October 2011 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 188613 : October 10, 2011]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. ANSELMO LORENZO Y DE GUZMAN
G.R. No. 188613 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. ANSELMO LORENZO y DE GUZMAN) - Assailed before this Court is the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated September 15, 2008, in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00430, which in turn affirmed with modification the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), City of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 21, in Criminal Case Nos. 2896-M-2002 and 2897-M-2002, convicting Anselmo Lorenzo (Lorenzo) of Violation of Sections 5 and 11, respectively, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
On October 22, 2002, a buy-bust operation was conducted by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) operatives in Meycauayan, Bulacan, wherein Lorenzo was arrested after selling P500 worth of methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu, to one of the PDEA agents. Upon searching Lorenzo, one of the operatives also found one sachet containing shabu in Lorenzo's pocket. Later, Lorenzo was brought to the police station and the pieces of evidence were properly marked by the arresting officers. The evidence was, subsequently, brought to the crime laboratory for qualitative examination, which tested positive for shabu.
For the illegal sale and possession of shabu, Lorenzo was charged with and convicted by the RTC for Violation of Sections 5 and 11, respectively, of Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC, but modified the penalty imposed in the case of illegal possession of shabu.[2] The CA opined that the trial court committed no reversible error in its appreciation of the evidence .and its assessment of the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and their testimonies. Also, the CA stressed that Lorenzo was caught in flagrante delicto as a result of a valid buy-bust operation. The CA also rejected Lorenzo's allegation of frame-up for lack of clear and convincing evidence.
Lorenzo filed a Motion for Reconsideration,[3] but was denied in the Resolution[4] dated January 30, 2009.
Lorenzo now comes before this Court assailing his conviction and raising the same arguments he raised before the CA.
Moreover, in his Supplemental Brief[5] before this Court, Lorenzo also raises the issue that the prosecution failed to show compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rules regarding the custody and disposition of the pieces of evidence seized from him. However, contrary to his contention, an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs had been established by the prosecution from the buy-bust team, to the investigating officer, to the forensic chemist, and to the court during the trial.
Considering the allegations, issues and arguments adduced in the appeal, the Court resolves to dismiss the same for failure to sufficiently show any reversible error in the challenged decision.
As to the penalties, both the fines and sentences imposed upon Lorenzo, as modified by the CA, were within the range provided by R.A. No. 9165.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated September 15, 2008 is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Rebecca de Guia-Salvador, with Associate Justices Vicente S. E. Veloso and Ricardo R. Rosario, concurring; rollo, pp. 2-19.
[2] Id.
[3] CA rollo, pp. 126-132.
[4] Id. at 147.
[5] Rollo, pp. 38-43.