November 2011 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 197102 : November 16, 2011]
SONNY LAZO Y ADEZA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 197102 (Sonny Lazo y Adeza v. People of the Philippines) - We resolve the appeal, filed by accused Sonny Lazo y Adeza (appellant), from the 25 May 2011 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 30607.[1]
The RTC Ruling
In its 6 December 2006 judgment,[2] the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 13 of Laoag City, found appellant guilty of illegal possession of shabu weighing 4.214 grams and sentenced him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment, ranging from twelve years and one day to fifteen years, and a fine of P300,000.[3] The RTC, however, acquitted him of the charges of illegal sale of shabu and illegal possession of drug paraphernalia. In finding appellant guilty of illegal possession of shabu, the RTC gave weight to the testimony of the arresting officer, who had found the substance in appellant's room, as well as the video footage showing the implementation of the search warrant against him. The RTC disregarded the mere denial of the appellant as to the ownership of the shabu.
The CA Ruling
On intermediate appellate review, the CA affirmed the RTC's finding that the testimonies of the arresting officers were credible, and that the chain of custody of the seized evidence was unbroken.
We now rule on the final review of the case.
Our Ruling
We deny the appeal.
After a careful review of the records of the case, we see no reason to reverse or modify the findings of the RTC and the CA.
Appellant claims that (a) the prosecution failed to prove the corpus delicti of the offense; and (b) the narration of facts by the prosecution was suspicious, irregular, and incredible and thus, it did not overthrow the constitutional presumption of innocence of the accused.
Appellant avers that there were inconsistencies in the testimonies of the arresting officers as to the chain of custody of the evidence. However, these alleged inconsistencies - such as, in whose presence the evidence was marked - were minor and could not weaken the rest of the prosecution's evidence in support of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized evidence. Such pieces of evidence are the bases for determining the guilt or the innocence of the accused.[4] In the present case; the evidence of the prosecution clearly showed the handling of the seized drugs from the time they were seized until the time they were handed to the crime laboratory. Other than the said minor inconsistencies, no proof was presented to support the claim that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized drugs were compromised.
In his petition, appellant also argues that it was highly suspicious for the arresting officers to conduct a buy-bust operation prior to the implementation of the search warrant. Thus, their story is absurd and should not be given weight. A review of the records, however, reveals that both the RTC and the CA have already discredited the testimony on the buy-bust operation in acquitting appellant of the charge of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. His argument on the police officers' passive initial reaction in handling his possessions during the implementation of the search warrant is inconsequential and deserves little weight.cralaw
WHEREFORE, the 25 May 2011 Decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED. (Peralta, J., designated additional member in lieu of Reyes, J., per Raffle dated 3 October 2011)
Very truly yours,
MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Division Clerk of Court
By:
(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Elihu A. Yba�ez and concurred in by Associate Justices Bienvenido L. Reyes (now a member of this Court) and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe (now also a member of this Court).[2] Docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 11571, 11622 and 11623.
[3] See Sec. 11, Republic Act No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act.
[4] People v. Teodoro, G.R. No. 185164, 22 June 2009.