review on Certiorari.
This Court has carefully reviewed the allegations, issues and arguments adduced in the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari, and accordingly resolves to DENY the same for: (1) raising factual issues; and (2) failure to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in its Decision dated January 16, 2018 and Resolution dated May 10, 2018 in CA-G.R. CR No. 39388. HESIcT
It is worth stressing that a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited only to questions of law. Factual questions are not the proper subject of an appeal by certiorari. In the present petition, petitioner contends that the prosecution failed to establish: (1) that the evidence against him was fabricated as shown by the inconsistencies in the testimony of the arresting officer, PO2 Emmanuel Lara (PO2 Lara); and (2) the links in the chain of custody of evidence which was manifested by the inability of PO2 Lara to secure the seized shabu in an evidence bag and to turn over the same to the investigating officer, and the failure of the forensic chemist to testify as to the condition of the sachet of shabu at the time she received it and the precautions she took to ensure that there would be no change in its condition. While these issues may be one of law, their resolution also requires this Court to resolve the underlying issue of whether or not evidence exists to hold petitioner criminally liable for said offense. The latter question necessitates a review of the factual findings, which is not a function of this Court. It is not the duty of this Court to analyze or weigh all over again evidence already considered in the proceedings below. While this rule admits of exceptions, none exists in this case. This Court, therefore, finds no reason to disturb the factual findings of the trial court which were affirmed by the CA.
In any case, the prosecution established that petitioner was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165. 1 The prosecution proved the presence of the following elements of illegal possession of shabu: 1) that the accused was caught in possession of the object identified as prohibited or regulated drug; (2) that such possession was not authorized by law; and (3) that the accused freely and consciously possessed said drug. The arresting officer confiscated from petitioner a sachet containing 0.02 gram of shabu which he held during his arrest. Petitioner had no legal authority to possess the shabu. He also made a free and conscious choice to possess the same and show it to the arresting officer.
In view of the positive identification by PO2 Lara of petitioner as the offender, the latter's claim that he was in the house when police officers entered and frisked him and his co-accused before taking them to the police station where evidence was planted by PO2 Lara deserves scant consideration. Petitioner and his co-accused did not mention that the evidence was "planted" during the inquest proceedings in the Office of the City Prosecutor of Marikina, neither did they file a complaint against PO2 Lara for this serious offense. There was also no evidence that PO2 Lara had an evil motivation to testify against petitioner. He is, therefore, entitled to the legal presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions and his testimony is accorded full faith and credence. AcICHD
This Court is not impressed with petitioner's argument that the testimony of PO2 Lara was not credible due to inconsistencies. There was no contradiction in his testimony that petitioner was arrested with a sachet of shabu in his hand. While he testified that the sachet of shabu was also held by three of the co-accused, he clarified shortly thereafter that it was only petitioner who held the sachet of shabu. "Such momentary lapse in memory does not detract from the credibility of his testimony as to the essential details of the incident." 2 The other alleged inconsistency in PO2 Lara's statement involving his confiscation of a water pipe from petitioner's co-accused Allan Muriel, which he later attributed to petitioner's co-accused Ruel Eustaquio, is not within our province to resolve since the case on appeal pertains only to the conviction of petitioner.
Petitioner's contention that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody of evidence fails to sway. After confiscating the sachet of shabu from petitioner, PO2 Lara marked the same at the scene of the crime. He also prepared an Inventory of Evidence and Chain of Custody Form wherein the seized items were recorded. Police officers summoned a barangay kagawad and a media representative to witness the inventory and sign said forms. Photographs were taken of the seized items and signing by the witnesses of said forms. PO2 Lara was in possession of the seized items during transit to the police station and, upon their arrival, a request for the examination of the seized items as well as petitioner and his co-accused was prepared. PO2 Lara delivered the seized items and the request for its examination to the police crime laboratory where they were received by forensic chemist PCI Margarita Libres (PCI Libres), who conducted a qualitative test and prepared Physical Science Report No. MCSO-D-022-14 that showed the contents of the plastic sachet to be positive for shabu. PO2 Lara identified the sachet of shabu as that seized from petitioner and which he brought to the police laboratory for examination as the same sachet of shabu presented during trial. PCI Libres also identified the sachet of shabu she received from PO2 Lara and conducted an examination of its contents as the same evidence introduced in court. Clearly, there was an unbroken link in the chain of custody of evidence.
Petitioner contends that the failure of PO2 Lara to place the seized sachet of shabu inside an evidence bag and turn over the same to the investigating officer constituted a gap in the chain of custody of evidence. This contention is immaterial since the use of such evidence bag is not included as one of the requisites under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 and the rule on the chain of custody of evidence. Petitioner argues that the prosecution failed to present the testimony of PCI Libres as to the custody of the sachet of shabu. This argument must likewise be brushed aside since there was no evidence that PCI Libres transferred the possession of the seized shabu to another person after conducting the qualitative test on the same. She even brought the seized sachets to the trial court when she was subpoenaed. caITAC
Under the law, the penalty for the unauthorized possession of 0.02 gram of shabu is imprisonment of 12 years and 1 day to 20 years and a fine ranging from P300,000.00 to P400,000.00. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty that must be imposed shall not be less than 12 years and 1 day of imprisonment and a fine of P300,000.00, as minimum, and shall not exceed 20 years of imprisonment and a fine of P400,000.00, as maximum. In the absence of any modifying circumstances, the indeterminate penalty of 12 years and 1 day, as minimum, to 14 years and 8 months, as maximum, and a fine of P300,000.00 as imposed by the trial court and affirmed by the CA, was in order.
WHEREFORE, this Court resolves to AFFIRM the assailed Decision dated January 16, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 39388 finding petitioner Enrico Reyes y Sta. Ana GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.
SO ORDERED."Peralta, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2582 (Revised) dated August 8, 2018; Gesmundo, J., designated as Acting Member per Special Order No. 2560 dated May 11, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENAActing Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. The Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
2.People v. Salvador, 726 Phil. 389, 407 (2014).